Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Ticket quota prohibition runs into opposition
Next Post: *** LIVE SESSION COVERAGE ***
Posted in:
* Rick Pearson at the Tribune takes a look at the claim made by Bruce Rauner’s wife Diana that she’s a Democrat…
Since 1995, 77 percent of the more than $500,000 she’s given has gone to Republican candidates and causes, federal and state records show. […]
But state campaign finance records show that since 2009, when Bruce Rauner first contemplated and then rejected making a 2010 bid for governor, Diana Rauner made $238,150 in political donations, with 91 percent going to GOP candidates or conservative groups.
Among federal donations during that time frame, Diana Rauner gave $158,800 to candidates and committees, with 98 percent to Republicans. Several of the donations occurred when Bruce Rauner gave similar-size contributions to the same candidates.
* The Rauner campaign’s response…
spokesman Mike Schrimpf said Diana Rauner “voted Democrat throughout the last decade and every time for Barack Obama” on the statewide ballot.
“If that doesn’t make you a Democrat, I don’t know what does,” Schrimpf said in a statement.
Except she didn’t vote in the 2012 primary, when Obama ran for reelection and she contributed to three GOP presidential candidates, including Mitt Romney. She also didn’t vote in the 2010 primary, the last time Gov. Pat Quinn faced voters.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:06 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Ticket quota prohibition runs into opposition
Next Post: *** LIVE SESSION COVERAGE ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rauner Crew,
You make the “wife” a Prop, expect someone to look into the reality of the Prop.
I have been racking my brain to think of a candidate who hid his/her spouse for a Primary, even throwing that spouse under the bud at times, and then rolled out the Prop as an asset, that now needs to be defended.
Maybe Bill/Hillary Rodham?
No one better go down the road that Mrs. Rauner is now a victim. Geez Louise, Mrs. Rauner is an overt strategy.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:12 am
You can tell what ballot someone pulls in a primary, you don’t know who they vote for in the general.
Comment by Not sure Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:15 am
Maybe Pearson is making the case that Mrs. Rauner is a great example of a Raunerite, but this time disguised as a Democrat?
That would be fun…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:16 am
What a foolish move by the Rauner campaign. Right out of the gate you put your wife publicly out there saying “she’s a Democrat” when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise. Now, he and she look like gross exaggerators–if not worse. And now public shots can be made against BR’s wife because she and Bruce put herself out there.
Good start to the political week for Quinn.
Comment by Oh My Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:16 am
Not a fan or Rauner, but what is the statewide turnout for the primary? I know lots of Ds & Rs that do not vote in the primary. If you want to make the point that she is really a R, you should probably try to come up with better evidence than “she did not vote in the primary”.
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:20 am
This campaign is in deep you know what if they just wasted a great political ad by ignoring the facts.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:20 am
She gave money to Romney’s campaign then voted for Obama? Interesting strategy. Maybe Obama was better in the debates than I realized.
Comment by Chi Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:21 am
Like nailing jello to the wall.
Comment by In the Middle Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:22 am
I voted for JBT against Blagojevich and Rutherford for Treasurer last election. Does this make me a Republican when I voted and contributed to Democrats in all other elections?
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:24 am
**I voted for JBT against Blagojevich and Rutherford for Treasurer last election. Does this make me a Republican when I voted and contributed to Democrats in all other elections?**
Did you also make hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions, with 3/4 of it going to Republicans?
Comment by NotPurple Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:29 am
Running a business involves making claims with some — pardon the Hawk Harrelson reference — stretch.
It wasn’t as bad as the claims in big pharma ads, though big pharma ads have plenty of disclaimers and fine print.
Quinn could counter by running some ads with Obama Girl.
Comment by Hans Sanity Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:30 am
What’s going on seems pretty evident to me
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:30 am
Did Rauner max out his individual contribution limits to the candidates that Diana gave to?
That could be a simple, though legally awkward answer here. She’s a Democrat but he asked her, “You mind if I funnel some more contributions through you to these candidates?” and she said, “Sure.”
It’s not an uncommon practice among the super-rich.
Comment by ZC Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:32 am
As good as the Rauner campaign was during the primary, they seem to be stumbling badly now post-primary.
Ruling out the millionaires tax, but not ruling out a tax on retirement income?
Now this?
Both were unforced errors.
The first solidified the view that Rauner favors the 1% over the rest of us.
The second solidified the view that Rauner can’t be trusted to tell the truth even on the most basic matters. He’s just another politician.
Team Rauner really needs to stop campaigning for a few weeks and spend that time sorting out the message.
This is starting to look at Bill Brady 2010 all over again.
Comment by Smoggie Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:35 am
Help me understand this family. SHE is a dem, who gives hundreds of thousands, mainly to republicans. HE is a republican, who gives hundreds of thousands, to dems.
Rauner explained that you give to politicians, in order gain access. So you can talk about education reform, the principals list, or doubling your allocation of millions in pension money.
But thats not corrupt. Just an aw shucks outsider tryin to do good. Got it.
Comment by Langhorne Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:36 am
Well lets see on the one hand I have heard people complain, yep that is the right term, that she is a Democrat. Even read that here more than a few times from folks explaining why you shouldn’t vote for Bruce because she had given to Dems..
Now, she isn’t a Democrat?
Can we make up our mind people…
http://republicannewswatch.com/wp/?p=12856
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-09-18/tom-kacich-rauner-voted-dem-primary-06-gave-money-dems.html
Comment by OneMan Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:37 am
Agree with Smoggie. It’s almost like they fell in love with the idea of the ad and thus ignored the reality. And now they may have a bigger mess on their hands than they need…
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:39 am
=== spokesman Mike Schrimpf said Diana Rauner “voted Democrat … blah blah blah … If that doesn’t make you a Democrat, I don’t know what does” ===
Hey, Schrimpf — if you don’t know how Democrats talk, how do you know what makes somebody a Democrat?
Comment by olddog Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:40 am
You can call yourself anything you want. I think it’s fair to say that the Rauners are long-time generous supporters of the established Illinois political class.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:41 am
Peel back another layer on the Rauner campaign, find out what they say is not what they have done. Rinse and repeat .
Comment by Roadiepig Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:41 am
If there’s a story here, I’m still in search of it. It’s hard to imagine anyone would think Mrs. Rauner isn’t a Democrat. It’s even dopey. You are what you say you are. OW says he’s a Republican. Look at his posts. I don’t doubt him. He says so. I’ve known lots of people who have maxed out in their own name, their spouse’s name and their adult children’s name. Campaign Finance Reform has made this rather chic. No story here. She’s a Dem.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:45 am
- OneMan -,
That is where the “hiding” of being a Raunerite is masked;
You claim allegiance to one of the political parties, but really you are an insider to whomever can help a Raunerite.
How about this;
Mrs. Rauner has given to Dems at a 6-figure pace because of get belief in Democratic ideals, but gave to Republicans because of causes Mrs. Rauner believed in to only get access to those decision-makers.
Sound familiar?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:45 am
What other republicans is she voting for this year? Oberwide?
Comment by William j Kelly Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:45 am
When I was growing up, if you didn’t vote in the last two Democratic primaries you couldn’t get a garbage can from your precinct captain or a jury summons taken care of.
Therefore, she’s not a Democrat.
Comment by gesquire Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:47 am
===OW says he’s a Republican. Look at his posts. I don’t doubt him. He says so.===
I am. It’s not up for discussion. I “own” My Party, for better or worse.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:47 am
Good to see Rauner treats everything in his life like he bought it for $18
Comment by Nonplussed Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:48 am
OW, hidden right there on the Board of Elections website. No one will find it there. lol.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:49 am
@Chi:
Some Republicans opposed Romney because it defused the Obamacare issue since Governor Romney signed a healthcare law in Massachusetts.
What alarms me is how much money Mrs. Rauner has given to Personal Pac, a campaign committee that worked hard to defeat Bill Brady in 2010.
Comment by Upon Further Review Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:49 am
I always just assumed she was a member of the white wine and brie wing of my party. She’s not? Then why was she kept hidden until primary night?
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:49 am
OneMan, for people like OW who hold personal grudges against Rauner and/or his staff, and union posters whose job it is to spin any and every news story against Rauner any way possible, the answer is obviously no..,consistentcy and logic have no place in their arguments.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:51 am
Just another example that neither one belongs to any organized political party, they are just Raunerites whose only core belief is that Rauner should be Governor…but who knows what will happen if the dog catches the car??? God help us all!
Comment by D.P.Gumby Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:53 am
Let’s see: Tio’s spouse, Pat Q’s spouse, Dan R’s spouse, didn’t see any of them (at least 2 don’t exist. Just don’t know about Tio.
Mrs. Brady, rarely saw her this time around. Didn’t see her much in the last primary either. Heck, didn’t even see him until election night. Mrs. Dillard, saw a lot of her. Charming lady. She’s the only one I saw out there.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:53 am
A guy: Tio’s wife is the one with a black eye. http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/23334995-452/tio-hardimans-wife-says-she-wasnt-punched-but-was-verbally-abused-mitchell.html
Comment by Nonplussed Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:56 am
@Upon Further Review
“Some Republicans opposed Romney because it defused the Obamacare issue since Governor Romney signed a healthcare law in Massachusetts.”
Giving Romney money is a novel way of opposing him
Comment by Chi Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:56 am
==== Nonplussed - Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 10:56 am:
A guy: Tio’s wife is the one with a black eye. http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/23334995-452/tio-hardimans-wife-says-she-wasnt-punched-but-was-verbally-abused-mitchell.html====
Nonplussed, Ouch.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:00 am
I beleive Bill Cellini was also known for his Dem political contributions.
This opens up the whole debate between whats a liberal republican v a blue dog democrat etc.
Both parties overlap in the middle. let’s just say the Ms. Rauner contributed to canidates who she thought would support her social and economic views, and that tended to be republicans.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:01 am
They have so much money it’s irrelevant what party they say they belong to.
Comment by gesquire Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:01 am
@Chi:
Some Democrats wanted Romney as their presidential opponent in Fall. He was seen as easier to defeat.
Comment by Upon Further Review Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:02 am
Anonymous
Well, I don’t agree with you on that one. Yep, there is a group here if they saw Rauner’s dog walk across water would complain that his dog can’t swim, true enough. Also the opposition to Rauner for some comes from personal economic interests (perhaps the most logical reason to be against a candidate IMHO).
My comment was intended (and like they often do, failed) to be somewhat funny.
on either side.
Oneman’s Republican is another’s RINO (in fact I think some would call OneMan a RINO since I am ambivalent at best on social issues) and so on.
Comment by OneMan Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:06 am
She’s not a Democrat and they invented a story that will prove embarrassing when the public finds out. Have they figured out that they aren’t making a movie where they can control all aspects of what’s seen?
Comment by Aldyth Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:07 am
Interesting move by the Rauner team, if they are bringing in his wife, to promote his candidacy. Nailing him for bribing his daughter into Walter Payton Prep is fair game for the Quinn campaign.
Comment by Almost the Weekend Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:07 am
Two drivers seem at work: give to Personal PAC and other groups because they fight for (usually Democratic) issues you believe in, and give to others because they might fight to help your husband, whom you also believe in.
Comment by Walker Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:08 am
According to DP, if you’re not tied and committed hand and foot to a party, you must be corrupt. There are a lot of such “corrupt” voters in this State
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:08 am
@Upon Further Review
Which Democrats, other than Mrs. Rauner, gave Romney money so he would be the nominee because he was easiest to defeat?
Once we have that group of Dems identified, what is the subset of Dems that also gave to two other GOP candidates in the same race?
Comment by Chi Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:11 am
The choice to put Diana Rauner in a prominent role now is simply part of a run to the center. She was not featured during the primary so as not to rile the anti-abortion folks.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:13 am
===OW, hidden right there on the Board of Elections website. No one will find it there. lol.===
===Except she didn’t vote in the 2012 primary, when Obama ran for reelection and she contributed to three GOP presidential candidates, including Mitt Romney. She also didn’t vote in the 2010 primary, the last time Gov. Pat Quinn faced voters.===
Yep. And so does the looking and finding of donations to “Career Politicians” of both parties. I am excited you are learning about facts. Good on you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:14 am
lol Wasn’t there talk last week about the Rauner camp adopting Kirk’s ‘winning” strategy? Well, here it is. I’m becoming more and more surprised that those who follow what’s going on even somewhat closely bother to vote–though I respect the fact that we still do.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:15 am
Who cares. I think it’s pretty pathetic if somebody is making their decision on who to vote for based on the party affiliation of the spouse.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:16 am
===She was not featured during the primary so as not to rile the anti-abortion folks.===
Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:18 am
“Who cares. I think it’s pretty pathetic if somebody is making their decision on who to vote for based on the party affiliation of the spouse.”
It goes to integrity. We don’t know Bruce Rauner, he hasn’t been a public official with a track record we can look at. He is controlling his message 100% and is not being honest.
Comment by Chi Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:19 am
–Some Democrats wanted Romney as their presidential opponent in Fall. He was seen as easier to defeat.–
LOL, name one. Easier than who? Santorum? Newt? Bachman?
That’s one of the wackiest things I’ve read in a while. Romney was clearly the strongest general election candidate in that field. He lost months having to go on a crazy death march with a bunch of egomaniacal mediocrities.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:19 am
Demoralized, the political party of the spouse ordinarily would not matter.
Lying about it though?
Rauner’s claim is that he’s an independent outsider.
This makes him look like just another politician willing to say anything.
Team Rauner made it an issue, and then they blew it.
It is an unforced error that may cause some lasting damage.
Comment by Smoggie Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:19 am
= He is controlling his message 100% and is not being honest.’=
Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:21 am
===Who cares. I think it’s pretty pathetic if somebody is making their decision on who to vote for based on the party affiliation of the spouse.===
I agree. Absolutely.
The “rub” is that Rauner’s Crew,…they did…they made Mrs. Rauner the “Prop”.
They hid Mrs. Rauner, then rolled out Mrs.Rauner to reinforce the narrative. Strategically, her absence and appearance makes her up for discussion. As the Rauner Crew points to her, specifically, to soften and moderate the Candidate, Mrs. Rauner now faces scrutiny like any “asset” a campaign points to as a reason why to support a candidate.
Mrs. Rauner is not a victim here, or when she was thrown under the bus in the Primary, unless she is a victim of a strategy(?)
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:23 am
@Smoggie:
Who lied? She said she’s a Democrat. I’m not going to question it. And again, WHO CARES?
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:24 am
The Rauner campaign is taking the 60% of Republicans who did not vote for him in the primary for granted. He is not going to get 90% of Republicans like most nominees do. Pro-lifers will skip the race or vote for the Libertarian before they vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Does anyone think Rutherford’s die hard voters are going to automatically gravitate to Rauner? Some, will but not most.
I get it that any Republican nominee in Illinois needs to get a strong majority of independents and a good helping of Democrats to win. But they also need a solid base of Republicans first. Rauner is arrogantly skipping a step of healing wounds from his negative ads and dirty actions in planting the Rutherford scandal at precisely the best moment for maximum damage. It will bite him the rear end when he sees how successful he was on Election Day in garnering Dem votes and independents but only 70% of Republicans which will not be enough to beat Pat Quinn. Schrimpf was gleeful in his response that Diana Rauner is a Democrat. Yet his credibility is still questioned. Plus he shows no concern whatsoever in unifying Republicans before they start to appeal to Democrats.
Comment by Riley Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:32 am
Does this controversy really look like an important deal breaker in the big scheme of things? Let’s assume that the ad was at least partially shot and worded that way to inoculate her for when later a former colleague or girlfriend “divulges” that Mrs. Rauner voted for Obama. And maybe, just maybe, they also wanted to make the point that sometimes people cross party lines (as Mrs. Rauner apparently does), and if others want to cross traditional party lines this time to vote for Rauner, that’s cool, too.
No offense, but for an elite political blog some folks here today seem to have *real* difficulty understanding how politics works.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:33 am
–Pro-lifers will skip the race or vote for the Libertarian before they vote for a pro-abortion candidate.–
George Ryan was the last GOP officeholder that I can remember that towed the anti-abortion line, and he got wobbly in office.
Other than Ryan, who was the last GOP state officeholder to pass the anti-abortion litmus test?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:37 am
I have to say that I’m going to find this one absolutely intriguing to watch. The obviously flawed yet still perceived as able to somewhat hang onto his integrity “Man of the People” running against the highly-artistically and polished and branded Corporate “product.”
In today’s world, it’s like a twisted Orville Redenbacher v. Robocop (the movie), which I personally think is too bad because Rauner can probably stand on his own without all the artificial “primping” which could easily backfire with the audience he probably needs most.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:40 am
Demoralized,
So it doesn’t matter to you. Noted.
You believer her claim, despite substantial evidence to the contrary. Noted.
For others, the ideas that:
1) “She’s a Democrat and that’s reason for other Democrats to back Rauner” and
2) “She writes roughly $60,000 a year in checks to Republicans”
seem to be at odds.
Demoralized, they MADE her political affiliation an issue. They put her in the ad. They decided it is relevant.
And when they did, they made both Rauners look like two more politicians who will say and do whatever they think it takes to get elected.
Which, of course, is the exact kind of conduct that Rauner claims to be running AGAINST.
Comment by Smoggie Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:41 am
Sorry. That should have been “In today’s world, it’s like a twisted VERSION OF Orville Redenbacher v. Robocop (the movie)….”
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:41 am
- Responsa -,
It’s not even “18th” on the list to support or even oppose the Rauner Campaign.
There was an article, Rich posted the snippet, some other info, and comments were opened. Mrs. Rauner as a mitigating factor either way is not where I am coming from, in my comments. I am looking at this Post, and making comment. Mrs. Rauner’s “story” or narrative to the campaign is what is is. While it “is what it is”, the Rauner Crew made it so, no one else.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:43 am
For the Rauner-ites now claiming that her party affiliation does not matter –
If so, then why did Team Rauner put her party in an odd?
Rauner cannot claim:
1) Her party does not matter; and then
2) Run ads touting her party.
As I noted a few hours ago, they needed to sit down and sort that out before running the ads.
Comment by Smoggie Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:44 am
=No offense, but for an elite political blog some folks here today seem to have *real* difficulty understanding how politics works. =
Yeah. Darn The People for caring about integrity and issues when it comes to making their minds up as to who they want to elect into office. Better to oooh and aaah over who can come up with the most clever and deceiving strategies.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:45 am
I just went to fec.gov and looked up Diana Rauner’s contribution patterns. And … it’s a lot more mixed than Rick Pearson’s story might lead you to believe.
As Pearson writes, “Since 1995, 77 percent of the more than $500,000 she’s given has gone to Republican candidates and causes, federal and state records show.”
I’m sure that stat is true, but Pearson must be mixing in the individual contributions -alongside- the far larger legally-permitted donations to the IL Republican party in general. That’s certainly fair to do, mind; it’s all money.
But since 1995 “Diana Rauner in Winnetka” has also given to EMILY’s List. She’s given to Evan Bayh. She gave to Sara Feigenholtz and to Bill Foster. She gave to Melissa Bean, Tammy Duckworth and Barack Obama (in 2004). She gave to Amy Klobuchar and to Dan Seals, and to John Kerry and to Claire McCaskill. From 2010-12 she gave $2,900 to Jan Schakowsky.
A hard-core right-winger, she appears not to be.
Comment by ZC Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:52 am
I’m Pro-life and I am voting for Quinn or in a more accurate way, I should say that I’m voting against Brucey Bruce.
Comment by Johnson's Corner Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:53 am
Riley is right–rauner is taking for granted those repubs who didnt vote for him. I am against rauner for any number of reasons. I can never vote for PQ, for a different assortment of reasons. So, i am permanently on the sidelines, unless and until rauner shows himself to be a canidate capable of carrying out the job of gov.
No big deal for a dog to walk on water, as long as its frozen. Maybe i will write in his dog.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:55 am
===No big deal for a dog to walk on water, as long as its frozen.===
You can’t freeze a dog. They’d lock you up for cruelty.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:01 pm
I don’t think Rauner and his wife are any political party - they are for themselves. Why do Rauner and his wife give heavily to both parties? Because it suits their personal interests. I’ve heard many say they’ve never seen Bruce Rauner at a GOP event until this year. Now he just sponsors all of them so he can be the keynote speaker. He did that at the tribute to Don Manzullo. He didn’t say a word about manzullo - he just talked about himself.
Comment by Justsayin Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:02 pm
Responsa, welcome to Capitol Fax. Haven’t seen you around these parts before. Here’s the deal: Your guy Rauner, made a TV ad. The ad was designed to sway public opinion towards him. It turned out that he was less than honest in that ad. So, in a sense, he lied in order to garner votes. Is that not a big deal? Do you not see it as a big deal?
Oh, one last thing. Probably not a good idea to bad mouth Capitol Fax or its readers. Since you’re new here I’ll let you in on a little secret: This is the place for those “in the know” in Illinois government / politics gather. So, maybe you should change your tone. Thanks.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:02 pm
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:02 pm:
Sorry, this was me.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:03 pm
=== Haven’t seen you around these parts before. ===
Responsa has been around for years.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:03 pm
I know many Pro-lifers and some are sitting it out, some are voting for Quinn, some are voting for Brucey Bruce, some are voting write-in, and some are voting for a third party candidate.
There are no good choices for us Pro-lifers but I am voting for Quinn because of other issues.
I would like to see a Pro-lifer come along who also agrees with me on other issues but I don’t think that we will have that for many years but I do have faith that it will again happen someday.
Comment by Johnson's Corner Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:04 pm
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:03 pm:
=== Haven’t seen you around these parts before. ===
Responsa has been around for years.
I know, sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic. Clearly I failed.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:06 pm
This is much ado about nothing. Didn’t you people learn your lesson when questioning whether Obama was “Christian” enough?
Pathetic.
Comment by Reader Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:07 pm
=Maybe i will write in his dog. =
Is his dog honest and will he be loyal to The People v. “the consultant” who some might see as often being tightly “integrated” with the political crowd Rauner wants to shake up and “drive nuts?”
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:07 pm
Sorry. “…the consultants….” Plural.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:08 pm
I agree with justsayin 12:02 pm
Thanks for sayin what I was thinking.
Comment by Johnson's Corner Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:10 pm
–ZC - Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:52 am:==
Thanks for posting this very interesting and revealing information about Mrs. Rauner. Wonder if it will alter any views on the subject by people who called raising her politics up front a self inflicted error, or a “deceiving strategy” by the campaign.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:13 pm
=You can’t freeze a dog. They’d lock you up for cruelty. =
lol Good one, 47th.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:19 pm
@Schnorf:
Me too.
To the post:
=== Yet Yepsen said Rauner’s latest ad may escape criticism from Quinn and Democrats precisely because it features the Republican candidate’s wife. ===
Agreed. I predicted this ad a month ago for this very reason. Quinn doesn’t win by kicking suburban women out of the party.
Plus, you attack Rauner’s Democratic credentials, and you get Rev. Meeks coming to her defense: Meeks, an independent, turned Democrat, now supporting a Republican for governor.
Neither Schnorf nor I are willing to overlook the key line in the story:
=== Diana Rauner is president of the Ounce of Prevention Fund, a group advocating early childhood services, particularly for at-risk families, and she takes no salary. ===
Lightbulbs.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:20 pm
I run as an Independent-can’t vote in caucus, but vote in Republican primaries-every time. That makes me a Republican. Mrs. Rauner doesn’t vote in primaries-that makes her (at best) an “independent”, but in reality, a “nothing”.
You don’t vote in primaries, you are not a member of any party; this is based on the reality that if you don’t vote at all, your opinion doesn’t count. (And yes, I have been known to pull registered voter lists to check out people).
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:37 pm
Yep…Rauners’ are driving us nuts…
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 12:56 pm
Rauner’s “sexy second wife” claims to be pro-choice, but she’s dolled out hundreds of thousand of dollars in the past two weeks to anti-choice Tea Party Republicans.
Republican Rauner is as phony as his Democrat wife given he made Democrat insider Rahm Emmanual an instant millionaire. What the guy really is is an OPPORTUNIST.
Comment by DateNight Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:01 pm
===== wordslinger - Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 11:37 am:
–Pro-lifers will skip the race or vote for the Libertarian before they vote for a pro-abortion candidate.–
George Ryan was the last GOP officeholder that I can remember that towed the anti-abortion line, and he got wobbly in office.
Other than Ryan, who was the last GOP state officeholder to pass the anti-abortion litmus test?=====
Rutherford.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:03 pm
@Smoggie:
You can care about it. That’s fine. I don’t. I think it’s utterly ridiculous that this is even a topic of conversation. But people always need something to get their dander up. If this is that issue that’s fine. I continue to think it’s stupid. And I don’t even like Rauner . . .
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:04 pm
Didn’t take me long to forget about Rutherford, lol.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:05 pm
==You believer her claim, despite substantial evidence to the contrary==
I also wasn’t aware there was some rule about associating with a political party. I consider myself to be a Democrat generally but that doesn’t stop me from supporting Republicans sometime. I guess that makes me not a Democrat in your eyes.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:06 pm
=== What’s going on seems pretty evident to me ===
I agree. However, I can’t guarantee that Steve’s “what’s” is the same “what’s” that I’m thinking of.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:06 pm
While we’re clearing this up, did we ever clear up Mr. Vallas’s situation after leaving the Democratic Party in 2010? - https://capitolfax.com/2013/11/14/vallas-brother-quinn-2010-loss-would-have-restored-democracy-to-illinois/
If we’re going to analyze a candidate’s wife, we might as well analyze a candidate’s running mate with equal scrutiny.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:13 pm
Hey Rick Pearson, Jack Roesser wants his Schtick back.
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:15 pm
–While we’re clearing this up, did we ever clear up Mr. Vallas’s situation after leaving the Democratic Party in 2010?–
Yes. Status: Needs a job.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:20 pm
=== Yes. Status: Needs a job. ===
Classic. And hilariously true.
It’s going to be interesting to see how they explain his comments and actions back then as being supportive of Quinn. I suppose all this post-primary analysis of Rauner’s wife and certainly on Vallas next will help make for good popcorn theater through November.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:29 pm
The Pearson story is eminently fair and newsworthy.
Since part of the Rauner campaign strategy is to have his wife go on TV and say “I’m a Democrat” it’s appropriate to examine the record.
That ain’t hardball, folks.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:35 pm
Date night
Pro-lifers don’t consider a baby’s life a choice. However, many of us are respectful of the people who don’t agree with us.
You probably only believe in choice when it comes to Abortion but want us to have no freedoms in any other aspects of our life’s.
Hostility from people like you is why I don’t consider myself a Democrat anymore.
People can disagree without being disagreeable. I can say things about people who disagree with me on abortion but I don’t unless they are full of venum for us.
There is no reason to reargue the issue because neither of us will change our minds. Instead, we can just agree to disagree without using talking point words.
Comment by Johnson's Corner Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:36 pm
She’s not a Democrat. The data here indicates that. You don’t donate 90% of your $$ to Republicans, not vote in Democrat primaries, and then be a Democrat. Stating it on a commercial doesn’t make you one. Actions mean more than words.
Rauner would be wise to drop this before it becomes a really big campaign issue - and he’s forced to do or say something that’ll get him in hot water in the public and at home.
Comment by Left Leaner Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:37 pm
Democrats by and large are very generous. By the way how many guys really know how their wife votes?
Comment by Mokenavince Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:45 pm
Oh, dear. So I did some more quick FEC numbers. This does not look good for the Baron.
I’m excluding candidates for President here, and political parties. Just looking at -all- federal Republicans on the FEC webpage, House and Senate: Diana Rauner maxed out a federal individual limits contribution to the following GOP candidates: John Chachas, Robert Schilling, Mark Kirk, Jack Ryan, Robert Dold, Peter Roskam, Aaron Schock, Rob Portman, Dennis Rehberg.
For each of those federal candidates, on the -exact- same day Diana gave (this all again according to FEC records), Bruce Rauner made an identical maxed-out contribution. Again, this is all public info on fec.gov, it only takes a few minutes to collaborate this.
What’s more damning, is the list of GOP candidates that Bruce gave to, but Diana didn’t: Norm Coleman, Mitch McConnell, Ted Stevens, Peter Fitzgerald. The difference here? In none of these cases did he give a maxed-out gift that hit his individual limits.
So to recap, there is really quite compelling circumstantial evidence that Rauner used his wife as a funnel whenever he wished to channel additional $$ above and beyond the legal contribution limits to a favored GOP candidate. Which is of course … illegal. But good luck ever proving it.
What’s amusing in this case of course is Rauner’s whole campaign pledge - “my wife is a Democrat!” - is precisely what he should _not_ be saying, if the FEC ever decided to investigate this (and it won’t). I am now convinced that Diana Rauner probably is a Democrat. I’m also convinced that, yet again, Rauner thinks that little things like contribution limits are for the little people.
Comment by ZC Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:48 pm
Formerly Known As:
When Vallas starts running ads about being a life-long Democrat, that will matter.
But seriously, why do you find this so confusing?
Try to follow:
1) Typically, nobody would care about Rauner’s wife’s political party;
2) RAUNER made an ad talking about her political party;
3) Now that RAUNER made it an issue, people care.
Is it really all that complex?
Comment by Smoggie Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:48 pm
Word, no worries. Vallas has a job back “home.”
He’s gonna be a “part-time consultant” for John Filan’s company.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:50 pm
Any person participating in the campaign at that level is certainly subject to some scrutiny. The similar pieces on Vallas should be equally interesting following his recent return to Illinois.
Rauner probably would have appreciated this story more before the primary, lol… back when his wife was generally being portrayed as a liberal Democrat by many and being cast as a reason to vote against Rauner in pieces like the Shearer mailer that hit on her support for Personal PAC, Emily’s List and indirectly for helping Cheri Bustos in “defeating a good Republican”, etc.
It’s going to be an interesting 6 months, even if neither candidate is particularly “good”.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:51 pm
By the way, I was visiting one of my sisters ten years ago and she told me that she was pregnant. I immediately got up congratulated her and gave her a kiss. She started to cry. She did not want another child.
She knows my opinion on the abortion issue so I was shocked that she told me about the pregnancy. I told her that I would love her no matter what and she told me that she knew that and that is why she told me. She was worried and did not decide what she was going to do yet. I did not preach to her but preyed so hard that she would not abort the child.
She called our Mom months later to tell her about being pregnant. I knew then that the child was safe. My niece, her only daughter after having two boys, just turned nine.
I love my sister and would still have no matter what. This is why she told me about the pregnancy when she knows that I am Pro-life. Pro-life is not about judging people. It is about the child.
I know many people on both sides of the issue and we respect each other.
Comment by Johnson's Corner Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 1:52 pm
Left Leaner:
The $200K of Rauner money donated via Diana Rauner over the past four years is chump change for the Rauners.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of one-tenth of one percent of their net income.
To assume it defines Diana Rauner’s political ideology is absurd.
She was a liberal Democrat when Bruce Rauner was running in the primary, she is still a liberal Democrat, and arguing that she is not a Democrat is not going to help get Quinn elected.
It is Diana Rauner’s credibility you are attacking, not her husband’s, and that is a mistake.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 2:06 pm
–To assume it defines Diana Rauner’s political ideology is absurd.–
So you give money to people you disagree with? Who does that, and why?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 2:14 pm
>> So you give money to people you disagree with? Who does that, and why?
When it’s not your money nor your interest in the first place. Bruce was really giving her “contributions” (my theory). She was just the conduit, because he wasn’t legally permitted to give any more.
Comment by ZC Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 2:23 pm
To clarify once more however: I’m sure of course she does have money (she’s given to Democrats too, as I note above) and if Rauner just happened to ask her, “Would you mind contributing to X Republican?” then probably under any legal test these days, no one’s going to prosecute if she said, “Sure.” It wasn’t duress or anything. She was voluntarily choosing to do her husband a favor, by giving in her name. But that would count under the law. It’s not like she was Rauner’s employee (one of the only times funnelling gets prosecuted).
Does that make her a Republican? Not really, I don’t think so; I think it makes her a wife doing a favor for her husband. But it’s again a small window into how easy it is to circumvent all these laws, if you’re in the .01 echelon.
Comment by ZC Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 2:30 pm
Smoggie:
It’s not complex at all.
Before the primary, she was widely regarded as a liberal Democrat based upon her personal identification, voting record, years of active leadership in groups like Personal PAC and Emily’s List, and her lengthy history of donations to everyone from the DCCC and John Kerry to Dan Seals and Jan Schakowsky.
For these same reasons, she was even attacked by some as a reason to distrust and oppose the Baron in the primary. For example, according to the Shearer mailer:
“His wife—who would become Illinois’ First Lady if Rauner won—is radically pro-abortion.
For years she has been a pro-abortion rights activist with leading roles in Emily’s List and Personal PAC. She has donated many thousands of dollars of the Rauner’s money to both of those pro-abortion organizations.
The focus of this primary is overwhelmingly about the candidates rather than their families, but many voters realize that the person who speaks to that candidate most frequently has a tremendous amount of influence. Diana Rauner’s radical pro-abortion activism is therefore a significant concern to consider.
It should also be known that Emily’s List was one of the largest benefactors of Democrat Cheri Bustos in the 2012 election when she ran to unseat Congressman Bobby Schilling. Emily’s List was instrumental in helping Bustos defeat Schilling. So the Rauner’s money helped defeat a good Republican Congressman.”
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 2:34 pm
Well, no matter what party they belong to, it is “in name only.”
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 4:00 pm
Diana is a Democrat. Ten years ago, Bruce described her as an “activist Democrat.” Go back longer than this election cycle and her pattern of giving and activism is pretty clear. No ifs ands or buts about it. She also is someone who was trying to help her hubby ingratiate himself with the GOP and apparently wrote some big checks.
It’s kind of craven, but it doesn’t make her a Republican.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 4:22 pm
Dear Johnson,
For years Dianne Rauner been radically pro-abortion with leading roles in Emily’s List and Personal PAC. Dianne has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to both of those pro-abortion organizations.
To get Emily’s List and Personal PAC’s endorsement a candidate has to be so extremely pro-abortion that they must favor legal abortion with NO restrictions through the end of the ninth-month. Being pro-choice but favoring a couple reasonable restrictions is a dis-qualifier. Both organizations are stridently uncompromising and doctrinaire.
It should also be known that Emily’s List was
one of the largest benefactors of Democrat
Cheri Bustos in the 2012 election when she ran
to unseat pro-life, loyal Republican Congressman Bobby Schilling. Emily’s List was instrumental in helping Bustos defeat Schilling. So Dianne Rauner’s money has already helped defeat a good pro-life Republican Congressman.
I wonder who Dianne Rauner is for this time, pro-choice Democrat Bustos, or anti-choice Republican Schilling?
Comment by DateNight Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 5:07 pm
Wordslinger:
Exactly what ZC said.
See the bold in my first post.
Diane Rauner earns no salary as the CEO of Ounce of Prevention Fund.
The checks she is “writing” come from the “joint account.”
I am not the least bit surprised that ZC found matching contributions from Bruce Rauner to the same candidates on the days that Diana Rauner contributed.
She is a liberal Democrat. And the contributions being made are perfectly legal.
And Team Quinn cannot attack her for it because there are probably gazoodles of couples that did the same thing in contributing to Barack Obama. Probably some that did the same in giving to Quinn.
Unless they want to have what happened to Poshard happen to them: make campaign finance an issue and then have every tiny slip-up by your finance team end up as a front page story.
I would not advise it. Every day wasted talking about Diana Rauner is a day you will never get back.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 5:15 pm
@Date Night:
So don’t vote for Mrs. Rauner. Oh, wait . . . she’s not running. Maybe somebody can clue me in on what this abortion nonsense being posted here has to do with anything.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 5:24 pm
@Demoralized:
Social conservatives are still smarting that a nomination for governor doesn’t pass their litmus test.
Happened in 2006 as well, with Topinka.
And of course Jim Edgar.
And hey - George Ryan flipped on them.
I guess they still haven’t gotten the message.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 5:48 pm
The fact is, Bruce Rauner’s second wife,is running ads on tv right now claiming to be a Liberal Democrat. I have also read numerous interviews in which Dianne Rauner claims to be pro-choice, hence the connection. On one hand Dianne Rauner claims to be a Democrat and on the other she claims to be pro-choice, but apparently both hands speak with forked-tongues. The point is Demoralized, Dianne Rauner is neither a Democrat, nor pro-choice and instead a teller of tale tales.
Dianne Rauner is know Brenda Edgar!
Comment by DateNight Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 5:57 pm
Ouch! So the RAUners are even fake when they’re trying to attract disaffected Democrats, ey?! She might’ve voted for Barack Obama, but, cmon Brucie, Billionaire$ like you know that what REALLY counts from rich folks like you is that when ya TRULY believe in some Cause (ahem, the Mrs.), you “put your MONEY where your MOUTH is!” So that makes the Mrs. either a Hypocrite or a two-faced Double Crosser to Democrats–when the FACTS show, as Rick Pearson objectively points out, that anywhere from 91 to 98 PERCENT of your “money” went to help RePUBlicans!! Geez, LouISE!
So as to this “She’s really a Democrat” gobbledygook garbage talk and silly TV commercials being run, now that we SEE the TRUTH, Brucie, unless you want to conTINue to conTINue to be openly pinponted as a Massive Hypocrite in this Race, best to just keep a LID on such baloney from here on out now, Pal…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, Apr 7, 14 @ 7:29 pm
Second wife…forked tongue…we get it.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 8, 14 @ 12:28 am
You guys are something out of Hollywood. For an entire year you banged on the drum telling the world she’s a radical, liberal Democrat. Now, you’re banging the finger cymbals saying she’s a Republican. All because Rick Pearson examined the “giving” pattern of a wealthy couple. Suddenly the Tribune is back to being credible after being a Rauner Rag? Honestly, you need a scorecard to keep up. She’s a Blue Dem as you can get. She’s going to vote for her husband. She loves him. Not exactly “Man bites Dog” here.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Apr 8, 14 @ 8:31 am
–Every day wasted talking about Diana Rauner is a day you will never get back.–
What “days?” Quinn’s not talking about Diana Rauner. And he won’t.
There was an article in the Trib checking out her campaign contributions. If you choose to put yourself out there, that will happen. Not a big deal.
Guy, what’s your problem? Little bitty story about campaign contributions in the public record. And you get hysterical about it.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 8, 14 @ 10:25 am
Wordslinger:
Folks are talking crazy about making this a central message of the Quinn campaign.
I am just saying that is a bad idea.
Now, if the Quinn campaign wants to keep attacking Diana Rauner, so be it.
But I’d note her organization is one of the most prominent supporters of Quinn’s budget.
I think it makes more sense to trumpet that fact than question her integrity.
But hey, what do I know? I’m just the bartender.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 8, 14 @ 11:12 pm