Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Before $550K DPI contribution, Kilbride vowed not to “accept one penny” from entities Madigan controls

Posted in:

Illinois

* As we’ve already discussed, the Democratic Party of Illinois has contributed $550,000 to Justice Tom Kilbride’s retention campaign. But this is what Kilbride said earlier this month…

On Oct. 2, Kilbride told WBEZ he would not accept any funding from any Madigan-led political funds.

“We’re not going to accept one penny — and I say this respectfully — [from] Speaker Madigan or any of his entities,” Kilbride said then.

From his campaign…

By law, Justice Kilbride is not allowed to solicit campaign contributions. To further maintain his impartiality, he has no role in fundraising – all such decisions are made by his treasurer – and no knowledge of the donors to his retention committee nor of those to the opposition committee.

* So, should Kilbride’s campaign refund the DPI contribution? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…

bike trails

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:08 pm

Comments

I’m gonna gue$$ he know$ where that $550K i$ coming from…..

Comment by Joe Schmoe Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:10 pm
Totally appropriate to accept money from your own party.

Comment by Centennial Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:25 pm
It’s a no-win situation: “he has no role in fundraising – all such decisions are made by his treasurer – and no knowledge of the donors to his retention committee nor of those to the opposition committee.”

If he keeps it, he violates one promise; if he orders it to be returned, he violates another.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:25 pm
That is 55 million pennies you just accepted Justice Kilbride

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:28 pm
Yes - Madigan is what the opposition is tying him to. To make that bold of a statement and a few weeks later do the opposite does not look good. Further, he is a judge on the supreme court not a politician. To flip flop on this statement makes me question your decision making ability. Further, Trump won the majority of these counties decisively in 2016 and the threshold for his retention is 60% not a simple majority.

I’m curious to see if a new attack also comes out on his redistricting decision. This could peel some votes away from democrats or have voters leave the retention question blank.

Comment by 1st Ward Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:29 pm
Yes, give it all back and more. Then, let’s just allow big business and the Republicans to fill Supreme Court seats like they do in Washington.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:32 pm
No. That’s one of the primary reasons for political parties.

Comment by Lt Guv Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:35 pm
===We’re not going to accept one penny===

And he didn’t. He accepted half a million dollars. What’s the fuss all about?

Promise made, promise kept.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:37 pm
“That was before a billionaire playboy with ties to child abuse dropped millions to try to defear Kilbride.

Say what you want about Madigan, but no one ever accused him of belng soft on child abuse.

But Ken Griffin has gone all-in to relect men who weakened funding for child abuse, sought to undo background checks to stop sexual predators, and even a candidate who pled for leniency for a convicted child abuser.

We need a Supreme Court committed to upholding the laws that protect our most vulnerable. That is clearly not Mr. Griffin’s top priority.” - spokesperson

if you just pull together the truckload of research on the candidates that griffin is currently backing, wi ads already running on this stuff, the research is all there.

You can triple down by reminding everyone that grifffin backed Rauner, and the chaos that ensued at DCFS.

You cannot beat Griffin playing defense. He has enough resources to eventually overrun you on the airwaves.

You gotta stab him in the heart, just like with Uhlein.

You are also never gonna win the technical argument that Madigan doesnt control the party funds,

Comment by Kick Em Where It Counts Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:38 pm
No.
Your campaign accepted it.
At this point in a campaign, the money you received is more useful that any backtracking CYA statement you can conjure up.

Comment by Inverted Pyramid Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:39 pm
After Ray LaHood explains his logic about why a different Supreme Court Justice would permit the cutting of local fire fighter and police pensions (he’s already toned down his language on that front). /S

Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:49 pm
Lol so long partner

Comment by Woody Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:49 pm
No. As long as judges have D’s or R’s behind their names its perfectly acceptable to receive money from the party. Just as it’s acceptable for the opposing party to spend funds to oppose them.

Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:50 pm
alls fair in love and politics.

Comment by depressed in politics Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:55 pm
Guessing only “yes” were Griffy,family and squeezes and maybe Ray “pension slasher LaHood

Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:59 pm
When there are limitations to what other can contribute to oppose him then we can limit what he accepts.

=I’m gonna gue$$ he know$ where that $550K i$ coming from…..=

As a purely constitutional I would think all of the right wingers would totally support Kilbride’s acceptance unless they are complete hypocrites.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 2:02 pm
One word for why he should return the money: integrity.

Comment by Mister Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 2:11 pm
Mister,
He has no integrity — that’s why he’s keeping it.

Comment by jim Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 2:13 pm
alls fair in love and politics

Unless it’s the other party doing it, of course.

Comment by Birds on the Bat Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 2:22 pm
I voted yes because that was a dumb and unnecessary thing for him to say and he should have known better.

Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 2:25 pm
I voted no, because he is running a campaign, and campaigns require money for advertising. I also voted against his retention, but because I believe Supreme Court Justices should not be allowed to serve for life. However, I would suggest Kilbride should explain why he believes the DPI is not connected to/led by/controlled by Madigan. In reality, parties should operate independent of elected officials (via a CEO model of management). But their dependency upon elected officers (Kings really) in Illinois is fairly obvious.

Comment by H-W Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 2:30 pm
As long as the dark money billionaires are pouring money into the Supreme Court race to defeat Kilbride, he can’t run with his hands tied behind his back.

Comment by west wing Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 2:34 pm
=== As long as the dark money billionaires are pouring money into the Supreme Court race to defeat Kilbride, he can’t run with his hands tied behind his back. ===

Amen.

Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 2:42 pm
to all those saying it is perfectly acceptable for someone to accept money from their own party. I agree. But read the first part of the post, he said he wouldn’t accept anything. The contradiction is clear. Its hypocrisy.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 2:53 pm
If MJM won’t jump, someone in the Dem Party needs to push him to retirement.

This is a wave election and instead of having Dems like Kilbride or Bustos or Londrigan surf that wave you have these Downstate Dems stuck carrying the anchor of MJM across the Nov. 3 finish line with them and their elections at risk because of how hated MJM is and how corrupt he is viewed.

He has outlived his usefulness and it is time for the Dem establishment to make that known so candidates like Kilbride are no longer stuck in this no-win situation.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 3:29 pm
== to all those saying it is perfectly acceptable for someone to accept money from their own party. I agree. But read the first part of the post, he said he wouldn’t accept anything. The contradiction is clear. Its hypocrisy. ==

HE didn’t accept the money and HE has no control over what his committee accepts. He also said that before a billionaire decided to try to buy his own Supreme Court seat.

The committee should take the money.

Comment by southsider Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 3:47 pm
Politics and Money Taint Court Rulings

Political cash and the courts don’t mix. But don’t tell that to the four Illinois Supreme Court justices who last month struck down an effort to roll back gerrymandering along partisan lines.

They were bought years ago.

Every 10 years, Illinois’s highest justices tour chambers of commerce and civic clubs. They go to party events. They beg for cash and support. They perform an ethically tenuous dance of not stating actual positions like most politicians, while assuring partisans of their philosophical allegiance with a wink and a nod

https://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-politics-and-money-taint-court-rulings/article_e81d1fd9-b09d-5989-8e20-7b79bdc865d3.html

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 3:50 pm
===HE didn’t accept the money and HE has no control===

Correction. He said WE. And if HE has no control, HE shouldn’t have said WE. Period.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 4:04 pm
Yes. You said you weren’t going to accept it and then you did. Integrity should be kind of a sticking point in someone we may be referring to as “Your Honor.”

Comment by duck duck goose Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 4:18 pm
I for one personally would look to a judge on the State Supreme Court to uphold certain standards of conduct. And one of those would be, if I said it, I meant it, and I stand by it. Judges own.

Comment by Just a guy Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 5:12 pm
No. He needs it to fight back, fire with fire.

Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 5:29 pm
So don’t vote for him because he said “We”, before Uhlien’s millions being used against him? … Please.

Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 5:49 pm
It’s not about whether it’s appropriate for a candidate, generally speaking, to accept funds from his party. That defense misses the mark in this situation.

The Justice, who is in a position that most of the public would expect would be filled by someone who keeps promises, has blatantly broken his promise. And the promise was made in a defense of his assertion that he’s independent from the Speaker. So he’s carrying two strikes on this one - promise breaker and funded by the Speaker.

He just took a tossup retention and moved it into the likely-not-to-be-retained category.

Comment by Quenton Cassidy Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 9:29 pm
Why should he? He’s being pilloried for being beholden to Madigan. If you’re going to take the hit, you may as well get some padding for it.

Comment by Hyperbolic Chamber Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 9:38 pm