Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rauner forms new PAC, but can he succeed?

Posted in:

Illinois

* As subscribers already know, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner has created a new PAC. The “Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits” has already raised over $200,000. The two top contributors are real estate magnate Howard Rich and a trust controlled by Sam Zell.

From the Trib…

Imposing term limits in Illinois will require asking voters to approve a constitutional amendment. To get it on the ballot, hundreds of thousands of signatures will have to be gathered. On Tuesday, Rauner spokesman Mike Schrimpf said that details of the petition drive, as well as the exact wording of the proposed term limit amendment, will be publicly announced “in the next few weeks.” […]

Traditional political action committees that support candidates for election also have limits on donations. But since Rauner’s term limits PAC is pushing a proposed question for the November 2014 general election ballot, there are no limits to what donors may contribute.

That means Rauner could give unlimited amounts of his own money to his PAC, ostensibly pushing term limits while helping to promote his candidacy for governor. Meanwhile, his opponents would continue to be hamstrung by state donation limits. […]

There’s another potential benefit for Rauner. If he wins the Republican primary in March and gets the term limit question on the November ballot, it could create a powerful way to drive turnout in a state where the Democratic Party controls Illinois government. The strategy is similar to one used by President George W. Bush in his successful 2004 re-election effort. Bush adviser Karl Rove got anti-gay marriage referendum questions on the ballot in several battleground states, including Ohio, drawing conservative voters to the polls.

* The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in the 1990s that citizen-initiated constitutional amendments must change both the structure of the General Assembly and its procedures. From the Constitution…

Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV

From the court’s ruling…

The eligibility or qualifications of an individual legislator does not involve the structure of the legislature as an institution. The General Assembly would remain a bicameral legislature consisting of a House and Senate with a total of 177 members, and would maintain the same organization.

Likewise, the eligibility or qualifications of an individual legislator does not involve any of the General Assembly’s procedures. The process by which the General Assembly adopts a law would remain unchanged. […]

the proposed amendment does not meet either the structural or the procedural requirement of article XIV, section 3 [Emphasis added]

So, it’s quite likely that any term limit proposal would be prevented from appearing on the ballot. Still, it’ll give Rauner a rallying cry and an organizing tool

* Signature and other requirements…

(I)n order for a term limits initiative to come to a vote, a petition with signatures totaling 8 percent of the number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election would first need to be approved.11 Moreover, the Illinois Supreme Court would then have to rule such an initiative permissible under Article XIV, Section 3.

Eight percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election would equal 298,399 valid signatures.

* The term limits case involved Pat Quinn, who gathered over 400,000 signatures to get a term limits amendment on the ballot. This is how the then state treasurer reacted to the Supreme Court’s ruling…

In a statewide opinion poll published recently by the Chicago Tribune, nearly 70 percent of voters said they would vote in support of the term limit amendment if it appeared on the ballot in November. But in the midst of all this support for change, the Chicago Bar Association (CBA)—a registered lobby group of 21,000 lawyers—rushed forward to protect the political status quo. The CBA filed a lawsuit to block the Eight is Enough term limit referendum from appearing on the November 1994 ballot statewide.

Interestingly, the CBA also lobbied the General Assembly in support of a pay raise for judges. On the same day that the legislators approved the judicial pay raise, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the CBA challenge to the term limit referendum. Six weeks later, on August 10, in a 4-3 split decision, the Illinois Supreme Court denied voters the chance to vote on the term limit referendum this November. In a cowardly action, the court refused to explain why it will not allow Illinois voters the chance to participate fully in the democratic process.

Illinois is the first state in the nation to reject term limits before the people have had a chance to vote on the issue. The Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling against the Eight is Enough referendum is a slap in the faces of more than six million voters and is an insult to the highest ideals of democracy. The court’s majority ruling ignores the fact that the Illinois Constitution clearly gives voters the right to reform their legislature. The constitution provides citizens with the power of initiative and referendum. The authors of our state constitution wanted voters to be able to propose changes to the legislature in cases where, through self-interest, the General Assembly opposed them.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:17 am

Comments

I don’t favor term limits. Term limits are handled by elections.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:24 am
I used to be a foe of term-limits, especially seeing how it wrecked Michigan’s legislature. In Michigan, you have a freshman standing for Speaker arguably in a second term and “termed-out” after his or her third term. They barely know where the bathrooms are. And the staff becomes very powerful because they know the process and virtually run the show.

But now, I am not so sure. Illinois’ legislative leaders have such an iron-clad grip on the process, and who gets elected, that there is a dearth of new ideas, of a fresh perspective.

I suppose I could live with a term-limit on leadership.

Comment by Knome Sane Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:26 am
First he aligns with Rahm, now with Pat Quinn. Maybe he is a Democrat after all.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:26 am
Possible Donor List;

Rahm Emanuel

Rich Daley

Payton Prep Clouted Kids Parents Alumni Association

Starting with some Hypocritical Snark…

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:26 am
Perhaps IL voters are lazier than in other states?We seem to need term limits in this state—elections do not seem to help IL with politicians staying too long. The length of service only gathers more and more staying power.

Comment by Belle Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:31 am
I once believed elections were the best form of term limits.

After seeing the overwhelming advantages and benefits incumbents exploit, I can no longer say so.

When the house stacks the deck against you in such crippling fashion, the playing field is nowhere near equal. As such, I cannot support such a rigged system.

If our system ever finds a way to level the playing field a bit (not completely equal footing, but at least better than 90%-10% odds), I will quickly return to my original stance against term limits. I hope we do.

Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:33 am
We have term limits, it called elections;

Win.

Beat MJM. Beat HDems. Beat them.

…

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:36 am
Quinn would be wise to join himself at the hip to Rauner on this issue immediately. If conservative voters see it as both Rauner and Quinn’s idea it will not have the effect Rauner is looking for in the Guv election next fall. And it will allow Quinn to continue his politically popular war on the GA.

Comment by b.c. Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:36 am
The history of these statewide referrenda, when in connection with a statewide race, has been mixed. Thompson did it in 1978 (the “Thomposn Proposition”) and created a small problem for himself when some of the signatures were bad. His campaign office manager ran a “noratization mill” and got into legal trouble, along with a states attorney who submitted bad signatures and crashed his own career in the process. Nobody thought the peition process helped his campaign. Other efforts have yielded equally ambigous results. Having been involved in one of these statewide drives before, I know it is not very easy to gather that amount of signatures. Rauner is not Governor, so he will need to hire commercial services to do a lot of the gathering — and those folks traditionally submit a good number of bad signatures. He will not get a free pass on the petition, meaning it will be carefully reviewed by opposition attorneys. On the advantage side, he will have an excuse to build a field organization, and he can contrast himself with the other three candidates — all of whom he can say served beyond the term limitations he will presumably propose. If the other candidates criticize the drive, he will call them old-time, long-serving hacks who refused to leave when they should have. Rauner can become a one-track candidate if he wants — simply bashing the system with his petition drive and avoiding the issues.

Comment by chad Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:39 am
If the Rauner amendment limits the terms of members of the General Assembly and also limits the terms of General Assembly leaders and committee chairs, would that pass muster with the court, given the 1994 ruling?

If Rauner does this properly, it could be a tool to make Madigan a target for the voters and this could get very interesting. Plus, it’s a way around busting the cap on his own contributions. He can spend unlimited funds on this effort, hire staff, open offices, etc., without allowing his opponents to raise more money.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:42 am
Good politics, lousy government IMHO.

Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:44 am
rich, perhaps you could poll support for term limits. presumably, rauner has already tested it and found it to be worth doing in terms of popularity. what a waste of time and effort, since it is such a long shot. and if it succeeds, is turmoil preferable to gridlock? much, much better all the way around to go for a better redistricting method.

yes, term limits shift some power to staff, but also lobbyists. they have the institutional memory and know the strategies that newbies lack. as a result, those running for office start to run against staff and against the institution. not a great situation.

a thorough review of term limits, from ncsl, with lots of links can be found at: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/legisdata/legislative-term-limits-overview.aspx

Comment by langhorne Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:45 am
Bruce Rauner has embraced the “Fire Madigan” theme as his rallying cry. From his Facebook feed:

=== Click “Like” if you support term limits to help clean up Springfield and get rid of the career politicians like Madigan and Cullerton ===

I agree with b.c. that Pat Quinn should wrap his arms around Bruce Rauner and say “Great idea, Bruce. Glad I thought of it first!”

I also agree with steve schnorf about this being [potentially] good politics but lousy government.

Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:51 am
===Good politics, lousy government IMHO===

Good point Steve, as always.

Nebraska passed term limits some years ago that were intended in no small part to end the career of a long-time Senator from Omaha, Ernie Chambers. It worked, Chambers left the Unicam, but so did all the other members in their time. Now the staff and the lobbyists have all the institutional memory, write the bills, manuever the legislation, etc. The rest of the Unicam is like a rubber stamp for the unelected staff.

Oh, and Chambers? He sat out one term and was promptly re-elected to his old seat. He who laughs last, right?

Term limits are a gimmick but voters eat it up.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:52 am
=== Term limits are a gimmick but voters eat it up. ===

Dead spot on

Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:55 am
This is simply a ruse to circumnavigate spending limits. It may imply that his fundraising isn’t meeting objectives. Term limits is a populist idea that sounds good - like “shaking up Springfield”, but, and consistent with his other sound bytes - he cannot explain how specifically he can accomplish anything. The Private Equity business is NOT about building consensus or coalitions, it is a “my way or the highway” business and that is evident in his approach to Illinois politics. Problem is we are suffering thru another Gov. with a remarkably same m.o. Can we afford 4 more years of inaction and gridlock?? The sequel to this movie is “Clueless in Springfield”.

Comment by Voice of Reason Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 10:59 am
So, if Mr. Rauner proposed to make the Illinois General Assembly unicameral, keep the Senate and retire the House (how is that for term limits), that would pass Constitutional muster? And possibly make it a two-fer since Mr. Madigan would no longer have a House seat?

Comment by anonymoose Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:08 am
===And possibly make it a two-fer since Mr. Madigan would no longer have a House seat? ===

LOL

You don’t think he’d run for Senate?

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:09 am
Husband (who is on some Republican mailing list) just received last week his, I think, third piece of direct mail from Rauner for Governor.

Comment by 32nd Ward Roscoe Village Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:28 am
Mr. Madigan would be leading the charge to save the House, first and foremost.

But, hypothetically, say unicam ever passed, if Mr. Madigan does seek a Senate seat, then what? Does Mr. Madigan become President of the Senate? Mr. Cullerton just hands his spot over? Do the hurdles to power make it time for Mr. Madigan to finally move along?

But glad my hallucinating made you laugh Mr. Miller.

Comment by anonymoose Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:29 am
I’ve had to lobby California which has term limits, and the result is that it empowers the legislature’s staff because Members don’t have years of experience and/or they don’t put the time in to care about their “temporary” jobs. The staff are unelected, and gradually hold far too much influence over the process. Lobbying Members is a waste of your time and is very dangerous.

The problem we have is that because of campaign finance laws and gerrymandering far too many incumbents never have a “real” challenge. Fix that problem instead.

Comment by Just Me Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 11:42 am
You will find for the past few sessions that Dillard has sponsored legislation, which died in the Democratic-controlled committee, a bill limiting the terms on legislative LEADERS. You will also find that a rather large percentage of the GA turns over in any 10 year period (I think Rich ran something on this a while ago).

Elections are the ultimate term limit. We perhaps should think in those terms and realize that it is the inordinate power granted to the leadership that may be the most effective.

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 12:15 pm
If the Rauner amendment gets ratified, it wouldn’t end any careers for eight more years — that’s 2022. (Unless the amendment is retroactive.) So people looking for a quick fix may be disappointed.

Comment by reformer Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 12:18 pm
Yes elections are the true term limits but look at what happened in 2010 the GOP won a majority of seats in the Congress in Illinois and the new winners were mapped out the next time.
This could blow up in Rauners face, as I see it more conservative voters will come out, and they will not vote for him. Would he then continue to push this during the General election?

Comment by votecounter Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 12:32 pm
===Dillard has sponsored legislation, which died in the Democratic-controlled committee===

That doesn’t speak well for his effectiveness as a legislator, does it? Or his ability to work across the aisle. To paraphrase Speaker Madigan: Cincy, you’re not helping.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 12:35 pm
Out of 118 members of the House, 41 have been there less than four years. That’s 35% of the chamber who are freshmen or sophomores — without term limits. Is there any indication that the rapid turnover has improved the quality of the House?

Comment by reformer Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 12:52 pm
Regardless of the wisdom or lack thereof, term limits will be ratified if the proposal gets on the ballot. May I remind readers that Quinn’s Cutback Amendment seemed like a good idea to most voters in 1980. By most educated assessments, the quality of the House declined as a result.

Comment by reformer Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 12:56 pm
Read the 3rd paragraph from the Trib article again. If you think this is truly about term limits and not a campaign ploy - sorry, I can’t help you.

Comment by Voice of Reason Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 1:13 pm
Additional comments on Article XIV

=== Amendments shall be limited to structural and
procedural subjects contained in Article IV. ===

Presumably, Rauner cannot merely copy the approach followed by Pat Quinn (and Aldo Botti) with the “Eight is Enough” initiative.

As Rich Miller points out, the IL SCt already said “No” to that.

=== A petition shall contain the text of the proposed amendment and the date of the general election at which the proposed amendment is to be submitted . . . ===

Does Rauner’s PAC have proposed text, yet?

Being for term limits in the abstract is fine, however Rauner’s PAC need specific language before they can start circulating petitions.

Language they believe will pass muster with the IL S Ct

Also recall that Pat Quinn claims to have had the help of 12,000 volunteers to circulate petitions.

Can Rauner pull that off that level of organization, over the next 8 months?

Quinn collected his signatures in 3 months but he had a Republican partner in Aldo Botti.

=== . . . shall have been signed by the petitioning electors not more than twenty-four months preceding that general election and shall be filed with the Secretary of State at
least six months before that general election. ===

That means the petitions need to be filed by the first week of May 2014.

Which is essentially 8 months from today, overlapped with a contested four candidate GOP primary.

====

Oh, has Bruce Rauner found a Lt Gov selection, yet?

Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 1:19 pm
A stroll down memory lane . . .

http://www.quinnforillinois.com/content/classic-quinn-power-petitions-tea-bags-and-referendums

Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 1:21 pm
Correction . . .

Quinn and Botti collected their signatures between October 1993 and May 1994

=== In October 1993, Quinn joined Republican DuPage County Board Chairman Aldo Botti in launching the “Eight is Enough” petition drive to limit any person to eight years in the State Senate or House. The proposal was hailed by newspaper editorials and reformers, but despised by political insiders. In May 1994, Quinn and Botti filed 437,088 petition signatures at the State Board of Elections, twice as many signatures as needed to qualify for the November 1994 ballot. ===

Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 1:24 pm
Bill White,

“Oh, has Bruce Rauner found a Lt Gov selection, yet?”

==================

Best money can buy!

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 1:26 pm
Repeal the Cutback Amendment and add term limits.

Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 2:00 pm
DI

More than one-third of the House has changed in the last for years. Without term limits. Have you detected any improvement?

Comment by reformer Wednesday, Aug 21, 13 @ 5:24 pm