Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Anti-fracker dirty tricks?
Next Post: A different sort of “out of touch”
Posted in:
* Oh, this is not good…
It’s unclear if Illinois officials will release complete information about companies seeking to grow or sell medical marijuana in Illinois because the state law that legalized medical marijuana exempts prospective companies’ applications from open records laws. […]
The lack of transparency will make it difficult to determine whether state regulators will show favoritism for companies with strong political connections, former state Sen. Susan Garrett, who oversees the Chicago-based Campaign for Political Reform, told the Springfield bureau of Lee Enterprises newspapers. Nobody should be denied this information, she said.
“There should be reason to prevent the public from having access to these applicants,” Garrett said. “If this process is clout-driven, taxpayers have the right to see it.”
Lobbyists and former government officials have already begun to team up to compete for the 22 growing center licenses or 60 dispensary licenses.
* I can see why companies might want to protect trade secrets or whatever, but as Kurt Erickson points out, the politically connected are all over this thing…
Lobbyists and former top government officials have joined forces to compete for the 22 growing center licenses or 60 dispensary licenses.
Some companies have approached former lawmakers about sitting on their boards of directors as a way to curry favor with local and state regulators.
Gov. Pat Quinn’s former chief of staff, Jack Lavin, lists a medical marijuana company as one of his lobbying clients.
* From the Rauner campaign…
1) Lavin, Quinn’s long-time friend and former Deputy Treasurer, was a Tony Rezko associate who leveraged his Rezko ties to enter Rod Blagojevich’s cabinet. After Blagojevich’s impeachment, Quinn promoted him to be his chief of staff.
2) Lavin is the same ex-Quinn Chief of Staff whose emails were recently subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in connection with the ongoing federal criminal probe of Pat Quinn’s Neighborhood Recovery Initiative. […]
Key Questions for Pat Quinn
1) Why is Jack Lavin allowed to lobby the governor and state agencies that control our tax dollars?
2) Why is Jack Lavin allowed to lobby the General Assembly where our tax dollars are appropriated?
3) Why is Jack Lavin allowed to lobby the state for state contracts and franchises?
4) If Pat Quinn was serious about dumping his best friend and state lobbyist, wouldn’t he issue a statewide order not to communicate with him?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:27 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Anti-fracker dirty tricks?
Next Post: A different sort of “out of touch”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s pretty outrageous that that provision is in the law and it should be changed.
Still, the Rauner attack is pathetically bad. You don’t have to like or dislike Jack to realize questions like “why is Jack Lavin allowed to…” are pretty stupid.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:31 am
This is not going to end well for Jack. Quinn will throw him further under the bus.
Comment by Cassiopeia Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:33 am
1) Free speech.
2) Free speech.
3) Free speech.
4) Huh?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:34 am
Erickson and others have been pointing this out for months.
This potentially lucrative pie has already been split up and divided among the chosen few. Outsiders and competitors need not apply.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:35 am
There are out of state investors that are lining up to get in the mix on this.
My problem with the whole thing is that the state is going to “pick the winners”. Not unlike the firms that can offer video gaming.
The Democrats will control this thing. For a party that is always “looking out for the little guy”, it seems that they are much more interested in “picking winners”.
It’s a flawed process.
If it’s a monopoly like franchise we are awarding, as a state, put it out for bids.
Comment by Downstate Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:40 am
applicants for pot licenses should prequalfy, then submit sealed bids on the licenses.
this sounds like the old days w riverboat licenses
kinda follows rauners business model.
Comment by Langhorne Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:42 am
..and is anyone surprised
Comment by Empty Suit Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:42 am
Now that answers why Quinn threw Lavin under the bus .
Quinn blames Lavin, Lavin takes heat, Lavins client get a license.
The good old ways of doing things in Illinois are still alive and well.
As for the open records law, well come on all those high paid Lobbyist tied to PQ can’t make donations then cash in for there clients before Nov 5 .
Watch the money pour in for Quinn over this , of course you could ask him and he could say ” well I don’t know about that”
Comment by Leprechaun Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:42 am
Yep Langhrone, this is all Rauner’s doing….
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:44 am
There are only a few states that would try to get away with this, and only a handful where the voters couldn’t care less.
Welcome to Illinois, my friends…..
Making this information available won’t make a whit of difference. You need to have broken some law to have consequences, and the crooked lawmakers write the laws so that cronyism and bid rigging is almost impossible to prosecute.
This is the case all the way from local school districts to state run licensing and procurement agencies.
Just curious. Anyone now how this was handled in Colorado and Cali?
Comment by Arizona Bob Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:45 am
Good deal, I won’t have to worry about people finding out my super secret grow plan using dirt, water and sunshine to grow cannabis flowers….I am okay though with the public knowing that my in laws were on the deciding committee granting me one of these limited licenses because I support keeping the money in the family…
Comment by Abraham Froman Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:48 am
Selling marijuana legally is a terrific idea and I hope that IL moves forward with this as CO and legalizes it for personal as well as medical use.
Personally, I would fear for my safety if I was working in a business that was in direct competition with the gangs.
Comment by Belle Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:55 am
Prospective Cultivators have been meeting and lobbying elected officials of all shapes and sizes for many months now. This whole process is political in nature. There is too much money involved for it not to be. My prediction is that by the time it is all over with, the Feds will be dealing with Derrick Smith type cases surrounding these cultivation facilities. Better go for the hug instead of the hand shake before those meetings.
Comment by John A Logan Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:02 am
Hmmm. Question - now that Jack Lavin is in the private sector, is Pat Quinn able to tell him what he can and cannot do?
Comment by Illinoise Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:03 am
As someone who has seen about 5 PPM’s for these licenses, I can unequivocally say it’s a game for the connected. In fact, the same lobbyists and attorneys are tied to two or threes groups - without the groups knowing about the involvement in the others…all the while pocketing consulting fees and attoreny’s fees from each one. What a hedge.
It’s political hack city running wild with marijuana…like we should have expected.
Comment by DuPage Moderate Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:17 am
It’s the Illinois way.
And it eventually hurts Illinois.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:19 am
I don’t have a particular opinion on this matter. At least not until the application from AWillyWord Family Health Grower$ and Di$pen$aries LLC is acted upon.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:22 am
Maybe the insider bidders can find some use for those land purchase options they’ve held for years in anticipation of a third large airport around Chicago. The big score would be a pot mega-grow and airfield on the same option purchase. Business as usual.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:24 am
Glad I live in the least Republican County in the State Police District.
Comment by Bourbonrich Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:41 am
Langhorne nailed it. This is riverboat redux.
Comment by Keyser Soze Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:48 am
Nothing in the law that I know of prevents the release of information, either.
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:59 am
By the way, if neither Bruce Rrauner nor his campaign staff know the answers to the Lavin questions they ask, that’s fairly scary, huh?
I really, really, wish they would quit saying stupid things. I want to vote for the guy, but Jesus.
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 12:03 pm
Anonymous: Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but lobbying is protected under the First Amendment’s right to petition your government–the right many people can’t name asked to name first amendment protections, e.g., Bruce Rauner.
Comment by Nonplussed Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 12:25 pm
Apparently Jack is excluded from the REVOLVING DOOR policy…that everyone else has to follow. I am sure he got waiver…what a joke!
Comment by Of Course Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 1:21 pm
Of Course: Revolving Door applies to barring certain state employees from getting money from state contractors, or the contractors parents or subsidiaries.
Since Medical Pot is new, none of these companies has or had a state contract. Since it is still controversial, none of these companies has a parent that has a state contract (I am assuming this, but highly likely I’m right).
So Jack wouldn’t be excluded under Revolving Door from representing a Med Pot company regardless of getting a waiver from the EEC.
Comment by Nonplussed Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 1:32 pm
Rauner is obviously used to bossing people around.
Comment by Liberty Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 1:59 pm
“A statewide order not to communicate with him”?
Seriously?
Sure, the medical pot process needs to be more transparent. But this is serious business, not the kindergarten playground.
Comment by Commander Norton Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 3:05 pm
Trade secrets? Give me a break. There’s nothing about growing marijuana that’s secret except the bookkeeping.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 3:29 pm
A pot dispensary applicant has to submit three ye ars of tax returns. That type of stuff shouldnt be public, but basic identifiers should be
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 5:16 pm
“… because the state law that legalized medical marijuana exempts prospective companies’ applications from open records laws.”
Oh, that’s Quinn’s fault with all the pull he’s had with the legislature and influencing legislation.
Rauner apparently needs to grab at every straw; apparently no different than Quinn’s campaign.
Comment by sal-says Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 7:15 pm