Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Competition Works: Lower Bills. Reliable Power. Say NO To Right Of First Refusal
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup (Updated)
Posted in:
* Background is here if you need it. Streetsblog…
Southwest-suburban State Sen. John Curran (R-Lemont) represents a district stitched together by trains. Two Metra lines and five Metra stations sit within its borders: Belmont, Fairview Avenue, and Downers Grove Main Street on the busy BNSF line, plus Lemont and Willow Springs on the Heritage Corridor. Thousands of commuters use those stations every weekday.
Despite this, when the Illinois state legislature had a chance this spring to address the looming $771 million Chicagoland transit fiscal cliff with longterm funding, Curran, like all of his Republican Senate colleagues, voted no. Then he doubled down with a Chicago Tribune op-ed, framing the plan as a “Chicago bailout” for “the grossly mismanaged CTA and decades of unfunded pensions,” calling a modest delivery fee “one of the most… regressive taxes in decades.”
* And then the publication goes on to claim that he voted “No” because of campaign contributions from unions like LiUna (Laborers) and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150…
Here’s what he didn’t say. Since transit funding talks began in early 2024, Curran has collected more than $370,000 from road construction unions. These are the groups most invested in keeping billions flowing to highways instead of saving bus and train service.
Campaign finance records show that in August 2024, the Chicagoland Operators Joint Labor-Management PAC (better known as Local 150) gave Curran $250,000. Two months later, they cut him another check for $107,750. […]
Zoom out, and the pattern is even clearer: Curran has received nearly $688,000 from Local 150 since 2017, and another $80,500 from LiUNA, another prominent road construction union, since 2018. All told, that’s three-quarters of a million dollars from road-building interests alone.
Um, Senate President Don Harmon has received millions of dollars from Local 150 and LiUNA and he voted for the bill, which wasn’t mentioned until the site updated the post after a protest from Leader Curran’s spokesperson.
* And when it was pointed out to them that Local 150’s lobbyist filed a witness slip in favor of the bill, this was the response…
My point, and the reason I don’t view a correction as warranted, is that this procedural filing doesn’t fully capture the broader context we reported:
• The slip reflected support for the third amendment which was filed after the tollway-surcharge funding was removed, which Local 150 had previously opposed.
• Throughout negotiations, Local 150 consistently voiced skepticism toward the tollway funding mechanism, which was widely viewed as the most significant, long-term revenue source in earlier drafts.
• Local 150 has not issued a public statement of broad support for HB 3438 as originally conceived, and its PAC activity and lobbying history on highway funding remain a central part of the story.
The union opposed a revenue source involving a toll increase. But it, along with all other unions, supported the final bill, which was in flux all day. That’s the only floor vote which matters.
And Local 150 did, indeed, issue support for the bill as passed. Anyone who demands support for legislation as “originally conceived” demonstrates a complete lack of awareness about how the legislative process works. Bills are amended all the time.
* But the bottom line here is that no Republicans voted for that bill when it hit the floor. And their “No” votes weren’t because of Local 150 because 150 supported the final version.
They mainly opposed it because the bill would raise taxes. That’s the default Republican Party position on pretty much everything. Occam’s Razor, etc. The SGOPs are currently working on an alternate funding proposal that wouldn’t raise taxes, but it uses some one-time revenues for ongoing operations and critics warn that dipping into the Rainy Day Fund would lead to a credit downgrade for the state.
Also, that rapidly evolving bill was passed shortly before midnight on the last day of session, so everybody knew it was doomed in the House.
The main reason for passing it out of the Senate was so Senate Democrats could go home and say they tried, and to attempt to set the terms of the upcoming summer talks with the House and stakeholders.
* Leader Curran demanded a correction/retraction and didn’t get one. Local 150 is now demanding a retraction. Click here to read the letter. Harsh.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 1:24 pm
Previous Post: Competition Works: Lower Bills. Reliable Power. Say NO To Right Of First Refusal
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup (Updated)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
==They mainly opposed it because the bill would raise taxes. That’s the default Republican Party position on pretty much everything.==
Notable exception, Chicago Police and Fire pensions
Comment by May soon be required Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 1:43 pm
Don’t need much more proof of how poorly that article is written than its 6 “updates” and a correction — and it sure seems like there will be more of those to come.
Comment by heyhey Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 1:44 pm
Streetsblog often posts some well-researched and well-written stuff. But the publication is the vanguard of small and often loud group of public transportation/anti-car/pro-bicycle activist-types who sometime cross the line between effective advocacy and self-defeating zealotry. This story is a perfect example of the latter.
Comment by Roman Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 1:47 pm
===Notable exception, Chicago Police and Fire pensions===
Um, no. That bill includes no revenue component. And they wouldn’t have voted for it if it did.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 1:52 pm
They probably want a credit downgrade they can try to pin on Democrats.
Comment by Irreverent Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 2:07 pm
~~~“ Don’t need much more proof….”~~~
If you’re explainin,” you’re losin…”
Comment by Big Tent Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 2:08 pm
When the updates and corrections are nearly as long as the “article” it might be time to take it down and start over.
Comment by Copy Desk has a question Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 2:14 pm
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Leader Curran for his vote but this isnt one of them
Comment by low level Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 2:15 pm
From my comment on Streetsblog:
The increased donations, largest of his career, came after Curran became Republican leader. Chamber leaders generally receive those larger contributions and allocate them among members of their caucus. Steinke’s own charts clearly show Sen Harmon’s contributions spike when he became leader in 2020, and Welch in 2021 after he became speaker.
I’m a longtime reader and appreciate so much of your work, but am once again dismayed to see Greenfield dig in his heels to defend a poor understanding of political dynamics rather than take the win. For goodness sake, talk to one of the many advocates who actually understand legislative politics.
Comment by BikeTheBurbs Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 2:33 pm
== talk to one of the many advocates who actually understand legislative politics==
Amen. So much effort put into building goodwill, being squandered by people who did nothing to build it.
Comment by heyhey Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 2:36 pm
Watchdog reporters are never wrong.
I learned that 20 years ago reading the Tribune.
After investing weeks, sometimes months on a story, they never kill it if, after confronting the target, it turns out they are wrong.
They pivot accusations. They find third parties to insinuate wrong-doing when the fact alone do not. Sometimes they cannot even find a third party, so they just string together a bunch of innuendo that sound horrific to Joe Public,but which any insider knows is common place and not illegal. Take for example this story, which suggests opponents were somehow blindsided.
But they rarely, if ever, just hit the delete button.
In short, it sound like this piece could have been written by John “The Combine” Kass. Minus the corrections of course.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 2:43 pm
“… no choice but to pursue all
available legal remedies[.]”
Given N. Y. Times vs. Sullivan, not many available.
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 2:43 pm
===not many available===
Libel.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 18, 25 @ 2:59 pm