April 30th, 2008 08:57am
Aaron Chambers
When the chief judge of Lake County was stopped recently for DUI, he reportedly refused to take a breath test.
Lake County Chief Judge David Hall refused to take Breathalyzer and field sobriety tests Saturday morning when he was pulled over for allegedly weaving across the center lane, according to Lake County court documents.
It’s no wonder. Judges know the law.
Last spring, in an examination of cases in which Illinois judges are stopped for DUI, the Register Star found that judges generally do not blow. (more…)
April 24th, 2008 08:59am
Aaron Chambers
Gov. Rod Blagojevich has long channeled Elvis. During campaign stops, public events or parties, the governor’s aides would play Elvis. Or the governor would talk about Elvis. Or both.
The governor proudly displays a statue of Elvis in his otherwise vacant Capitol office. Heck, the governor’s mop of a hairdo even looks like Elvis.
Now that the feds are closing in on him, the governor has a new tune. On Wednesday, at the end of his appearance at his annual prayer breakfast, the governor recited the words of “Men With Broken Hearts,” an old Hank Williams tune. (more…)
April 23rd, 2008 09:29am
Aaron Chambers
Another week brings another witness putting Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the center of an alleged pay-to-play scheme in his administration.
A former top official in Gov. Blagojevich’s administration said Tuesday the governor gave him a $127,000-a-year state job in exchange for pouring cash into Blagojevich’s campaign fund, including tens of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket.
That bombshell from Ali Ata came as the onetime director of the Illinois Finance Authority pleaded guilty in a deal in which prosecutors plan to have him testify in the ongoing corruption trial of former Blagojevich fund-raiser Tony Rezko.
Ata, in his plea agreement, one-upped other witnesses by claiming that cash changed hands in front on the governor. Stuart Levine, the federal governments lead witness in its prosecution of Blagojevich pal Tony Rezko, and Joe Cari, another witness, previously testified they had conversations with Blagojevich in which, according to their interpretations, the governor offered state business in exchange for campaign contributions. (more…)
April 18th, 2008 11:58am
Andrea Zimmermann
Wouldn’t life be easier if we could pick our president by comparing our grocery shopping lists?
Well, the New York Times asked two national market research experts to help them do just that.
If you like the crunch of Kashi GoLean cereal, the grease of Church’s Fried Chicken and the energy from a Luna Bar, you might be a Hillary Clinton supporter.
Obama followers would likely prefer to eat at the trendy Panera Bread bakery/restaurant, sweeten their beverages with Sugar in the Raw and shop at the local farmer’s market.
And those of you who prefer the monstrous Hardee’s burgers, DiGiorno’s Stuffed Crust pizza and SoBe Energy drinks are most likely to vote for McCain.
Here’s how the Times cooked up the politicians’ preferences:
Larry Finkel at MarketResearch.com used information on 25,000 people assembled by Simmons Market Research to develop a voter preference index based on store-bought cookies and restaurants. […]
(Obama’s) strength among latte drinkers was confirmed by the software developers and restaurant geeks who created Urbanspoon.com. Last year, they developed a steak-sushi index showing that cities with more steak restaurants also have more Republican victories. […]
Harvey Hartman of the Hartman Group applied the data he uses to help food companies understand consumer issues and came up with a grid that predicts voting patterns based on preferences for health and wellness products.
Of course, I am a big fan of DiGiorno’s pizza, Kashi GoLean cereal and Panera Bread, so I suppose that makes me a moderate.
April 17th, 2008 12:32pm
Andrea Zimmermann
Sunday’s New York Times Magazine had an interesting piece on Massachusetts’ bid to become the latest state to use gambling to plug its budget hole.
In sum, the article weighs the negatives and positives to state-owned gambling operations.
First the background:
The plan [proposed by Gov. Deval Patrick] was for Massachusetts to sell three 10-year licenses for at least $200 million apiece and then tax the casinos’ takings at 27 percent, raking in $400 million a year. That, went the reckoning, would cover a $1.3 billion budget shortfall.
The Times’ story went on to say that of the more than 500 casinos in the U.S., most of them were established over the past 20 years, and “they account more than half of the almost $100 billion that Americans wager every year.” Illinois, which in 1991 became the second state to legalize riverboat gambling, is part of that group.
And the attraction?
[Casinos] create money out of thin air.
(more…)
April 16th, 2008 10:09pm
Andrea Zimmermann
The Senate is holding a marathon session tonight. It’s just after 10 p.m., and it just adjourned.
Senate Republican Leader Frank Watson was just handed an overwhelming defeat, when his attempt to allow patrons to smoke on the state’s riverboat casinos. This would have amended the statewide indoor smoking ban, which began in January.
Watson, R-Greenville, argued that riverboat revenues have slumped since January, which coincided with the Smoke-Free Illinois Act. The state counts on the money from the casinos as part of its General Revenue Fund. He pointed to Iowa, which passed a similar indoor smoking ban, but excluded casinos.
The Legislature’s Commission for Government Forecasting and Accountability tends to agree:
Several factors are likely contributing to this turnaround in riverboat figures. The struggling econmy along with the higher motor fuel prices are likely lowering the amount of income that consumers feel that they can afford to spend on gambling. In addition, the 2007-2008 winter season has been particularly harsh, producing several weekend storms that likely prevented gaming during normally busy weekend periods. However, it appears that the biggest factor that may be affecting Illinois casinos is the statewide smoking ban that went into effect on January 1, 2008.
You can read the full report here. (Start on page 9.)
Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan, argued that the economy is bad and that is why casinos across the nation are seeing their numbers slide.
In the end, Watson lost his bid, receiving only 15 yes votes.
April 15th, 2008 01:08pm
Aaron Chambers
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.
April 15th, 2008 10:06am
Andrea Zimmermann
Last week, the national press was all over the three presidential candidates as they returned to their day jobs — being U.S. senators. The trio descended on Washington to cross-examine Gen. David Petraeus and his testimony on the Iraq War.
Saturday Night Live, of course, spoofed the hearing. (Interestingly, SNL prefectly matched the clothes the wannabe commanders-in-chief wore in the committee.)
Watch it here.
April 14th, 2008 12:50pm
Aaron Chambers
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. (more…)
April 11th, 2008 11:40am
Aaron Chambers
Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, has emerged this spring as perhaps the Legislature’s greatest proponent of re-opening a shuttered Illinois horse slaughter facility.
The DeKalb plan, known as Cavel, shut down last year.
The shutdown in September of the DeKalb Cavel plant, the nation’s last horse-slaughtering plant, ended an operation that at one point slaughtered 40,000 to 60,000 horses a year. The horsemeat was sold primarily for human consumption in overseas markets.
A series of lower-court decisions upheld a law signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in May that effectively ended the operation by banning the import, export, possession and slaughter of horses for human consumption in Illinois.
Cavel, which is based in Belgium, challenged the Illinois ban on constitutional grounds, claiming the law violated interstate and foreign commerce rules because the meat is shipped overseas. The plant had been in operation for about 20 years and had 60 employees.
The plant reopened for a time during the summer while court challenges were heard, but closed in late September, after the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Illinois law was similar to state bans on bullfights and cockfights meant to protect animal welfare.
Sacia worked this spring to re-open the facility. He said American farmers were shipping horses to Mexico, where workers brutally euthanize them by stabbing them repeatedly in the spinal cord. Killing a horse with a bolt to the head — the practice employed at Cavel — is far more humane, Sacia said.
(more…)
Next Posts
Previous Posts
