Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Thursday, Nov 18, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* I have a general rule of trying to avoid believing what John Kass says without double- and even triple-checking his alleged facts. I broke that rule today. My bad. Sorry.

This is from Kass’ column yesterday…

According to Odelson’s documents, election officials twice sent notices to Emanuel’s house on Hermitage Avenue.

Both times, the notices were returned to sender. Each was stamped with Emanuel’s forwarding address in Washington. Election officials do not allow such notices to be forwarded to a new address. The election board purged Emanuel from the voting lists for the first time in October 2009, ruling him an “inactive” voter.

But Emanuel’s voter status switched to “active” just before the Feb. 2 primary. He voted using an absentee ballot listing the Hermitage address even though the Halpin family lived there and they also voted from that address. Voters purged from the rolls usually present a driver’s license, a lease, a copy of a mortgage or other such documentation to be reinstated.

“By some magical means, which I think will come out after objections are filed, Emanuel was reinstated,” Odelson told me.

* OK, first of all, Emanuel was never “purged” from the voting rolls. Chicago doesn’t use that term, according to city board of elections spokesman Jim Allen. They have two classifications: “Inactive” and “Canceled.”

“Canceled” means you’ve registered to vote in some other county, state or address or are in prison for a felony. “Inactive” means there was a problem with the card the board mails out.

* Secondly, Burt Odelson’s comment about “By some magical means… Emanuel was reinstated,” is bogus, according to Allen and another election law attorney I’ve consulted.

Here’s why: When you request an absentee ballot, the city mails that back to you with an affidavit that you must sign saying you reside at such-and-such address and are lawfully entitled to vote. And that’s it. Your vote counts even if you’re on the inactive list. There was no need for magic, or conspiracies, or inside help. He just needed an absentee ballot, which Rahm Emanuel indeed requested before the February primary earlier this year.

* Back to Kass’ column…

In May, Emanuel was again rendered inactive. Just last month, he reregistered, using a new address on Milwaukee Avenue in order to vote.

That’s legit as well. Emanuel early voted on October 5th using his new address. No big deal, no conspiracy, no nothing.

* Today’s Kass column…

Another mayoral candidate, former School Board President Gery Chico, said Emanuel owes it to the voters to explain it all in person.

“Especially the mysterious reactivation of his voter status before the February primary,” Chico said.

“The main question is: How did he get that absentee ballot after he’d been purged? How was he reinstated?” Chico asked.

There was no “mysterious reactivation of his voter status” because Emanuel wasn’t “purged,” and he simply requested an absentee ballot, signed the affidavit and voted like anyone can in a similar situation.

No conspiracy here. Move along.

* Now, there are other issues involved. But the inactive status conspiracy is really not worth discussing any longer.

Again, sorry.

43 Comments

It’s still Cook and Cohen

Thursday, Nov 18, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Greg Hinz touches today on the fight between the Republican Governors Association and the Bill Brady campaign. Subscribers know some of this already, but let’s have a look…

One dispute, according to at least six sources, centered on what ads Mr. Brady and/or the RGA should run in the critical final week of the campaign.

RGA wanted Mr. Brady to stay negative, attacking Mr. Quinn’s record on the economy, taxes and other matters. The Brady camp wanted to go more positive, consistent with a prevailing political philosophy that voters respond best at the end to a warm message.

The two sides ended up compromising, using both sets of spots, according to a source who would know. But most of them were negative.

Other sources tell me there was another, longer dispute over whether ads should stress Mr. Quinn’s connection to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, with whom Mr. Quinn ran twice as the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor.

The RGA, some sources tell me, balked at that, perhaps not quite understanding Illinois’ political culture. While a few Quinn/Blago ads did air, none of them was up for long — much to the amazement of some political observers, who figured that “corruption” still was Brady’s best issue.

The Blagojevich attacks didn’t work at all during late summer focus grouping. But the Brady campaign claimed the issue spiked up toward the end of the race, so they decided to try it because the race was getting too close for comfort. The RGA was adamantly opposed and wanted to stick with the tax hike and economy stuff.

Remember the Thursday before the election when TV stations throughout the state pulled Brady’s ads off the air for non-payment? That was because the RGA decided at the last minute not to hand over $750K in what the Brady campaign believed were promised contributions and used that money instead on its own ads. Because of that, Brady’s campaign went dark and wasn’t fully back up again until late the next day after some very frantic fundraising to replace the RGA cash. By the time Brady went back up, he’d dropped his Blagojevich ad.

The RGA never had any love for Brady’s campaign manager. They forced the campaign to hire a staffer before they would agree to spend money on the race. Communications between the two camps was never really good.

The campaign “CEO” Ron Gidwitz was supposed to be handling the money, but even he was blindsided by the RGA decision. Gidwitz also spent a lot of time bad-mouthing the campaign manager behind the scenes, but Giddy isn’t exactly the greatest campaign mind of all time. He spent over $10 million to get 10 percent of the vote in the 2006 gubernatorial primary. His job was mainly the money. And the RGA money was therefore within his domain.

The campaign completely miscalculated in its late dealings with the RGA. They made a personal plea to Haley Barbour to overrule RGA staff and go along with Brady’s positive ads. Barbour thought it over for a day and concluded his RGA staff was right, but Brady’s campaign went ahead anyway. And all along, Brady’s people figured they’d still get that RGA money and placed their final buy accordingly. When the cash didn’t show up, they were put into a huge bind and had to make up for a gigantic shortfall.

It’s more than just conceivable that when Brady’s campaign went dark he lost votes. But the RGA’s ad was up and running, so a message was still getting out there, and it was a fairly decent message.

It’s also clear that Brady’s positive ads weren’t all that good. He looked kinda creepy with that forced smile. The Blagojevich ad may or may not have been a mistake, but pulling it after running it for only a couple of days meant that the money spent was wasted.

And there is no doubt that while Pat Quinn was having a focused, strong, well-financed closing week, Brady’s campaign was distracted by its changed messaging, severe infighting and extreme money problems.

* But all of those problems pale in comparison to the fatal mistake made by both the Brady campaign and the RGA of failing to realize that they needed a much better suburban Cook County message to women and that they had to somehow kneecap Scott Lee Cohen.

In other words, dark, schmark, infighting, schminfighting. The message wasn’t good enough by either the Brady campaign or the RGA.

As I’ve already told you, the Brady campaign long believed they needed at least 43 percent of the suburban Cook County vote. They got 40. That was their real problem. That’s where they lost the race. We can enmesh ourselves in the intricacies of this thing for years, but it was still suburban Cook County that did him in. They failed to meet their must-get target and they lost. Period.

36 Comments

Question of the day

Thursday, Nov 18, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* From an SJ-R editorial about the Ricketts family’s request for government help to rebuild Wrigley Field…

To us, however, this issue is far more newsworthy for the delicious political irony it represents than for its substance.

The patriarch of the Ricketts family, Joe Ricketts (founder of Ameritrade), has been an outspoken critic of government spending and debt. So outspoken, in fact, that he founded a group called Taxpayers Against Earmarks, which has a website at www.endingspending.com.

The site says earmarks should be opposed because they allocate “money or a tax benefit for a specific project, program, or organization, circumventing a merit-based or competitive allocation process.” The site goes on to elaborate: “Earmarks provide federal funding for projects benefiting only a state or local interest, or a private company, university or non-profit. In other words, most earmark-funded projects do not benefit the nation as a whole — though the ‘giving’ of an earmark by a Member of Congress certainly benefits that Member.”

They may not be asking for a handout, but change a word here and there and you’d have a pretty good description of what the Ricketts family is requesting in its Wrigley proposal. Daley’s opposition is rooted in the deal’s potential effect on the “competitive allocation process.” If the amusement tax generates an extra $5 million, Daley reasons, that money should go where it is most needed — not to make payments that benefit the Ricketts family.

* The Question: Should legislators factor Joe Ricketts’ anti-government activism into their deliberations over whether to provide Ricketts’ family with taxpayer-funded assistance? Explain.

33 Comments

One “meh” and one “wow”

Thursday, Nov 18, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Frankly, I’m not all that fired up about the House’s vote to override the governor’s amendatory veto of a FOIA bill. The General Assembly approved legislation last spring that exempted state employee personnel evaluations from Freedom of Information Act requests. The governor AV’d the bill limiting the exemptions to police.

The State Journal-Register editorialized against any override…

“Having been around this kind of litigation for many years, I would think that just about anything about an employee will be argued to be part of an evaluation,” says Don Craven, attorney for the Illinois Press Association. “The lack of definition of what is precluded from being given out to the public is troublesome.”

Even under the previous Freedom of Information Act, standard evaluations were considered public documents through ample legal precedent. Yet only after Illinois passed its new FOIA did we see a push for an exemption.

“AFSCME just earned themselves a two-year, no-layoff agreement from the state of Illinois, which is fairly unprecedented in a $15 billion deficit year,” says Josh Sharp, the IPA’s director of government relations. “If you’re going to give these employees a two-year guarantee of employment, we don’t think it’s too much for the public to ask that we have a certain idea of how they are performing as employees.”

The paper also published an op-ed by the BGA…

Arguments to conceal performance evaluations hinge on fears that making those evaluations public will discourage managers from giving honest evaluations, or that the evaluation process will be used as a method of public humiliation to retaliate against unwanted employees. But these reasons only highlight the dysfunction of our personnel system, and do not speak to the legitimacy of the people’s right to access information about their government.

My own opinion is that allowing these evaluations to be made public would, indeed, be used to undercut unwanted employees. But I really don’t care one way or another. Uphold it or not. No biggie to me.

* This, however, is quite troublesome to me…

Aside from the risks inherent in private equity and real estate investments, some pension experts have raised concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding these bets.

Under a 2005 rewrite of Illinois’ Freedom of Information Act, public pension funds are not required to provide basic information about what assets are being purchased, the fine print of contracts or, most importantly, how assets are valued.

The Tribune was able to identify some assets underlying these investments only by reviewing thousands of pages of pension fund documents and scouring industry newsletters and Web sites.

That’s pretty darned scary. Leaving everything to the experts and locking up trillions of dollars in black box financial gadgets got this nation into a huge mess. The pension funds ought to made to open the books.

19 Comments

Another way of looking at the casino smoking ban

Thursday, Nov 18, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* There’s been a lot of talk about how the state’s smoking ban has hurt Illinois’ casinos. Surrounding states haven’t experienced the sharp downturn in casino revenues that Illinois has, and that’s blamed on the ban. It’s pretty well-known that gamblers like to smoke.

But opponents of lifting the smoking ban at Illinois casinos have a fascinating new graph that compares the Jumer’s Casino Rock Island to the casino in Davenport Iowa. Click the pic for a better view…

There doesn’t appear to be a direct correlation between the smoking ban and any major downturn. But how do you explain that major upward trend starting in December of 2008 for the Illinois boat? Well, as the graph shows, that’s when they moved and opened a new, improved casino.

What this may show is that Illinois casino owners just aren’t putting enough money back into their operations. When they do, things get better. Revenue grows. St. Louis has a beautiful new casino with great restaurants, clubs and a swank hotel. It’s no wonder the somewhat dingy Illinois casinos are seeing revenue problems.

* Meanwhile, it’s understandable that Illinois Gaming Board Chairman Aaron Jaffe doesn’t want to do more work. Who does? But Jaffe’s job is to regulate gaming. Offering up opinions on gaming bills outside of their regulatory aspects is really not his job, but he apparently thinks it is. The Daily Herald talked to Chairman Jaffe this week about the gaming bill which is currently sitting in the Senate…

As lawmakers talk about big plans to expand gambling, the man charged with regulating the industry in Illinois called the proposal “overloaded” Wednesday. […]

Jaffe criticized the legislation as having “everything for everyone” because it calls for casinos in Park City, Ford Heights, Chicago, Rockford and Danville, along with 1,200 slot machines at Arlington Park. It also would allow existing casinos, such as Elgin, and one that’s being built in Des Plaines, to add 800 gaming spots for a total of 2,000 each.

He’s not the moral arbiter here. He’s the regulator. He should stick to that. And even on that topic he can’t stop himself from complaining…

Illinois Gaming Board Chairman Aaron Jaffe said that regulating horse tracks with slot machines and five new casinos would be a huge undertaking. And expansion plans come as regulators already are trying to handle greenlighting video gambling machines in bars across the state. […]

“Quite truthfully, we’re understaffed at the present time to do the things that we have to do,” said Jaffe, a former judge and state lawmaker who now lives in Evanston.

If he needs more staff, then he should make the case for more staff. But adding more slots at current casinos wouldn’t be all that hard because the casinos are already vetted. And people already gamble at the tracks, there would just be additional ways to gamble if they got slot machines. Adding five new casinos would be a big task, but the state has done this before. Nevada doesn’t seem to have any problems and they have tons more casinos than we do.

Jaffe does make some valid points, but video gaming has taken way too long to implement and his complaining about the expansion bill all adds up to essentially upholding the interests of the current casino owners. The boat owners didn’t care for video gaming, and they really don’t like this new expansion plan because it would eat into their profits. Whether he knows it or not, he’s become a policy tool of the owners.

* Related…

* Illinois lawmakers eye gambling expansion — again

* Herald & Review: Adding venues won’t mean added revenues

* State officials explain rejection of lottery bidder

29 Comments

Don’t expect a quick fix

Thursday, Nov 18, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Kristen McQueary wants immediate action on the big stuff…

So far during the first week of the fall veto session, members of the Illinois House and Senate have debated appointments to various state boards and commissions, discussed the regulation of wind farms and passed resolutions mourning the deaths of at least two former lawmakers, including one of my favorites, Mary Lou Cowlishaw, who died in June.

State Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D-Orland Park) is sponsoring a resolution commending Tinley Park Fire Marshal Robert Bettenhausen for 57 years of service.

State Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi (D-Joliet) advanced a bill allowing farmers convicted of drunken driving to operate their tractors without breath-test devices, under certain circumstances.

And more than 100 other miscellaneous pieces of legislation are expected to move through the queue before lawmakers adjourn, again, for the holidays.

But serious action to improve the state’s fiscal situation? Nowhere - not even a bone tossed to make it appear so. Not even the shadow of an itty bitty bone fit for Paris Hilton’s chihuahua. Not a crumb.

No movement toward an income tax increase. No pronounced spending cuts. No combining of state agencies or constitutional offices. No legislator pay cuts. No additional furlough days. No across-the-board spending reductions. No caucus meetings to get serious about solutions. No pension borrowing plans. No plans. None.

Solving these things ain’t easy. If it was so simple, we’d have already seen action by now. The election put off any attempts to get at solutions. Now, they have to figure out where to go next.

This also takes some leadership. The governor,, for instance, has yet to issue a single policy proposal since the election except to demand that his income tax hike be passed before the General Assembly does anything else. But many in the GA want to look at cuts and other reforms before they get into the tax hike thing. The Senate just formed two bipartisan committees to come up with reforms for workers comp and Medicaid, so things are moving. But that will take time.

* The Sun-Times also wants immediate action…

But to suggest that Madigan can’t influence many of them — particularly if he offers up a budget plan that does more than raise taxes — is hogwash.

Madigan just came off a supremely successful election. He held on to his majority in the House because of shrewd planning, discipline and, yes, the tight control he exerts over Illinois Democrats.

But — and forgive our naivete here — what’s the point of holding power if you do nothing with it?

There is no issue of greater importance to Illinois government than setting the state on a path toward fiscal health.

Madigan does not hold all the cards, we’ll give him that.

But he sure holds a lot of them.

Yes, he does, and he’s not gonna play those cards until he’s ready. And nobody knows when that will be. The voters spoke this month, and nothing really changed. Get used to it, is all i can say.

Also, while the legislative leaders have enormous power, they’re still essentially herding cats. Politics is an art, and it’s an art of the possible. At the moment, they’re still figuring out what’s possible.

* As Illinois News Service notes, the first week of veto session is usually pretty quiet…

Looking for more excitement in your veto session? Come back for the second act.

This year’s annual two-week legislative veto session has, so far, failed to live up to its hype. Issues such as civil unions, abolition of the death penalty and medical marijuana have yet to surface. And a committee vote on a massive gaming expansion was postponed after advocates, opponents and residents overflowed the hearing room to testify. […]

Recovering from an expensive, often bitter campaign season, lawmakers are easing back into a legislative pace. But a public lack of activity doesn’t mean nothing is happening.

“This week is probably more of a week of getting things in place, and when we come back after Thanksgiving, that’s when I expect most of the substantial action on legislation will take place,” said state Sen. Dave Koehler, D-Pekin.

“Getting things in place” means getting votes. No lawmaker wants to roll out something controversial until it’s assured of passage, according to one political observer.

When Speaker Madigan added several January session days, he pretty much assured that legislators would put off action until then. Legislators are like most human beings. They respond best to deadline pressures. The goal line was moved back a month, so they’ll probably wait.

* If the train ever does start moving, things could happen pretty quickly. But that may be a while…

“Revenue, the budget and redistricting will all get linked together,” Redfield said. “I think it’s more likely that it’s going to happen in May rather than January.”

* It might happen sooner than that, but we’ll see. Those two bipartisan committees mentioned above are quite interesting…

Extending an olive branch to Republicans, the top Senate Democrat agreed Wednesday to study and possibly vote on workers compensation and Medicaid reforms in a move that could dislodge a stalled $3.7 billion borrowing plan favored by Gov. Quinn.

Senate President John Cull- erton (D-Chicago) announced the formation of committees to study both topics, which were key talking points for Republicans in the fall campaigns. The panels would advance legislation for a possible Senate vote in January.

Cullerton’s move comes amid efforts to persuade Republicans to back Quinn’s borrowing push to cover this year’s multibillion-dollar payment to state pension funds, though he insisted the move was not linked to the borrowing proposal.

The borrowing bill passed the House but is hung up in the Senate, where two Democrats have blocked it, necessitating GOP votes.

“If it takes away an argument from somebody who’s holding off, that would be a side benefit. You may recall, Republicans did pass the pension-borrowing in the House. Two voted for it. She voted for it in the past year,” Cullerton said, referring to Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lemont). “Yeah, if it helps her come around for it, it’s a bonus.”

Thoughts?

18 Comments

Has Kass found the coffin nail?

Thursday, Nov 18, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* John Kass’ column yesterday was the talk of the town. It’s been pretty much ignored by the rest of the media, but Kass was fed some info that casts serious doubt on whether Rahm Emanuel was legally restored to the voter registration rolls after being purged twice. Kass sums up the gist of yesterday’s piece in today’s column. What follows is from a late October exchange between city elections chairman Langdon Neal and Ald. Ed Burke…

Without once mentioning Emanuel by name, Neal admitted to Burke that it would be a violation of procedure to reactivate a hypothetical purged voter unless that hypothetical fellow came in and presented two pieces of identification to election officials.

“Unless there was some other reason that we restored that voter internally,” Neal said in the transcript, which did not record whether Burke smiled like the Cheshire cat.

Internally? So I called Neal to ask him about this “internally” business.

“John,” Neal sighed, “the one thing that’s real clear is that I’ve answered one too many hypothetical questions. And I think I should stop answering any hypothetical questions and wait for the case to be filed.”

Here’s the full exchange between Neal and Burke about what happens after a voter is purged…

Burke: What evidence do I have to produce to show I am indeed registered at that address?

Neal: Two pieces of ID.

[later]

Burke: I don’t have two pieces of evidence, I call you and I say, I want to be restored, Is that possible under your procedures?

Neal: No. No. You have to —

Burke: So whoever has been rendered inactive must come in with two pieces of identification. To whom do those identification pieces go?

Neal: The judges of election at the polling place.

Burke: What about the Board of Election Commissioners?

Neal: Certainly. They can come to us at any time.

[later]

Burke: If it was restored without producing two pieces of identification, is that a violation of your rules; is it a violation of the law; is it a violation of procedure?

Neal: It would be a violation of procedure, unless we — unless there is some other reason that we restored that voter internally —

Burke: Well, you just told me they have to have two pieces of identification.

Neal: That’s the procedure, correct. That’s the procedure.

Burke: So if it was done without the voter producing two pieces of identification, it would be a violation of procedure?

Neal: Yes, it would be a violation.

* The reason this is so important is any irregularities in Emanuel’s voter registration could very well undermine his qualifications to run for office. From the state’s municipal code…

(65 ILCS 5/3.1‑10‑5) (from Ch. 24, par. 3.1‑10‑5)
Sec. 3.1‑10‑5. Qualifications; elective office.
(a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment

If he’s not properly registered to vote, he can’t run for office.

* More Emanuel problems from the Sun-Times…

“The issue is not that he left town — it’s that he rented out the house,” said Adam Lasker, who chairs the Chicago Bar Association’s Election Law Committee and has no clients running for mayor.

“I have yet to have anyone cite to me any kind of case or law that would have support for Rahm,” Lasker said. “He’s not supposed to be on the voter rolls if he doesn’t have residency. You can come back to your home in Chicago that you can live in, but if you can’t come back and live in the house, then you can’t vote.” […]

What makes Emanuel’s case unique and possibly a “case of first impression” in Illinois law is his squabble with his tenant who would not allow him to break the lease and move back in to run for mayor. Odelson, Jim Nally and some other attorneys argue that Emanuel must have access to the house for it to qualify as his residence.

Mike Kreloff, the election lawyer provided by Emanuel’s campaign, said the Illinois Election Code makes clear that people who leave for government service do not forfeit their voting rights.

“I think the challenge is bogus,” election lawyer Michael Dorf agreed.

But election lawyer Andrew Raucci argues, “I don’t think it’s a frivolous issue.”

The legal issue may come down to whether the stricter language of the state’s municipal code trumps the state’s election code.

As with everything else in Chicago, the outcome will probably depend on the judge he draws.

* The rest of the political commentariat was much impressed with the explanation from Emanuel’s attorney about why he is qualified to run for mayor. Here’s Greg Hinz…

State election law clearly allows someone to temporarily relocate for “business with the United States” without losing their local residency, Mr. Kreloff said. Beyond that, the candidate kept “personal possessions” in the Ravenswood house he rented out while in D.C., regularly has voted absentee from the Ravenswood address, and kept his driver’s license registered to that address, Mr. Kreloff said.

The whole flap, in his view: “Political games.”

All in all, a pretty strong argument, I thought. But we’ll see what the lawyers say.

* Mark Brown…

The Emanuel campaign argues that renting out the house did nothing to change his residency, citing a provision in Illinois law that specifically holds no voter “shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State.”

While my own sense of fair play suggests Emanuel deserves to run and my experience with residency cases leads me to think he has a strong case, I certainly would enjoy seeing the arguments aired out in court — if a challenge is indeed filed by the Nov. 30 deadline.

Brown’s column focused mainly on Emanuel’s new “residence,” which is a plain Jane condo at Milwaukee and Ogden. Not addressed, however, is whether Emanuel’s family actually lives there. Check out the end…

Through his spokesman, Emanuel declined my generous offer to drop by with a six-pack — and a photographer — for a quick tour of the new residence.

“He doesn’t spend much time there,” LaBolt said.

Surprisingly, there were no questions about where Emanuel’s family is currently living.

* Related…

* Mayoral campaigns battle over Rahm Emanuel’s eligibility to run

* Rahm puts a brick on selling Midway Airport

* Emanuel, Meeks vow to stop Midway deal if elected next mayor

* Gery Chico makes his case for mayor: experience

89 Comments

Morning Shorts

Thursday, Nov 18, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Feds probe 2007 Tribune employee stock plan: Federal authorities are taking a closer look at the stock transfer at the heart of billionaire Sam Zell’s disastrous leveraged buyout of Tribune Co., after a U.S. District Court last week determined a portion of the 2007 deal was a “prohibited transaction” under federal law.

* Report blames Giannoulias bank failure on poor business strategies

* Chicago street gang members arrested in raids

* No House Ethics hearing for Jesse Jackson Jr.

* Area experts expect more growth in stocks than jobs

* Foreclosure class actions pile up against banks

* Administration unexpectedly expands bonus payments for Medicare Advantage plans

* AAA: Thanksgiving travel will be up 11 percent

* Newly elected Palatine Republican to forgo pension

* NU journalism students’ recordings probed

* NU’s project to clear wrongfully convicted inmates faces ethics probe

* New Data: All CPS Principals Make Six Figures

* Daley’s final budget sails through the City Council

* Mayor Daley’s final budget passes

* City Council OKs Daley’s no-tax hike budget

* Pension bets not paying off

* How Chicago goes, so go the suburbs, local mayors say

* Ald. Tunney wants ‘rigorous’ analysis of Wrigley plan

* Del Valle says city canceled contract with sticker maker

* Chicago cancels city sticker contract

* Aldermen propose $1 taxi-ride surcharge to help budget

* Chicago aldermen seek dollar surcharge on cab rides

* Taxi customers take issue with $1 fare hike proposal

* Suburban homeowners bear brunt of Cook tax increases

* Kadner: Property tax Facts And more confusion

* Southtown: Stroger’s crony protection program over, yet he’s oblivious

* Tinley ups hotel tax

* Elgin planning on less income from the casino

* Oversight group rips Lake County Fair

* Walsh ‘eager’ to get to work for 8th District

* Quincy School Board tentatively adopts $32 million tax levy

* More cuts in store for Springfield, mayor says

* New Madison County state’s attorney comes from long line of lawyers

* More Chicago aldermen not seeking re-election

* Council veteran Ed Smith won’t run in 2011

* Mitchell: Pols could take lesson in service from Ald. Ed Smith

* Losing Lake Co. Democrat misses recount deadline

* Peter M. Rosenthal, longtime Rosemont village attorney, 1950-2010

10 Comments

Protected: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)

Thursday, Nov 18, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

Comments Off

Tenaska’s Taylorville Energy Center MYTHBUSTERS

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department

[The following is a paid advertisement.]

Part 1, Electric Rates.

Myth: Taylorville will put an “enormous economic burden” on consumers

Fact: The Clean Coal Portfolio Standard caps residential rate increases at 2.015%, or $1.67/month, according to the ICC.

Myth: Taylorville means rate increases now, when we can least afford it

Fact: Between now and 2015, the project will invest billions in Illinois, employ nearly 2,500 construction workers and purchase supplies from all corners of the state. The cost to ratepayers between now and 2015? ZERO. NOTHING. ZILCH.

Myth: Taylorville will dramatically increase electric rates for large business customers

Fact: Big business customers currently pay 40.5% less for electricity than residential and small business consumers. Even under their worst case scenario, large customers would still pay 37.1% less.

Myth: Illinois has plenty of electricity. No new plants are needed.

Fact: As Crain’s and others have reported, environmental regulations are expected to force 25-40% of Illinois coal plants to shut down by 2020. Since Illinois still relies on coal for half of our electricity, less supply and more demand means higher electric rates if cleaner supplies of reliable electricity, like Taylorville, are not built. And who benefits from that?

SAY YES TO TENASKA’S TAYLORVILLE ENERGY CENTER!

Learn the facts. For more information, visit cleancoalillinois.com

Comments Off

Kirk: Somebody else should’ve done what I could’ve done myself, but didn’t

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Oh, for crying out loud…

U.S. Senator-elect Mark Kirk is implying that politics has something to do with his not being seated right away in the Senate. […]

Kirk told Don and Roma he’s upset that state Democratic leaders did not work to make sure he be seated right away after his win over Alexi Giannoulias.

“You know, you would have hoped that Illinois leaders would have gone back to Judge (John F.) Grady that ordered this election, and said ‘now that we’ve had a clear victory, and that my opponent conceded, we can seat the new Senator’,” Kirk said.

In case he didn’t realize it, Mark Kirk is actually an “Illinois leader” himself. Kirk or the Republican Party or pretty much anybody else could’ve asked the judge to allow the state not to count military and other absentee ballots and not to conduct the official statewide canvass.

They didn’t.

And, just to repeat myself here, there is no current vacancy in the US Senate. Roland Burris is the Senator, which is why Kirk cannot be appointed to the seat right now. That vacancy does not occur until the results are certified as legal, per the judge’s orders. Burris could step down, but he has the right to remain in place until the judge’s order is fulfilled.

53 Comments

Question of the day

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Sen. Bill Brady was back at the Statehouse yesterday. He’s staying in the Senate for now…

He said he plans to serve out the remaining two years of his term in the Senate, but is not sure whether he will try to carve a different role out for himself in the chamber.

“There’s a lot of dynamics left to look at,” Brady said.

There are even rumors going around that Brady might be interested in running for governor again.

* The Question: What should Bill Brady do now?

PS: Let’s try not to get too snarky, OK? Thanks.

66 Comments

Catholics increase their pressure against civil unions, death penalty

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* The Catholic Conference of Illinois is turning up the heat against the civil unions bill, and urged action by its adherents this week…

Please call your state representative and state senator next Monday, Nov. 15 or Tuesday, Nov. 16 and ask him or her to vote NO on Senate Bill 1716. We expect a vote next week! Senate Bill 1716 enacts civil unions and grants those in civil unions the same rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Under this bill the only difference between marriage and civil unions is the name. Your message is simple: “Vote NO on Senate Bill 1716 because it equates civil unions and marriage. I am opposed to undermining marriage in this way.” It is also true this bill could have a significant impact on the Church’s social service missions.

It’s not completely clear what that “significant impact on the Church’s social service missions” means. Washington, DC’s archdiocese originally threatened to close homeless shelters and end various social service programs if the city enacted a gay marriage ordinance. Instead, they simply transferred a foster care program to another group and stopped paying for new employee spousal health insurance.

Fran Eaton has her own translation…

Forcing the Catholic Church to consider civil unions in its qualifications for adoption and other family-oriented ministries would force state policy onto religious doctrine, a possible First Amendment infringement.

* Robert Gilligan, the executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, penned a recent op-ed that provides some clues…

The November 12, 2010 editorial “Time for Civil Unions” stated that civil unions are not the same as same sex marriage. You should have read the legislation more carefully because they are the same.

The bill describes a “party to a civil union” as the legal equivalent of a “spouse” under Illinois law. The bill then states that a “party to a civil union” is entitled to the same legal obligations, protections and benefits as are afforded by the law to a spouse. Proponents of civil unions know lawmakers do not have the political will to pass same sex marriage in Illinois, so they have created the pseudonym of civil unions in order to get the same benefits of marriage by calling it something else.

The real tragedy with this legislation is that it further undermines traditional marriage, an institution necessary for creating and shaping new human life. More attention needs to be directed at how this legislation presents a clash with established principles of religious liberty. Real concerns remain about how this bill could require faith-based employers to grant benefits to same sex civil partners and how it would impact social service agencies by mandating placement of foster or adopted children with same sex civil partners. Do not be fooled. Civil unions are same sex marriage and there are real problems with this legislation for religious entities.

So, it appears that the Catholics may no longer be in the foster child, adoption game if this passes.

* Meanwhile, House Speaker Michael Madigan not only claimed that the civil unions bill has a good chance of passage, he also appeared to endorse it…

“There’s a good chance it’ll pass,” he said. “. . . It’s an appropriate thing to do.”

* Sen. James Meeks is probably hoping the bill never arrives in the Senate. He’s a social conservative and has opposed the idea in the past. He wouldn’t tell Chicago Tonight what he would do if he does have to vote, but said as Chicago’s mayor he would have a duty to uphold all the laws. Have a look…

* The Catholic Conference is also urging abolition of the state’s death penalty. From its website…

Legislation to abolish the death penalty in Illinois may be considered during the fall veto session in Springfield (November 16-18 and November 29-December 2). The Catholic Conference of Illinois (CCI) supports this legislation. The use of the death penalty when there are other means to protect our society, such as sentences of natural life without parole, weakens the respect for all human life. Now is the time to end the death penalty in Illinois. Here are a few things you can do to take action.

1) Call your legislators.

Please call your state representative and state senator and ask him or her to vote YES on legislation to abolish the death penalty. Tell your legislators that:

“The death penalty is not necessary when there are other means to protect our society, such as sentences of natural life without the possibility of parole. Please support legislation to abolish the death penalty.”

You can go to the Illinois State Board of Elections to look up your elected officials or call our office at (312) 368-1066 or (217) 528-9200.

2) Participate in the November 29 Lobby Day.

You can also participate in the “People of Faith Lobby Day” in Springfield on November 29. The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (ICADP) is providing transportation (for a fee, lunch included) from Chicago and Glen Ellyn. Go to ICADP or contact CCI at (312) 368-1066 for more information.

3) Promote educational efforts on Catholic Social Teaching & the abolition of the death penalty.

* Related…

* Meeks swipes the cone!

* VIDEO: In their own words

* Exposé Hits Hard At Death Penalty System: Since 2000, she learned, $100 million in taxpayer money has been spent via the Capital Litigation Trust Fund. That honey pot was meant to ensure defense counsel in capital cases, especially in places where public defender offices aren’t staffed adequately and must enlist private lawyers. But prosecutors made sure that the fund would also pay for their often-ample nonsalary expenses, including those for investigators, not just for private defense counsel and the nonsalary expenses of public defenders.

* VIDEO: Scott Turow — End the Death Penalty

* VIDEO: Rob Warden — End the Death Penalty

* VIDEO: Karen Yarbrough — End the Death Penalty

46 Comments

Bean concedes

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* As you most likely know by now, Congresswoman Melissa Bean has conceded to Republican Joe Walsh. Bean lost by just under 300 votes. She didn’t do nearly well enough when absentees and provisionals were counted yesterday…

In McHenry County, Walsh picked up 17 votes to Bean’s 12 votes Tuesday.

In Cook County, Walsh received 59 votes Tuesday to Bean’s 105 votes, Cook County Clerk spokeswoman Courtney Greve said.

As of 5:37 p.m., the Lake County Clerk’s website said Walsh had received 459 votes and Bean received 474.

With the counts from Tuesday added in, Walsh stood at 98,115 to Bean’s 97,825.

* Walsh won despite being massively outspent…

Over the course of the race, Bean out-fundraised Walsh $1.9 million to $465,000.

* A big reason for his lack of funding was that the state and national GOP refused to help Walsh…

“Everybody would admit that it was a race that wasn’t on anybody’s radar,” said Illinois Republican Party chairman Pat Brady. “We made a mistake.”

The other issues included a campaign manager who quit and then sued Walsh for $20,000 in nonpayment and two more staffers who quit and accused him of not properly disclosing a 2008 home foreclosure and traffic citations to the public.

Unlike other Republicans who won districts held by Democrats on Nov. 2, Walsh didn’t receive an invitation to the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Gun” programs.

They didn’t think he could win because of his long history of personal problems. And those problems meant they didn’t really want to help him win.

* Illinois now has 11 Republican members of Congress out of 19 total. They haven’t had a majority since 2004, and I’m not sure when they’ve ever had this many members here.

28 Comments

Joe Ricketts thought he had a sure thing

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Joe Ricketts talked earlier this year about why he forked out all that money to buy the Chicago Cubs. Check it out…

The most interesting part of the video was Ricketts’ description of a conversation he had five years ago with his son, Tom, who is now the Cubs chairman.

“Why would I want to buy a baseball team?” Ricketts said he asked his son.

“They sell every ticket, every game, win or lose,” Tom replied.

“Now you’re talking about a business,” the elder Ricketts said. “Now you’ve got my interest.”

Cub fans have changed a bit since that fateful conversation. Attendance is down the last two years, even though it’s still abnormally high for such an awful team. Fan dissatisfaction appeared to grow this year with every horrific loss. They have a ton of overpaid, underperforming players and they can’t find the right managerial mix.

“If you take my money, and you start this business, you buy this baseball team, you have to come over and run it because I don’t want to be exposed to risk,” Ricketts told his son Tom. Well, the risk has injected itself anyway.

* Reading a Tribune story this morning about the proposed Wrigley Field renovation plan gave me an idea…

Ricketts said the more than $200 million in proposed ballpark renovations and another $200 million the family would commit to redevelopment surrounding the historic ballpark would create 1,000 construction jobs and hundreds more permanent jobs in the next five years.

Here’s the layout of the proposal. Click the pic for a larger image. Notice the “Triangle Building” to the west and “Cubs Alley” between the triangle and the park…

The Triangle Building will include parking, concessions, shopping, dining and Cub offices. It may also include a hotel. Cubs Alley will have a retractable roof and will feature shops, restaurants, etc…

The Ricketts see that development as a way to make more money. Understandable. But they can apparently afford to spend $200 million. So, how about they just put their cash into the stadium and find private investments for the ancillary stuff like the Triangle Building and Cubs Alley? There’d be no need for a government bailout and the park would be remodeled.

* Anyway, back to the Statehouse, where things got a bit confusing yesterday…

House Speaker Michael Madigan (D- Chicago) told reporters in Springfield on Tuesday afternoon that the team’s owners, the Ricketts family, withdrew their proposal to finance a $200 million stadium renovation with a state bond sale that would be repaid with the anticipated growth in the 12 percent amusement tax levied on tickets sold at Wrigley.

But a Ricketts family spokesman denied the family had scrapped the amusement-tax plan. […]

Later in the day, after Madigan’s comment, his spokesman, Steve Brown, seemed to leave the door open to more deliberations, but he did not elaborate on the state of negotiations.

“Mr. Ricketts has called the speaker … and the speaker has reiterated that he is prepared to try and be helpful,” Brown said.

When even the Speaker is confused, things aren’t going well.

…Adding… Joe Ricketts penned an op-ed for Politico this week…

The voters sent a clear message to stop reckless spending. Yet the earmarking system that perpetuates the power of incumbency, fosters a culture of dependency on the government, and produced the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and influence-peddling scandals that sent many to prison, still exists. Washington keeps borrowing and spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need.

I suppose what Mr. Ricketts ought to explain is how government borrowing that allows him to build a big shopping mall and parking garage next to his ball park is something we really need, unlike those federal earmarks.

* Jon Greenberg at ESPN also took a look at the elder Ricketts’ ironic fight against federal earmarks…

“An earmark is something that’s appended onto a federal bill which is never debated, never discussed, just thrown in,” [Tom Ricketts] said. “The fact is, what it does is it jeopardizes the integrity of the federal budgeting process. You can tell by the people in the room today this isn’t a private process we’re going through. We’re trying to be as open as possible. This is a decision that will be made by elected officials and the people in this room.”

No this project isn’t an earmark, per se, but it’s close. If you bend the meaning a bit, you can see how some people would see that above statement as an exercise in semantics and this plan as hypocrisy.

After all, who would benefit the most by the Cubs getting a new park? The owners, of course. This isn’t a nonprofit. While Ricketts has claimed he wants the team and the park to stay family-owned for a century, a new Wrigley Field would increase the team’s value significantly. Astronomically, even.

According to [Taxpayers Against Earmarks, the group funded by Joe Ricketts], the point of railing against earmarks isn’t really the way they’re put together, it’s that they’re tailored to benefit the people who are sponsoring them. Sound about right?

Here’s what it says on the website: “Earmarks provide federal funding for projects benefiting only a state or local interest, or a private company, university or non-profit. In other words, most earmark-funded projects do not benefit the nation as a whole — though the ‘giving’ of an earmark by a Member of Congress certainly benefits that Member.”

Now, you can see the similarities.

Yes, we can.

61 Comments

Madigan: No tax hike mandate

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* When your own Democratic House Speaker says you don’t have a mandate for a tax hike, then you don’t have a mandate for a tax hike…

“I just didn’t consider the result of the election to be a mandate for a tax increase. I didn’t see it that way,” Madigan said.

Well, that’s it then.

* Madigan also reiterated his desire to move a tax hike bill when he has Republican votes…

The speaker, who leads a 70-member contingent in the House, said he would not muscle through a tax increase for Quinn using only Democratic votes: “That’s not my plan.”

When asked why not, given that he controls a majority large enough to provide the 60 votes needed to pass a tax increase in early January, Madigan said, “You know, that word ‘control’ is one usually abused by media people, severely abused by media people.

“You can walk out there,” he said, gesturing toward the House floor, “and ask those people . . . whether they’re under control, and I think they’d say no.”

They might say “no,” but they’re still a bunch of pretty controlled ducklings. Madigan could probably pass a tax hike if he really wanted to. It wouldn’t be easy. A lot of his members are opposed to or frightened of raising taxes. But most know that they’re going to have to do it sooner or later. Might as well do it now in a lame duck session and get it over with. It would be better than waiting a year when the bond firms might start demanding it and a remap election is just around the corner.

More…

Madigan said paring down that deficit could take “three to five years” and will “require an increase in revenue and a reduction in spending. It’s going to have to be a balanced approach.

“Hopefully, now that we’re beyond the election, the Republicans in the Legislature will join and work with the Democrats to craft an intelligent solution,” Madigan said.

Barring a massive and unprecedented economic recovery, he’s most likely right about the timeline. But you can’t dig yourself out of the hole until you pick up a shovel.

* Madigan also offered up some advice for Gov. Pat Quinn…

“I would think that he’s going to learn from his experience,” Madigan said of Quinn. “I would think he would.”

Reporters asked Madigan what Quinn needs to learn.

“Be like me,” Madigan responded. “Learn day by day. Try and make today better than yesterday and tomorrow better than today.”

Asked about any advice for the governor, who has been accused by critics of not being able to close the deal on major issues, Madigan was even shorter.

“Stay focused. Stay focused,” Madigan said.

A flat learning curve and lack of focus are two of Quinn’s greatest problems.

* Roundup…

* Pantagraph: Quinn needs to make a break with Blago past

* Simon, White talk teamwork with leaders

* Mayors Plead For Pension Reform From Lawmakers

* Mayors want help with police, fire pensions

* 2-tiered pensions proposed for police, firefighters

* Daley calls on General Assembly to change police, firefighter pension plans

* Politicians helped bring Chicago’s public pension funds to the brink of insolvency

* Mayors of Cities Targeted for Casinos Run Hot, Cold, Lukewarm on Proposal

* Gambling expansion plan hits snag

* Gambling bill would allow East Peoria casino to move

* Slots at the track: Will it save horse racing in Illinois?

* Illinois pondering returning smoking to casinos

* Health-care reform creates opportunities for Illinois, officials say

* Death penalty foes press Illinois lawmakers to act

* The signpost up ahead: Redistricting

* Farnham files another funding fix bill

* U-46 seeks 2nd bite at funding change

* Schools Ask Lawmakers For Driver’s Ed Wiggle Room

70 Comments

Morning Shorts

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Illinois motorists urged to prepare for winter

* 3 Illinois counties sue FEMA over flood mapping

* Midnight deadline for FEMA flood applications

* Ameren: The price you pay for electricity, gas is going up

* Bean concedes; Walsh wins seat by 291 votes

* Bean concedes; Walsh wins 8th District

* Rep. Bean concedes 8th Congressional District race

* Blagojevich retrial stalls (again) ethics committee inquiry into Jesse Jackson Jr.

* FDIC issues report on Broadway Bank closure

* Aldermen to vote on Mayor Daley’s 2011 budget

* City Council to vote on Daley’s last budget

* Cook County to pay $55 million to inmates at county jail

* Taxpayers on the hook for strip searches

* Daley names interim CPS chief

* Philanthropist chosen as interim chief of Chicago schools

* Daley names interim head for Chicago schools

* Sun-Times: Mazany a good pick for interim CPS chief

* Testy Stroger defends transition efforts

* Stroger ally says Preckwinkle should ’shut up’

* CTA board could lose pay: Daley names new school chief; Metra deal?

* Tribune: A dog with teeth

* Lengthy jail term sought for Jon Burge

* Feds want Burge to serve at least 24 years

* Rosenthal: WGN-AM changes weekend lineup

* Batavia mayor: city ‘on the upswing’

* A few bright spots dot Palatine’s bleak 2011 budget

* SD159 looking to trim $2.7 million budget deficit

* Naperville residents protest police layoffs

* Ottawa closing in on creating port district

* Tribune: U of Ay-Yi-Yi

* Peoria council endorses natural gas tax

* Woodford passes $6.6 million budget

* McLean Co. Board approves $76M budget

* Clinton mayor submits his resignation

* EIU president says layoffs, furloughs unlikely

* Sangamon County GOP holds off on on mayor pick

* More cuts in store for city, mayor says

* Four candidates seek three trustee seats in Chatham

* 6 sites bid to host FutureGen’s carbon storage

* Fairview council backs term limits; mayor plans veto

2 Comments

What the ICC Report on Tenaska-Taylorville Said

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department

[The following is a paid advertisement.]

“After careful review of the FCR, the Commission concludes that the TEC facility features high costs to ratepayers with uncertain future benefits, and uncertainties that potentially add to already-significant costs.” – ICC Report, September 2010

Other Key Findings:

• “The cost associated with electricity generated by the TEC is substantially higher than that which is associated with other types of generation facilities.” – Page 2
The cost of wholesale electricity from TEC is 400-700% higher than current market prices.

• “…above market costs of energy produced from the TEC and potential cost overruns could stifle the competitive market and create significant economic impacts.” – Page 3

• “‘the true cost of the clean-coal portion of the plant is masked by the fact that approximately 46% of the electrical capacity is actually from natural gas’ and the clean-coal portion of the Taylorville facility is ‘approximately $10,641 per kilowatt’” - Page 18

• The report identifies serious “open issues” that should be addressed before the project proceeds.

These include…

• A disproportionate risk borne by consumers for cost overruns.

• Lack of technical clarity and cost estimates for carbon sequestration.

• Constantly changing plant design and configuration.

• The plant’s true “clean coal” electricity generating capacity.

For more information, visit www.stopcoalition.com

Comments Off

Protected: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

Comments Off

This just in… Cubs say they’re moving forward

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* 2:03 pm - House Speaker Michael Madigan just told reporters that it was his understanding that the Cubs have withdrawn their stadium proposal.

No word yet on whether we’ll see a new plan.

* 4:00 pm - From the Cubs: “Nothing has changed and we are hard at work.”

53 Comments

Davis is hardly a “consensus” candidate - Meeks’ mouth - Emanuel leads in new poll

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Mark Brown is his usual astute self…

Noticeably absent from all three [weekend mayoral candidate announcements] were other elected officials. […]

While their hesitancy could prove a factor in all the campaigns, it was particularly noticeable for Davis, selected as the “consensus candidate'’ of a group that had hoped to winnow the field to avoid splitting the black vote.

Ald. Ed Smith (28th), who isn’t seeking re-election, was the only member of the City Council to stand with the veteran congressman, a further indication of a lack of true consensus among the group that had initially narrowed its endorsement to two finalists — former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Board of Review Commissioner Larry Rogers Jr. — only to pull the rug out from under them and throw its support to Davis.

Davis needed a large turnout of elected officials from both the South Side and West Side to give a clear indication of widespread support and remove any confusion. His backers said that will come later, but they lost a chance to get off to a big start.

I still don’t understand the Danny Davis choice unless I look at it as yet another in the endless skirmishes between the oldtimers and the up and comers. The oldtimers have won almost every one of those battles. Obama is the exception, not the rule. And even he lost to Bobby Rush, remember.

* Although Rev. Sen. James Meeks’ habitual use of racial epithets probably didn’t do him much good…

On “Chicago Tonight,” State Sen. Meeks said for the first time that he regrets his repeated use of the N-word to describe African-American allies of Mayor Daley.

“Sure, I regret it,” Meeks said. “I don’t regret being passionate about the subject of education. And for those who would accuse me of using the N-word, I would just want to find any speech they’ve made about education, period.”

Yeah, that makes sense. Sheesh. A refresher…

* Meanwhile, the Teamsters Union commissioned a poll of likely Chicago voters Nov. 8 through 14 with a +/-3.7 percent margin of error. Rahm Emanuel has a big lead…

36 Rahm Emanuel
14 Rep. Danny Davis
13 Moseley Braun
10 Attorney Gery Chico
7 State Sen. James Meeks
4 City Clerk Miguel Del Valle

Among African-Americans…

29 Emanuel
22 Davis
18 Moseley Braun
14 Meeks
2 Chico
1 Del Valle
14 undecided.

Emanuel also leads among whites and Latinos and in all of the city’s congressional districts, according to the poll.

* Emanuel head-to-heads…

Emanuel 54% / Davis 33%
Emanuel 55% / Moseley Braun 32%

* Check out Carol Moseley-Braun’s unfavorables. Not great…

• Gerry Chico 31% Favorable / 16% Unfavorable - 47% Name ID
• Danny Davis 55% Favorable / 24% Unfavorable - 79% Name ID
• Miguel Del Valle 24% Favorable / 13% Unfavorable - 37% Name ID
• Rahm Emanuel 58% Favorable / 29% Unfavorable - 87% Name ID
• James Meeks 34% Favorable / 39% Unfavorable - 73% Name ID
• Carol Moseley Braun 48% Favorable / 42% Unfavorable - 90% Name ID

Her fave/unfaves among blacks are better, but not outstanding at 61-33. But her fave/unfaves among whites are quite bad at 36-55. It’s amazing that she is so disliked after all these years. But, then again, she completely blew it when she had her shot.

Meeks’ unfaves among African-American voters are also relatively high at 36 percent.

* It appears that the residency issue is actually working a bit in Emanuel’s favor…

Chicago voters are aware of the recently-raised residency issues involving Rahm Emanuel, but an overwhelming majority believes he should be allowed to run.

• Almost two-thirds of the electorate is aware of the press reports involving Emanuel’s residency (63%), and - by a greater than 3:1 margin (62% Yes / 20% No) - Chicago voters believe Emanuel meets the residency requirements to run for mayor. In fact, Emanuel’s lead is actually slightly greater among voters who are aware of the residency issues than among those who are not aware.

• Just 24% agree that “because he has spent so much time living outside the city, Emanuel just doesn’t understand the city well enough to be a good mayor”. Almost three-quarters (72%) disagree. [Emphasis added]

The theory is that attacks on his residency are “Machine style” politics, so it helps paint him as the non-Machine guy. That ain’t reality, but it could be the perception.

* TV ads might be able to turn these numbers around, but nobody yet has shown they can raise the cash to do that…

Only 36% of voters agree that, “Emanuel is an opportunist. He left his seat in Congress to work in the White House. Then he abandoned the President to run for Mayor before the difficult mid-term elections. Now, he wants to run for Mayor even though he has not lived here.” A solid majority (59%) disagrees.

Voters also disagree that “Rahm Emanuel’s personality would make it hard for him to get things done as Mayor” (37% Agree/ 50% Disagree).

* Roundup…

* Chicago mayoral filing: Not quite a free-for-all

* Gery Chico Asked for John McCain to Fundraise: GOP Source

* Fire and ice, Meeks and Emanuel, begin the campaign

* U.S. Transportation Secretary on Chicago’s mayoral race: Rahm Emanuel will win

* Burke: Next mayor will be less powerful

42 Comments

Utter, rank hypocrisy

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Back in October of 2009, Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts told the Tribune that his family saw the Boston Red Sox as a model for their organization. I’ve set the embed to start at that point in the conversation. Watch…

But the Red Sox revamped their stadium without any taxpayer financing. The owner put $200 million of his own money into the place. And the investment has paid off…

Revenue has grown to $266 million today from about $180 million in 2002. The team’s market value has also risen, to $870 million from $617 million in 2005. All without building a new stadium or asking for a dime of taxpayer money.

* Yesterday, I showed you a video of Ricketts family patriarch Joe Ricketts deriding government borrowing as a “crime” and a Ricketts website that labels US Sen. Dick Durbin and others “hooligans” for supporting projects just like what the Ricketts family wants to do here.

The elder Ricketts, who controls the family cash, is also a board member of the American Enterprise Institute. Ironically enough, an article published a couple of years ago in AEI’s magazine derided publicly financed sports stadiums. The conclusion…

Of course, even if the benefits of stadiums and arenas cover the subsidies, the subsidies still may not be sound policy. First, there may be enormous variation in the distribution of the consumption and public-good benefits. It is clear that not all citizens in a community benefit equally from the presence of professional sports franchises in their city. Indeed, because the tax revenues used for the subsidies are often generated from lotteries and sales taxes whose burden falls disproportionately on the poor, while the consumption benefits go mostly to relatively wealthy sports fans, the net benefits are distributed regressively.

Second, we should consider the net benefits to the community of alternative uses of the funds spent subsidizing sports facilities. Good policy means using the money where the net benefit is greatest, not simply where the net benefit is positive. That’s something state and local governments should keep in mind before pledging millions of dollars to fund the next new stadium project.

This proposed Wrigley Field deal is so anathema to the Ricketts family’s political and ideological history that it just reeks of rank hypocrisy.

Taken as a stand-alone, the renovation plan has plenty of merits. But this family has literally spent millions of dollars stoking hatred of government subsidies for just about everything. To see them now eagerly run to Big Brother with an out-stretched hand kinda makes me ill.

* Meanwhile, an added dynamic is injected into the political debate whenever a sports team wants something from the government. Sports columnists become part of the mix, and they’re far more brutal than political columnists…

Can’t you see the Cubs’ lightweight battle for stadium financial support shaping up like the Bears’ mess did? I don’t know if the respective pols will act the same, but the respective owners are stumbling along similarly, not to mention the way Ricketts has seemingly adopted McCaskey’s elfin voice.

Except, the Bears actually got their stadium rehab. It wasn’t everything they wanted, but they did get something. Right now, the Ricketts family isn’t faring nearly as well.

Still, though, “elfin voice”? Oof.

* The other thing that happens is city reporters are often given the assignment to cover the story rather than Statehouse reporters. From the Sun-Times…

The mayor said he likes the concept of a stadium renovation plan that would keep the Cubs at Wrigley for at least 35 years and free up the money the Ricketts family needs to develop a triangle building promised to Wrigleyville residents in exchange for a bleacher expansion.

But Daley said he’s not about to saddle his successor with a deal that requires Chicago taxpayers to forfeit 35 years of amusement-tax growth needed to bankroll basic city services

Daley is a lame duck. His Statehouse power is pretty much gone. And the bill will preempt his home rule powers, so he’s been written out of the script.

* Admirably enough, the Tribune editorialized against the Ricketts plan, but as usual they got their facts wrong…

Perhaps the strongest argument of all: The Civic Federation’s Laurence Msall warned against taking on debt for non-essentials with a $15 billion deficit looming. “The state of Illinois faces an enormous financial crisis and will be needing all of its borrowing power just to pay its bills and continue to operate,” he said.

The bonds won’t be backed by the state whatsoever, so it wouldn’t impact the state’s borrowing abilities.

* The governor’s petulance at not being consulted is completely understandable, but perhaps he ought to tone it down a bit…

“They haven’t shown it to me. Apparently they don’t think I’m as important as some others, and I am important in this matter because I’m a goalie for the people of Illinois to make sure they get their priorities addressed.”

All true, I suppose, but the bill will require a three-fifths vote, meaning that even if he vetoes it the General Assembly will have enough built-in votes to override.

* Whatever the Ricketts family did, this would probably not go well. People are naturally averse to using tax money of any kind to build stadiums.

But there’s no doubt that they completely screwed up this process. It’s mind-boggling, in fact. And in the end they may get far less than the Bears did if they don’t make some adjustments very soon.

In that October, 2009 interview posted above, a Ricketts family member told the Tribune that “hope is not a strategy any more.”

He was talking about the team’s on-field play, but it could just as easily apply to this stadium revamp.

89 Comments

Question of the day

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* It seems pretty clear to me since the election that Gov. Pat Quinn didn’t learn much, or grasped the wrong lessons from his victory.

Before proceeding, let’s review Paul Lis’ wise words of advice from a previous newspaper column of mine…

“Strength,” Lis says, “Is the ability to advance your agenda.” And when you fail to get things done, you look weak, no matter the reason.

So, what does Gov. Quinn do right after the election? He claims a “mandate” and insists his victory means that voters want an income tax hike.

Look, he campaigned on the issue and was mercilessly drubbed for proposing the tax hike, so he has an obligation to move it forward. But actually moving it forward is far different from holding press conferences.

And what happens if and or (more likely) when his tax hike fails to pass during the veto session? He’ll look weak before he’s even sworn in for a full four-year term.

* And the tax hike vote isn’t the only dead duck Quinn is supporting during the lame duck session. He wants a civil unions bill to pass, for instance. He will also be defending an amendatory veto that created an open primary system. Another AV would force the General Assembly to vote on citizens ethics initiatives.

* The bottom line here is that Quinn needs some veto session wins to balance out his inevitable big losses or he’s going to enter the spring session as a hobbled incumbent.

* The Question: Any suggestions for the governor?

63 Comments

Protected: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

Comments Off

Morning Shorts

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Zell: ‘I don’t envision any role’ at Tribune after Chapter 11 exit: “As soon as the bankruptcy proceedings are done, I’ll turn it over to whoever the creditors decide they want to run it.”

* Big turnover likely on City Council

* Ald. Levar will not seek re-election

* Affordable housing plan advances despite Daley opposition

* Sun-Times: City water revenues down the drain

* Chicago ATF boss nominated as national director

* Sneed: The 411 on privatizing the 911 call center

* Call for Illiana bids could go out this month

* Kadner: No one can explain Property tax bills

* Schaumburg Taxpayers Ticked About Tax Bills

* Arlington Hts. votes for smaller property tax increase

* Batavia council picks future site of bridge

* Rutherford’s replacement candidates pitch their ideas

7 Comments

Protected: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)

Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

Comments Off

« NEWER POSTS