Posts filed under 'Michael Madigan'
June 25th, 2008
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a figurehead among Illinois Democrats, is working to build his own Illinois voter database — a “voter file” distinct from the party’s central voter file, which is controlled by House Speaker Michael Madigan’s political organizations — as well as a new layer of the party’s grass-roots operation.
Durbin is working through the Illinois Democratic County Chairmen’s Association to create this new database and to expand the state party’s base in a year when supporters are expected to be highly energized by the presidential candidacy of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.
 |
| Durbin |
“What we are doing is trying to build up the local party organizations in each of the counties with the new computer voters lists that everybody is using across the county, and to encourage more participation,” Durbin told me. “We think it’s going to be a great year for expanding our party in Illinois. … And being on the ballot, I want to capitalize on that for Barack and for myself.”
Durbin, a Democrat from Springfield, acknowledged that the Illinois Democratic Party has, under Madigan’s command, focused primarily on helping campaigns for Democratic House candidates. Though the Illinois Democratic Party ostensibly is the organization of all Democrats, in practice the party works primarily to advance Madigan’s interests.
A review of the party’s campaign finance reports from the 2006 election cycle on the Illinois State Board of Elections Web site shows the party spent its money supporting House candidates, other Madigan allies including Cook County Board President Todd Stroger and Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the speaker’s daughter.
Conspicuously absent from the list of beneficiaries were Democratic candidates for the Illinois Senate, for instance. Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago, in recent years teamed with Gov. Rod Blagojevich, another Chicago Democrat, in a feud against Madigan.
“Under Speaker Madigan, (the Illinois Democratic Party) really has focused on the House, particularly,” Durbin said.
Durbin said he is working to cull an expansive electronic voter database that all Democratic candidates can access to help them during their campaigns. But Durbin was quick to point out that Madigan, a Chicagoan and chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party, “knows what we are doing.”
“We are not doing inconsistent things,” Durbin said, referring to his own and the Illinois Democratic Party’s activities. “We’re not doing things that are in conflict.”
Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said getting Democrats into elected office is the state party’s goal and it appears that Durbin wants to help do that. However, Brown rebuffed the criticism that the Illinois Democratic Party only works on behalf of House Democrats, because Democrats are winning elected office up and down the ticket.
Durbin said he began working closely at the beginning of this election cycle (after the 2006 election) with John Gianulis, the past president of the county chairmen’s group, to set the groundwork for this grassroots push.
Durbin said he hopes his effort will become a “generic party operation so that anyone and everyone would feel comfortable being a part of it.”
“We offer everything that we are putting together to Democratic House members, Democratic state Senators, to everybody,” Durbin said. “We are not choosing sides here in the squabbles that are going on in Springfield.”
In an e-mail exchange, current President Alan Pirtle, who began his term in April, said the organization hopes to help “elect Democrats to every office from the county courthouse to the White House and all offices in between. As part of that, we will be strengthening and increasing our base, fund-raising for candidates, and providing Democratic county chairmen throughout Illinois with the resources they need to elect Democrats.”
Those resources include a state-of-the-art, electronic voter database. It’s likely such a list would look like this or this.
The state party’s own voter database, known as the “voter file,” has been developed and maintained by Madigan’s personal campaign committee, Friends of Michael J. Madigan, since the early 1980s, Brown said. The database contains layers of information including voting history and demographics to help candidates identify potential voters.
“The voter file is what is established and maintained by Friends of Madigan and then we try to work with as many candidates and campaigns as possible,” Brown said.
Brown said the state party uses Madigan’s voter database, but does not have a separate file. He said candidates can gain access to this for a fee, and who can gain access to the file is made on a “case-by-case basis.”
Durbin spokeswoman Christina Angarola said she is unaware of any concerns about candidates gaining access to the database.
Durbin said he has reached out to other Illinois Democrats, including Comptroller Dan Hynes, about his joint effort with the county chairmen’s group, but no one has signed on yet.
“I’m not trying to side with any faction in the party,” he said.
UPDATE 1 by AC
A blogger called Bored Now has offered some background in response to our post.
what durbin has done is to make votebuilder (also known as the van) available in illinois. durbin correctly points out that votebuilder is available “across the count[r]y.” elsewhere, the state parties have partnered with the dnc to bring it to their states. the van was also the basis for both hillary clinton and barack obama’s databases. it had been previously available in illinois through resolute consulting and was used in 2006 by congressional candidates like dan seals. others may remember van through efforts in 2004 on behalf of john kerry through act and the america votes coalition. it was one of several attempts by democrats to duplicate the success republicans have had with the voter vault.
the van is also the basis for the dnc’s neighborhood volunteer program. what is interesting about this effort is that the national party is giving people access to their database at a local level for voter contact. the information gathered by these efforts gets folded back into the database for future use by democrats running at all levels.
durbin’s efforts drags illinois into this national party program. what illinois democrats have been doing is rather archaic (and authoritarian):
The CapFax Blog also responds.
Durbin has played a role in several local and congressional elections over the past few years. He has been heavily involved in helping turn Will County from “red to blue,” for instance.
Durbin is not a particularly threatening figure in the Democratic Party, so there’s never been much of a push-back from Madigan when he’s done local party building efforts. But controlling that voter file is a big thing for Madigan. Information is power, even if the system he’s using is out of date…
June 13th, 2008
If Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey has been anything toward state government leaders — even when they haven’t been Rockford’s friend — it’s diplomatic.
When unpopular Gov. Rod Blagojevich tried to deep-six Morrissey’s chief legislative priority last spring, Morrissey had nary a critical word about Blagojevich. And though Rockford’s own state senator, Republican Dave Syverson, has for the second year in a row failed to advance Morrissey’s objectives in the Senate, Morrissey hasn’t offered much criticism about Syverson, either.
And so I was particularly surprised to see Morrissey join a recent staged event in Rockford dedicated to bashing House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. From Chuck Sweeny’s column:
Winnebago County Board Chairman Scott Christiansen said Madigan was stifling democracy and demanded, “Mr. Speaker, pass the (word I can’t use) bill.” Mayor Larry Morrissey, not to be outdone by the county, said maybe it’s time for voters to change the state’s rules by having a constitutional convention, something they’ll be asked on the Nov. 4 ballot.
“Who here voted for Mike Madigan?” the mayor shouted. “I’m angry, I’m (word I can’t use) off.”
It’s true that voters in Rockford did not elect Madigan. Voters in Madigan’s district on the southwest side of Chicago elected him to the House. Other Democratic representatives — including Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford — elected him speaker of their chamber.
It’s also true that Madigan quashed a recent plan for a new statewide capital construction plan — a plan backed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the state’s other three legislative leaders. The plan could have meant more than $100 million in funding for local infrastructure projects.
In a news conference Saturday night, Madigan said he supports a new capital plan. But he said Blagojevich — his fellow Democrat and political adversary — must first modify his governing style.
He also undercut plans to expand gambling and lease the state lottery — two ways in which supporters of the defeated plan hoped to raise money to support it. Madigan prefers an income tax hike.
“It’s the fairest tax. If you make money, you pay the tax. If you don’t, you don’t pay the tax,” he said, adding he was not actually proposing an income tax hike.
But it’s also true that Madigan has arguably sent more state dollars to Rockford than any other legislator — including Jefferson, Syverson and former Rep. Doug Scott, D-Rockford — since Rep. Zeke Giorgi, the city’s last great Springfield mover and shaker, died in 1993.
In 2002, Madigan secured $14.5 million in grants for Rockford, including $3.9 million for MetroCentre improvements, $3 million for water-main extensions and $2.5 million for two additional levels to the Pioneer parking deck. The money was part of $1.6 billion that former Gov. George Ryan and legislative leaders set aside to cement support for Ryan’s Illinois FIRST capital program.
As Sweeny noted in his column, Zeke was a Madigan mentor, and Madigan has always had a certain affection for Rockford. To this day, Madigan has framed photos of Zeke and Zeke’s family in his sparsely decorated Statehouse office. He has a conference room named after Zeke.
Over the last two years, Madigan has consistently gone out of his way to support Rockford initiatives sponsored by Jefferson, who last spring became a member of Madigan’s exclusive leadership team. Morrissey’s office didn’t get its anti-truancy plan — one of the mayor’s chief legislative initiative — to legislators until late April, a little more than a month before the end of spring session. But Madigan’s staff worked with Jefferson to twice maneuver Morrissey’s plan through the House before session ended.
Madigan’s staff also was instrumental in winning approval of Morrissey’s top priority last spring — a change in state law that allowed Rockford to impose an extra 1-percentage-point sales tax six months earlier than law otherwise would have allowed. When Blagojevich vetoed Morrissey’s expedited sales tax plan, Madigan’s staff was again key to winning the Legislature’s override of Blagojevich’s veto.
Madigan helped Morrissey even though Morrissey, running as an independent, ousted Madigan’s ally — Democrat Doug Scott — from the mayor’s office in 2005.
Jefferson is a well-intentioned legislator. And over the last two years, he was worked to assert a higher profile for himself. But without Madigan’s staff, I’m not sure either of these Morrissey initiatives would have advanced, given the considerable obstacles they faced.
Morrissey has said much over the last two years about his desire to hire a lobbyist in Springfield. But Rockford already has a virtual lobbyist: Michael Cassidy, a Madigan staffer who works closely with Jefferson and, by extension, Morrissey and his staff. Cassidy has coached Jefferson on everything from drafting to passing bills. And when Morrissey and his staff have worked to press their agenda, Cassidy coached them too.
Madigan killed the capital plan in the course of his ongoing feud with Blagojevich, whose stature has crumbled under a federal probe of his administration. Call Madigan’s move on the capital plan what you will — irresponsible, petty, vindictive. But it is what it is. Madigan isn’t budging.
Madigan withstood pressure from Blagojevich and every other legislative leader, not to mention members of his own caucus, and he killed the capital program anyway. His determination to undermine Blagojevich trumps other political and practical considerations. Did Morrissey, Christiansen and others at the “bash Madigan” event in Rockford truly think they would muster the pressure necessary to finally break Madigan?
Madigan is famous for his attention to detail. I’d bet it’s safe to say he has already taken notice of Morrissey’s “bash Madigan” remarks. I’m eager to see how much Madigan helps Morrissey now.
UPDATE 1
Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, authors a weekly column that he distributes to local newspapers. Here’s the relevant portion of last week’s column:
What a gutsy lady. Though I often disagree with Representative Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) on issues she brings before the House, she hit the nail on the head last Saturday evening at about 10:30. Ms. Hamos expressed her anger and disgust on the House floor (and on the record) as she chastised Speaker Michael Madigan for refusing to allow our $31 billion capital jobs and infrastructure plan from moving forward. The bill passed out of the Senate with bi-partisan support, but was manipulated in the House and killed with procedural maneuvering by the Speaker’s leadership team.
Ms. Hamos stated for all to hear that Speaker Madigan didn’t want this Governor traveling the state for the next two years cutting ribbons and accepting accolades. What a shame. 700,000 jobs – good jobs repairing and building roads, bridges and schools – lost; at least for now. Northwest Illinois stood to benefit greatly as did every part of our state.
Former U. S. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, a Republican, and former Congressman and current Southern Illinois University President Glenn Poshard, a Democrat, had been traveling the state garnering support for a capital jobs bill at the Governor’s request. You could literally feel the excitement building as the bill passed out of the Senate Saturday afternoon. The Governor himself worked very hard for the bill’s passage. Sadly, many of us recognized early on that the Speaker would come up with some maneuver to prevent it from passing the House.
The Speaker’s excuse is that he believes the funding mechanism is not correct. He says there should be some “pain” involved. (Translation: he wants an income tax increase). He also has said that you can’t trust this Governor with that kind of money. Certainly the trust issue is significant. But is it significant enough to prevent the creation of 700,000 new jobs and to punish the 13 million people in this state without even trying to come to consensus? I personally think not and I believe most lawmakers agree with me.
The Governor was on the floor with us Saturday night talking with individual members about the capital bill. From my seat, which is literally in the first row right in front of the podium, I was able to watch what appeared to be a cordial exchange between the Governor and Speaker Madigan. I’m told, however, that it was anything but cordial. The Speaker’s press secretary, Steve Brown, said “The speaker, based on his experience, has determined that meetings with this Governor are not a productive use of his time.” What a shame. Isn’t it time to move this state forward?
UPDATE 2
Blasts from the past …
During Morrissey’s 2005 campaign to unseat Scott, both Blagojevich and Madigan worked to save Scott and defeat Morrissey.
Blagojevich said access for Scott is, in fact, a matter of friendship. He said he’d “like to think” that he’d take phone calls from the Rockford mayor regardless of his or her party affiliation, but that the nature of his “close, personal relationship” to Scott means phone calls get answered on the fly.
“If my brother calls, I get that call directly. When Doug calls, I get that call directly,” Blagojevich said. “A lot of other calls, you tend to get it on a sheet at the end of the day.”
Madigan, who also is chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party, was less diplomatic. He implied the absence of Scott would be Rockford’s loss.
“He’s got a personal relationship with me,” Madigan said. “So when he calls, I take his call. If I get a call from the mayor of Peoria, I may not take it; I may not return it. I don’t even know who he is, the mayor of Peoria.”
Later that year, Morrissey made his Capitol lobbying debut.
As he departed the Capitol Thursday, Morrissey brushed aside a question about whether tension underscored his meetings with Blagojevich and Madigan.
“What we’ve got are two professionals who want to get progress done,” he said. “They understand that the mayor of the city of Rockford, no matter who it is, is the leader of a region of close to 300,000 people. They recognize that. Plus, Speaker Madigan is a Notre Dame guy, so we had that in common.”
June 11th, 2008
Gov. Rod Blagojevich will try once again today to kickstart talk about correcting a budget plan that he says is $2.1 billion out of balance. At 10:30 a.m., Blagojevich plans to meet with legislative leaders in his Chicago office, just as he did in the first such meeting last week.
But just as he did last week, House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is expected to skip today’s meeting and instead send a surrogate. So when Blagojevich takes he seat this morning at a table with legislative leaders, he won’t see the face of one man whose support probably is necessary to win approval of any budget change — a tax or fee increase, perhaps, or an expansion of gambling — that the others all may agree on.
For his part, Madigan is busy promoting the notion that lawmakers ought to consider impeaching Blagojevich. A memo Madigan sent to House Democratic candidates says, “Criminal activity in the Blagojevich administration is no longer
theoretical - it is proven.”
It also says, “Blagojevich is clearly not an innocent victim of circumstances,” and that, “One thing we learned from the George Ryan case is that we should excise a tumor when it is first discovered; not leave it in the body to continue to spread and do further harm.”
You read that right. The governor has now, in the eyes of the House speaker, been relegated to “a tumor.”
As governor, Blagojevich has the power to veto the budget and send it back to lawmakers for their reconsideration. But as I noted in a previous post, Blagojevich has not mustered the courage to so much as threaten to veto the budget or, for that matter, call lawmakers back to Springfield in special session. By calling a series of meetings with legislative leaders, Blagojevich may look as if he is pursuing solutions, but without actually using — or even threatening to use — the actual tools at his disposal as governor.
Then again, Blagojevich could not veto the out-of-balance budget plan even if he wanted to do so. Though the Senate and House both approved that budget, the presiding officers of those chambers — Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago, and Madigan — have not yet transmitted that budget to the governor. The governor cannot act on bills that lawmakers have not sent to him for his formal consideration.
As the CapFax Blog noted on Tuesday, this conundrum puts Blagojevich squarely at odds with Jones, his chief ally in the Legislature. The budget consists of multiple bills. And because most of those bills originated in the Senate, Senate President Jones therefore is the first to decide when to release those bills to the governor. (Both Jones and Madigan ultimately must sign off on each bill.) Jones spokeswoman Cindy Davidsmeyer did not respond to my requests for comment on Tuesday.
Under the state Constitution, the Legislature has 30 days to transmit the budget to the governor. Since the core of the budget did not pass until May 31 — the last day of spring session — the Legislature may wait until June 30 to send Blagojevich the budget. That’s the last day of this fiscal year. If Blagojevich does not act on the budget by the following day, then this state will enter its new fiscal year without a budget. If there still is no budget a couple weeks later, state workers will start missing their paychecks. Schools could miss out on their state money. And so on.
If the Legislature waits until late June to send Blagojevich the budget, he will face tremendous political pressure to approve it in full or make only limited cuts, rather than vetoing it in full. If vetoes the entire budget anyway, there is no telling when the state might have something resembling another budget. The political complications would be numerous.
For starters, lawmakers need a three-fifths majority to approve any budget at this point. That requires Republican votes — the same Republicans shut out of negotiations leading to the budget that passed May 31. Republicans would have lots of catching up to do, to say the least.
Jones may have another reason to avoid a summer session: If the Senate is in session for just a few days this summer, then pay raises will automatically kick in for Jones and other senators because Jones and fellow Democratic leaders refused to allow senators to vote on whether to reject that pay raise.
Lawmakers have just 30 days to act on the pay raise recommended by an obscure commission, or it automatically becomes law. The House has already voted to reject the raise; now it’s up to the Senate. Jones may prefer for the pay raise to kick in after the Nov. 4 general election. But to suspend the 30-day clock until then, the Senate must avoid session days.
For his part, Blagojevich also has reason to avoid a summertime session. The longer lawmakers are sitting idle in Springfield, as they did for much of last summer, the more likely they are to talk about impeaching the embattled Blagojevich.
Madigan is doing his part to fuel talk of impeachment. He said recently that his legal counsel had already researched the law on impeachment and he noted it takes just 60 votes in the House, a 118-member chamber, to impeach the governor. He also distributed a 14-page memo with talking points on impeachment to House Democratic candidates, according to news reports published Tuesday.
A Madigan aide said the document is not necessarily reflective of the speaker’s personal views but was prepared by House Democratic campaign staff.
“Candidates get incessant questions from the media about the impeachment process. Some asked staff if they could have background and information,” Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said.
Blagojevich responded:
“This is another example of the pettiness, silliness and backroom games that Speaker Madigan has been playing for months to prevent progress,” Blagojevich spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said. “We wish he would drop his behind-the-scenes maneuvering and come to the [legislative] leaders’ meetings.”
The full memo is here. If you’ve got 10 minutes, it’s well worth a read:
The list of Blagojevich’s malfeasance and inability to govern grows with every passing
day. It is not simply his legal problems that brought him to where he is today. These are
not stray, isolated incidents, but rather taken together they represent a clear pattern of
behavior and demonstrate Blagojevich’s consistently poor judgment and third-class
temperament. Time and again Blagojevich has been tested and found wanting.
From there, the memo lists precisely 30 examples of Blagojevich’s alleged “malfeasance and inability to govern.”
More to the point, it lists three reasons for the House to launch an impeachment investigation:
1. The ongoing federal criminal investigations of his administration,
including his role as Public Official A, have significantly impaired his
ability to do his job as governor. With Ali Atta’s guilty plea, the governor
has been directly implicated in a bribes-for-jobs scheme - the latest
revelation of malfeasance in the governor’s office. The conviction of Tony
Rezko on 16 or 24 federal corruption counts related to Blagojevich
administration activities also suggests something is seriously amiss. Using
common sense, and the totality of what has been learned so far about these
investigations, prudence demands that lawmakers act. Already, six
individuals associated with his administration have pled or been found
guilty of federal criminal charges in connection with their roles in corrupt
activities. Criminal activity in the Blagojevich administration is no longer
theoretical - it is proven.
Blagojevich is clearly not an innocent victim of circumstances.
Legislators have a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the
state and not depend on the federal government to save us. One thing we
learned from the George Ryan case is that we should excise a tumor when
it is first discovered; not leave it in the body to continue to spread and do
further harm.
2. Blagojevich’s violation of his oath of office by repeatedly attempting to
operate outside of the Illinois constitution and state law - expanding
FamilyCare beyond the limit authorized by the General Assembly,
spending money absent express statutory authority, failing to comply with
AG ruling that federal subpoenas are subject to FOIA, and a gross abuse
of the constitution’s special session power - using special session as a
blunt force instrument for dealing with the General Assembly and
attempting to force it to submit to his will - rather than for deal with
emergency situations.
3. Finally, Blagojevich’s legal problems have clearly become a distraction
for the governor. He is largely withdrawn from the legislative process spending
most of his time hunkered down at home or in a political
campaign office in Ravenswood hiding from the public and refusing to
answer the media’s questions. Aside from an occasional meeting or event
appearance, he is not faithfully executing the duties of his office.
Blagojevich acts like an absentee governor - content to let his underlings
do as they wish. That’s not acceptable. We need an engaged governor
who wants to be the governor.
Governor Blagojevich’s inability to govern is the principal reason that the
state is in its current predicament and that stalemate is the order of the day
in Springfield. The first step to cleaning up the mess and getting the state
back on track may be to remove the governor from office. If the evidence
warrants it, we cannot afford to wait until 2010. That will be too late and
he will have had two-and-a-half years to do even more damage to the
state.
Yowsers.
June 10th, 2008
This couldn’t help matters between Madigan and Blago …
House Speaker Michael Madigan is circulating a memo to legislative candidates spelling out how they can discuss whether Gov. Rod Blagojevich should be impeached - with talking points that compare corruption under the governor to a tumor that must be removed.
The 14-page rundown of Blagojevich’s alleged “misdeeds and malfeasance” is sure to deepen the feud between the two Democrats and lend substance to talk of impeachment.
A memo sent to some House Democratic candidates, obtained Tuesday by the Associated Press, offers detailed talking points on the merits of impeachment.
“One thing we learned from the (imprisoned former Republican Gov.) George Ryan case is that we should excise a tumor when it is first discovered; not leave it in the body to continue to spread and do further harm,” the memo reads.
June 5th, 2008
Gov. Blagojevich insists there’s a $2.1 billion hole in the budget lawmakers approved on Saturday.
Yet, he has not vetoed — or even threatened to veto — that spending plan. Nor has he called — or threatened to call — lawmakers back to Springfield in special session, as he did repeatedly last year. Remember that circus?
So what gives?
First and foremost, Blagojevich is far more politically vulnerable this summer than he was last summer (if you can imagine that). The trial of Tony Rezko, Blagojevich’s former fundraiser and adviser, is now complete, with Rezko found guilty on 16 of 24 counts.
The feds clearly signaled during that trial, which lasted most of the spring, their keen interest in Blagojevich’s activities. Witness after witness testified about Rezko’s extraordinary influence over Blagojevich’s administration. Rezko hand-picked workers and advisers for the governor. Lon Monk, the governor’s former-chief-of-staff-turned-lobbyist, allegedly checked with Rezko before the governor’s office made decisions.
Oh yeah, and there was that pair of $25,000 donationsAli Ata made to Blagojevich just as Blagojevich gave Ata a high-ranking state post.
Meanwhile, certain House Democrats are clamoring to begin impeachmentproceedings against the wounded governor. House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, coyly acknowledged Saturday night that his legal counsel had already researched the law on impeachment. Madigan added that “60 votes” in the House is all it requires to impeach the governor.
It just so happens that the Illinois Constitution says lawmakers may consider three matters during a special session called by the governor — the subject of the governor’s order, “impeachments” and confirmation of appointments.
The Governor may convene the General Assembly or the
Senate alone in special session by a proclamation stating the
purpose of the session; and only business encompassed by such
purpose, together with any impeachments or confirmation of
appointments shall be transacted.
Throw into that mix the fact that lawmakers now need a three-fifthsmajority to modify their existing budget plan or approve a new one, making any budget deal far more complicated than it would have been prior to May 31. If Blagojevich vetoes the budget, it could take weeks or months for lawmakers to put that budget back together. And if lawmakers spend weeks of months wrestling through another summertime session, chances are good that they will talk seriously about impeachment.
Blagojevich, at least at this juncture, does not appear willing to go there.
And then there’s the political interest of Blagojevich’s ally, Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago.
Salary increases recommended by an independent board automatically take effect unless they’re voted down by both houses of the General Assembly, which didn’t happen before legislators adjourned for the spring Saturday night. […]
Those increases would raise the basic salary of a state representative and senator more than $7,000 a year to nearly $73,000. Legislative leaders’ compensation would top $100,000, and the governor’s salary would rise $20,000 to $190,000.
The House voted to reject the raises. The Senate never acted, and Senate President Emil Jones has made remarks supporting the additional money. […]
There’s still time for senators to reject the newest recommendation. Lawmakers have 30 session days to act, and four days remain before that deadline.
In other words, senators may need to spend just four more days in Springfield, and their raise automatically goes into effect. (I must note that there is considerable debate about when this 30-day clock expires; there’s even debate over when the clock started ticking. The AP’s “four days” conclusion is just one interpretation I encountered.)
Jones and his Senate Dems likely do not want to be hanging around in Springfield, fighting their way through another budget that they failed to balance during the regular spring session, even as their pay raise becomes effective simply because they refused to vote on whether to reject the raise.
By refusing to call special sessions, Blago can help Jones by pre-empting such a political pickle. If there are no special sessions this summer, the raise won’t go into effect until after the Nov. 4 general election.
You might say Blago is in a bind.
June 3rd, 2008
On Saturday, I spotted a few tourists around the capitol and in the chamber galleries watching the House and Senate pass the state’s new budget.
I couldn’t help but think about their impeccable timing, because they showed up just in time to watch the single most important day of the session.
As Aaron mentioned earlier, the Legislature does next to nothing in moderation. The spring legislative session starts in mid-January and ends on May 31, this is no marathon — it’s a leisurely stroll until a few days before the constitutional deadline and then it’s a dead sprint.
Being a fresh college graduate, I figured I would be prepared to handle the insane pace. After all, who better would know what it is like work through the night on the eve of an important deadline? Lawmakers, however, proved me wrong — dead wrong.
As I recouped the sleepless nights of the last week, I had some time to reflect on the events that have transpired over the past week and over the six months I’ve been covering Illinois politics.
On the one hand, it’s easy to understand why so many people are apathetic to politics, particularly in Illinois.
Our governor has been thrust into the center of a political corruption scandal, though has yet to be charged. Our previous governor is now petitioning the president to commute his sentence. Legislative leaders bicker and squabble over personality conflicts and the rank and file lawmakers are forced to sit by and twiddle their thumbs.
I admit, there have been times when I was unable to mask my shock when watching the Legislature this spring. Perhaps I came in wearing rose-colored glasses, though I’m not one who tends to favor idealism over reality.
The most recent example came on Friday when Senate Democrats refused to allow Republicans to “caucus,” which essentially is a free timeout for either party whenever it wants to take time to discuss an upcoming bill or strategize. The words “embarrassment” came up more than once during the debate. Watching online from my office, I blinked once, twice, three times and then realized, yes, folks, this is government in action, or inaction, whichever shoe fits.
But this weekend I also saw a different side of the Legislature. Yes, all of the complaints above still happened, but I also saw the nuanced dance of each player, whether it was a leader or the rank and file. The Rock River Valley delegation may have been largely excluded from budget talks since all but one of them are Republicans, but they were looking out for seemingly minor, yet important issues for their consitutents.
For example, Rep. Dave Winters, R-Shirland, was keeping an eye on the budget negotiations for a small, but specific grant for the newly formed Stateline Mass Transit District. A name change in the budget was all he needed, but it was important for the transportation needs of Rockton, Roscoe and South Beloit.
Or take Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, who resurrected the city’s truancy initiative and passed it through the House for the second time in two weeks.
Even though, as a collective whole, the Legislature can be entirely dysfunctional, it’s less about them as individuals, but rather just a bad case of group think.
It is easy to get frustrated by what we don’t know, but sometimes dysfunction can be functional, at least in Illinois.
May 9th, 2008
Rep. Dave Winters, R-Shirland, recently made what struck me as a remarkable observation about the politics of race and leadership in the General Assembly. In response, Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, provided some insight into how he sees those powerful, yet delicate, dynamics.
 |
| Jefferson |
I was talking to Winters about the status of Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey’s truancy agenda — sponsored by Jefferson — and he said he was confident that Jefferson could garner Senate President Emil Jones Jr.’s support for Morrissey’s plan once it clears the House and lands in the Senate.
I’m no expert on Jefferson’s relationship with Jones, I told Winters, but I wouldn’t think Jefferson would necessarily have the inside track to Jones. Last spring, Jefferson joined House Speaker Michael Madigan’s leadership team. Jones and Madigan, both Chicago Democrats, are feuding. So my first assumption would be that Jones would view Jefferson as a Madigan surrogate and would therefore be hostile toward him, I told Winters.
 |
| Winters |
“I would assume that he is not seen as Madigan’s guy as much as he is the Black Caucus guy,” Winters responded. “Emil probably has very good relations with the Black Caucus.”
Members of the House Black Caucus — the collection of African-American state representatives, all Democrats — pick three members of Madigan’s exclusive leadership team. Last spring, they picked Jefferson for one of those three seats.
Like Jefferson, Jones also is black.
“Blood is stronger than water,” Winters said.
Jefferson disagreed with Winters’ interpretation. In fact, Jefferson suggested the sentiment may be just the opposite of what Winters suggested — that perhaps Jones is disappointed in black House members for following Madigan’s lead.
“Jones has some animosity toward the House members as it relates to the Black Caucus because we are under Mike Madigan’s reign,” Jefferson said.
“Well, he’s the speaker of the House. That’s who we supposedly follow. (Jones is) upset sometimes that maybe we don’t follow his lead the way he feels we should. And that’s OK. That’s his perception of the situation. Just like Emil holds his members accountable, we’re accountable to Mike Madigan. And because we’re accountable to Mike Madigan, it doesn’t get us favoritism with the president of the Senate.”
Jones spokeswoman Cindy Davidsmeyer declined to comment.
 |
| Jones |
“(Jones) views that sometimes it’s maybe not (the House Black Caucus) being in his corner as it relates to a lot of things. Well, that’s not the case,” Jefferson said.
“If we’ve got to pick an issue, we’re probably going to be more supportive of the House issue, under Mike Madigan’s reign, than we would under his leadership as president of the Senate. I don’t think we’re enemies. But I don’t think that I can get anything done (in the Senate) any sooner than (Sen.) Dave Syverson (R-Rockford) in the Senate. If anyone is going to champion a bill, I’d certainly want to go and talk to President Jones about the bill. But I think that we need to pick it up on that side with Sen. Syverson to make sure he’s doing everything.”
Jefferson concluded, “We need to be able to cut across party lines. And the fact that I’m black and Emil is black, I don’t think carries a lot of weight with Emil at this point in time.”
April 14th, 2008
It’s the greatest of perennial questions at the Illinois Capitol: What’s Mike Madigan Up To?
He is the Capitol sage, a man widely regarded for political acumen but difficult if not impossible to read. So it goes that last week when Madigan antagonized House Republicans, Capitol insiders found themselves again asking themselves and each other this question.
The speaker’s strategy over the last week doesn’t make sense on the surface. It doesn’t seem rational. Here we are, less than two months from the formal May 31 end of session, and Madigan and other state leaders have not even a basic framework for the next state budget. Yet Madigan acts to divide the parties in his own chamber — thereby making the prospect of a budget deal even more elusive.
He is already facing off with Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Senate President Emil Jones Jr., his fellow Chicago Democrats, and now he is poised to fight House Republicans too. Is he yearning for a long, ugly summertime session — just like the one last year, only worse? It’s one thing to relish a good fight. It’s quite another to invite additional opponents into the fight against yourself.
Theories on Madigan’s motives abound among political insiders: Perhaps he is trying to supercharge the Democratic base in advance on the Nov. 4 general election. Perhaps he is trying to whip the House Republicans into line. Perhaps, amid a toxic political climate, he is getting paranoid.
It’s not clear when we’ll know what Madigan is up to, or when the mess is Springfield might work itself out. But I’ll do my best to sort through some of the variables at play, and maybe, just maybe, I can put some of this chaos into order:
- The Obama factor. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama may appear light years away from his days in the Illinois Senate, but as a candidate for president he may do much to shape the politics of Illinois this year. If the ultra-popular Obama leads the Democratic ticket in the November general election, he could pull other Democratic candidates upward. In other words, Democratic and independent Illinois voters likely will turn out in droves to vote for Obama, if he is the Democratic presidential nominee, and in doing so they are more likely to support other Dems on the ballot. And that means the Dems controlling Springfield may have substantial wiggle room this year. They may be able to take risks — such as a brutal, intra-party, summer-long fight over the budget — and not suffer losses in the November general election.
- The Rezko Factor. Tony Rezko, a former top fundraiser and adviser to Blagojevich, in on trial for allegedly using his insider clout to shake down firms seeking business with the state. As I noted in my Saturday column, Blagojevich has been MIA for much of the last two years as the feds closed in on his inner circle. (Chris Kelly, another former top Blagojevich fundraiser and adviser, also is under indictment on federal tax-related charges.) If Rezko is convicted, pressure will build on Rezko and Kelly to share with the feds any dirt they have on Blagojevich, who has already been named as “Public Official A” in the Rezko case. I would expect Blagojevich to head even deeper underground; he won’t want exposure to rank-and-file lawmakers, the public or the media. If Rezko is acquitted, Blagojevich could feel emboldened and be much more enthusiastic about a high-profile fight at the Capitol.
- Madigan v. Jones. The intensity and sincerity of the animosity between Madigan and Jones cannot be exaggerated. These two men are locked in a political battle of the titans — a brawl dominating state government matters large and small.
- Jones & Blagojevich. At least until further notice, Jones is in lockstep with Blagojevich.
- More cash to spend. If Madigan and Jones agree on anything, it’s that they both have expressed support for income tax hike to generate more state revenue. Jones is a longstanding proponent of a tax hike to help public schools with more state money. Last spring, Madigan kicked off the spring session by saying it was time for the state to take responsibility for its pension debt and other fiscal problems (you can’t pay off this debt without raising more money). Last summer, he went a step further by actually suggesting an income tax hike.
- Blago’s tax-hike pledge. Blagojevich continues to insist he won’t raise taxes on “people.” His no-tax-hike pledge, in fact, is the pledge from his races in 2002 and 2006 that he has most often repeated. Only, he violated that pledge by approving a sales tax hike for the Chicago-area early this spring, as part of an effort to bail out mass transit systems. Will he now support an income tax hike?
- Supermajority after May 31. The formal end of spring session is May 31. After that, lawmakers must produce a three-fifths majority to approve any bill with an effective date prior to the following June 1. A budget for the upcoming fiscal year, beginning July 1, obviously must be effective before then. Passing a budget after May 31, therefore requires a three-fifths majority. It is not possible to achieve a supermajority in the House without at least four Republican votes, and that’s assuming every one of the 67 Democrats in the chamber sticks together. Jones does have a supermajority in the Senate, but he failed repeatedly to keep his own members together last year. Even with his supermajority, Jones failed to steamroll Senate Republicans when it really mattered.
Now, back to the question of what Madigan is up to. What if he is three steps ahead of everybody else at the Capitol, as he is so often said to be? What if he is acting in accordance with a rational plan to advance his political objectives?
All of the conventional theories of Madigan’s motives assume he will continue his fight with Blagojevich and Jones. They discount the possibility of the three Democrats making a deal.
Is it possible that Madigan is trying to signal to Jones that he is prepared to make a deal, perhaps on a tax hike, by pushing the Republicans away? It’s a radical theory, but I’ve certainly crazier ones.
Madigan, Jones and Blagojevich could make a budget deal by May 31, and approve it without a single Republican vote. Come June 1, they do need Republican support, and it’s anybody’s guess what that might mean — particularly if the parties are divided in both chambers.
Then again, the lines of communication between Madigan and Jones, just as between Madigan and Blagojevich, and now between Madigan and House GOP Leader Tom Cross, are dead, sources say. Any deal among the Dems appears a long way off, at best.
And the summer fast approaches.
Last summer, work at the Capitol resembled the scene near the end of “Animal House”where frat guy Stork wanders into a parade, shoves aside a drum major, and then leads the marching band into a dead-end alley. The band members, still playing their instruments, march themselves into a wall, crushing each other.
Last summer, Blagojevich and lawmakers repeated this scene twice daily.
February 18th, 2008
A great pastime at the Capitol is speculating on the objectives and motives of House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. Madigan seldom speaks in public and he generally is the last of state leaders to show his cards.
When he does show them, he tends to stake out a contrarian position. By positioning himself opposite other interests, he creates leverage to accomplish his goals — whatever they may be.
This spring session, Madigan was the first to show a card when he spread word last week that no major initiative will clear the House, the chamber that he controls, unless it contains language effectively pre-empting Gov. Rod Blagojevich from attaching rules elaborating on its thrust.
It’s uncanny for Madigan to announce such a radical position before the governor has a chance to set forth his own strategy Wednesday in his State of the State/budget address. Then again, Blagojevich and Madigan are great political adversaries. Together with Senate President Emil Jones Jr., a third Chicago Democrat allied with Blagojevich, the two last year faced off in a battle last so fierce that session literally dragged from the spring straight into this year.
But to truly understand the extraordinary nature of Madigan’s pre-emptive strike, you must consider the actual substance of his plan. By requiring all major bills to include language prohibiting the governor or his agencies from attaching administrative rules, the strategy could potentially shut down the legislative process.
In other words, Madigan has kicked off the session with a strategy that may do nothing but disrupt and delay the legislative process.
If Jones continues to side with Blagojevich through this session, he is unlikely to adopt Madigan’s strategy in the Senate. If the Senate rejects the strategy, and Madigan refuses to budge, it will be impossible for the two chambers to agree on legislation. And even if Jones does capitulate, and both the Senate and House do agree on legislation including the no-rules language, the governor could simply veto the language and send each bill back to lawmakers.
Lawmakers would then need to decide whether to override the governor. But I’m getting way ahead of myself here.
The bottom line is that Madigan does not often bluff. If he does bluff, he is not one to quickly go back on it.
Blagojevich and Jones, for their part, don’t tend to quickly swallow Madigan’s wishes.
UPDATE 1
Rep. Chuck Jefferson. D-Rockford, supports Madigan’s new strategy. Jefferson is a member of Madigan’s leadership team, so this is not surprising.
Jefferson echoed the speaker’s position, articulated last week by House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, that the governor directly assaulted the Legislature when he declared that the body’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which reviews the governor’s administrative rules, lacks the power to reject his rules.
“I think it’s a good idea if in fact the governor is going to continue to try and pull the political maneuvers to undercut what JCAR is in place to do,” Jefferson said. “I think it’s to the governor’s advantage at this point, but he doesn’t seem to think so.”
UPDATE 2
Rockford GOP Sen. Dave Syverson also supports Madigan’s strategy, at least the concept, he said.
Syverson said state agencies have misinterpreted his bills when they write the rules, but he could not think of any examples. He said he is then forced to pass another bill to clarify the first legislation.
“I agree with the Speaker to the extent that we need to put more in there in regards to the major issues because the governor has taken more leeway to expand definitions … taking it way beyond what the intent was and we need to rein that in,” Syverson said.
“The House version may go too far but the what’s currently in place does not go far enough. There may be some room for compromise, which we hope we can do.”
UPDATE 3
In line with the House Republican party line, Rep. Dave Winters, R-Shirland, disagrees with the House Democrats’ plan. He said rule-writing needs to be done by people with the expertise in that bill, such as those at the state agencies.
“I think the administrative rules should be written by the agencies that are to administer them,” Winters said, “not by a bunch of legislators who are not bureaucrats.”
February 14th, 2008
House Speaker Michael Madigan’s plan to pre-empt Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s renegade rule-making sent House lawmakers into a partisan frenzy on Thursday, a brawl that boded ill for a constructive, or even civil, spring legislative session.
Republicans threw a fit on the House floor over Madigan’s plan to include in most legislation considered by the chamber this spring language that would prohibit Blagojevich or his agencies from attaching administrative rules to those bills once they become law.
The Republicans said it’s past time for the House Democrats to learn to get along with the governor of their own party.
Yes, this all sounds arcane. But it’s significant for two reasons:
1) As a political matter, Madigan’s new strategy is a clear indication that his bitter feud with Blagojevich, a fellow Chicago Democrat, will continue into its second year. The prospect is both titillating (for us political junkies, anyway) and exhausting.
2) As a practical and legal matter, Madigan’s new strategy will make the already cumbersome and dynamic process of lawmaking downright insane. Again, fun to watch. But not so fun if you have an legislative agenda in Springfield and you actually hope to advance it.
Here is a copy of the language Madigan would like to see inserted into each bill. From this provision, you get the idea:
Notwithstanding any other rulemaking authority that may exist, neither the Governor nor any agency or agency head under the jurisdiction of the Governor has any authority to make or promulgate rules to implement or enforce the provisions of this amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly. If, however, the Governor believes that rules are necessary to implement or enforce the provisions of this amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly, the Governor may suggest rules to the General Assembly by filing them with the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate and by requesting that the General Assembly authorize such rulemaking by law, enact those suggested rules into law, or take any other appropriate action in the General Assembly’s discretion.
Madigan’s new strategy could radically change the legislative process in Springfield. The AP has more background.
Writing and enforcing rules is a fundamental function of the executive branch in state government. Simply put, it’s how the governor and his agencies interpret and execute state law. But Blagojevich drew Madigan’s ire when he used an “emergency” administrative rule to implement part of his plan for universal health care.
The governor’s move was highly unusual, to say the least. Rules generally are not used to implement major spending initiatives which the Legislature has not approved. Moreover, after a special committee of lawmakers rejected the governor’s so-called “emergency,” the governor said he’d decided that the committee’s decisions were merely advisory and not binding.
House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, said Thursday that the governor’s decision to sidestep the bipartisan oversight committee forced Madigan’s new strategy of attempting to pre-empt the governor rule-making authority. She called the governor’s actions “a direct challenge to the authority, to the prerogative of the Legislature.”
Currie said it is too risky to have faith that state agencies, which answer to the governor, will properly interpret the Legislature’s will in crafting its rules. Filling legislation with rule-like language, she said, is a way to ensure that the Legislature’s intent is truly reflected.
“Maybe (the governor) can be clear about what we do need, and we can put in the muscle so that we can tell the agency exactly what we mean,” she said.
The fight on Thursday stemmed from a raucous committee meeting the day before. A committee I was observing turned upside down when news of the new amendment emerged and Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville, began shouting at committee chairwoman, Rep. Karen May, D-Highland Park.
The meeting stalled for about 10 minutes as young staffers talked on cell phones and conferred with May, the committee’s chairwoman. Then May, following the orders she was given, announced the committee would not vote on any bills until next week.
Black, who was prepared to testify for one of the bills on the committee’s agenda, erupted as he began shouting at May and the committee staff, believing the announcement was disrespectful.
On Thursday, House Republican Leader Tom Cross of Oswego asked what it would really mean to take the governor’s rulemaking authority away.
“We will be bogged down in rules that (this special committee) has historically done for many, many years to the point that nothing gets passed and the people of the state of Illinois will not have their issues addressed in this session,” he predicted.
Cross said the people should not suffer because the House Democrats and the governor can’t get along.
Previous Posts
