Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Personal PAC protests Rauner women’s health roundtable
Posted in:
* Chris Kennedy was on the Ben Joravsky Show yesterday. Click here for raw audio. Here are a few bits, starting with a question about petition circulating time and his running mate..
CK: We have about 2,000 volunteers around the state, there are about 6,000 donors. But aside from the donors, the 2,000 volunteers are like peppering the office, ready to go. You know can we go out this weekend. So believe me, whatever pressure you think you can put on me during this radio show is not anything like what I’m getting day to day in the office. I think we’ll probably spend an extra day or two on vetting and a couple other issues now and try to do a great job.
Ben: Are there people who’ve turned you down?
CK: I wouldn’t describe it like that. I’d say a relationship is not exactly like a marriage in the traditional sense where one person asks another. It’s more of a partnership that needs to be created, almost like a merger. And that needs to be two willing parties that see in each other something hopeful, and not just synergies in a corporate sort of sense, but in the capacity to create something great for the state and that’s a complicated deal.
* Thoughts on the fallout of Biss/Rosa?…
I think it’s really difficult to be in the arena in politics today, and we ought to cut them a little bit of slack on the enormous pressures that they’re under and the timing, and the fact that they are up against an enormous spender that twists and perverts the natural cycle, and I think as a result of that, people feel they need to make a bigger bet and do something they ordinarily wouldn’t do, and I think that’s what occurred in that relationship. I think you need to have grace under pressure in a situation like this. And I think in states, I can’t remember, fortunately I haven’t looked into it here, there’s this concept of a no-fault divorce, and unfortunately in politics there’s no such thing. You’re going to see it play out for a couple more days, it’s messy, but I think we should all have a little bit of sympathy for their families for what they’re going through as this plays out on the front-page of the paper and the newspapers, and websites and blogs…
* When alluding to an opponent with a lot of money, were you referring to Pritzker, Rauner or both?…
Yeah, well, that’s a good question. I’d say for Democrats the immediate threat is JB Pritzker’s enormous spending. Never before have we had all these mailers and the television ads. Maybe that’s the kind of America people want, and there’s going to be a choice, they can embrace that. Cardinal Cupich said the other day, they interviewed him in one of the papers, I think both the Tribune and the Sun-Times. And they were interesting interviews I thought. And he said, “In a democracy, we get the government we deserve”, and I think he meant that in the nicest possible way, but we’re going to have that choice and we deserve whatever we get after this election. Everybody knows what the choice is.
* On the school funding bill’s private school tuition tax credit…
In my mind, that’s just a clear violation of the state constitution, and, so, then you have to say, well, is it worth it? Did we get enough goodies that we’re willing to live with a violation of the constitution? And I don’t know if that’s ever worth it. I don’t know if that’s ever worth it. The truth is once you abandon the constitution, you abandon the rule of law. Once you abandon the rule of law, you descend into the rule of the jungle. And you abandon this notion, well the Golden Rule I suppose, that do onto others as you’d like them to do onto you, and replace it with Rauner’s Golden Rule which is “He who has the gold makes the rules”, and that’s what has occurred in this funding bill. We’ve allowed the state now to sponsor private, church-run schools. That’s a violation of the constitution.
* He was referring to this section…
SECTION 3. PUBLIC FUNDS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES FORBIDDEN
Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money, or other personal property ever be made by the State, or any such public corporation, to any church, or for any sectarian purpose.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 3:38 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Personal PAC protests Rauner women’s health roundtable
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Classy response on Biss/Rosa from Kennedy. Maybe he understands that “there but for the grace of God go I…”
Comment by Periwinkle Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 3:43 pm
Brevity is not his strong suit.
Comment by TopHatMonocle Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 3:45 pm
=== Yeah, well, that’s a good question. I’d say for Democrats the immediate threat is JB Pritzker’s enormous spending. Never before have we had all these mailers and the television ads. ===
By the time the primary is over Prizker will likely have spent more than Blair Hull but so far he hasn’t so this isn’t unprecedented in a Democratic primary. Also, Blair Hull was beaten.
Comment by The Captain Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 3:47 pm
“Sectarian” can be religious, ideological, political, or philosophical.
Appears the CTU would fit this definition nicely. /s
Comment by cdog Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 3:50 pm
In the last, publicly released, polling, Chris Kennedy leads this field of Democrats… with “15 minute long” answers and no running mate.
Yikes.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 3:51 pm
Yes, classy response on the Biss response…though maybe he doesn’t want to criticize in case the same thing (or worse) happens to him.
So…Many…Words….
Comment by NIU Grad Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 3:51 pm
I do not support what SB 1947 calls the Invest in Kids Act. But I also do not see either an appropriation or payment to a private religious school in the SB 1947. However, the Constitution does also refer to “anything in aid” which could cover or not cover the tax credit provision of the Act depending on the understanding by the courts of the words -anything in aid.
Comment by Rod Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 3:51 pm
The Constitutional language appears to be pretty tight in regards to the new scholarship program and many other programs that have directly or indirectly provided funds to aid sectarian controlled schools.
The google isn’t any help on any state court rulings regarding the issue. Anyone know how the funding for sectarian schools is kosher? Because a court challenge is certainly going to happen.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 3:53 pm
==Ben: Are there people who’ve turned you down?
CK: I wouldn’t describe it like that.==
So, yes.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 3:57 pm
Willy,
I could be wrong, but it feels like you’re trolling the Pritzker campaign to release their poll numbers just so you’ll stop saying 44% (pssst, the poll was two months ago, only head to head and before an awful lot of spending so I can pretty much guarantee he doesn’t).
Comment by Anon0091 Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:02 pm
Yeah, that MAP grant is really propping private colleges and universities up as well. When is someone going to sue on that?
Comment by Phenomynous Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:03 pm
==Anyone know how the funding for sectarian schools is kosher? Because a court challenge is certainly going to happen.==
Case law on the religious clauses of the State Constitution boils down to, as a whole, being read in conjunction with the establishment clause of the US Constitution. Many disagree with those rulings, and I suppose they could be undone, but if the ILSC sticks with its precedent and interprets in line with how the USSC has ruled on similar issues on the Federal level, then this tax credit, and likely even an actual voucher system, would have a decent shot at being upheld.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:03 pm
As for Kennedy’s running mate, there is some benefit to choosing “last”, and it’s likely he’ll do more vetting to avoid a situation like Bliss/Rosa. And, you can only file like 10k signatures, he’ll have no problem getting them.
Comment by DarkHorse Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:04 pm
===I could be wrong, but…===
I just know the last poll, a head to head poll, the last public measurable poll has Kennedy at 44%.
If someone, or some campaign, as petitions begin to circulate for some, feel the need to correct or update, that’s up to them I guess…
… If those are the only numbers out there, then they are.
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:06 pm
Oh man am I getting Pat Quinn flashbacks reading these answers. Shudder.
Comment by Reality Check Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:07 pm
Did Kennedy ever answer the question on whether he thinks the voucher program should be repealed?
I agree that the court challenge is not only a long shot but also time consuming and problematic: it would repeal the whole bill.
Opponents are probably wondering if it isn’t their best move to just let program expire in five years. It will take leadership from the governor to repeal before that time.
Comment by Thomas Paine Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:11 pm
Does anyone know where Chris Kennedy went to law school?
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:13 pm
thanks for posting the text, but after listening for over 20 minutes, I think people actually need to listen to CK to get that this is coming through well. I’m impressed. he has a very soft touch in his conversation. it comes through as sincere and a true Democrat. His treatment of Biss was quite decent. I don’t agree with all his positions, but he’s striking me more and more as the person whose character is welcome in government.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:14 pm
The one thing you definitely have going for you in this case is Cardinal Cupich’s very public involvement in negotiating the bill. That might be enough for the Courts to look at this and turn thumbs down on it.
Comment by Thomas Paine Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:16 pm
-wordslinger-
Yeah, I think there may well be a challenge, but it will have to be very carefully crafted, because there’s a SCOTUS precedent from 2011 upholding tax credits; see Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Wynn. Given the composition of SCOTUS, if such a case were to eventually reach there, it would not have a good chance of success.
Comment by dbk Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:16 pm
DBK, I don’t know from the Arizona Constitution, but that Illinois Constitutional language doesn’t appear to have a lot of wiggle room.
But lawyers and judges certainly do disagree on quite a lot of things.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:18 pm
Just to follow up on my previous comment:
Scholarship tax credit programs are deliberate workarounds, designed to provide the equivalent of school vouchers in states which have some form of the Blaine Amendment, which is what Ill Constitution Section X Article 3 is. The Court’s ruling was quite narrow - plaintiffs could not prove direct harm, and since the state was not directly providing vouchers to fund sectarian education, the program was deemed acceptable, even though the economic result (loss of state revenues through loss of tax intake in the total amount of the credits) was the same.
So: new arguments need to be found. That will be difficult.
Comment by dbk Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:25 pm
Wordslinger,in Board of Education v Bakalis, the ILSC ruled that the provision has the same meaning as whatever the SCOTUS has permitted under the Establishment Clause. This section dates back to the 1870 Constitution, and during the debates in 1970, the decision to keep it was basically based on the notion that “we don’t really know what it means either, but amending it or eliminating it would cause too much of a headache, so we’ll just leave it as is.”
Since then, SCOTUS has generally allowed for a broader interpretation of what is permitted under the establishment clause, putting the plain language of our Constitution in greater conflict with its interpretation.
With that being said, in June the SCOTUS issued a ruling called Trinity Lutheran Church v Missouri which came awfully close to ruling that the language we have in our Constitution is unconstitutional. (36 States have essentially the same language that we have.)
Comment by Juice Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:32 pm
===Anyone know how the funding for sectarian schools is kosher?==
Case law isn’t what you might expect on these issues. From BOE vs. Bakalis, citing intent of the clauses:
“any program which is constitutional under the Federal `establishment’ clause is constitutional under the present wording of ARTICLE VIII, Section 3.” VIII, Sec 3 referred to an identical section of the 1870 Constitution. Bakalis viewed them as the same as the 1970 version, and incorporated previous precedent and interpretation. In other words, using this interpretation, if the Feds allow it, so should Illinois.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Sep 8, 17 @ 4:38 pm