Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: What the heck just happened?
Next Post: Hynes responds to Quinn’s response
Posted in:
* Speaker Madigan talks to the media after this morning’s hearing of the Executive Committee, which approved Madigan’s campaign reform proposals on a partisan roll call. The reporters pressed him pretty hard and Madigan did his best to remain on message and avoid answering whatever he could. Check it out…
* Earlier, the Speaker and GOP Rep. Ed Sullivan went head to head over Madigan’s decision to remove the caps in the originally approved bill on leader committees. Watch it…
From the Tribune…
Rep. Ed Sullivan, R-Mundelein, asked Madigan “is there a reason we went backwards” from the earlier measure that limited leadership contributions to $90,000 per year. Sullivan said the current situation makes it appear that leaders who donate large amounts to lawmakers’ campaigns control how those lawmakers vote.
Madigan responded “if you want to deal on appearances, go ahead, do what you want to do. That’s what you’ll do anyhow.”
Madigan then suggested to Sullivan that he make that argument directly to individual lawmakers who receive party funds. “Are you controlled by somebody else?” was the question suggested by the Speaker. It’s worth a watch.
* Peter Bensinger, co-chairman of Change Illinois, testifies to the committee…
[If the comment link doesn’t work for you, try clicking here.]
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 11:33 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: What the heck just happened?
Next Post: Hynes responds to Quinn’s response
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===that leaders who donate large amounts to lawmakers’ campaigns control how those lawmakers vote.===
Yeah, and your point is?
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 11:42 am
The reason I would have a hard time being a state rep is because in Rep. Sullivan’s case I would probably have lost it and said
“Mr. Speaker, give me a break, you know that this reform bill isn’t worth the paper its printed on, so lets quit with the games and be honest, you took out the caps because it limits your power.”
Comment by Speaking at Will Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 11:58 am
I suspect this is probably too Inside Baseball for the majority of voters, particularly in this economy.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 12:07 pm
I hope someone is writing a book about Madigan the way Royko a book about Mayor Daley, for the kids who aren’t here yet. ya know.
Comment by Will County Woman Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 12:29 pm
There already is a book like that. It’s called “The Governor”.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 12:41 pm
Whoever Madigan’s staffer was at Exec this morning (I think it was Heather Weir) did a great job in knowing the legislation inside and out and responding promptly and authoritatively.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 1:26 pm
===========
…Royko a book about Mayor Daley….
===========
That was one heck of a book. Have a yellowed paperback version on a shelf somewhere around here; might read through it again tonight. It’s been a while.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 2:35 pm
–There already is a book like that. It’s called “The Governor”. –
Bill, as Tony Soprano would say, “I think it’s that book ‘The Prince’ by Matchabelli.” Or, as Pauli Walnuts would say, “The Art of War” by Sun Yung Moon.”
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 2:35 pm
SO lets follow the debate….
Il had its last two govenors mired deep in illegal activity. ergo, what they did was already unlawful. One has been convicted, the other is on his way.
In response we are passing “reforms”…. which begs the question, to what purpose? The conduct was already illegal, the existance of laws prohibitng the conduct was no barrier - and the conduct was already illegal.
These “reform” proposals would not have kept either of them from office; and at best would have just provided a couple ostacles.
Keep in mind the cirtical point, these individuals elected to violate the law, they were not using open loopholes, or skirting law.
Pretty much all of the reform proposals would have had no efefct on the conduct which inspried them; and if anyting some of the proposals would have made it harder to reign in Blago or impeach him by removing power from the general assembly.
These reforms do not make us stronger, they are either smoke and mirrors or they leave use even more exposed.
In place of reform we need more folks like Holland watching and reporting on governemnt operations.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 2:46 pm
This bill could be called The Leadership Entrenchment Act of 2009. It will probably pass both the House and the Senate. Hey reformers, this makes you 0 for 2 in 2009. Maybe now you’ll stop going in front of the tv cameras telling us how “brave” the leadership is when it comes to campaign finance reform.
Comment by MKK Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 3:03 pm
lol, right —thanks bill.
Comment by Will County Woman Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 3:28 pm
I officially have no comment…I have been rendered speechless…
Comment by Anonymous45 Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 3:34 pm
I think folks need to think like MJM here. Everyone says he is always 3 steps ahead of everyone else and in this case I think it is definitely true. My feeling is that he knows not limiting the caucus committees’ transfers will look bad to reform groups, thereby the reform groups will put pressure on legislators to vote NO, thereby killing the whole reform deal. That would be positive.
Ghost had it 100% correct. These proposals, if they had been law at the time, would NOT have stopped any of the corruption that Blago and Ryan engaged in. Moreover, the “reform” commission proposed ridiculous “reforms”: it would have made politicians even more unaccountable as it would have encouraged the creation of the independant groups whose contributions are VERY difficult to track.
Say what you will about Illinois. At least here, you can give as much as you want, but everything must be disclosed and is accessible online. Do we really want it like the Federal level, where each candidate needs a “compliance fund” and specialized election attorneys so they don’t run afoul of the law? I don’t think so.
Comment by this old hack Thursday, Oct 15, 09 @ 9:25 am