Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Lightfoot, Durbin endorse Biden
Next Post: S&P: Pritzker budget “a very small step,” likely won’t result in improved rating
Posted in:
* I’ve been watching Lakesia Collins’ fundraising with amazement. She’s running in a crowded Democratic primary to replace retiring Rep. Art Turner (D-Chicago). After ending last year with $105K in the bank, Collins has raised $188K since January 1. Tina Sfondeles and Lauren FitzPatrick took a look at how some of that money wound up in Collins’ account…
• On Nov. 20, SEIU Healthcare Illinois Indiana gave $5,000 to Josina Morita, a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District commissioner who’s not facing reelection until 2022. On Dec. 13, Morita gave $5,000 to Collins. SEIU Healthcare Illinois Indiana has an ownership stake in the Sun-Times.
• On Jan. 28, the union gave $25,000 to Ald. Jeanette Taylor (20th), whose term runs out in 2023. On Feb. 7, Taylor gave $25,000 to Collins.
• On Feb. 1, the union gave $20,000 to Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez (25th), who then gave Collins the same amount on Feb. 22.
• On Dec. 18, the union gave $15,000 to [Cook County Board Commissioner Brandon Johnson], who then gave the same amount to Collins on Jan. 23.
SEIU Healthcare contributed $33,000 to Collins’ campaign. What they did above is only illegal if you can prove that SEIU Healthcare, where Collins is an employee, intended those contributions to others to wind up in Collins’ account in order to get around the state’s contribution caps. I mean, it looks that way, but proof is another matter. And then you have to convince a majority of the State Board of Elections to concur, and the board is evenly divided along partisan lines, so lots of stuff never gets resolved. And therein lies the rub.
* The Question: Should the State Board of Elections have an odd number of members to avoid partisan tie votes? Make sure to explain how that additional member would be chosen.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 2:34 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Lightfoot, Durbin endorse Biden
Next Post: S&P: Pritzker budget “a very small step,” likely won’t result in improved rating
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Your choice is between partisan tie votes where nothing happens or partisan majorities where partisan things happen. Is that really a tough call?
Comment by DIstant watcher Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 2:48 pm
===or partisan majorities where partisan things happen===
Not necessarily.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 2:51 pm
Where is today’s Gus Hall that could be appointed to break the tie?
s/
Comment by Tommydanger Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 2:51 pm
My vote is “Yes”
A board/commission designed to be unable to break a deadlock defeats the purpose of oversight and decision making.
You don’t need a board to exist to make 4-0 decisions.
You need a board willing to make decisions when the vote is 3-2.
My vote is yes.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 2:55 pm
Yes, but only if that last member isn’t named Brandon Johnson.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 2:57 pm
Yes with the odd number rotating each year, so each party would have the majority every other year, that way some things would get resolved
Comment by 13TH Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 3:07 pm
Yes with additional member appointed by Gov, to serve at Governors pleasure. New Gov gets to appoint a new member of his or her choosing, no whining about other party choosing the tie breaking vote.
Comment by SOIL M Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 3:16 pm
Eew. That looks funky. Maybe not the best idea in this current environment to try and skirt Board of Election rules.
Comment by Shytown Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 3:31 pm
A more serious suggestion on my part would be for two alternate partisan members be appointed (1D, 1R)who will hear and consider the complaint along with the standing members. Then, in the event of a tie vote, the name of one alternate member would be drawn to be the tie breaking vote. Perhaps candidates would be less likely to dodge, skirt,or violate the law if they at least stood a 50/50 chance of being held accountable.
What is the purpose of a law if no one can ever really be found to have violated it in the first place?
As to the suggestion that the governor gets to appoint an additional member to avoid ties:
maybe, maybe a case can be made that the voters have spoken once every 10 years when it comes time for drawing maps when they place one party in control. I doubt any voter votes for their party’s candidate for governor with the expectation that their party’s candidates for office can then violate campaign finance laws with impunity.
Comment by Tommydanger Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 3:48 pm
A word comes to mind, campiagn ethics reform, meh maybe not.
Comment by NorthsideNoMore Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 3:49 pm
This happens. Madigan & Harmon both gave themselves $100k so their own caps would be busted so that they could receive unlimited contributions so they can give it to caucus members above & beyond what those contributors could directly give the individual members.
Comment by Marquee Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 3:54 pm
Have the board choose a 9th member annually, who must be an attorney or a former judge. If the board fails to choose the fifth member voluntarily, within 30 days of formation, each member forfeits all salary and benefits and is fined $100 per each day the board is not properly constituted.
It isn’t rocket science. Arbitration panels do this all the time. If they can’t then they should be punished for their partisan gridlock. The penalty and the requirement for legal training makes this an easy spot to fill. Everyone knows who the fair and unbiased judges are (of both parties), this seems as good a way as any to have an actual fair hearing and consequences if the political appointees don’t do their jobs.
Comment by Just Another Anon Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 4:15 pm
Leave it even numbers. Just make a rule if they tie, the tie will be broken by coin flip. That might encourage the two sides to compromise.
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Friday, Mar 6, 20 @ 4:45 pm