Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: K2 ban advances - And a Statehouse roundup
Next Post: Cohen claims his religion was a factor
Posted in:
* The Daily Herald editorial board is now griping about bill negotiations…
Cullerton also hosted a closed-door meeting on the public policy. In the meeting were camera critics, camera supporters and camera company lobbyists. How much sway did the lobbyists with a clear profit motive have on the compromise? We don’t know because the public wasn’t included. This is outrageous, especially coming on the heels of the outcry over the closed Senate session Cullerton convened to hear about the state budget crises a few weeks ago.
The editorial was about red-light camera reform legislation proposed by Senate President John Cullerton.
It’s pretty difficult to take an editorial page seriously when they print stuff like this. Private meetings to hash out differences on bills are as old as the Republic.
…Adding… I wrote this in comments, so I’m gonna frontpage it…
Believe it or not, when legislators are trying to regulate an industry, they usually bring industry representatives in for a meeting so they can understand how their actions might impact said industry. They don’t always have to agree with the industry, but it helps to know how a law will work in the world outside the capitol.
* The Champaign News-Gazette also editorialized about the red-light camera issue this week. They based their opinion on Daily Herald reporting…
Camera manufacturers want to sell them and make money. So they hired big-shot Chicago lobbyist Al Ronan, who spread campaign donations around to certain powerful legislators.
Presto, suddenly red light camera legislation was introduced and approved by the General Assembly.
RedSpeed, which is the big suburban player, has been making relatively small campaign contributions since 2006. Senate President Cullerton’s personal committee has received all of $3500 since 2008. Speaker Madigan has received just $1000. The company’s total since ‘06 is $53,215.00. That’s not inconsequential, but it’s not particularly big Statehouse money.
The real force behind this issue are municipal leaders like Mayor Daley who want the cash cows.
* Meanwhile, Sen. Rickey Hendon cracked a joke this week about unpaid legislative reimbursement checks…
A leading Senate Democrat Tuesday used the birthdays of two colleagues to encourage Comptroller Dan Hynes to begin issuing expense checks to Illinois lawmakers, who are owed more than $665,000 in unpaid reimbursements for food, lodging and mileage dating back to last July.
“Perhaps because it’s their birthday, someone could call the comptroller and have him release their seven or eight months of past-due per diems for their birthday,” said Sen. Rickey Hendon (D-Chicago) to a smattering of applause as he feted Sen. Michael Bond (D-Grayslake) and Sen. Linda Holmes (D-Plainfield).
The wisecrack ginned up a little blowback…
But the No. 2 Senate Republican said Hendon’s focus on unpaid legislative expense checks, while perhaps not ill intended, won’t go over well with social-service providers awaiting state payments who have a lot more at risk financially than rank-and-file lawmakers.
“For those people who are watching state government very closely because they have a lot at stake, like providers waiting forever to get their checks, that’s probably not very funny,” said Sen. Dale Righter (R-Mattoon), the Senate deputy minority leader. “I’m not sure that I’d want to be joking about that.”
The joke was probably inappropriate, but Righter is totally against a tax hike to help make those provider payments, and most groups representing the providers are for a tax hike. Stones, glass houses, etc.
* Related…
* Government in Illinois still too secretive
* Web site allows taxpayers to track state grants
* Opinion: Cut pensions for future lawmakers
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 8:50 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: K2 ban advances - And a Statehouse roundup
Next Post: Cohen claims his religion was a factor
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Good call about Righter, as soon as I read what he said my first thought was that he couldn’t care less about funding those services.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 9:02 am
“Private meetings to hash out differences on bills are as old as the Republic”.
With lobbyists in the room?
That doesn’t make it right.
Comment by anon Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 9:04 am
===With lobbyists in the room?===
Yes.
Believe it or not, when legislators are trying to regulate an industry, they usually bring industry representatives in for a meeting so they can understand how their actions might impact said industry. They don’t always have to agree with the industry, but it helps to know how a law will work in the world outside the capitol.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 9:17 am
The hypocrisy of Springfield approving red light cameras for safety, while at the same time panning motorcycle helmets is staggering.
Comment by Johnny USA Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 9:31 am
Rich: Don’t we call that a “hearing”?
I really don’t think you can stop these meetings. Cullerton can just host the meeting at Tavern on Rush.
Comment by Brennan Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 9:45 am
I get what you’re saying, Rich…but between the closed door meetings (I’m sure whatever needs to be said can be done in a hearing), the connected lobbyists, the campaign contributions, you have to admit, it doesn’t look good (especially to the world outside the Capitol).
Comment by anon Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 9:52 am
===it doesn’t look good===
The process never looks good, that’s why that ancient saying about sausage-making still applies.
Speaking of which, did anybody see the recent “Dirty Jobs” episode on the rendering plant? lol
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 9:57 am
I got bit a couple times by the red light camera on Mannheim and Roosevelt. And you know what? It made me a better driver. I no longer make rolling stops at any intersection (even those not monitored).
I actually don’t understand the objection to the municipalities using them as cash cows. Every dime they raise from these gadgets is less they have to raise through taxes and fees. If the lottery is a tax on the innumerate then red light cameras are just a tax on the careless drivers.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 11:25 am
We realize the Daily Herald is down to a part time edit page editor and is devoting less and less to doing editorials, but this seems like a prime time nominee for the DumberthanaBoxofRox Award.
The don’t like the public meeting that exposes the Duffy Fraud…They don’t like the private meeting
Then they write…”…House legislators should approve a bill that requires a history of red-light-related crashes before a camera is approved for an intersection by one state agency. That same agency also should be required to keep a searchable, public database so repeat offenders can be tracked. Requiring proof of a history of red-light-related crashes before cameras go up will address the widespread concern that they are more about generating revenue than improving safety….”
So we need a state agency or bureau in the SOS, State Police, IDOT or ????? to track this stuff
THe DH must think someone wiggles their nose and all the stuff goes on-line
Give us a break
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 11:38 am
It is a bit ironic that many will support the red light cameras but rail against the state for their draconian laws about helmets and seatbelts.
=Every dime they raise from these gadgets is less they have to raise through taxes and fees=
Problem is, these municipalities then count on this revenue and make it part of the day to day income. If people actually change their driving habits then the city has to find new revenue to make up for the lost revenue they became addicted to due to better drivers. That hand in your pocket is grabbing what is left of your income to pay for it. Make the connection, people.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 11:42 am
The biggest question about red light camera’s is intent. Is the goal compliance with the law or just simply another revenue stream?
Comment by anon Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 11:44 am
Red lite cameras are designed to turn the green for municipalities and private camera companies. Towns often give back as much as 50% of the ticket revenue to the camera companies.
It is a meanspirited and cynical way to raise money.
Safety has NOTHING to do with it.
Comment by jaded voter Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 12:48 pm
=I actually don’t understand the objection to the municipalities using them as cash cows. Every dime they raise from these gadgets is less they have to raise through taxes and fees.=
An ardent defense, but neglects to note that Schaumburg(Bolingbrook too?) actually removed their cameras because retailers complained about the reduction in transactions.
They are cash cows that is for sure. But Townships have set up all sorts of commerce traps to draw revenue before and what has it done for them? People avoid them.
Comment by Brennan Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 1:23 pm
In the real world, red light cameras hasn’t been a godsend. Studies have indicated an increase in traffic accidents due to wary drivers braking too soon, drivers hesitating during left turns on yellow lights, rear end collisions are higher due to these cameras, and traffic is passing through these intersections at a slower speed, causing more traffic congestion.
If you want all that, then go ahead and use red light cameras. If you think the most important function of government regarding transportation is to collect as much money as possible, then your priorities are out of order. Collecting cash but endangering lives isn’t the right thing to do.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 2:28 pm
The independent studies that have been done on red-light running cameras (Virginia and North Carolina amongst others) have shown that installing red-light running cameras actually DECREASE safety. This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue.
Comment by Ghost of John Brown Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 2:33 pm
Is the Daily Herald taking the position that any conversation regarding legislation that includes a lobbyist should be public, or that lobbyists shouldn’t be included in meetings regarding legislation? These types of meetings take place along with public meetings (AKA hearings). The lobbyists are there to represent the industries that are regulated by legislation. Why don’t we just take all lobbyists out and publicly stone them and be done with it already.
Comment by agree with walter Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 3:48 pm