Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** IDPH: Third Legionnaires’ case at Quincy veterans home this week
Next Post: Sawyer on Reader cover: “The equivalent of putting gasoline on a fire”
Posted in:
* From that kinda new, or at least revised Watchdog.org company…
State Rep. Carol Ammons says it’s time for the Democratic state central committee to weigh in on the future of Speaker Michael Madigan in the wake of sexual harassment allegations within the party and his own political organization.
Ammons, D-Urbana, said Wednesday she didn’t know all the details of Alaina Hampton’s accusations regarding Madigan’s handling of harassment allegations within the Democratic Party of Illinois. However, Ammons said there needs to be complete transparency and a thorough investigation.
“I suggest that [the Democratic state central committee] follow a procedure, they get the precinct committeeman together, get your state central committee together and have a conversation about this issue,” Ammons said. […]
Comptroller Susana Mendoza wouldn’t go as far as Ammons, but said the state central committee should review policies to handle harassment complaints.
“Yeah, the state central committee should look into that,” Mendoza said, “but so should every single elected officer, whether they’re a statewide constitutional [officer], or just someone at home running for state [representative] to make sure there’s a policy in place for any of your employees, male or female, to be able to seek a thoughtful ear and know that there’s going to be a path to a resolution, one way or the other. I think that’s the biggest issue that’s failing right now.”
* There are no anti-harassment or anti-discrimination laws on the books for state and local campaigns here, so, yeah, it’s the Wild West…
"I don't have any protection as a political campaign worker. I don't work for the government, I only work on political campaigns."
-@alainaxhamptonTHIS is a huge part of the problem for so many of us. #timesupIL
— Joanna Klonsky (@joannaklonsky) February 13, 2018
A problem with regulating campaigns is the 1st Amendment, which cannot be underestimated when it comes to political stuff.
* But the problem of harassment (and worse) on the campaign trail is all too real. We’ve already talked about Kerry Lester’s new book, “No, My Place.” This excerpt is from Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Commissioner Josina Morita’s chapter…
The hardest part for me is that this behavior surprised me. When I was beginning in politics, no one ever pulled me aside and said, “this might happen to you.”
Now, when I speak to women, I say, “I hope this doesn’t happen to you, but I have never experienced sexism or racism as explicitly as I did on the campaign trail.”
* One idea I’ve heard is to draft some model language on harassment and discrimination prohibitions and procedures and allow campaign committees to opt in via the State Board of Elections. Perhaps the campaigns can even be given a menu of choices.
Another idea I’ve heard is to just give campaign committees the option of saying they’ve adopted their own policies and perhaps they can even share those policies via an official Board of Elections filing.
I dunno. Maybe they can just pass a law regulating campaigns and then essentially dare someone to challenge it in court.
Your own thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 2:43 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** IDPH: Third Legionnaires’ case at Quincy veterans home this week
Next Post: Sawyer on Reader cover: “The equivalent of putting gasoline on a fire”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’d consider tying this in with another recent development- Randy Bryce allowing his campaign staff to unionize in WI. When you think about it, there’s not much else a campaign workers’ union could actually do, but since this would certainly be backed by popular opinion, it could work.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 2:50 pm
A union for campaign staff like the Rand Bryce has.
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/15/randy-bryce-union-campaign-workers-guild/
Here’s a link to Arsenal’s reference. Not much Corporate MSM coverage of this.
Comment by DDBC Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 2:55 pm
Challenge for Ammons is that the party members can’t even agree whether MJM handled the matter properly or not. Tough to get change enacted with that.
At a minimum, MJM is due some serious push-back for having used his personal attorney on what was a party issue.
/s/ The only way MJM using his personal attorney on this matter is defensible is if everyone can agree that the party belongs to MJM alone.
Comment by Downstate Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 2:56 pm
I agree with Carol Ammons. Campaign work stinks. It is important to come together and address this issue. Not sure how it will be solved. Small work environment, long hours, boredom etc.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:02 pm
Mendoza going to walk a very very fine line when it comes to Madigan. She knows who she owes for her present position and isn’t about to cross that line.
Comment by Old Time R Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:03 pm
Some of these practices have been going on in Springfield forever!
I remember reading Mike Royko’s “Boss” long years ago and it related the story of the deceased Representative (and former Speaker) from Bridgeport who Daley replaced by running his first campaign as a “Republican.” The veteran pol (Shanahan) finally married his longtime secretary while on his deathbed. Royko included an impolite term for female secretaries and assumptions made concerning their job security.
The wink and nod culture in Springfield has to end.
Comment by Practical Politics Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:03 pm
Its amazing these D’s won’t walk away from Madigan. His brand is toxic outside his ward, they (and Pritzker) need to see the writing on the wall. Time to take a walk on him.
Comment by Rutro Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:06 pm
Mendoza criticizing madigan? Color me surprised. Her Twitter is full of rauner hate, some of which isn’t even comptroller related, i.e. Quincy legionnaires
Comment by Politically incorrect Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:09 pm
The lay of the land here is being completely misconstrued.
You DO have protections under the law against sexual harassment as an employee of a political campaign. Federal employment discrimination laws apply to political campaigns just as if they do any other employer.
Hampton DID have a remedy if she felt like she was harassed - she could file a complaint with the EEOC, and eventually file a federal lawsuit. To say that she has no protections is completely false.
Comment by Too Much to Handle Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:10 pm
Why should there be protections for a political campaign worker that are over and above or different from the protections available to any other employee?
If there need to be better protections for all employees, great, I’m all for it. What makes political campaign workers a protected class vis a vis an employee of Wal-Mart, for example?
Comment by chi Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:14 pm
Campaigns are a hodge-podge of volunteers, part-time staff, paid staff, consultants, etc. This is going to get real messy.
Comment by Under Influenced.... Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:19 pm
=To say that she has no protections is completely false.=
Sure - No problem, file your own lawsuit.
All need from that point is several years and about $150k to cover legal costs. Let them eat cake.
If your in a union most troublemakers won’t even try it.
Comment by Cake Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:20 pm
And who is responsible if the harassment comes from someone outside the political organization? Is that the responsibility of the campaign? The candidate?
Comment by Under Influenced.... Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:21 pm
=== Sure - No problem, file your own lawsuit.
All need from that point is several years and about $150k to cover legal costs. Let them eat cake. ===
Please. Most civil rights attorneys get paid on a contingency fee basis. And it doesn’t matter what kind of rules or procedures there are out there, unless you are willing to utilize the protections of the law (meaning filing a lawsuit), none of those other things really matter. So you can raise holy heck about this issue all you want - just know that your perspective on this matter is incorrect.
Comment by Too Much to Handle Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:32 pm
To Donwstate: Actually, MJM used his government attorney, who works for him as Speaker + he held the news conference in a government building. Usually MJM uses super lawyer Kasper for stuff like this. Not sure why Kasper didn’t get the nod, except perhaps that MJM wanted a female lawyer.
Comment by Watchdog Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:34 pm
I really don’t think it is all that difficult legally.
To the degree that PACs are employers, they can be regulated just like everyone else.
The much harder issue is getting at the core issues that create a potentially volatile environment.
First: the power differential. The people at the core of campaigns have a lot of power and influence. Real power that we are all aware of, and also a monopoly on jobs in the industry. If you anger Bruce Rauner, it isn’t like you can go work for the competition. This puts field organizers and other entry-level staff who are often fresh out of college at a real disadvantage.
Secondly: the ravaging work conditions. Long hours with little sleep, terrible diet, lots of self-medicating with alcohol lead to poor mental health and lots of terrible decision-making. On the flipside, there is a trench-like comradary and familiarity that erodes professionalism and blurs lines for too many people.
Third: Machismo. We compare campaigns to warfare throughtout their operation and popular culture, and in many ways the macho culture of our campaigns resembles our military branches. The issues of sexual harrassment and discrimination that are pervasive in the military are reflected in campaigns and their macho culture. This includes not just gender but also gender identity and sexual orientation.
Fourth: political polarization. We build entire campaigns based on assumptions about political behavior based on racial and gender identity. Is It really so shocking that our campaigns that stereotype voters end up stereotyping the people within the campaigns themselves? Campaigns workplaces are hyper-charged with polarizing messages. It rubs off.
That said: culture flows from the top. If anyone thought before that Mike Madigan tolerates sexual harrassment within his political operation: think again. He just fired a guy who has been a part of his organization for 20 years, the brother of one of his most trusted leaders. You can argue about whether it should have taken three weeks or three months all you want. At the end of the day, the career Kevin Quinn spent 80-100 a week building for the last 20 years is dead. Not because he hit a reporter - a congressman survived that. Not because he got caught driving drunk - too many have survived that to count. Because of repeated sexual harrassment of a co-worker.
Madigan’s actions are going to send a much clearer message than any policy that the central committee might hope to adopt.
So, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, if you are working on a campaign and someone sexually harrasses you, my advice is don’t wait until the 7th time to go to Mike Madigan or Jim Durkin or John Cullerton or Bill Brady. And if for some reason you are afraid to go to them alone, go to a male co-worker you can trust, and ask them to go with you. If you don’t have one, find me on Twitter.
You may feel alone, your perpetrator wants you to feel isolated, but you are not alone.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:35 pm
I guess I am confused on how regulating campaigns regarding a safe work environment would be in conflict with the 1st amendment.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:39 pm
==And who is responsible if the harassment comes from someone outside the political organization? Is that the responsibility of the campaign? The candidate?==
And what is the nature of this kind of “question”? Is it an attempt to make accountability seem difficult? Impossible?
The most telling part of this discussion is people acting brand new to the mere concept harassment. Like no employment lawyer has ever worked through the question of employer liability for third-party harassment.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:42 pm
Alaina Hampton did not go public on a whim. She is most likely prepared to survive this political storm and hopefully has benefactors that are ready to be a safety net, if needed.
It’s not easy taking on unethical behavior in any arena. Sexual harassment, racism, financial crimes, are many times committed by powerful people who break laws that are already on the books.
Thoughts? Be a student of the Art of War and be prepared to battle. Don’t ever allow yourself to be physically vulnerable, financially vulnerable, etc. Learn and reinforce verbal skills, and physical skills. Use the informal grapevine to make sure the world knows about unethical people. Document everything. Seek outside strategies. Hampton has done a lot of this.
Sometimes, with the right plan, the little guys win and the mighty fall.
Hampton has shown a lot of courage to not just walk away from this.
Comment by cdog Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:43 pm
Lets be honest, if these stories had any connection to Rauner or his campaign Mendoza would be all over the TV and Radio slamming Rauner like crazy. Her silence on this matter should be questioned by the same media she runs to every week……
Comment by Not the real Joe Maddon Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:45 pm
=== The most telling part of this discussion is people acting brand new to the mere concept harassment. Like no employment lawyer has ever worked through the question of employer liability for third-party harassment. ===
Agreed. People are acting like there are no remedies out there for victims. People are acting as if there are no legal protections. There are.
I will also say that these cases are never as black and white as they seem at first blush. Time needs to be taken to get all of the facts. It seems as if Madigan acted appropriately here.
Comment by Too Much to Handle Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:52 pm
—– Downstate - Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 2:56 pm:
Challenge for Ammons is that the party members can’t even agree whether MJM handled the matter properly or not. Tough to get change enacted with that.
At a minimum, MJM is due some serious push-back for having used his personal attorney on what was a party issue.
/s/ The only way MJM using his personal attorney on this matter is defensible is if everyone can agree that the party belongs to MJM alone.—-
Downstate - his personal attorney? I’m sure Heather said she was representing Friends of Michael Madigan— I could be wrong, but obviously you have more information than I. Would you have preferred Kasper as the attorney on this issue?
To Ammons’ comment: “there needs to be complete transparency and a thorough investigation.” I’m not sure she is the right person to be calling on reform, transparency and an investigation. {sigh} {cough}
Comment by Sigh Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 3:55 pm
Thomas Paine hit it on the head right here:
==If anyone thought before that Mike Madigan tolerates sexual harrassment within his political operation: think again. He just fired a guy who has been a part of his organization for 20 years, the brother of one of his most trusted leaders….*At the end of the day, the career Kevin Quinn spent 80-100 a week building for the last 20 years is dead.* …Because of repeated sexual harrassment of a co-worker==
The message has been sent and, most importantly, received.
Comment by low level Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 4:03 pm
—Lets be honest, if these stories had any connection to Rauner or his campaign Mendoza would be all over the TV and Radio slamming Rauner like crazy. Her silence on this matter should be questioned by the same media she runs to every week……—-
Not the real Joe Maddon- you make a great point and come to think of it there wasn’t much coverage on Rauner’s “red dess” comment to that female staffer a year ago on the Facebook Live event. And what ever happened to that alleged sexual harassment OEIG complaint that the reporters asked Rauner about? Thinks for making the Rauner connection, because taxpayer should be aware of these two instances since they happened on taxpayer time.
Comment by Olivia Pope Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 4:07 pm
What about campaign volunteers? Campaigns are the perfect spot for sexual predators and I have 1st hand (really, no pun intended) knowledge/experience.
Easy solution: Required anti-harrassment & discrimination policies for EVERYONE associated with campaigns - from candidate, to staff, to consultants to volunteers.
Required training on policies.
Policies are the same for every campaign and every campaign is required to provide/make available policies to all involved with a certain amount of time after campaign launch.
And if there is proof that the campaign did not follow the laws on this, then the campaign can be investigated and ended.
Campaigns are test-runs for candidates. If candidates are not concerned with protecting their most valuable human resources from harrassment & discrimination, then they should not have the privilege of being voted upon.
Comment by MysticAgitator Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 4:09 pm
Typo -Thanks not thinks …Thanks for making the Rauner connection, because taxpayer should be aware of these two instances since they happened on taxpayer time.
Comment by Olivia Pope Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 4:13 pm
=== Easy solution: Required anti-harrassment & discrimination policies for EVERYONE associated with campaigns - from candidate, to staff, to consultants to volunteers.===
That is NOT an easy solution. Many first time candidates have a hard enough time finding volunteers or raising enough money to fund the basics of a campaign. Now you are going to require campaigns to hire HR consultants or lawyers to draft policies and procedures and pay for training programs for volunteers that may never come back a second time? Seems quite unreasonable to me.
Comment by Too Much to Handle Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 4:19 pm
The state party should treat this like other shared resources that all candidates have access too (let’s just save the voter file jokes for later)
Hire an independent verifiable source. A law firm, a respected former judge etc. Give any campaign that wants it access to that person(s) and no cost or if they want to opt-out have them submit their own plan. The AG could provide guidelines for what your training and reporting structure needs to accomplish. The campaigns would in many ways be self-policing because if I found out my opponent didn’t comply with sexual harrassment protections for their staff, I’d light them up like the 4th of July.
Comment by Signal and Noise Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 4:20 pm
To “Too Much to Handle” -
With the help of an attorney who worked pro-bono at my request, we actually did just create policies for a local campaign, and the candidate ws going to run a one-time training and video it, and make it available to subsequent volunteers and ask them to sign off they had received the policies & watched the video.
What I was suggesting was that one set of uniform, standard policies be created for all campaigns. That way, no, a small local campaign would not need to hire anyone. They would be required to use the policies that had already been created and part of campaign guidelines or policies.
We have policies in our places of employment — why shouldn’t the state create policies for campaigns and then require campaigns to use them?
Really, a lot of other things are hard, but not this.
We just haven’t considering doing it, or that it’s important to do.
Comment by MysticAgitator Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 4:43 pm
Oh, and to your reference about volunteers who don’t come back a 2nd time…one of the very good reasons to have such policies in place is to DETER predators, and also have some legal recourse if someone who is hell-bent on harrassing, groping or worse, stays with the campaign.
And, if doing this seems arduous for a candidate, why are they asking for my tax dollars to pay their salary once in office? I need to know that they care about who is under their auspices, even if for a day. The incident I was involved in was on a 3-day volunteer stint.
Comment by MysticAgitator Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 4:48 pm
==It seems as if Madigan acted appropriately here.==
I couldn’t disagree more vigorously but thanks for the opportunity to clarify the depths of his self-serving inaction.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 4:54 pm
So what would you have done differently? Fired the guy sooner? I’m sorry but looking at a few text messages hardly constitutes a thorough investigation.
Comment by Too Much to Handle Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 5:20 pm
Let me see if I can clear up some misconceptions here.
1. This has nothing to do, directly, with the state party as a legal entity. I believe Ms Hampton was employeed by a different committee, Friends of Michael J Madigan.
2. I believe - someone correct me if I am wrong - Ms. Weir-Vaught is the attorney for FMJM. She is not Mr. Madigan’s personal lawyer. She was not brought in because she was a woman. She happens to be a highly respected lawyer on both sides of the aisle, with expertise as the former ethics officer for the House.
3. Mr. Kasper I think represents the Democratic Party of Illinois, a completely separate entity. And while he was the former chief legal counsel for the House Democrats, his tenure predates the ethics act and the designation of the ethics officer. Kasper knows govt ethics, but Weir Vaught has much more practical experience actually running an investigation.
4. Current laws do cover employees of political action committees, and if you are an employee of a campaign and you are harassed by a co-worker, candidate, volunteer, donor, or even the mailman in the course of your employment, the law protects you. There is no carve-out in the law for PACs or any other nonprofit employer.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 5:24 pm
Add me to the list of those stunned by how
“S-l-o-w” the Comptroller was to make a public comment on the subject of sexual harassment when she freely opines on all other subjects without hesitation. Her reluctance to criticize her chief political sponsor is telling.
Comment by Nuff said Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 5:38 pm
Who has been slower than Madigan to get in front of this issue? Pritzker. Who has been slower than Pritzker to respond to this issue? Ammons. Who has been slower than Ammons to respond? Mendoza. Who has been slower than Mendoza to respond? Every other woman in Springfield. #timesup for #metoo I guess.
Comment by Just Visiting Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 6:33 pm
Please no additional laws. The opportunity for mischief using plants is huge.
Candidates need to police their own campaigns. It is a new day and candidates need to adjust.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 7:16 pm
What were the incidents Morita spoke of?
Comment by statehoss Thursday, Feb 15, 18 @ 9:55 pm