* The SJ-R says Gov. Pat Quinn ought to sign the campaign finance bill…
While recognizing that the bill failed to sever the financial umbilical cord between members and their leaders, this page urges Gov. Pat Quinn to sign it.
More…
Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, has expended great effort trying to convince us that there is no connection between the leaders’ power and the unlimited contributions they can pour into contested legislative races.
“I’m eager to hear somebody say why I’m wrong,” Cullerton told us Friday. “I gave money to people (while running for Senate president). They told me they weren’t going to vote for me.
“(An example is state Sen.) Gary Forby. And by the way, have you noticed since Gary Forby got elected how I’ve controlled him on his votes — on the motorcycle helmet law,” Cullerton added, sarcastically. Forby is against requiring riders to wear helmets, while Cullerton favors it. The Senate defeated the bill in a lopsided 14-42 vote in April.
Cullerton may have been referring to a recent Chicago Tribune story which started out by noting how much money had been spent on Forby’s 2008 race, then quickly moved on to a discussion of how House Speaker Michael Madigan maintains such a tight hold on his chamber. The Forby example made little sense in context because not a single Forby vote was ever pointed to as evidence that he was owned by Cullerton.
That’s the big fallacy here.
The Statehouse secret is that “targets” almost always have the most independent-looking voting records of just about any legislator. Democratic Rep. Jack Franks represents a solidly Republican district. He never votes party line, except on routine parliamentary stuff. He rants and raves about budget deficits, but won’t ever vote for a tax hike. Ever.
And the more targets a leader has, the less likely that said leader will move legislation that will upset the voters. Witness Speaker Madigan’s fear about an income tax hike this year. Madigan is worried sick that a tax hike would imperil the size of his majority, if not his majority itself. So, the House wouldn’t pass a tax increase.
The legislators who take the real tough votes - on both sides of the aisle - are the ones who almost never have to worry about general election contests. Those members, however, do have to worry about the occasional primary contests - and this year there seem to be more of those than ever in Chicago. Capping leader contributions in primaries does, indeed, weaken their hold over the GA because they cannot retaliate as easily.
All that being said, the huge amount of money it takes to win a tiny handful of targeted races does skew the legislative process towards the interests with the deepest pockets. And that’s a big reason why so little ever gets done. Both business and labor have contributed heavily to Speaker Madigan’s campaign coffers, which tends to hold down the number of the usual Democratic pro-labor bills coming out of the House.
So, while stuff like this from Byrne [post edited] may make “common sense,” it’s not actually true…
It assures unending servility from grateful candidates, and explains why few lawmakers have the guts to challenge his arrogant and destructive dictates. Instead of limiting Madigan’s control, it increases it.
* From the Pantagraph, which has been the Tribune’s little sister for years…
An outcry from the public against House Bill 7 led Quinn and Democratic leaders to go back to the drawing board. That outcry should continue.
Tell Quinn to show leadership and use his amendatory veto to limit contributions of political party and legislative caucus committees.
Leader contributions should be capped in general elections in order to reduce some of the sway that special interests have in both chambers. But if anybody thinks that capping those contris would ever pry MJM’s grip off the House’s throat, they’re completely delusional. The man is unusually talented - spectacularly so - and mere laws will not work to loosen his hold.
Nothing will change in the GA until Speaker Madigan leaves. Period.