Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - RAGA responds *** Ruiz announces for AG
Next Post: Chris Kennedy warns high-dollar campaigns could mean “the end of American democracy”
Posted in:
* A new twist. From the Tribune…
The Democratic candidates for governor sought to sell themselves to primary voters at a Tuesday night forum in Aurora, but much of the focus was on a guy who wasn’t on the stage: veteran Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, who also heads the Illinois Democratic Party.
State Sen. Daniel Biss and businessman Chris Kennedy ripped Madigan, saying he’s been in office too long and wields too much power. Meanwhile, entrepreneur and philanthropist J.B. Pritzker, who has received the backing of much of the Democratic establishment, declined to say whether it’s time for Madigan to go.
“He’s been around an awful long time,” said Pritzker, who suggested that putting in place term limits on legislative leaders is “an answer to that question.”
Pritzker said he and Madigan agree on some issues, but disagree on others, such as term limits and restrictions on the influence of politics when drawing legislative boundaries. […]
Biss contended Madigan’s grip has not only hurt Illinois but also prevented Democrats from pushing for progressive policies, saying it was “time for him to go.” Kennedy raised concerns about Madigan owning a property tax appeals law firm while also overseeing laws relating to property taxes, which are the primary source of education funding in Illinois.
* More from the Sun-Times…
Pritzker, who has had to fight off ties to Madigan, said there are issues he doesn’t agree with the speaker on. He said he favors independently drawn legislative maps and leadership term limits. He called himself an “independent progressive leader” and said that wouldn’t change should he win.
Pushed on whether the speaker has been around “too long,” Pritzker pointed to term limits as the answer to the question.
“There’s no chance I’m going to be working for the speaker,” Pritzker said.
* Kane County Chronicle…
“I don’t think that what Speaker Madigan is doing is illegal, I just think it should be,” Kennedy said. “He’s a state rep and he’s a property tax appeals lawyer. The problem with that is that it leads to us holding on to a system where we fund our schools through property taxes.”
Kennedy later added, “Mike Madigan makes money on a system that’s destroying our schools.”
Biss said Madigan has “been around too long” and is “too powerful.” He said he has supported term limits for legislative leaders, including proposing state constitutional amendments. However, Biss said Madigan is one person and is not the system.
“If we get too obsessed with just one person who has manipulated the system but did not create it, and then we don’t fix the system but just get rid of him, we’re going to be disappointed by how little changes,” Biss said.
*** UPDATE *** ILGOP…
Another day, another attempt from J.B. Pritzker to cover up his close ties to Speaker Mike Madigan.
Last night at an Aurora debate with the Democrat candidates for governor, the candidates were presented with a simple question: should Madigan stay in power. Even though Democrats Daniel Biss and Chris Kennedy have their own close ties to Madigan, they took the question as an opportunity to attack him, with both saying he’s been in office too long and wields too much power.
When it came time for Pritzker to answer the same question, he balked, refusing to say whether Speaker Madigan has been around too long or if it’s time for him to leave state government, surprising no one, as Pritzker is running for governor with Madigan’s blessing.
From the Chicago Tribune’s story, Dem gov. debate: Kennedy, Biss bash Madigan; Pritzker won’t say if it’s time for speaker to go:
The Democratic candidates for governor sought to sell themselves to primary voters at a Tuesday night forum in Aurora, but much of the focus was on a guy who wasn’t on the stage: veteran Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, who also heads the Illinois Democratic Party.
State Sen. Daniel Biss and businessman Chris Kennedy ripped Madigan, saying he’s been in office too long and wields too much power. Meanwhile, entrepreneur and philanthropist J.B. Pritzker, who has received the backing of much of the Democratic establishment, declined to say whether it’s time for Madigan to go.
Pritzker’s silent support of Madigan’s Speakership comes after he was asked about the same issue at a recent Chicago debate with the Democratic candidates for governor.
When asked about his relationship with Mike Madigan, Pritzker repeatedly dodged the question, fumbling over his inability to change the subject. His discomfort was so plain that after being challenged on the issue by moderator Mary Ann Ahern, Pritzker’s non-answers were met with laughter from the crowd of Democrat activists.
It’s clear - J.B. Pritzker is Mike Madigan’s candidate for governor and even other Democrats aren’t buying Pritzker’s spin.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - RAGA responds *** Ruiz announces for AG
Next Post: Chris Kennedy warns high-dollar campaigns could mean “the end of American democracy”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: term limits take away power from the voters. If Madigan’s district wants him to represent them, other people shouldn’t have the power to tell them no. If you don’t like him being the Speaker, tel your reps not to vote for him. It’ll never happen, but that is the way the system should work.
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:48 am
I’m just going to leave this here…
===“There’s no chance I’m going to be working for the speaker,” Pritzker said.===
… and ask which, if any, governor, either party, “worked” for the Speaker?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:49 am
Anyone who believes that Pritzker will be “independent” because he’s self-funded ignores his debt to Madigan, who obviously is responsible for where he is today.
Comment by Periwinkle Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:50 am
Term Limits for everyone.
Comment by Good for the goose Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:53 am
Perrid- I think Pritzker was referring the leadership term limits, not legislative term limits.
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:53 am
===..his debt to Madigan, who obviously is responsible for where he is today.===
(Sigh)
Explain how this “working for the Speaker” plays out with a sitting governor. Clearly lay it out, I’ve tried to see where other governors “worked for” the Speaker, so I wanna know what to look for when all this “working for” is going on.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:54 am
Term limits for legislative leaders do not take away power from the voters.
Speaker Madigan is not elected by voters, he is elected by democratic representatives who owe allegiance to him because he is also chairman of the Democratic party as well as the most powerful Speaker of the House in America.
Most voters and a majority of the Democratic candidates for Governor realize he is the #1 reason Illinois residents do not trust state government.
Clearly you think Illinois government as currently structured is the way it should work. 75% of Illinois residents disagree with the status quo and support redistricting, term limits and other changes to state government so citizens choose their representatives and not vice versa.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:55 am
Kennedy is speaking Rauners language …
“I don’t think that what Speaker Madigan is doing is illegal, I just think it should be, Kennedy said. “He’s a state rep and he’s a property tax appeals lawyer.”
Comment by Texas Red Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:57 am
===75% of Illinois residents disagree with the status quo and support redistricting, term limits and other changes to state government so citizens choose their representatives and not vice versa===
Just yesterday you told me polls don’t matter, polls don’t matter 16 months out, polls don’t matter by who sanctions the polls.
You don’t get polls anymore. That’s over now for you.
Your logic also would take into account Rauner’s 63% disapproval, but since you don’t think polls count, that doesn’t count either.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:58 am
JB doesn’t need to worry about being tied to Madigan, he needs to worry about being tied to Blago. While being associated with either is highly undesirable, the fact that one is a convicted felon is damaging.
Comment by Southside Louie Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 9:59 am
Why does this even matter for someone running for governor?
Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:02 am
===Speaker Madigan is not elected by voters, he is elected by democratic representatives who owe allegiance to him … as well as the most powerful Speaker of the House in America.===
They vote for him to BE Speaker because… he’s already Speaker?
Your logic says to stop his power, members need to not vote for him as Speaker, freely, but then you say they can’t because, wait for it, he’s already Speaker and voting against a Speaker not sat yet is impossible?
Huh?
No one IS Speaker until the vote of members at the beginning of session. You argue that members need to not vote for him, then complain they can’t because he’s already Speaker?
That makes no sense.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:03 am
==If Madigan’s district wants him to represent them, other people shouldn’t have the power to tell them no.==
Madigan can still represent them as a state senator, US Rep, US Senator, Mayor of Chicago, Cook County President…
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:05 am
==JB doesn’t need to worry about being tied to Madigan, he needs to worry about being tied to Blago.==
I think the Madigan problem is far more acute. Blago’s been out of office for 7 years, and his LG was able to win re-election in his own right. Madigan is still around, and Republicans picked up a non-trivial number of seats by opposing him.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:08 am
What takes power away from the voters is not letting them even vote on term limits, or redistricting. Or letting them petition to amend the constitution on the issue. When your only democratic outlet to overcome the parties is to either prioritize one issue in your voting over all others and wholesale vote out legislators who refuse to put the issue up, or open up the Constitutional Convention Pandora’s box when you don’t know what might happen on a host of civil rights and other issues, you don’t have a democratic form of government.
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:13 am
It is so nice to see that Biss felt the same way about Madigan’s tenure back in 2011 when Biss voted against Madigan for Speaker…nevermind
Comment by Anonish Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:18 am
==“I don’t think that what Speaker Madigan is doing is illegal, I just think it should be, Kennedy said. “He’s a state rep and he’s a property tax appeals lawyer.”==
How does this makes sense at all? The general assembly regulates everything, not just property taxes, and there are a whole bunch of lawyers on both sides of the aisle in the GA. As a matter of fact, isn’t GOP leader Jim Durkin an attorney at a high powered Chicago law firm? Not that I would be against such an idea, but I don’t think it would be legal to ban lawyers from serving in the general assembly.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:30 am
==It is so nice to see that Biss felt the same way about Madigan’s tenure back in 2011 when Biss voted against Madigan for Speaker…nevermind==
Well, y’know, it’s been six more years since then. Clearly, at some point in that period, MJM’s odometer rolled over from “It’s Fine” to “TOO LONG”. Obviously. /s
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:31 am
==What takes power away from the voters is not letting them even vote on term limits==
==When your only democratic outlet to overcome the parties is to either prioritize one issue==
You just solved your own problem. Millions of Americans are single issue voters. Gun rights, union rights, women’s rights, etc. If you want this so bad, start a PAC, build a fundraising base, voter logs, and turn your voters out on election day. This process IS the definition of democracy. It’s hard, it’s competitive, and it explains why you want term limits in the first place…you actually don’t like choice. Democracy, by it’s definition, is about choice.
Comment by MG85 Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:34 am
LCD, voters would have had the opportunity to vote on term limits and redistricting if the Constitutional amendments Rauner pushed hadn’t been so curiously, fatally flawed.
You’d think a sharpie like Rauner could lawyer up real good to get it right.
On the bright side, Rauner was able to collect voter information from those drives. And he can still run on those issues.
I guess he’s just lucky in his incompetence. Or a manipulative cynic.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:34 am
OW, I said partisan polls about Governor Rauner against an unnamed opponent more than a year out from the election don’t matter. Do you want to explain why they do?
Thanks for your advice on what I can talk about, I will take that under advisement.
A respected pollster like Gallup’s polls are almost always worthwhile and are much harder to dispute especially when so many Democratic candidates for Governor also agree with their conclusions
What makes no sense is thumbing your nose at the will of the voters as the Speaker and Democrats do constantly on so many issues regarding the reform of state government.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:53 am
===Term limits for legislative leaders do not take away power from the voters===
Maybe they don’t, maybe they do. What I can definitely say is that term limits hand more power to the executive, lobbyists and a cohort few mention, staff.
I can also tell you that a term-limited House Speaker in another state told me to my face that he didn’t care about the financial impact of certain legislation two years down the road because - quote - “I won’t be here any more.”
He was a poster child for the case against term limits.
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:59 am
===Thanks for your advice on what I can talk about, I will take that under advisement.===
Please do. I look forward to showing you your own words, hours old, and mock your continued ignorance to what you say. Please, please, continue, lol
===A respected pollster like Gallup’s polls are almost always worthwhile and are much harder to dispute especially when so many Democratic candidates for Governor also agree with their conclusions===
So only Gallop? Hmm. Pinning yourself in is far worse than even saying no polls, but you keep parsing.
===Do you want to explain why they do?===
Then, Madigan’s popularity polls just don’t matter or count since it’s not gallop, or within a window you feel is acceptable.
When gallop does a poll on Madigan, please feel free to use it, I’ll even shorten the link for you.
You forgot to explain…
===They vote for him to BE Speaker because… he’s already Speaker?
Your logic says to stop his power, members need to not vote for him as Speaker, freely, but then you say they can’t because, wait for it, he’s already Speaker and voting against a Speaker not sat yet is impossible?
Huh?
No one IS Speaker until the vote of members at the beginning of session. You argue that members need to not vote for him, then complain they can’t because he’s already Speaker?
That makes no sense===
When you get a chance…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 10:59 am
Term limits for legislative leaders was a Tom Dart bill in 1996… I think that bill sat in Rules Committee for a couple decades ha ha
Comment by West Wing Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 11:00 am
They vote fro him to be Speaker because he is the Leader of the Democratic party in Illinois and has total control of the Chamber and the party as well as the money.
I think you saw how Representative Drury and Dunkin fared after crossing him on a few votes. How would the rep who dared challenge him for Speaker would be treated? Off the clock list and end to any extra stipends.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 11:05 am
===…total control of the Chamber and the party as well as the money.===
But he’s not Speaker until he’s votes on, but you say they should not vote for him, and you say he’s already Speaker but he’s actually not..
Do you even know what you’re talking about, or are you so blind that you can’t see you are asking two different things, see something that hasn’t happened, but you want stopped, but you say is leverage, lol…
===I think you saw how Representative Drury and Dunkin fared after crossing him on a few votes. ===
Not unlike Leader Radogno and Sen. McCann?
Hmm.
So a leader controls their caucus?
===How would the rep who dared challenge him for Speaker would be treated===
Lee Daniels was benevolent to those who conspired in a coup… How do you feel about that?
I’ll let you wrestle with all your silliness on that, but…
How does a Speaker control a Governor.
Specifically. I really want to know what to look for. Also, when has Madigan controlled a governor? Is there an example?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 11:13 am
Term limits studies clearly show that governments adopting them become more diverse politically, gender, race and legislative occupation. A term limited government looks like the communities they serve.
If you believe in diversity, you’d support term limits.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 11:32 am
Term limited governments force lobbyists to work harder. Currently they get schmoozey with old pols and don’t need to prove themselves repeatedly. Term limits force lobbyists to reintroduce themselves to sceptical newcomers. Incoming legislators are a cynical lot. As any lobbyist what’s easier, old clients or new ones.
If you don’t want a lobbyist controlled government, you’d support term limits.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 11:40 am
===Term limited governments force lobbyists to work harder===
Agreed.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 12:17 pm
Are term limits being proposed for Governor?
Comment by a drop in Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 1:40 pm
I would love to know what “progressive” give away policies Biss is advocating for that Madigan is blocking.
Comment by Captain Ed Smith Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 2:11 pm
=Term limited governments force lobbyists to work harder=
Maybe, or maybe it makes them more powerful in that they, and staff who aren’t term limited, become more powerful because they become the experts in government.
Also, you know what else would make lobbyist work more difficult? A law that outlaws lobbying? You know what else? An agency with strict laws to go after politicians and lobbyists that break those laws.
Lastly, “lobbyists” is a buzzword that needs to be debunked. Not all lobbyists are bad and, in fact, are part of the necessary creation of law. Do I think the cigarette lobby is evil? Sure because I think cigarettes kill people. Do I think the American Legion is evil? No, because I am a veteran and veteran issues should be properly represented.
So no, we should limit choice just because we don’t like a necessary cog in the democratic process.
Comment by MG85 Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 4:02 pm
Good for Pritzker to say something. I hope this Madigan issue keeps coming up. Matter of fact, it is important to Democrats because it resonates with voters within their party. And of course, the general electorate. I may consider voting for him now.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 18, 17 @ 4:59 pm
democratic candidates are not to have anything to do with the democratic chairperson? the govenor makes rules for another branch of government? the voters decide who has been there to long, madigan for us, saves illinois from junk
Comment by Rabid Thursday, Oct 19, 17 @ 2:59 am