Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x1 * Did he really say that?

Posted in:

Illinois
YouTube

* With a big hat tip to Illinois Review, Sen. Kirk Dillard was asked this question at a recent tea party forum…

One of your opponents has made union bosses and their muscle in Illinois public policy a dominant issue. In 2010, your campaign took in $250,000 from a teachers union and your current campaign has taken in thousands of dollars from union PACs. Why do public sector union financially support you and how does your position on public sector unions differ from your opponents?

Dillard’s response…

“You said it was 2010 that the teachers gave me that money. I haven’t seen it yet and don’t know if it’s coming.”

Video…

* From the State Board of Elections…

I sure hope he meant that he hadn’t seen any teacher’s union money this year as of yet. Sheesh.

I asked the campaign a while ago for a response. I’ll let you know what they say.

*** UPDATE *** From Sen. Dillard’s campaign manager…

Dillard misspoke. Clearly, Dillard’s campaign received an IEA contribution in the 2010 campaign, as the campaign disclosed in its filing with the State Board of Elections. Dillard was referring to the current campaign, when he mentioned that he hadn’t received a contribution from the IEA yet this year.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:18 pm

Comments

I’d like Illinois Review to do a story on how Rauner made millions cutting deals with Democrats for union pension business. Perhaps a money flow chart.

Comment by justsayin' Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:25 pm
Is private equity money a purer form of campaign contributions than labor contributions?

Comment by Samurai Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:26 pm
Why do public sector union financially support you and how does your position on public sector unions differ from your opponents?

I assume they financially support me because I value the contribution public employees make to this State, while some of my opponents want to cut their wages, benefits and even put them out of work. You get what you pay for, and I believe the people of Illinois deserve a government that provides excellent service to its citizens.

Why is that so hard to say for these candidates?

Comment by Chi Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:27 pm
Some incompetent alien must have taken over Kirk’s body. It seems that he has done everything he can during this run to say and do goofy things. Kirk needs to expel this miscreant being and withdraw from the race so he can try to salvage his political career.

Comment by Norseman Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:30 pm
If a private union gave money to a contractor they have an agreement, they would go to jail. In politics, it is called pay to play. D-Lard and Rutherford know a lot about that.

Comment by DuPage Rep Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:31 pm
DuPage Rep…

So using your logic anyone who gives money to the political process who might benefit from the actions of that entity or people they appoint would be engaged in pay to play, right…

If so, then I suspect Bruce knows pay to play…

Comment by OneMan Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:33 pm
Is Dillard Rauner’s Terrance Goggin?

Comment by Nonplussed Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:38 pm
I’m not sure what he’s trying to say. I do think he was trying to change the subject.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:38 pm
===I haven’t seen it yet and don’t know if it’s coming===

And I never endorsed Barack Obama for president. That wasn’t me in that ad either.

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:40 pm
Dillard truly needs professional help. This is just the latest evidence.

Comment by too obvious Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:41 pm
===I haven’t seen it yet and don’t know if it’s coming===

Futhermore, Gidwitz is never going to see that $200K because it’s definitely not coming.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:44 pm
I miss Kirk Dillard.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:48 pm
OneMan
Point well taken, but public unions are not working for the public good. They feed of dues from the wages they negotiate with our politicians. As a private Union member, I would love for my BA to write a check to my employer to gaurentee my job. State workers should be afforded protections of a civil service commission not a CBA.

Comment by DuPage Rep Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:51 pm
I’ll bet he’d be happy if he could get $250,000 from anybody right now.

Comment by Wensicia Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:58 pm
If I make a loan to a campaign, rather than a contribution, and that loan is never paid back (ie. written off as a bad debt), can I not write that off as a loss? Hence, while I can’t deduct a campaign donation, I could get a complete write-off a loan.

I’ve wondered why contributors don’t use this method rather than a campaign contribution.

For the candidates, they would only have to set up a new campaign fund each year, ie Dillard 2014.

Can anyone offer insight on this?

Comment by Downstate Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 3:59 pm
Downstate, instead of asking us, why not call your CPA?

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 4:01 pm
–Hence, while I can’t deduct a campaign donation, I could get a complete write-off a loan.–

I can’t see how, unless you can prove that it’s uncollectable. It would seem you’d have to file suit, get a judgement and still not be able to collect to even start that process.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 4:02 pm
Rich - Cause I have no interest in using the tactic, and I don’t want to pay more fees simply to placate my curiosity. I’d simply assumed that seasoned politicos (your readers) were more familiar with the campaign and tax laws to know why this would or would not work.

Wordslinger - A business write-off for an uncollectable debt usually only requires a letter from the firm identifying that they are insolvent and unable to pay. Per my scenario, the campaign committee could issue such a letter, assuming they were closing their books and unable to pay.

Comment by Downstate Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 4:18 pm
I was in Plainfield the night that Dillard misspoke and gave all of us the impression that the teachers union had stiffed him in 2010. It was a great tactic to use (if it was deliberate) as far as stopping everyone in their tracks from implying Dillard was cozy with the Teachers Union.
I thought it ironic at the time because he implied that he (Dillard) was stiffed by the teachers union in 2010 for $259,000 and yet Dillard had himself stiffed Ron Gidwitz for what he still owed Gidwitz from his last ill-fated gubernatorial run.

Comment by Henry Clay Friday, Jan 17, 14 @ 6:01 pm