Farewell & Happy Trails

6 comments August 19th, 2008

I’m no longer employed by the Register Star, and this blog is discontinued.

Thanks to you all for following my many adventures under the Capitol dome.

My personal e-mail address is aaron@awchambers.com

Cheers,

Chambers

Manzullo, GOP Friends, to Keep Talking to Themselves?

1 comment August 3rd, 2008

The Register Star reported Fridaythat U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo and other Republicans stayed on Capitol Hill and continued speaking on the House floor well after Democratic leaders officially closed the chamber in an attempt to pressure the Democrats into allowing a vote on an offshore drilling bill.

Now comes word that the Republicans might continue their rhetoric into this week …

The session will not be televised, since C-Span does not control the cameras inside the House chamber. Rather, those come under the purview of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats, and they’re unlikely to do anything to help Republicans.

But Republicans felt they got a lot of good press out of Friday’s “revolt,” so they will be back at it again, and younger GOP lawmakers were clearly energized by the tactic, something not evident among Republicans for most of the 110th Congress.

There must be an election looming. Oh yeah, there is.

Sacia, Other Republicans, Cry Race, Updated X 1

2 comments July 17th, 2008

As we reported in today’s Register Star, Rep. Jim Sacia and other white Republicans on Wednesday accused a black Chicago Democrat of race-baiting during a committee hearing.

During a morning hearing on a bill to help ex-convicts get jobs and start businesses, Rep. Monique Davis, D-Chicago, said lawmakers representing state prisons are more interested in keeping their prisons packed with inmates “from Chicago” than they are with helping ex-convicts improve their lives after prison.

“African-Americans down here (in Springfield) have got to fight harder … to stop this continued recidivism because opportunities are denied,” Davis said. “You need to take the names of people with prisons in their districts and watch how they vote. They don’t want to stop crime. It stops their livelihood.”

Sacia, who is white, told Davis her statement was “asinine,” and she responded that she was not speaking to him. Sacia then voted against the bill and abruptly departed from the hearing.

“Her comments were definitely racial,” he said after the hearing. “They were directed at white Republicans. It was totally unacceptable.”

Davis accused lawmakers representing prisons of stymieing efforts to improve the lives of ex-cons.

“Illinois must recognize there are some people in the Illinois General Assembly who have prisons in their district and their whole objective is to keep them filled,” she said during committee. “Anything that would create an atmosphere to get those prisons with fewer people, or (would) threaten to close (them), it’s a war.”

“’We’ve got to have those prisoners,’” she continued, characterizing what she perceives as the view of lawmakers whose districts include prisons. “’They’ve got to come down here from Chicago and we’ve got to keep them filled because that’s how we get work. That’s our economy. We no longer plant corn. We no longer have farms. We don’t raise cows and pigs. We keep prisoners.’”

Davis, an African American, noted after the hearing that she had not specified the race of inmates packing prisons.

“I didn’t say what color they are, but we all know what color they are,” she said.

According to a 2005 report (the latest available) from the Illinois Department of Corrections, 60 percent of the adult prisoners in Illinois are black, while 28 percent are white and 11 percent are Hispanic.

Her remarks and the ensuing response from livid Republicans has attracted quite a bit of attention.

What do you make of this? Did the Republicans over-react?

UPDATE 1

Sacia used his weekly column, which he distributes to local newspapers, to address the controversy …

We returned to Springfield on Tuesday, July 16 at the beckoning of Speaker Madigan to resume work on a capital (jobs) bill and to vote on override motions dealing with the Governor’s $1.4 billion in cuts to the Fiscal Year 2009 state budget.

The Governor used a broad ax to cut funding from numerous social services and state government agencies that provide very necessary monies to keep the machinery of the state moving forward. The House voted on thirty-three separate override motions dealing with cuts to the new budget (House Bill 5701). My good friend Representative Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) articulated the “insanity” of voting no, in effect voting to sustain the Governor’s cuts. As an example, he noted that the Governor cut a mere 3% from his own budget while slashing more than 25% from Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s budget. No one has missed the ongoing battle between these constitutional officers. This and the other disproportionate cuts made throughout the budget left me with no option but to vote to override the Governor’s actions.

Adding insult to injury, the $59 billion budget the Governor axed had been sent to him $2.4 billion out of balance. There is a lot of  blame to go around in this unfortunate situation, but the true absurdity lies in knowing that no matter what we do our efforts will be futile if the Senate doesn’t return to Springfield as well to deal with the Governor’s budget cuts. Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago) is a close ally of Governor Blagojevich and has made it clear that he has no intention of calling the Senate back into session. Sounds absurd? You’re right, it is.
On the budget, the Illinois House did its due diligence and now we await the next move by the Governor or the Senate. We did not however, act this week on a sorely needed capital (jobs) bill that would put up to 700,000 Illinoisans back to work.

Oh, and did I mention that if the Senate fails to return and take action, legislators and the Governor will receive a 3.8% pay raise? This raise will be funded on the backs of hard working Illinoisans. That infuriates me, and of course I will give my pay increase to charity.

I would be remiss if I also didn’t mention the potential racial issue that arose at our Prison Reform Committee hearing on July 16th. I am the Minority Spokesman on this committee and I take that responsibility very seriously. My good friend and an outstanding young legislator LaShawn Ford (D-Chicago), an African American, presented House Bill 2746 that would allow the state to provide low-interest loans to paroled prisoners to help them start their own businesses.

In my questioning, I was attempting to determine if we would be offering more perks to ex-offenders than to law-abiding citizens who have not been to prison. Representative Monique Davis (D-Chicago), an African American who is not a regular member of the committee, said that members who have prisons in their districts do all they can to keep the prisons full. She urged African American legislators to work together to put a stop to it. I told the lady her comments were asinine and it went down hill from there. When the full House came to order I asked the Speaker to investigate the incident, which I felt was highly racial, and at a minimum, race-baiting. [Emphasis added]

Call Your House a Church, Get a Tax Break

1 comment July 17th, 2008

My Future Garage?

I’m thinking about building an altar in the garage, between the lawn mower and table saw …

When George Michael placed a cross on the side of his lakefront mansion, neighbors assumed the decoration was simply a display of the man’s religious faith.

What his neighbors didn’t know is that Michael had decided to convert his $3 million residence into the Armenian Church of Lake Bluff, qualifying him for a nearly $80,000 break on his annual property tax bill.

Now, locals are questioning whether the property is a church at all. Village officials wonder how they’ll be able to make up the lost revenue, and residents worry that their share of the tax burden will grow as a result.

Meanwhile, Lake Bluff officials notified Michael that if he is running a church, he’ll need to pay more than $115,000 in fines for failing to get the village’s permission, setting up a possible court battle.

Chambers Back in the Game

Add comment July 14th, 2008

I’m back from vacation, but wading through a mound of e-mail, etc.

I’ll have more in a bit …

Chambers On The Bench

Add comment July 5th, 2008

My legs are numb from chasing the governor lately.

I’m on the bench until July 14. Blog you then!

Daley Patronage Chief Loses Appeal Updated X1

Add comment April 15th, 2008

In a decision that appears to not bode well for public officials facing federal corruption probes, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals today ruled against Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s patronage chief:

The defendants created an illegitimate,
shadow hiring scheme based on patronage and cronyism
by filling out sham interview forms, falsely certifying
that politics had not entered into their hiring, and covering
up their malfeasance. These are the hallmarks of a fraud.

From the AP story:

Witnesses testified at trial that “patronage armies” had been formed in city departments and deployed into the city¹s wards and precincts on Election Day to round up votes for Daley and candidates he supported.

Testimony indicated Sorich and those under him faked test scores and job interview evaluations to make it appear the rules barring political affiliation as a factor in hiring decisions were being followed — but that people who took part in the patronage armies would get jobs.

City officials are banned by the long-standing Shakman Decree from hiring most municipal employees based on their political affiliation.

But patronage has been part of Chicago politics since anyone can remember and the decree long went all but ignored.

The simplified question here is whether the feds must show a smoking gun — a bribe changing hands, for instance — to prove a public corruption case. The appeals court said that in this case, the feds do not.

The defendants’ argument that any private gain must go
to the defendants themselves is not without basis, for
we and other courts have not always been consistent
with our description of the requirement. Although
McNally itself and the key portions of Bloom refer to
“private gain,” Bloom also once uses the phrase “personal
gain,” 149 F.3d at 657, and in United States v. Hausmann,
345 F.3d 952, 956 (7th Cir. 2003), we used “personal gain”
exclusively. Other circuits have also described our requirement
as a “personal gain” or “personal benefit.” …

The semantic difference between “private”
and “personal” gain may be insignificant, but to the extent
that “personal” connotes gain only by the defendant, it
is misleading. By “private gain” we simply mean illegitimate
gain, which usually will go to the defendant, but
need not.

Imagine scenario (A) in which a mayor surreptitiously
channels city contracts to his cronies in the business
community; they get a windfall whereas he has merely
helped his friends and takes no money. Or imagine scenario
(B) in which an attorney bribes a court in order to
obtain favorable results for his clients in their lawsuits. Or
scenario (C) where a union boss sells union property to
a senator even though the senator did not offer the
highest price, and in exchange receives the senator’s vote
on a matter that concerns the union. In all three scenarios
the public has been defrauded of the honest services of its
public servants: the mayor, the court, and the senator.
Moreover, in all three scenarios the defendant—the mayor,
the attorney, and the union boss—was not the one
who stood to gain financially. Certainly the defendants all
received something: in (A), the mayor received the gratitude
of his friends; in (B), the attorney could boast to
future clients of a high success rate, which is good for
business; and in (C) the union boss curried valuable favor
with the senator. But the money went to another party. All
three scenarios have played out in the federal courts and
have resulted in convictions for mail fraud. …

These cases are the exception to a rule of human nature
rather than of law: usually someone up to no good will be
out to enrich himself, not others. It is thus with a hint of
irony that we stated in United States v. Spano, 421 F.3d 599,
603 (7th Cir. 2005), that “[a] participant in a scheme to
defraud is guilty even if he is an altruist and all the benefits
of the fraud accrue to other participants.” The defendants
seize on Spano’s “other participants” language and
contend that fraud exists when private gain goes to other schemers, as in the above three examples, but not when it oes to third parties. We disagree. It is much less likely—but
no less culpable—that fraudulent schemers will share the
proceeds with third parties rather than amongst themselves. …

In Hausmann, 345 F.3d at 954, 956, an attorney
referred clients to a chiropractor friend in exchange for a
percentage of the business brought in by each referral; he
did not tell his clients about his take. The chiropractor
made good by paying the attorney’s creditors and his
favorite charities, and we affirmed the attorney’s conviction.
Id. But suppose the attorney had stated that he only
wanted the kickbacks to go to charities, or, for that matter,
to his estranged brother, about whom the attorney had
always felt guilty. Unlikely scenarios, maybe, but mail
fraud nevertheless. Robin Hood may be a noble criminal,
but he is still a criminal. “In the case of a successful
scheme, the public [or client] is deprived of its servants’ [or
attorney’s] honest services no matter who receives the
proceeds.”

UPDATE 1

The Tribune has more:

In a key win for federal prosecutors, an appellate court in Chicago on Tuesday upheld the convictions of four former top aides to Mayor Richard Daley who were convicted of rigging hiring and promotions at City Hall.

Former Daley patronage chief Robert Sorich and co-defendants were found guilty in 2006 of doling out jobs to reward members of political armies who campaigned for favored candidates.

On appeal, lawyers for the former city aides argued that they could not be convicted of criminal fraud because they took no bribes or kickbacks in the scheme. But a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.

Getting Behind God

Add comment March 11th, 2008

Just in case their constituents weren’t convinced, certain lawmakers appear determined to show them that they’re serious about God. They’re backing legislation to create yet another license plate in Illinois, this one saying “In God We Trust.”

Last week, the House overwhelmingly approved the bill, sending it to the Senate for consideration. The Rock River Valley’s four House lawmakers — Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford; Rep. Ron Wait, R-Belvidere; Rep. Dave Winters, R-Shirland; and Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica — all voted for it.

Here is the complete roll call.

GateHouse noted that Rob Sherman, this state’s crusading atheist, has his own take on the bill:

Atheist Rob Sherman believes that if Illinoisans are able to buy license plates saying “In God We Trust,” they also should have the right to purchase “God is Make-Believe” plates.

Sherman, a resident of Buffalo Grove, said he wouldn’t put such a plate on his car, “but if some Christian wants it on their car, that’s fine.”

Initiatives such as this tend to come from lawmakers representing the more conservative areas of the state. In this case, Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, is the lead sponsor. Other lawmakers generally find it difficult to oppose them, so, as was the case here, they get behind them too.

The “In God We Trust” plan is just the latest in a series of measures that lawmakers have used over the years to reassert their commitment to God. In 2005, Rep. David Reis, R-Olney, sponsored a resolution affirming his commitment to keeping the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

It’s not that anybody was threatening, at least not seriously, to remove “under God” from the Pledge. Nonetheless, Reis wanted to make a statement. The House approved the resolution with a voice vote.

House GOP Leader Visiting Rockford

Add comment March 7th, 2008

House Republican Leader Tom Cross plans to visit Rockford on Monday to promote his economic and capital construction plan.

And, by staging a joint appearance with Rep. Ron Wait, he could give Wait a boost in his bid to keep his seat in the House. Wait, R-Belvidere, is facing a challenge in this election from Greg Tuite, a Rockford Democrat.

Cross and Wait plan to appear at 1 p.m. Monday at Dial Machine, 2902 Eastrock Dr., Rockford.

Tuite came surprisingly close to beating Wait in 2006. This year, Wait may need all the help he can get.

Winnebago Dems Pick Lewandowski

Add comment March 6th, 2008

Winnebago County Democrats elected Dan Lewandowski their new party chairman, according to a party news release issued Thursday.

Lewandowski is a Rockford lawyer who in 2006 ran unsuccessfully against Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford.

Lewandowski succeeds Greg Tuite, another Rockford lawyer, in the Democratic party post. Tuite is challenging Rep. Ron Wait, R-Belvidere, in this election.

The party’s news release is here.