Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: The “No, We Can’t” tour continues today
Posted in:
* As most of you know, I’m solidly for redistricting reform, but this is a very dangerous idea…
Both House GOP Leader Tom Cross and Senate Republican chief Christine Radogno brought up remap at a meeting last week with their Democratic counterparts and Gov. Pat Quinn over whether to raise taxes to fill a budget hole.
Mr. Cross even asked the governor if he would consider using his veto pen to rewrite a pending bill and make reapportionment a non-partisan process.
Illinois just impeached and removed a governor for grossly abusing his powers, and using an amendatory veto to drastically rewrite legislation to implement a huge idea that hasn’t even been debated in the General Assembly would be a gigantic abuse of gubernatorial power.
That Cross would even consider this silly idea in the name of “reform” pretty much undercuts his argument that he wants reform.
* Roeper writes about the parking meter uproar and reminds me to make a point about reform notions and political reality…
Yes, the rate hikes were obscene, the city blew a potential $1 billion in revenue by farming out the business, and the pay-and-display boxes have been plagued with mechanical problems.
However. The one silver lining in this cloud is people who live, work and play in the city can sometimes find a spot so they can run into the dry cleaners or drop something off or take a quick meeting, whereas in the past so many spots were taken by “squatters” who would find a spot early and feed the meter every two hours.
This notion, pushed by the city’s inspector general and others, that the city could’ve gotten an extra billion dollars by just jacking up the parking meter rates and keeping the money for itself is patently absurd and ignores reality. Without a private contract in place, those rates would’ve been lowered to their original levels by now because aldermen are under such heavy attack from angry constituents.
Also, Roeper is right about empty meters. But that won’t stop the screaming.
* The Tribune writes yet another editorial about why it doesn’t like the election of judges…
Judges are elected in most states, including Illinois. The main value of Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in a West Virginia case is to provide another good reason why judicial elections are a bad idea.
Except, who’s gonna appoint judges? Governors? Bureaucratic “experts”? They don’t say.
* Patrick Collins makes an interesting observation…
When Springfield leaders concluded that the specific reform would not substantially affect their operations, they gave the reform the green light. When they concluded that the reform threatened their status quo, they did not.
For example, in our discussions about procurement reform, we were told repeatedly that the General Assembly doesn’t approve many contracts and leases; on transparency, we were told that the General Assembly doesn’t get many Freedom of Information Act requests. In these two areas, and a related area involving patronage abuses (the General Assembly doesn’t hire either), we received some reform.
A different story line emerged when the General Assembly’s leaders concluded that the commission’s proposed reforms might alter the rules of the game in Springfield: campaign finance, enforcement and government structure. In each of these areas, the commission’s proposals were treated as a grave threat, so the proposals were substantially watered down (campaign finance); rejected in full (enforcement tools for state prosecutors); delayed (redistricting), or outright ignored (legislative leader term limits and legislative rule changes to improve democracy).
By failing to adopt any of these game-changing proposals, the General Assembly spoke clearly about its unwillingness to get to the core of the culture of corruption.
In everything I’ve read by Collins so far, including the reform commission’s report, he never really explains why the concentration of power in the leaders’ hands is at “the core of the culture of corruption.”
I could give you a list. You could probably make up your own. But Collins has never fully justified these proposals, which I find quite odd. We’re just supposed to take his word for it that he’s right.
* Senate President Cullerton lists the reforms passed by the GA and then gets defensive in an op-ed piece…
Critics say that these reforms are “watered down” or do not go far enough. That’s because recognizing the accomplishments of legislators would be inconsistent with the legislative witch hunt that has been promoted by some.
Big words.
* Related…
* Judges with big donations on the books can be removed from cases
* Ruling raises questions about Ill. court races
* ICPR Says Supreme Court Ruling Shows Need for Public Financing
* SJ-R: Make state’s earmark process more transparent
* Boland calls for U of I resignations: In October 2007, it was reported Boland gave the daughter of one of his larger political donors three legislative college scholarships worth a total of $17,536. At the time, Boland said he was not influenced by campaign donations totaling nearly $16,000 from the student’s mother. State Sen. Gary Dahl, R-Granville, said any potential investigation should examine other ways lawmakers exert influence on higher education, such as the legislative scholarship program.
* Quinn must clean up U. of I. clout admissions
* Lift veil on admissions practices at college
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: The “No, We Can’t” tour continues today
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling deserves much greater discussion, maybe. Especially considering the impact this pilot program of public funding for judicial elections might have.
I think a prime case in Illinois is Med Mal. If you don’t like the outcome you think you are getting from the courts, why not just change who is on the court? With massive amounts of money to a particular candidate…
Like I have said before - campaign limits may not make evil people saints, but it can help keep evil people out of office.
(That being said, those limits would have done nothing to limit the big independent expenditures. I guess that goes to the root of the Trib editorial - just make them appointed).
Comment by George Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:28 am
“That Cross would even consider this silly idea in the name of ‘reform’ pretty much undercuts his argument that he wants reform.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Even if Tom Cross got the gift of “a Republican map” he would quickly screw it up and it wouldn’t be Republican for long. That’s basically what the Republicans did after they were handed a pro-GOP map after the 1990 census.
Comment by just sayin Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:28 am
Pat Collins might not have made a list or fully explained why the concentration of power leads to corruption: it’s just common sense. Maybe he doesn’t want to jeopardize an on going investigation? At the local level, in Cook County, it’s hard to argue with Pat Collins. Term limits is the most effective way to limit certain politicians from monopolizing the political process. Pat Collins did a good job, there’s not much more he could do. Most people in Illinois who vote don’t want much reform.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:28 am
With redistricting - the irony is that by trying to create a map that leans more in your favor, you often are spreading out your base too thin across districts.
And makes your caucus more susceptible to electoral “waves” and changing demographics.
Comment by George Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:31 am
Hypocrisy thy name is Mike Boland.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:34 am
I agree with Collins that things were watered down…what what done in the session was window dressing reform issues while leaving the playing field relatively unchanged…Quinn is not pouncing on the lack of reform at this juncture because he desperately needs an income tax increase and doesn’t wish to alienate lawmakers with vitriolic rhetoric…I have heard elected officials call out the Tribune for engaging in a trash the legislators campaign, they are displeased that their feet are being held to the fire and they can’t bear it, so they are bashing the Trib…this is the oldest trick in the book: trash those who are trashing you…one “reform” that was approved was Recall of the Governor ONLY…that just about says it all for me…the members of the legislature have plenty to be concerned about come election time…more and more folks I know are adopting a throw the bums out mentality…I am sure they are back in their districts and getting wind of this growing sentitment…Blago wasn’t the only problem in Springpatch after all…
Comment by Anonymous45 Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:36 am
The way Congressional Districts 17 & 19 are all over the place something needs to be done. How someone in the Quad Cities area can truly represent someone in Decatur continues to amaze me.
Comment by Anon2 Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:38 am
For judical races, what about the Missouri Plan?
Comment by Levois Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:38 am
===How someone in the Quad Cities area can truly represent someone in Decatur continues to amaze me.===
That’s kinda silly. The governor, for one, represents both towns.
The problem isn’t so much that towns which are relatively far apart are in the same district (look at Alaska for examples), but that the maps are drawn specifically to benefit the incumbents.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:41 am
“How someone in the Quad Cities area can truly represent someone in Decatur continues to amaze me.”
Really, what’s the difference…
:)
Comment by George Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:42 am
Collins seems to be blaming everyone else for the defeat of the reform proposals. If it’s not the leaders’ fault, it will be the voters’. When will the reformers acknowledge their own mistakes? This current crew makes us wish we still had Paul Simon and Mike Lawrence to quarterback reform.
Comment by Doubting T Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:46 am
It might be fair if those legislators who have set up merit selection panels to award the GA scholarships got some favorable mention somewhere. But people would rather just whine and lump them all together - it’s easier, after all. than to think!
Comment by Legaleagle Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:50 am
…recognizing the accomplishments of legislators would be inconsistent with the legislative witch hunt that has been promoted by some
It is the citizens who decide whether their legislature fails at reform. It doesn’t matter if those who criticize have a point. If legislators didn’t want to hear criticism, there are a number of other job opportunities for them. To serve the public as a legislator is a thankless task, and it should be a temporary one. What we see in Illinois appears more like a professional level of politician who chafes at being criticized, and Cullerton’s response fits that negative stereotype.
Even if a miracle had occurred, and every thoughtful and effective reform was enacted, there is plenty of valid criticism of a state legislature that failed to enact these reforms for a decade after the issue was dramatically brought to the public’s attention with Governor Ryan. To have sat on their hands throughout the shockingly level of witnessed corruption under the Blagojevich administration is inexcusable.
Mr. Cullerton’s claims that the General Assembly he leads is proactive regarding reform is laughable, since the General Assembly’s failure regarding reform demonstrate it’s failure to even act reactively throughout Blagojevich’s terms in office.
It appears that the Democrats in Illinois have become so spoiled by a lack of opposition to their spend-thrift goals, they don’t like to hear opposition or criticism, even from the public. Cullerton would benefit from that hilarious “roach speech”, Hamos gave a few months ago.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 11:56 am
The US Supreme Court pretty much handed down a verdict that elected judges are biased if they accept campaign contributions. It is a bad decision in that it sets up a system where trial lawyers can always appeal rulings and continue milking the system, and no decisions are really reached due to judicial biases.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 12:00 pm
eagle, you raise a good point.
On the other hand, we have the “Hypocrite and the Hapless” from the Quad-Cities. If the latter had just paid tuition instead of a politician, she may have been better off financially.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 12:01 pm
Rich, He’s Patrick Collins. No explanation needed. And if you question him on that you too are at the core of corruption in Illinois.
Comment by Cosmic Charlie Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 12:06 pm
==”That’s kinda silly. The governor, for one, represents both towns.”==
But not in the General Assembly. Or Congress.
Comment by Deep South Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 12:12 pm
VanillaMan says, “The US Supreme Court pretty much handed down a verdict that elected judges are biased if they accept campaign contributions. It is a bad decision in that it sets up a system where trial lawyers can always appeal rulings and continue milking the system, and no decisions are really reached due to judicial biases.”
I suggest you re-read the majority’s opinion VM (or read it for the first time). What you’ve done is repeat the conservatives’ talking points by summarizing the minority’s rather strange dissent.
Oddly, that same minority (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) has the opposite opinion when it comes to censorship — ie, they know it when they see it, though no actual hard-and-fast rules need apply (look up the CBS/Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction issue).
The opinion doesn’t say that all donations would inherently create a bias in an elected judge.
What it does say, simply, is that such a clearly lopsided funding scheme from a citizen who has an obvious interest in the election’s outcome due to an in-progress case before the courts is, to put in terms the conservative dissenters may understand, “obscene” and ought not be allowed to stand or continue (literally millions from one individual who was appealing a $50 million decision against him, mostly in the form of a separate independent expenditure which benefited the individual’s preferred candidate).
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 12:14 pm
PS - To return the topic to the issue at hand in Rich’s post … have the gov appoint judges, to be approved by a Senate committee. (Mirror the Federal system.)
For county courts, the chair or president of the county board can appoint with subsequent approval of the full county board needed for installation on the bench. Make it a supermajority requirement (2/3rds?) to give it some semblance of legitimacy in our goofy state/counties.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 12:19 pm
=== This notion, pushed by the city’s inspector general and others, that the city could’ve gotten an extra billion dollars by just jacking up the parking meter rates and keeping the money for itself is patently absurd and ignores reality. Without a private contract in place, those rates would’ve been lowered to their original levels by now because aldermen are under such heavy attack from angry constituents. ===
Not only that, but it ignores the present value of an annuity. If you’re not familiar with the term, think about lottery winnings. When there’s a really big jackpot of $300 million that means that a single winner has the option of receiving $300 million in payments over the next 20 years, or they have the option or receiving some smaller amount in a lump sum now.
Same deal here, the IG says that over the course of the lease the meters would have generated an additional $1 billion in revenue over the up front lump sum. No matter how the deal was bid/structured/set up it was always going to be true that the total value of revenue into the system over the life of the lease was going to be greater than up front lump sum paid for the lease. That’s how it works, and it’s a very misleading figure. A different bidding process may have produced a differnt figure for the up front leasing, but no process is going to result in someone paying the full value of total future revenue up front. That’s absurd.
Comment by Scooby Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 12:22 pm
The Republicans calling for non-partisan redistricting in Illinois reflects the party lacking significant power in the state.
Are the Republicans calling for Greens, Libertarians and independents to have a level playing field?
So, the Cross/Radogno plan is good for Republicans, hurts Democrats and leaves everyone else frozen-out of elections. That’s inspiring.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 12:41 pm
Rich: There are a few things that don’t need debate. Adopting Iowa’s politics-blind districting method (or any bill that demands a politics/demographics blind algorithm be used) would be one of them. To say replacing the bullet-to-the-body-of-democracy that is gerrymandering with something that is truly representational democracy is an “abuse of power” goes to far. And how is it an abuse when Madigan and the legislature WERE GIVEN A CHANCE and declined?
I wish the Supreme Court decision was as big a deal as Vanilla Man and others say, but Kennedy’s concurring opinion makes clear it only applies to mega-contributions. It should apply to all judges: pyschology studies show contributions as small as a morsel of food at the grocery store trigger the reciprocity mode in people.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 12:56 pm
Collins: let me abuse my titular role to push un-nneeded reforms against my archnemesis Madigan!
Just imagine where we would be today with the Collins “reofmrs” in place. Blago free to run wild with no one in the GA strong enough to stand up to him. SOunds like a good plan to me, remove the effectivness of the GA to put a check or balance on the Gov.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 1:03 pm
Judges are elected in Ill. Somewhere Ed. Burke is getting a good laugh out of that statement.
Comment by fed up Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 1:34 pm
Ghost which one of collins reforms gets Blago un indicted.
Comment by fed up Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 1:37 pm
=== This notion, pushed by the city’s inspector general and others, that the city could’ve gotten an extra billion dollars by just jacking up the parking meter rates and keeping the money for itself is patently absurd and ignores reality. Without a private contract in place, those rates would’ve been lowered to their original levels by now because aldermen are under such heavy attack from angry constituents. ===
Under normal circumstances, I’d agree. But the primary reason the city council rubber-stamped this deal is perhaps the same reason they would have reluctantly agreed to raise parking rates absent any privatization - pressure from Daley.
They could’ve argued, IMO successfully, that meter prices were artificially low and needed to be increased, along with the usual budgetary red-ink tactics.
Moreover, the plan backfired - LAZ and Morgan Stanley aren’t taking the brunt of the blame, as intended.
Comment by The Doc Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 2:03 pm
Roeper is so right about the meters. I’m tired of the anonymous parking meter kvetch who opines in op ed pieces and is faceless on camera when discussing yuppie meter destruction and outrage. reveal yourself. for the average person trying to find a meter in Chicago things are so much better now.
Comment by Amy Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 2:24 pm
Fed up
Which of Collins reforms stopps Blago from doing what he did?
which of Collins reforms requires the Feds to file charges and stop a sitting Gov who is corrupt and block them from selling billions in construction contracts?
Which of COllins reforms requires a powerless GA to impeach a sitting gov?
Lets see, we have impeachment as a tool to remove a corrupt Gov, but collins wants to remove strong political leaders who would be able to succesfully pursue use of that tool.
Good plan for protecting corruption.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 3:22 pm
I actually think Cullerton is right on, other than the multiple ways he spelled Jeff Schoenbe(u)rg’s name.
Still trying to figure out why Patrick Collins thinks the legislative leaders are most the corrupt elements in IL when it’s the Govs and not the leaders that get arrested.
Comment by Al Swearengen Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 5:37 pm
===when it’s the Govs and not the leaders that get arrested. ===
Collins…
===When lawmakers rejected true reform, we heard a refrain emerge from prominent players: none of us has been indicted recently, so why do we have to change? Apparently, they need to reform only when federal grand juries indict.===
And then he went on to point out the “scandal” at the U of I over admissions as a reason why there should be reforms even without indictments. He never said what, exactly, the commission proposed that would’ve prevented something like this, however. Somehow, passing a bill would’ve vitiated the controversy in his mind.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 5:52 pm
If this isn’t PLAY what is?
“The daughter of one of Rep. Mike Boland’s larger political donors has received legislative college scholarships worth about $$17,536 in exchange for nearly $15,891 in campaign cash.
Rep. Boland, D-East Moline, gave scholarships to the daughter of Barb Suehl, a successful real estate agent in the Fulton area. Mrs. Suehl donated $17,563 to Rep. Boland’s campaign.
Mrs. Suehl is the top individual contributor to Rep. Boland’s campaign during the last seven years, said University of Illinois professor Kent Redfield, an authority on Illinois campaign contributions. (This excludes contributions from labor unions, businesses, political parties or political action committees.)
Mrs. Suehl’s contributions to Rep. Boland’s election bid ranked second among all sources, exceeded only by money from the Illinois Democratic Party, according to the “Almanac of Illinois Politics.”
“To have said, ‘I’m not going to give you a scholarship because your mother gave me $17,563,’ would have just been wrong.
Rep. Boland said he was in no way influenced by campaign contributions when he selected Alleyene Suehl for the scholarship.”
- Small Newspaper Group
Comment by WaxonWaxoff Tuesday, Jun 9, 09 @ 8:20 pm
If someone would only dig a little deeper into this story…. Rep. Boland would not like it one bit.
Comment by Little Lucy Wednesday, Jun 10, 09 @ 3:23 pm