Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: AP: Bills for half a million FamilyCare recipients not being paid
Posted in:
* My latest syndicated newspaper column takes a look at a couple of abortion-related groups and their influence on the General Assembly…
Two groups, one pro-choice and the other pro-life, are doing their best to bend the Illinois Statehouse to their respective wills. Let’s peek in, shall we?
State Rep. Ruth Munson (R-Elgin) was defeated last week by Democratic challenger Keith Farnham. The House Democrats dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Farnham’s campaign, and Farnham himself walked precincts like it was a full-time job.
A pro-choice group called Personal PAC also played a role in the race. Munson, who was considered pro-choice, voted against a compromise parental notification of abortion bill supported by pro-choice groups. Personal PAC vowed to make an example of her.
The political action committee pulls no punches in its aggressive campaigns. One operative running a legislative race in a district where Personal PAC was neutral privately expressed his relief a few weeks ago about not having to deal with the constant brush fires the group creates.
The group spent almost $374,000 between July 1 and Election Day, ranking it ahead of some heavy Statehouse hitters like the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. It’s definitely not a minor player.
Unlike most political action committees, the group does not usually contribute cash. Instead, it runs its own campaigns, and that often drives people a bit crazy. For instance, the group is infamous for putting legislators of different parties into the same mailers. This year, it paired Evanston Democratic Sen. Jeff Schoenberg with Republican Rep. Beth Coulson of Glenview in a mailer supporting Coulson, which didn’t go over too well in some circles. Schoenberg was backing Coulson’s Democratic opponent, Daniel Biss.
As Rep. Munson discovered, keeping Personal PAC off one’s back is not easy. Unlike many organizations, Personal PAC requires purity. Most groups might endorse incumbents with 70 percent voting records (or even lower), but that won’t happen with Personal PAC.
That’s why the group always campaigns hard for what it considers pro-choice incumbents, even when challengers answer surveys indicating that they are also 100 percent pro-choice. This can cause problems, as it did this year when Personal PAC went all-out for Rep. Coulson. A whole lot of Democrats thought the group should’ve taken it easier on Coulson’s pro-choice Democratic opponent, Daniel Biss. Personal PAC was not moved. It’s one thing to say you’re pro-choice, but it’s entirely another to prove you’ll stick with the organization every single time push comes to shove, as Coulson has done over and over again without exception.
Terry Cosgrove, who runs Personal PAC, said months ago that he wanted to defeat Rep. Munson so other legislators could see what happens when they stray too far from their proclaimed pro-choice beliefs.
Actually, he said he wanted to hang Munson’s head on the wall (figuratively, of course). Cosgrove got his trophy.
Meanwhile, some pro-life groups threw down the gauntlet last week. The groups told the Senate Republicans to choose whomever they want to replace retiring Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, just as long as it isn’t Sen. Christine Radogno (R-Lemont).
Family PAC led the charge. The group, run by longtime conservative activist Paul Caprio, sent a letter to Senate Republicans this week expressing dismay that the pro-choice, pro gay rights Radogno was being seriously considered as Watson’s replacement. Radogno, Caprio wrote, was “not in the mainstream of Senate Republican thinking on key family issues.”
Caprio said that while he has degrees of differences with various members of the Senate Republican caucus, he believed that almost any other Senator in the 22-member caucus would be better as the Republican Leader than Radogno.
Caprio wouldn’t discuss the list of possible alternative candidates, but he did say that he could work with another declared candidate, Sen. Kirk Dillard, even though Dillard (R-Hinsdale) had appeared in a television advertisement for Barack Obama. Caprio said it was “stupid” of Dillard to do that, but he believed Dillard would be an honest broker, unlike Radogno.
Sen. Radogno said last week that she has yet to speak with Caprio about his campaign, but she’d like to sit down with him soon. She said as leader she would try to focus on the issues that “bring Republicans together,” and vowed not to impose any of her beliefs on other members.
It’s not certain how much impact this move by Caprio and social conservative groups will have. The Senate Republican caucus as a whole is very conservative and pro-life groups are very influential with them. But they are also some of the most independent-minded people under the Statehouse dome.
* Related…
* Legislators to decide on leadership
* Over Dinner, Senate Dems to Campaign for Top Job
* New Senate leaders could bring hope Illinoisans need
* Righter says he’s not going to seek leadership of state Senate Republicans
* Rise up, sh’rooms of Springfield, rise up!
* State Capitol Q&A: What is the fall veto session?
* Web site declares ‘It’s Time for Tom’
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 8:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: AP: Bills for half a million FamilyCare recipients not being paid
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I hate these purists. But we each have issues that are hot-buttons for us. It is funny that Caprio and Kirk Blowhard get mentioned in the same posting as I didn’t think there is enough bandwidth to hold their collective egos in the same paragraph.
These purists are why the ILGOP is garbage. One or two, i understand, but every issue has a failed politician with a website and mailing list that thinks their issue is the end all be all of what defines a true conservative/republican.
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:19 am
So is “Personal PAC” the bloggers McConnaughy was referring to in the Daily Herald?
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:23 am
bloggers McConnaughy was referring to
Not likely. She was pushing Ryan’s VP for gov back in 02.
Sad but true, until conservatives show some teeth, Pers PAC will have a lot of influence.
But I will note that the margin is about 300 votes in Kane. So maybe Mr. Cosgrove is taking mroe credit than he is due? Surely not.
And why doesn’t the state website have totals up yet? what is with that??
Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:32 am
If there wasn’t so much political money in the abortion issue, on both sides, reasonable leaders could have employed education and pharmacology to eliminate it by now.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:33 am
[…] In his syndicated column this week, Rich Miller of the Capitol Fax takes a look at the Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice contests in Illinois. State Rep. Ruth Munson (R-Elgin) was defeated last week by Democratic challenger Keith Farnham. The House Democrats dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Farnham’s campaign, and Farnham himself walked precincts like it was a full-time job. […]
Pingback by Analysis: Illinois’ Abortion Vote | Ora et Labora Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:38 am
Good luck to Radogno finding “issues that bring Republicans together.” This, the week after Dubya, or at least Laura, could reasonably be suspected of having voted for Obama….
Comment by Excessively rabid Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:41 am
I checked Cook, Munson won by 100 there, so she lost by 200 roughly.
And that in a high turnout D year. There is some evidence that a lot of the R base stayed home. (Gosh, I wonder why……)
I think P PAC DOES take too much credit here.
Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:44 am
I think P PAC DOES take too much credit here.
Me too.. I have a feeling Oberweis did all the damage. Energized the Hispanic vote and demoralized the Lauzen vote.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:50 am
===And why doesn’t the state website have totals up yet? what is with that??===
Because the state waits for official results. What you see everywhere else are unofficial results.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:53 am
===Energized the Hispanic vote===
Perhaps, but there was that harsh Democratic mailer on illegal aliens that you may not know about.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:55 am
Also, in a close race like this, many factors can be seen as being the deciding factor. I chose to focus on this one.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 9:55 am
This hits at the heart of the ILGOP woes. They can’t afford to disproportionately focus on the social issues like abortion in the here and now, especially when general public sentiment suggest that the majority of the state is pro-choice. Dismissing Radogno as the prospective minority leader based on this singular issue alone is a mistake.
Comment by The Doc Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 10:02 am
“…until conservatives show some teeth, Pers PAC will have a lot of influence.”
Pat, I think Dems should take notice of this extremism as well. Personal PAC may tilt a House race occasionally, but long term? I think Personal PACs behavior undermines its own cause and gives a black eye to every one of its $$ donors.
Comment by Suzanne Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 10:19 am
It’s Time For Tom sure is a nice looking blog page. But it’s not only dishonest but also playing all of us for plain stupid for Jake to play this off as a “grassroots” movement to “draft” Tom Cross to run for Governor.
Jake worked (works?) for Cross, clearly there is some coordination. Cross wants to have it both ways - he is the opposition party - but he plays nicely with Blagojevich. He wants to run for Governor, but he wants to be “drafted”.
Give me a break. Dwight Eisenhower he is not.
Comment by soy milk Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 10:45 am
…harsh Democratic mailer on illegal aliens that you may not know about.
Don’t recall it although I’m sure they’re out there… I’m not in district, just next store, and missed the mail.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 11:14 am
@Soy Milk - A few things.
1. I don’t work for Tom Cross. Haven’t in about three years.
2. I’ve disclosed my past with Tom many, many times. Read the article.
3. The last time I spoke with Tom was in September. I did the site on my own time (with no money!). Thanks for checking it out. The traffic continues to move!
Comment by Jake Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 11:30 am
Jake,
Disclosing your relationship with Cross in a new article is one thing. Declaring on your homepage “We’re just regular voters who want to make Illinois a better place to live” is a little disingenuous.
Perhaps you should disclose this in your Welcome Message. You could also create a “Who Am I?” page too.
You need transparancy, otherwise people will continue to dismiss your effort as those of a hack.
Comment by Hanging Chad Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 12:03 pm
Heh. “otherwise people will continue to dismiss your effort as those of a hack.” That was so sweet of you to say!
You’re probably talking about something like this: that I wrote a few days ago:
http://itstimefortom.blogspot.com/2008/11/whos-behind-itstimefortomcom.html
Comment by Jake Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 12:17 pm
Can anyone tell me the last campaign won by a challenger (Republican or Democrat)that was influenced by the pro-Life groups? The pro-Life groups don’t solicit, educate, or create new voters. They’re failing in being a political force outside the Republican primaries and have cost Republican seats. It’s sad to say, but they’re decision-making is setting them up for irrelevance.
Comment by Madison County Watcher Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 12:59 pm
Farnham won on the coattails of Obama - pure and simple folks. New voters that voted all D.
It was not Personal Pac - it was not the anti mailing - but I sure have to guess that Farnham is now beholden to the anti-groups as Munson was to Personal Pac.
Comment by Collar Oberver Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 1:43 pm
I was perplexed by Personal Pac’s aggressive support of Couslon, since both Biss and she are pro-choice candidates. If all that that P Pac was interested in was choice/life, they would find another race to spend their money in. Obviously, there is more to their support, mailings, etc. than just the choice issue.
I think the bottom line is that Coulson has been obligated to them for their past support, and — in the event that they stayed out of the Coulson/Biss race — Biss would not be.
When you run against an incumbent, you are challenging the substantial long term investment ($$$$) that the lobbyists have in the incumbent. The lobbyists were going to protect their investment in Coulson.
Comment by Anon III Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 2:19 pm
Jake
Thanks for correcting me. How silly of me. You don’t work for him, you just happened to talk to him in September. Lots of “regular” voters I know talk to their favorite candidates for governor who are one of the 4 tops all the time, so your disclosure makes me feel so much better about your claim to be “regular”. Don’t kid yourself, and don’t lie to people Jake - you’re an insider, not in a bad way but that’s the way it is.
I stand by my point that this is not a true “draft” movement. You’re one of his people and you support him, it’s not the same thing.
Also, I stand by my Eisenhower crack. I admire your intentions, but the analogy is off the mark. Maybe try to liken him to Jim Edgar, an independent / Republican - you’d have better luck selling him.
soy
Comment by soy milk Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 3:49 pm
In relation to the post above this one (on Family Care), I am almost tempted to suggest that pro-lifers do a 180 on the Hyde Amendment and instead of banning Medicaid funded abortions, start insisting that abortion providers MUST accept Medicaid patients. At least in Illinois, it would be the most effective way yet to drive them out of business!
Comment by Bookworm Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 5:40 pm
“When you run against an incumbent, you are challenging the substantial long term investment ($$$$) that the lobbyists have in the incumbent.”
Investment? Personal PAC doesn’t invest in its preferred candidates; it doesn’t pony up meaningful dough; it doesn’t help develop a base of support, it doesn’t register or educate voters on the issues and it certainly doesn’t corral volunteers to work for campaigns.
No, what Personal PAC does is wind up its mean machine every two years and lets loose on candidates whose only flaw is having the cajones run a campaign and, coincidentally, challenge a Personal PAC pick. By sponsoring anonymous and malicious calls and sending out misleading mailers, Personal PAC doesn’t build support for its issues; it strategically-induces obedience among vulnerable incumbents.
What a waste.
Comment by Suzanne Wednesday, Nov 12, 08 @ 8:54 pm
Bookworm great idea punish them like everyother provider spread the pain.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 7:46 am
Biss was also pro-choice? How did we know this? He says he is pro-choice, but Coulson has taken the tough votes and been a leader for a dozen years! Biss just moved into the District two years ago, and we’ve never even seen him at any PersPac luncheons or funders over the years. Talk is cheap; and it is irresponsible to just say that “both Biss and Coulson are pro-choice”, as if there is some equivalency there.
Comment by Legaleagle Friday, Nov 14, 08 @ 12:25 pm