Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Dealing with Madigan

Posted in:

Illinois

* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…

Last December, Bruce Rauner appeared on a WLS Radio talk show and revealed that he planned to form a new campaign committee to counter the power of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.

“We’re gonna raise a PAC, we’re gonna raise a fund dedicated to the state legislature, members of both parties who take the tough votes,” Rauner said. “We’ve gotta protect the members who take tough votes.”

“Right now,” Rauner continued, “Madigan controls the legislature from his little pot of cash. It isn’t that much money. And he runs the whole state government out of that pot. We need a pro-business, pro-growth, pro-limited-government, pro-tax-reduction PAC down there in Springfield working with the legislature for those who take tough votes.”

Word is that Rauner’s new legislative PAC will be launched relatively soon – perhaps after the governor-elect’s transition committee has finished its job.

Rod Blagojevich tried the same thing with his Move Illinois Forward PAC several years ago. As I pointed out on my blog when Rauner revealed his plans, Blagojevich’s PAC didn’t work out all that well, partly because Blagojevich was relying on a Democratic donor base that didn’t want to step on Madigan’s toes.

Rauner, of course, won’t have that problem. And he also has plenty of his own cash.

But how “little” is Madigan’s “pot of cash”? Well, the House Republicans believe that when it’s all said and done, Madigan and his candidates will have spent $10 million.

An Election Day tally showed that Madigan had raised $5.7 million during the cycle, but add in the money raised by his targeted candidates and the total rises to $10.6 million, plus another $290,000 in reported independent expenditures. The tally was conducted by Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

House Republican Leader Jim Durkin’s committees raised $4 million, but add a million dollars in independent expenditures and the money raised by Durkin’s candidates (much of it from contributions by the state Republican Party – via Rauner) and Durkin’s number rises to almost $7.9 million.

What Rauner is attempting to do here is strengthen his own hand as governor and maybe try to entice some of Madigan’s members into breaking party ranks on occasion.

But Madigan controls just about every aspect of a House Democrat’s existence. Everything from office and staff assignments to committee assignments to bills getting called to patronage and perks such as his numerous season tickets at Chicago sports stadiums – you gotta go through him. And if you try the nectar of a competing sugar daddy, things can get ugly.

But more competition is probably good for the system, as long as it doesn’t escalate into Blagojevichian levels of insanity.

But the governor-elect might want to also take a few minutes and read a Chicago Sun-Times story from 2012 in which Speaker Madigan explained what he most respected about the seven governors he had served with.

Actually, he didn’t say anything nice about the imprisoned Blagojevich, and didn’t have too many kind words for our outgoing governor, Pat Quinn. But he did heap praise on two Republicans: Jim Thompson and George Ryan.

Of Thompson, who was governor for a record 14 years, Madigan said that he was “a very intelligent person, a quick learner, very flexible. He understood … that you need to fashion compromise if you need to move forward.”

Of Ryan, who like Madigan was once the Illinois House speaker, he said: “George would say, ‘We’ve got problems. What do we have to do to solve these problems?’ A [legislative] leader might want to evade the question; he might have a strategic plan they’re working and don’t want to answer today. And George would just pursue, persist: ‘I want an answer!’”

Former Governor Jim Edgar accompanied Rauner on his final campaign swing. Of him, Madigan was less effusive in his praise: “a little more strident than Governor Thompson … more willing to engage in protracted negotiations in order to get what he wanted, especially out of the budget.” Even so, Madigan and Edgar did get plenty of things done.

Rauner will obviously have his own style, and he’ll have his own battles that will have to be fought with Madigan. But there’s no getting around the man. If the governor-elect meant it when he said on election night that he wants to find bipartisan solutions to the state’s many problems, he’ll notice how Madigan admires governors who forcefully attempt to overcome problems and move the state forward. He can be worked with.

* More from that 2012 article…

Madigan was most effusive in his praise for convicted former Gov. George Ryan, calling him “very flexible, very interested in just identifying problems and fashioning solutions.”

Ryan’s favorite approach was to gather all four legislative leaders in a room to work a deal, Madigan recalled. That would include Madigan; Daniels, who invited Madigan to speak and who fondly recalled the “two wonderful years” he wrested power from Madigan; former Senate President James “Pate” Philip, and former Senate Democratic leader Emil Jones. […]

Recalling one meeting, Madigan said, “George Ryan wanted a capital program. There were going to be fee increases, tax increases. He started with me. I told him ‘I’m for it — I think you oughta make it bigger.’ He got to Pate Philip. There’s a favorite method in the Legislature with the legislative leaders. The leader doesn’t want to look at the governor and tell him ‘No.’ So they blame their caucus members: ‘Our caucus won’t agree to that.’ Pate used to refer to his caucus members as ‘gorillas.’ It’s true: ‘My gorillas don’t like that.’

“There was this pause. Ryan just looked at him and he said, ‘You said that to me after everything I’ve done for you?’ And then he took him out of the room, took him into a separate room, and closed the door. There was a lot of screaming and shouting. They both came back and sat down and George looked at Pate and Pate said, ‘Governor, there will be enough votes to pass your bill.’ That was George’s method — very effective.”

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 8:33 am

Comments

Presumably the PAC money is going to be used in the primaries? Because with only 1 seat changing hands this cycle, I don’t see many Democrats at risk in the general, and on the flip side there are not too many Republican seats at risk either.

Comment by Put the Fun in unfunded Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 8:58 am
===“We’re gonna raise a PAC, we’re gonna raise a fund dedicated to the state legislature, members of both parties who take the tough votes,” Rauner said. “We’ve gotta protect the members who take tough votes.”===

Rauner votes.

Not “tough” votes. Not “gut-wrenching” votes…

Rauner votes.

Who will be the 1st Republican Rauner’s PAC …”Mautinoes”?

Who will be the 1st Democrat in the General Assembly that Rauner’s PAC primaries with monies raised? Will this PAC see the two-party primary system as a way to make members Republicans, Democrats, and Raunerites?

How will the HDems & SDems feel about a sitting Republican governor, through his PAC, recruit against their caucus, for the Primary?

How will HGOP & SGOP caucuses function? Does Durkin and the SGOP need approval to stave off their Republicsn governor?

Is this, by Rauner, the co-oping of the General Assembly on seat, one bad vote, one Primary, one November at a time?

Can Durkin and the SGOP protect their own members from Rauner?

This is a new day. No more speculation. If Rauner’s new PAC dictates what he wants sitting in seats in both chambers, Democrats and Republicans, doesn’t it, at some point just become “Rauner Owned” versus “Rauner yet to be deatroyed”?

Will these new members “select” Rauner approved caucus leadership? Will the political arms of all 4 caucuses become a joke, a punch line to the will of the Rauner PAC?

Does either party matter…now?

…

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:01 am
I appreciate the candidness, but Rauner is promising legislators money for voting a certain way, isn’t he?

I don’t know where the quid pro quo line is, but he’s dancing awfully close to it.

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:01 am
No question that George Ryan was head and shoulders the best governor of the last 30 years.

Comment by Quiet Sage Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:09 am
Once again, I get this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when I’m reminded that in the end, government all revolves around money.

Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:22 am
That Pac idea is not smart. I wish they would drop it.

Comment by Jaded Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:46 am
Great find Rich. I forgot this was public.

Madigan praises Ryan as a governor to deal with. Five leaders in one room, know what you’re talking about, take a stand, no hiding behind others, need a decision, don’t make us wait too long.

Rauner could take a few lessons from this recollection.

Comment by walker Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:47 am
The beauty of Quinn is that he managed to stay out of prison…at least so far. It is so embarrassing/disgusting to read the number of recent IL governors who have landed there. If I’m Rauner, that would be first and foremost on my mind. Even “Orange is the New Black” doesn’t entice me to a trip to prison.

Comment by Belle Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:52 am
Don’t think Madigan’s “little pot of cash” can’t be outspent. Here’s how outside money in targeted legislative races flipped the legislature for the first time in more than 100 years in another state:

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141078608/the-multimillionaire-helping-republicans-win-n-c

Comment by olddog Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:53 am
“No question that George Ryan was head and shoulders the best governor of the last 30 years.”

We went pretty far (too far) down the wish list in my agency finding places to spend money on capital projects when George was Gov. IMHO.

Comment by Leave a Light on George Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:53 am
where is Pate Philip when we need him?

Comment by north shore cynic Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:56 am
Leadership vs. Ownership- where is the line? If he “buys” the votes is is same old, same old. If he can forge compromise and get the ILGA working again= leadership.

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:57 am
Leaders meeting in Gov. Rauner’s Office: Rauner pulls out his checkbook and says, “Mike and John how much do you want?”

Comment by Norseman Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:28 am
Madigan has been so successful he has become a problem. Illinois can’t move on without him and it needs to. The Illinois Democrats need to mature into leaders. Zombies, mushrooms and ducklings have been able to get repeatedly reelected hiding behind Mr. Speaker. Nothing gets done without him. Democrats get elected through him. You can have a nice long political career through him, but you have to do what he says.

How can we have change in Illinois without MJM? So, I’m tired of reading postings about how the Whig-tastic ILGOP needs to stand up in the GA and be counted. Go ahead and count them, maybe use both hands. It will take more than a few election cycles of successes, which it hasn’t had in over a decade, for ILGOP to become a decent MINORITY.

Our problem has been that we’ve had one guy in control. For good reasons. Unless you thought Blagojevich and Quinn were any good, which even Mr. Speaker - cochair of the Reelect Rod Blagojevich campaign - actually wouldn’t trust with a wooden nickel.

Imagine Illinois without Michael J. Madigan. Sure it would be messy and chaotic for a while, but imagine all the new leaders our state would discover who had outgrown their mushroom, duckling and zombie status under him.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:33 am
- VanillaMan -

===But more competition is probably good for the system, as long as it doesn’t escalate into Blagojevichian levels of insanity.===

As a sitting Republican governor, and attempting to influence the Democratic Primaries of members of the General Assembly through a PAC designed to “reward” tough votes, but in reality, will be used to move out members of the GA who won’t do what Raunerite Rauner wants, that is a level of insanity that will put the 4 Caucuses and both governmental branches at loggerheads for a very long time.

Also, the “Mautino Maneuver” should be seen as it was intended; spiteful political payback. A teaching moment that the General Assembly members should fear retribution, personally, at the whim of checks cashed.

It never worked for Blago, Rich explains it perfectly.

Rauner is going to shape and manipulate the General Assembly like Muchael Corleone owned Sen. Geary.

The question is; how independent will ALL 4 caucuses be with monies allocated to take in members where they can be defeated, be it in the Democratic or Republican Primaries, or the General Elections?

Dangerous times for this thought process when cooperation is needed in governing.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:43 am
VMan, glad you found another person who has been victimizing you. Big list.

You ignore every bipartisan tough vote of recent decades, but you have to do what you have to do to make your fantasies work.

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:54 am
Rauner shouldn’t fight Madigan on Madigan’s chosen battlefield.

A few feints in that direction won’t hurt negotiations elsewhere, however.

Comment by walker Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:15 am
Anyone else notice that right after the midterm, the Chicago Tribune immediately proposed a range of “unfinished business” ethics reforms, and one of them was “ban unlimited contributions from political parties to state party candidates.” In other words, cut off Madigan’s ability to fund his candidates.

I suppose that would also apply to direct donations from Rauner, but this sounds more like “air cover” through outside / independent spending, which under Supreme Court rule cannot be limited or restricted.

Comment by ZC Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:27 am
===…members of both parties…===

There it is.

I isolated just those 4 words to remind us all; as much a Governor-Elect Rauner wants the grasp of Democratic control to be thwarted, the Rauner PAC will not tolerate Republicans who go off the reservation of the Rauner Agenda.

The Mautino Maneuver is the example of the photographic negative of what this Rauner PAC sells as it’s intent. Being touted as the back stop in choosing the Rauner Agenda, the first indication, by choice, makes decisions look more like retribution.

===…members of both parties…===

The GOP fear, unlike a Mautino scenario, you will have, unquestionably, a Republican governor, looking in a Republican Primary, for a challenge to a sitting Caucus member.

I always say, “run them all”. I also feel a Caucus, unless there are ethical or moral reasons to choose not to, should back their members, period. So will the HGOP and SGOP lose that loyalty they have, because of the fear that the Caucus can’t defeat the Governor’s PAC?

Rauner believes 1/3 of the GOP GA is corrupt, this could be the Rauner Purge, ripping Caucus loyalty at the seams, and deciding which members are worth keeping, and which members are worth Primaring.

===…both parties…===

The mixology isn’t about ideology, or even about party, it will be about co-oping vote totals at the expense of party and ideology, and even the expense of governmental branch independence.

Let me be clear;

There is a significant difference between being bi-partisan, and co-opting members under the threat of their demise, no matter the party affiliation.

The first is looking out for the best interest of the governed, the second is looking out for one person’s best interest at the expense of the government.

That is what could be. Will it happen, I dunno. Are the wheels in motion, is there a recent history example of how it could go? Yes, and yes.

When the new PAC wades into it’s first Democratic and Republican Primaries, remember, the PAC is designed for protection of members, not for the demise of members.

Caucuses, beware, you’ve been warned.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:52 am
The idea of Rauner and Madigan working together is exciting. But, what good is protecting members who take tough votes, if they’re going to be run out of office due to term limits (if Rauner ever gets his way on that).

In other news, does anyone else hear Eddie Cochran’s Summertime Blues in Rauner here?

I’m gonna raise a fuss
I’m gonna raise a holler
About workin’ all summer
Just to try to earn a dollar

Comment by Cheswick Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:37 pm
Actually, Madigan prefers strong Republican governors with an agenda because they have to come to him to get anything done.

Comment by Louis Howe Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:25 pm
Madigan on George Ryan: “very flexible, very interested in just identifying problems and fashioning solutions.”

Yes, he was all that and more. Ryan practically let Madigan fund his (Madigan’s) wish list and gave the Dems nearly everything they wanted. When Ryan rolled out his first budget, which had already given the Dem’s their hearts’ desires, he met with the Senate Republican caucus, barked at them that his budget was “non-negotiable”, and literally ordered them to adopt the budget or that there would be hell to pay (reported to me by two Senators present at the caucus). So of course Madigan would enjoy a repeat of George Ryan, who gave him a blank check and later went to prison. Rauner won’t be operating in such a fashion, and knows Madigan won’t like it.

Comment by Conservative Republican Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:26 pm
==Ryan practically let Madigan fund his (Madigan’s) wish list and gave the Dems nearly everything they wanted.==

As I have personal knowledge of the situation, I can tell you that all of the caucuses got something when Ryan was Governor. It was a time of spending. The only issues at the end of session budget negotiations were what was going to be added to the budget. All the caucuses got their little add ons.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 3:58 pm
Not sure this is really relevant because it seems that 22800 absentee ballots were sent out(Alan’s original email is quite confusing, but eventually figure that out-tho most of the absentee ballots should have arrived by Thursday 99% since that is the delivery time for first class mail

My other concern is that we are all entitled to transparency and that election information the law allows in a timely period. And the board seems to leave a fair amount of questions from the letter unanswered and seem to suggest that 16k is the wrong number of ballots received(So then what is the number because if there is a claim that 4600 came in after Wednesday that would seem rather high when for the majority of the US it should only take 2 days(and the email was sent thursday did they include that total). So with this regard my question would be how many came in on thursday? Either way the boards estimate(of what arrived M,T,W) seems somewhat irresponsible on their part if it was

Comment by Watcher Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 1:59 am
The question is, ‘Should a constitutional officer with enormous wealth be allowed to use his wealth to reward and punish legislators based on their support or opposition to legislation.’ Can you see the mailings and robo calls going into districts throughout the session? It’s one thing to create a coalition of groups to raise money; it’s an entirely different thing to use personal and his businesses’ wealth to affect outcomes.

Comment by Observing Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 6:12 am