10-4 on 11/4/08

I’m about post-election analyzed out for the week. You can listen and/or watch my interpretations and the perceptions of other political junkies from panels and interviews in which I participated this week:

• WILL-AM Focus 580
• The Illinois Government and Public Affairs luncheon with Gov. Jim Edgar and political scientist Kent Redfield, courtesy of the Illinois Channel
• WUIS 91.9’s State Week in Review (Scroll down to see the November 7 link.)

And here's a recap of the most common and obvious questions discussed:

What does President-Elect Barack Obama’s win mean for Illinois?

• Read Illinois Issues’ PRE-election analysis here. Stateline.org reporter Dan Vock reminds readers that while Illinois officials form their wish lists, this state won’t get its fair share of construction dollars or other earmarks unless the state General Assembly and the governor finally approve a capital plan. Also, Obama has "railed against earmarks," Vock writes.
• In the next year, we'll also watch for Obama’s presidency to affect Illinois tourism and Illinois scrutiny. And he could increase awareness about life in urban areas, as well as the effort to protect the Great Lakes and, maybe, just maybe, the effort to bring FutureGen to Mattoon. Whether that all translates into more money for Illinois, however, will be interesting to watch.
  
• If Obama continues to recruit Illinoisans to his cabinet in Washington, D.C., then the vacancies left by those state and Chicago officials will enhance the domino effect already in play.
• Obama ’08 completely changed the ground game and the technological savvy required of political campaigns.

What is the future of the Illinois GOP?
Former Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar says his party needs to move toward the center, particularly when recruiting gubernatorial and U.S. Senate candidates. That’s with the understanding that some politicians should continue representing their conservative Illinois districts.

Edgar also says the thing that concerns him the most is that to be a viable political party nationally, the GOP has to secure the Hispanic vote. “We’re going to have to show a little more sympathy and understanding and try to bring Hispanics in more party roles and run them for office and show that we appreciate them being part of the Republican Party.” Either way, the state GOP will have to overcome perceptions of the national Republican Party, which Edgar says took most of the blame in the court of public opinion for killing immigration reforms a couple of years ago.

Political scientist Paul Green of Roosevelt University says the Democratic wave rippling through the nation is sustainable, and it’s not exactly created by what the Democrats are doing. “It’s what the Republicans are not doing. You have a Republican Party that’s fighting against itself.”

He, like Edgar, says the middle is where the GOP needs to aim if it wants to attract and retain new individuals in Cook and Lake counties. He points to the reelection wins of two moderate Republicans in the Chicago suburbs: Rep. Rosemary Mulligan of Des Plaines and Rep. Beth Coulson of Glenview. Both survived targeted races. “And they’ve been able to withstand the Democratic Party because their issues and their positions are much more aligned with the people living out there,” Green says.

He adds that his philosophy on what the Republicans should do resembles what he wrote for Illinois Issues in 1978: Downstate holds the key to victory. Right now, he says, downstate is irrelevant. If Democrats carry Chicago, suburban Cook County and a few of Chicago’s surrounding counties, then there aren't enough people downstate to help Republicans win a statewide election.

“So the Republican Party has to decide does it want to remain divided, or does it want to find itself back to where it used to be — a party of small government, lower taxes and business growth? If they do that, they have a chance to rebound. If they keep talking about abortion and guns and gays and stem cell research, they are going to keep losing.”

Will Con-Con 2008 turn into Con-Con 2010?
Read Wednesday’s post to see what Con-Con supporters say. They are unlikely to pursue legal action to reverse or redo Tuesday’s 68 percent “no” vote. But they likely could pursue legal action to clarify the process of future referenda.

Con-Con question remains unclear

The ballots are in, but legal concerns are ongoing. Sixty-eight percent of Illinois voters on Tuesday rejected the call for another constitutional convention. The results don't satisfy a group of supporters who still want clarification about the process of putting that question before voters, as constitutionally mandated every 20 years. At this rate, the 2008 question could drag out until 2010.

Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn says he is considering whether to file a new complaint over the handling of the referendum or to continue seeking the Illinois Supreme Court’s clarification on the issue. Quinn says voters in numerous counties did not receive their blue pieces of paper, as mandated by a judge last month.

From the beginning, Quinn and others who supported the call for a convention expressed concerns that the language was misleading, which was affirmed by two court decisions. He says if opponents can defeat this referendum, then opponents of future referenda could do the same.

“My major concern above all else is that this not become a precedent and a habit of the legislature when they hear about something they don’t like on the referendum ballot, that they put together an ‘explanation’ — in quote marks — to help the voters along, when, in fact, it’s designed to steer the voters against it,” Quinn says. “If that becomes a pattern of behavior in Illinois, then it really will be a blot on our democracy.”

The Chicago Bar Association, meanwhile, does not plan to file another lawsuit over the results of the referendum, says Steve Pflaum. He's the association’s general counsel and a partner with McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago. However, the association does plan to ask the Illinois Supreme Court to review a lower court’s opinion to determine whether the ballot was unconstitutional and whether the remedy of a so-called corrective notice was inadequate.

The association, like Quinn, wants to clarify the process. “Our primary objective at this point would be to try to establish the legal principals that govern these Con-Con referenda so that when we do it again 20 years from now that we won’t have this kind of confusion and these kinds of problems,” he says. He adds a big however. “If the court agrees with us that the separate ballot requirement that is expressly contained in the Illinois Constitution was violated here, then it’s quite possible that the court would conclude that it would be necessary to redo this Con-Con referendum.”

Pflaum estimated that the association wouldn’t file the appeal with the Supreme Court for another month. And if the high court ruled that the referendum had to be redone, he says it most likely wouldn’t happen until the 2010 General Election.

The association also is asking voters who did not receive their blue notices with their ballots to fill out affidavit forms to help plaintiffs gather evidence.

The Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution, which formed a well-funded campaign to defeat the referendum, issued this statement from its executive director, Nancy Kaszak, last night: “This campaign was a unique opportunity for organizations and individuals from across the political spectrum to come together and provide real leadership. Voters saw through the rhetoric and rejected opening up our state's foundational document to wholesale re-write. We look forward to working with leaders of every political persuasion to solve the challenges facing Illinois.”

The search for Obama's replacement

Gov. Rod Blagojevich will rely on his senior advisers to pick the best person to fill the U.S. Senate seat that will be vacated by President-Elect Barack Obama. In a news release, the governor said that the “calendar won’t dictate our search.”

The appointee will serve until 2010, when the seat opens up for another six-year term.

The governor could choose anybody, ranging from himself to one of the Democratic members of the U.S. House to outgoing Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. But Blagojevich told reporters in Chicago that he’s not interested in that job.

Speculators also have considered that Blagojevich would pick one of his potential gubernatorial opponents, including such state officers as Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Comptroller Dan Hynes or Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. Tammy Duckworth, Illinois’ director of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, also has been mentioned. But it’s all speculation about what an unpredictable governor would do. Illinois Issues magazine will have more in the coming months.

The Democratic wave — UPDATED again

Update: I was interviewed by WILL-am's Focus 580 this morning. Listen here.

There were two questions heading into Election Day in Illinois. The first was how far the Democratic wave would overcome traditionally Republican areas. The small tide in the Chicago suburbs swept away at least one and potentially two suburban Republican incumbents in the House. The Dems gained another open seat in Peoria. But Republicans also held on to a number of open seats and even gained one in southern Illinois. The Democratic majorities in both chambers, on the other hand, remain in tact. The second question was how the GOP would rebuild before 2010.

One change is that Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, who suffered a minor stroke in October, told his members Tuesday that he would not seek the leadership position again. We’ll consider who could take his place in another blog. The Senate’s makeup remains the same, with 37 Democrats and 22 Republicans. The Democratic Caucus, however, hasn’t unified to make use of its so-called supermajority in the past two years. The retirement of Senate President Emil Jones Jr. in January will open the door for change there, too.

The House Democratic Caucus increased its majority from 67 to 69 members out of 118. And they could gain one more, pending official results in what turned out to be a barn burner. If the Democrats gain 70 members, they're one member away from the magic number needed to approve major spending, borrowing and other legislation without Republican votes.

Keep an eye out for these official results:

• House 66: GOP Rep. Carolyn Krause is retiring. The race is still too close to call this morning, but Democrat Mark Walker leads Republican Christine Proncho, as of this morning. If Walker is declared the winner, among the dynamics in play was the “Obama factor,” where a record number of Democratic voters cast ballots for President-Elect Barack Obama of Chicago.

Two Republican incumbents lost to Democrats:

• House 85: Rep. Brent Hassert, a Romeoville Republican in Will County and a member of the House Republican’s leadership team, lost to Democrat Emily Klunk-McAsey. The Democratic campaign machine was in the works, with the help of the Obama factor; Hassert was active in gaming and revenue issues.
• House 43: Rep. Ruth Munson, an Elgin Republican, initially appears to have lost to Democrat Keith Farnham. A Green Party candidate, Dane William, got 3 percent of the vote. [UPDATE 5 p.m.: Munson's campaign office confirmed that the representative conceeded to Farnham this afternoon. The office cited the vote: Farnham's 12,589 to Munson's 12,911, a 322 difference. The county clerk will have to count provisional ballots and absentee ballots within 14 days of the election.] Munson currently serves on committees related to business, technology, trade and pensions. The district is vulerable to the Democratic wave. A Democrat took the Senate district from Republicans when former Sen. Steve Rauschenberger retired. And the House district adjacent to Munson’s transferred from Republicans to the Democrats when Rep. Fred Crespo defeated veteran GOP Terry Parke in the last election. The Obama factor was at play.

Democrats also won this open seat, most recently held by a Republican:

• House 92: GOP Rep. Aaron Schock ran for Congress and won that seat last night. He will be replaced by Democrat Jehan Gordon, despite some alleged credibility problems released about the candidate during the campaign. Gordon beat out Republican Joan Krupa. Before Schock, the Peoria district historically was Democratic territory.

Two Senate Democratic incumbents hung on to win close races:

• Senate 59: Sen. Gary Forby, a Benton Democrat in the southern tip of Illinois. He barely won against Republican Ken Burzynski, the brother of state Sen. Brad Burzynski of Clare. It was the most expensive race for legislature in the state. The Campaign for Political Reform reported that a total of more than $2 million was spent by both sides. Forby fought hard during the electricity rate debate but was the sacrificial lamb in a political move by Senate President Emil Jones Jr. That opened the door for his Republican opponent to say Forby failed to get lower Ameren rates for his constituents.
• Senate 42: Sen. Linda Holmes, an Aurora Democrat, kept her seat. It was another expensive race exceeding $1.5 million, according to the Campaign for Political Reform. Holmes edged out Terri Ann Wintermute of Bolingbrook. Holmes took over the suburban seat when Republican former Sen. Ed Petka retired; Holmes got a lot of financial support from Sen. John Cullerton, one of the Democrats in the running to replace retiring Senate President Jones.

Two Republican incumbents held on in relatively close races, despite the Obama factor:

• House 17: Rep. Beth Coulson, a Glenview Republican in northern Cook County, and active voice for human services and environmental issues. She pulled out the win.
• House 46: Rep. Dennis Reboletti barely won in 2006. He took the seat after former Rep. Lee Daniels retired.

More Republicans filled three open seats vacated by the GOP:

• House 48: GOP Rep. Jim Meyer is retiring. Republican Michael Connelly won the race against Democrat Joe Heneghan.
• House 96: GOP Rep. Joe Dunn is retiring from the DuPage and Will County district that includes Naperville. Republican Darlene Senger barely beat out Democrat Diane McGuire in a race where about $1 million was spent.
• Senate 26: GOP Sen. Bill Peterson is retiring from the seat, which represents the northwest suburbs of Chicago in Lake and McHenry counties. Republican Dan Duffey comfortably won against Democrat Bill Gentes.

House Republicans gained one seat from the Democrats:

• House 107: Democratic Rep. Kurt Granberg retired. He'll be replaced by Republican John Cavaletto, who challenged Granberg in a tight race in the last election. Cavaletto defeated Democrat Patti Hahn Tuesday.
  

Illinois’ Obama
Personal story: I have a distinct memory of U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama. When I worked as a health reporter in Decatur, Obama visited a local community college during his first year as a U.S. senator. He met with military veterans and talked about their health care, among other things. After the event, Obama made himself available to a handful of reporters. He answered our questions, and then most of the reporters except me said thanks and walked away. I asked for one more question. He said I could ask as many as I wanted and suggested we walk into a neighboring room so he we could hear each other better. We walked into the next room, and he pulled two folding chairs over for us to sit. Except he turned his chair around so that he straddled the chair and rested his elbows on its back. He stayed until I asked all of my questions. Unfortunately, I don’t remember his exact answers. But what stuck out were his mannerisms and his willingness to answer as many questions as I had. No staffers tried to cut off the conversation and whisk him away to his next appointment.

Some of my fellow reporters haven’t had as good of luck when trying to break through the communications lines of Obama’s presidential campaign. I can only hope that a President Obama would remain as genuine, considerate and open as he was in the that instance.

Money matters

The ongoing federal probe into alleged pay-to-play politics in Illinois demonstrates attempts to influence state business by donating to political campaigns. But the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform released another round of campaign contribution totals this week that seem to reinforce the fact that money drives politics behind the scenes, as well.

The Illinois Senate Democrats will pick a replacement for Senate President Emil Jones Jr., who retires in January. Since Jones announced his retirement, a lengthy list of candidates has started campaigning to replace him. The caucus will need 30 votes to select a new president. Watch for more about the candidates in the November edition of Illinois Issues magazine. UPDATE: Here's the story.

One way those candidates are trying to differentiate themselves is through cash. The more money they can raise for their political campaigns, the more they appear capable of strengthening an already extraordinarily big Democratic Caucus (of 59 total senators, 37 belong to the Senate Democratic Caucus).

According to two nonpartisan think tanks, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform in Chicago and the Sunshine Project in Springfield, Senate presidential candidates have doled out more than $1 million to their party candidates and incumbents.

The top two givers are Sen. James Clayborne of Belleville and Sen. John Cullerton of Chicago, two who repeatedly have been mentioned as front-runners in the race to replace Jones.

Clayborne has given $418,000 to other Senate Democrats, while Cullerton has doled out $336,000. According to the Campaign for Political Reform, Clayborne has transferred money from his own political committee, Friends of Clayborne. Top donors to that fund include the Illinois Education Association, AT&T and Ameren Corp.

Cullerton has used money from his committee, Citizens for John Cullerton, but he also formed a new committee, the Senate Democratic Victory Fund. Top donors to both funds include Chicago Wolves chairman Don Levin; Sen. Heather Steans of Chicago, her husband Leo Smith and her parents; and the Illinois Hospital Association. We’ll talk more about the Democrats who are receiving these funds in another blog.

Political insiders are used to Jones raising that much money or more ($3.6 million in 2006), but when these new candidates aren’t even president yet and are raising those amounts, the totals are striking. But it’s also part of the legislative process in Illinois.

“The leader is supposed to help raise a lot of money, and that’s part of their job,” says David Morrison, assistant director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “Part of what Cullerton and Clayborne are doing here is showing that they can shoulder that kind of burden, [that] they help their colleagues in that regard.”

Yet, this is one time when Morrison — ironically for a campaign finance reformer — says it’s not all about money. This internal election is about context. So even though these numbers look big, there are many other factors that are in play for whom the next Senate president will be.

• Jones’ retirement: It means the person whom businesses donated to in the past is no longer the person who will funnel the funds to other Democratic members. Without knowing who will serve as the hub for accepting donations and funneling them to other Democrats, donors have to take their chances.
• The Obama factor: It translates into record numbers of Democrats who will come out to vote for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for U.S. president and who likely will continue voting Democratic down most of the ticket. Democrats are expected to have a good year, so money in some ways is less important this year than it was in 2004 and 2006, when Jones was trying to build on a majority of seats in the chamber.
• Personality: Then there’s a question of which qualities that Senate Democrats want in their next leader. The most common characteristic cited is someone who can compromise and refresh the atmosphere in the Capitol, thereby breaking the stalemate of Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his ally Jones against House Speaker Michael Madigan.
  

But the money is still important. It’s not just who is giving, but why are they giving? Morrison says it’s hard to tell if the Senate presidential candidates are attracting new donors, getting increased donations from patron donors or if it’s a combination. It’ll be easier to tell when the next detailed campaign finance reports are due in January. One thing is for sure, he says: “There’s a lot of money flowing around.”

Happy Halloween

Some comic relief for Dave Blanchette. It's been a rough week in state government.

Operation Board Game snags another piece

The U.S. attorney’s office in Northern Illinois is advancing its way around Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s inner circle, and Thursday’s indictment of GOP political bigwig William Cellini could be just another attempt to recruit one more person to testify against the governor, says Kent Redfield, political scientist with the University of Illinois at Springfield.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Cellini today on four charges of federal corruption. The 21-page indictment spells out a classic pay-to-play scheme of trading political campaign cash for state business. But Cellini’s attorney, Dan Webb of Winston & Strawn in Chicago, already combats the charges as “unfair and unjust” and based on shaky evidence.

The feds allege that Cellini was one of many people who conspired to rig state boards to hire investment firms that would, among other financial benefits, donate to the political campaign of Public Official A, previously identified as Blagojevich. The scheme allegedly happened between spring 2003 and summer 2005. Other conspirators already charged include Blagojevich insider Tony Rezko, former state board member Stuart Levine, attorneys Joseph Cari and Steven Loren and construction contractor Jacob Kiferbaum. Cellini’s indictment lists two more: Co-Conspirator A and a Teachers Retirement System Staffer A, yet to officially be identified. Co-Conspirator A is widely thought to be Christopher Kelly, who already was indicted on separate charges of tax fraud.

Cellini’s indictment alleges that he participated in a scheme to pressure Chicago businessman Thomas Rosenberg to give money to Blagojevich’s political campaign. The alleged ultimatum was that Rosenberg’s company, Capri Capital, had to raise money or donate to Blagojevich’s political fund to get a $220 million business deal with the Teachers’ Retirement System. The system oversees and handles investments for public pensions of teachers and administrators outside of Chicago. Private investment firms handle TRS assets. Through a statement, TRS administrators declined to comment but said the staff will “continue to uphold their fiduciary duty to our participants.”

According to Cellini’s indictment, the schemers decided it was too risky to continue pressuring Rosenberg when he threatened to go to authorities. But after that, Cellini, Rezko and others “discussed the possibility of removing the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in an effort to stop any investigations into the co-conspirators and others,” according to the indictment.

Webb’s statement describes Cellini as “completely innocent of these charges, and he will fight this case because he has done absolutely nothing wrong.” It highlights the point that while a grand jury found Rezko guilty of 16 counts of corruption, they found him not guilty on one of the most serious charges of attempted extortion, relating to the charges involving Rosenberg. It states that Rosenberg testified in Rezko’s trial that “Bill Cellini never asked him for any money and that Rosenberg never paid any money to Cellini or anyone else.”

Redfield says if the assumption is that the U.S. attorney’s ultimate goal is to get all the way to Blagojevich, indicting Cellini makes sense. But there's no guarantee it'll work.

“At this point, Cellini thinks that this is not a slam dunk,” says Redfield. “And he’s willing to be indicted rather than to cooperate.”

And if the federal grand jury agrees with prosecutors’ assessment of Cellini’s involvement in the scheme, why would a successful, wealthy political insider at all levels of government work to secure funds on behalf of Blagojevich, a Democratic governor? Redfield says it’s all about power. “I don’t think it was so much about fighting for the governor as it was about power in the board and playing the game. He was as mover and shaker when [Jim] Thompson, [Jim] Edgar and [George] Ryan were governors. That’s what he knows and what he does … Power is addictive.”

A new direction

Mike Lawrence, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, is retiring from the institute November 1. He started in 1994 as associate director and became director in 2004, shortly after the unexpected death of former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon.

"You can’t really replace in some senses either Paul Simon or Mike Lawrence, but we’ve got to find someone who will carry on. And we have some very capable, accomplished people in the pool," says John Jackson, political science professor at the university and head of the search committee to replace Lawrence.

An interim director will be announced shortly, and the search committee expects to publish the top three candidates some time in November. A new director may not start until January, according to Jackson.

The new director will take over as the economic downturn continues to manifest itself in new ways. Lawrence told us in the spring that one reason he felt comfortable retiring is because Simon's goal of building a $10 million endowment had been accomplished and then some. But Jackson says just as universities throughout the state are experiencing lower returns on their investments, so too is SIUC. “The endowment is fine," Jackson says. "It’s the income off the endowment that’s not quite what it had been. So right now, we have what we hope is a short-term cash flow problem. Not huge, but it’s a headache for us.”

While Lawrence is packing his books into boxes, the university will continue to benefit from the stamp that Lawrence put on the institute and its agenda, Jackson adds. "He’s focused us more on Illinois issues, Illinois concerns, and I think that has been his forte because that’s where his network and his contacts were."

Before spending a decade with the Edgar Administration, Lawrence spent 25 years as a journalist, including 20 years with Lee Enterprises and its Statehouse bureau that he helped start and another year as Statehouse bureau chief for the Chicago Sun-Times. He plans to return to writing political commentaries, which he has said he stopped after being pressured to do so in the interest of the institute and of the university. He remains vice chair of the Illinois Issues Advisory Board.

We wish him the best of luck and look forward to seeing his byline again.

Are pensions safe in a Con-Con?

Illinois voters have eight days to decide whether they want the state to call a constitutional convention. For those who want to know the pros, cons or the logistics, look at Illinois Issues magazine, which has published numerous articles in print and online throughout the past year (see the list below). But one specific question burning in the minds of many current state employees, a.k.a. voters, is whether a convention would rip away their pensions and retiree health benefits.

In fact, that fear will lead many of those employees to vote “no” on the referendum. People on both sides of the Con-Con debate agree that the state’s obligations to its existing employees, particularly those who are not fully vested in the pension system, is open to interpretation.

It’s generally agreed that the state’s future public employees would be vulnerable to change. Potential reforms include increasing the retirement age before a person could tap into his or her benefits, limiting automatic yearly pension increases and increasing the employee contribution rate by at least 1 percent. Again, these are for new hires only. See more here from a 2005 report by the Governor’s Pension Commission.

Existing employees are different. On one hand, courts have ruled — and the Illinois Constitution of 1970 declares — pensions are contractual relationships between the state and its employees. The state Constitution, Article 13, Section 5, reads:

Membership in any pension or retirement system of the state, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency of instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.

Even if the state charter changed, legal challenges likely would cite protection under the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 (scroll down to see “Section 10”) that says states cannot breach contracts, including pension obligations.

Elena Kezelis, former chief counsel for then-Gov. Jim Edgar, says she interprets the Constitution as protecting those who are fully vested in the pension system as having unalterable rights. She points to the back of the state Constitution, where a “savings clause” would protect every contract in place if a new document were approved. If another convention were called and pension benefits were revised, then she says that provision would grandfather in the existing pension contracts. Prudent drafters would include that kind of language again, she says.

The question is, she says, how delegates and how courts would define the point at which current state employees are vested into a contractual right that cannot be taken away from them.

Bruno Behrend, co-founder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition that supports a constitutional convention, says he agrees with the same interpretation: Pension benefits of vested employees could not be taken away. And he says he doesn’t think delegates would erase that constitutional guarantee because the goal of a convention would be to draft a new constitution that would win voter approval. Taking away benefits that have been promised to existing employees wouldn’t go over so well with voters, he says. Instead, he supports pension reforms aimed at making the state more accountable in chipping away at some $100 billion in pension debt.

One main force behind a campaign to oppose a convention disagrees with the interpretation that the pensions of active public employees are safe. Among the reasons the Illinois Federation of Teachers union opposes a convention is that there's no telling what would happen, according Steve Preckwinkle, IFT's political director. “Our belief is that if Article 13, Section 5 of the Constitution were to be either eliminated or modified in certain ways that the pension security of active government employees throughout the state at all levels of government could be jeopardized.”

The IFT also is the top donor to a statewide campaign to defeat the November 4 referendum. It and affiliate members have contributed $300,000 to the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution, according to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a Chicago-based think tank that keeps track of campaign contributions. The second top donor is the Illinois Education Association, donating $225,000.

Ann Lousin, who opposes a convention, says pension reforms are a “perfect example of how a lack of political will on the part of officeholders can lead to a constitutional crisis.”

She is a former research assistant for the 1970 Con-Con, a former parliamentarian for the House in the 1970s, a former chair of the Illinois State Civil Service Commission and a current law professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago. In a recent paper for the Social Science Research Network, Lousin points out that the intent of the 1970 Constitution, Article 13, Section 5, is unknown and that there’s little legislative or court record on the subject. She says case law from the New York Constitution of 1938, upon which the Illinois section is based, suggests that the contractual guarantee applies only to the pension, not to such companion benefits as health care. And, she says, because legislators lack political will, they fail to fully fund the five state pension systems. That will result in dire consequences in the not too distant future. “By most estimates, the crisis will come by 2020 or 2025 when an Illinois pensioner will not receive a pension check.”

It's easy to assume that with or without another constitutional convention, public employee pensions are at risk in the future.

If you want more information about a constitutional convention, consider these stories that have published on this blog or in Illinois Issues magazine in the past year:

• The language of the referendum resulted in the blue piece of paper voters will get on Election Day.
• How a 2010 convention could differ from the 1970 convention
• Pros and cons of a convention: Q&A with Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Dawn Clark Netsch
  
• Con-Con basics (PowerPoint presentation)
• Q&A with a 1970 delegate (print only; See Illinois Issues, January 2008, page 13)
  
• Separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches (print only; See Illinois Issues, January 2008, page 19)
  
• The revenue article and tax reforms (print only; See Illinois Issues, February 2008, page 27)

Only half way there ...

... With a long way to go.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved a way to restore money that was cut from the state budget earlier this year, but human service providers, state parks and historic sites and hundreds of state employees are still in limbo.

Blagojevich signed into law a deal between the House and the Senate that authorizes the governor to transfer about $221 million from special dedicated funds that have “excess” money. (For example, a plumbing licensure fund has about $750,000 available from fees paid by people applying for a plumbing license.) The transferred money would go into a new fund, called the FY09 Budget Relief Fund, which serves as a lockbox that can only be used to restore money to human services, state parks and historic sites and constitutional officers who had to lay off employees or require paid days off.

But that's only half the solution. The other half is an appropriations bill, SB 1103, which authorizes the comptroller to write the checks. Without spending authority, the “fund sweeps” money just sits there.

The governor's office issued this statement: “The governor did sign the funds sweep bill, but the budget office and agencies have expressed concern over certain funds that are included in the bill. With that in mind, there is no certainty at this time how much money will actually be available and, thus, it would be preliminary to say how far this money will go.”

Rep. Gary Hanning, a Litchfield Democrat and House member who negotiated the deal, said the bill was in the public domain in the House for a week, and it sat in the Senate for two weeks. Democrats and Republicans of both chambers had an opportunity to voice concerns and ask for changes, some of which were accommodated before they sent it to the governor.

“All through that period of time, the governor and his people sat silently by and never weighed in one way or the other, so we assumed that they were OK with this bill,” Hannig said.

The governor's office offered another statement that his office made its concerns known in September, and the rest is up to the controller to decide which funds can be moved over.

Carol Knowles, spokeswoman for Comptroller Dan Hynes, said the measure, which the governor signed into law without changes, spells out which funds to sweep, how much to sweep and when to sweep. “There is no ambiguity what the law states,” she said. The transfers should be completed within the next day.

But even if the governor signs the spending bill without making any changes, he's not compelled to actually spend the money. To do that, he would have to send a voucher over to the state comptroller, who would then write the check. “He could sign the bill, but if he doesn't send over the vouchers, the comptroller still can't issue a check,” Hannig said.

The governor has until the first week of December to act on the spending bill. It could come up in the annual fall session — if there even is a “veto” session (because the House and Senate already acted on all but a few of the governor's various vetoes last month).

One more note: Before this mess started, the governor sought authority to transfer about $530 million (scroll down) from special funds. But his proposal would have let him sweep the money at any time in any amount up to about $530 million, Hannig said. The House changed the proposal to limit the spending to $221 million and to identify which funds could be swept and what the money could be spent on.

Big Ten Battleground

In honor of the second presidential debate tonight, take a look at this Big Ten Battle Ground Poll. It surveyed 600 residents of eight Midwestern states in the Big Ten Conference last month, and it’ll do another round in about two weeks. Other than Illinois, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s home turf, six states were statistically tied between Obama and his Republican opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Indiana was the only state that leaned toward McCain.

But that was three weeks ago. Things have changed in Obama’s favor, says Brian Gaines, political science professor with the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Gaines is participating in the polling project with professors from seven other universities.

“In the last three weeks, there has been a pretty clear swing to Obama almost everywhere,” he says.

It comes down to economics. In tough times, voters tend to look to Democrats to get them out of it, he says. And the recent financial crisis that put Washington, D.C., on the hot seat put Obama in the driver’s seat.

Now, most Midwestern states are Obama’s to lose. But it’s not a shoo-in. The September results show that Obama had an advantage among Midwestern women, with double-digit leads over McCain in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. McCain led in five states among Catholic voters, with large margins in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Economic pessimism and widespread angst that the country is going in the wrong direction resonates with white- and blue-collar voters. White-collar tended to lean to McCain, while more blue-collar participants said they supported Obama. The exception was Ohio, where analysts said Obama has to stem the deflection of Democrats who helped U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton win that state's Democratic primary.

While Ken Goldstein, co-director of the polling project and political science professor at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, said debates don’t normally get much credence in election results, Obama’s newness on the national scene gives voters the opportunity to see whether he lives up to the presidential image. Watch the video of the analysis here. The consensus was that these debates could be a huge factor in this election.

New Big Ten survey results will be available October 23.

Blue notes

Voters can expect to receive a controversial blue piece of paper with their ballots next month. They also can expect to see special notices posted in the voting booths, absentee ballots, newspapers and on Web sites.

That is, unless things change -- again -- in the legal debate about a mandatory referendum asking voters whether Illinois should convene another constitutional convention to open the state charter.

As of today's court order, that blue notice will explain that the referendum contains what a Cook County judge deemed “inaccurate” and “misleading” information that a person who skips the question on the ballot counts as a “no” vote.

The Chicago Bar Association, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and other proponents of the commonly called Con-Con filed suit in Cook County also argued that the explanation of the November 4 referendum -- written by a committee of legislators and certified by state election officials and the secretary of state -- was biased against a convention because it included the fact that the 1988 referendum failed by a 3-1 margin.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr. ruled in their favor and, after multiple, day-long meetings with both sides, ordered local authorities to hand out and post notices to tell voters to disregard the inaccurate sentence.

David Orr, Cook County clerk, said it could have been worse, but the “mistake” is making it very difficult for everyone else in the state as elections near.

“That's life when it comes to elections, but it couldn't have come at a worse time for us in terms of preparations,” Orr said. “But at this point, I think it's done.”

Maybe not, Con-Con supporters said.

Bruno Behrend, cofounder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition that supports the call for a convention and who is involved in the case, said he's not satisfied.

“We just ask people to try and do the intellectual exercise: Read this language on the ballot, understand that it's wrong, and try to craft an order that ameliorates it. No matter what your view on the outcome of the election, you can't.”

He says the proponents could try one more time to rectify the situation through an appeal, asking the judge to require election authorities to print an entirely separate ballot for the Con-Con referendum. He says they acknowledge the cost, although undetermined.

“The only justification we can really say is, 'What is the cost of an unfair election?'” Bruno said.

We'll learn more Tuesday. In the meantime, check out these resources from Illinois Issues magazine about a constitutional convention:

• Pro vs. Con of a Con-Con. Listen here.
• Presentation of Con-Con basics
• Con-Con revisited by Patrick Guinane
• Con-Con separation of powers debate by Aaron Chambers (In Illinois Issues magazine print only, February 2008, page 27).

And one comprehensive resource is from the state's Legislative Research Unit.

Warning: Rocky road still ahead

State parks and historic sites would stay open. Substance abuse prevention and treatment services would avoid losing $55 million in state funding and the same amount in federal funding. State funding for human services would return to the levels approved by the legislature in May. The same would apply to the constitutional officers, which could hire back employees already laid off. Mass transit districts would receive more than $36 million in reimbursements for having to provide free rides to seniors and people with disabilities. But there’s a big “if.”

That will happen if Gov. Rod Blagojevich signs a plan approved by both chambers. The House approved the budget restorations earlier this month, and the Senate followed suit on Tuesday. But there’s no telling how long this could take. The Senate could send the approved measures to the governor’s desk right away, or it could wait for whatever reason. And once the governor does get the measures, he still has 60 days to sign them into law, veto them completely or send them back to the legislature with changes. Given the timeline or lack thereof, it’s questionable whether state parks and historic sites will close in October and November as scheduled.

All agree that the ball is in the governor’s court.

Rep. Mark Beaubien, a Barrington Hills Republican and budget negotiator for his caucus, expressed a concern about Blagojevich's next move. “Now he has the ability to take the veto pen and play games and eliminate programs to try to make different people look bad.”

Brian Williamsen, a Blagojevich spokesman, said the governor’s office has to review all of the details and added that it’s too early to speculate on a timeline. Williamsen could not say whether the governor would delay closing parks and historic sites if the House and Senate plan had potential to become law.

The House and Senate agreed to sweep unused money from the special state funds to collect about $221 million, which is included in SB 790. The package also would create a new fund, dubbed the “Budget Relief Fund,” so that the money could not be used for anything other than restoring the budget cuts spelled out in the spending bill, SB 1103.

The 15 votes against the fund sweeps were among Senate Republicans, who said there is no guarantee that the governor will sign the measure and, if he does, that he’ll release the money as intended.

The deal to accept the House’s version of the plan came only after much of the day was spent behind closed doors negotiating an even larger plan that would have increased funding for various programs, but the wish list ballooned out of control and eventually collapsed at the last minute. Literally at the same time, the Illinois Department of Revenue issued new information that revenue projections are coming in lower than anticipated. Income and sales tax revenues, as well as other tax revenues, are coming in below the levels on which this year’s budget was predicated. The difference: $200 million.

That slightly deflates the cushion that the governor has when distributing money throughout the fiscal year. But Rep. Gary Hannig, a Litchfield Democrat and budget negotiator for his caucus, said the $221 million in budget restorations that advanced to the governor’s desk Tuesday pay for themselves by transferring the same amount from special funds.

Sen. Donne Trotter, the Senate Democrats' budget negotiator, looked to the regularly scheduled fall session in November. “If there’s still an appetite to do more, then we can do more at that time.”

But the question of what the governor would do loomed like a black cloud. “There [are] no assurances — nothing that I can give — other than we know that there is a need, a necessity to get this done,” Trotter said. “And I think that we saw that, at least, in a rare occasion, the entire Senate that is present today voted for it. So we know at least what the legislators would like to see done. … It’s up to him of what he’s going to do otherwise.”

Which message are you sending?
Building on yesterday’s ethics reforms, the state Senate advanced a more sweeping measure that the governor tried but failed to advance through his executive powers. All GOP senators voted in support of the measure, five Democrats voted present and one Democrat voted against it.

Sen. Don Harmon, voted “present." The Oak Park Democrat sponsored yesterday’s successful pay-to-play ban, but he opposed the measure containing the governor’s proposals today because it sends the wrong message. He warned that approving a bill that almost everyone agrees is fatally flawed would undermine the behind-the-scenes negotiations already happening between both chambers and the governor’s office. He said it also could give the impression that the Senate is more interested in claiming that it advanced comprehensive ethics reforms than it is in ironing out the complicated and significant details with the House.

“Let’s negotiate this bill before we start throwing bombs across the building,” Harmon said before the Senate voted to approve the measure.

Fifty senators disagreed with Harmon and said approving the new reforms contained in SB 780 sends a different message: The Senate is ready to enact comprehensive reforms that could help regain the public’s trust during these troubling times. (That message is more likely to sound better on campaign literature landing in voters’ mailboxes from now until the November 4 elections.)

The legislation would enact more limits to political campaign contributions and shine more sunlight on who makes money off of whom. It would prohibit businesses with significant state contracts from donating to legislators and statewide political parties, prevent legislators from working in numerous government jobs as a second source of income, require more disclosure of legislators’ lobbying activities and reform the way the legislature enacts its own pay raises.

Through a news release, the governor applauded the Senate’s action. “This vote sends a message to the people that the tired tradition of double dipping, the fraudulent way pay raises are doled out and the deceitful way legislators who moonlight as attorneys can hide their clout-heavy client list should be a thing of the past.” His news release urged the House to continue the momentum and approve the more sweeping ethics reforms.

The Campaign for Political Reform, a Chicago-based good government group, testified against the legislation last night, saying it was fatally flawed and constituted more “political rhetoric” during the election season. But Cindi Canary, director of the think tank, said she has been working with other legislators and the governor’s office for the past few weeks on the governor’s ethics language.

The Senate president addressed the whole chamber but, at more than one point, seemed to speak directly to Harmon and Sen. Ira Silverstein, a Chicago Democrat who also voted “present.” (In the Illinois legislature, a “present” vote is intended to demonstrate opposition a flawed bill but support of the concept.) Both Harmon and Silverstein also happen to be among the names floating around as contestants to be the next Senate president when Jones’ term ends in January.

Jones said senators who oppose SB 780 want to either protect someone else or preserve their fundraising abilities so they can run for higher office. Silverstein later said that Jones’ comments are part of a political game and won’t hurt other negotiations. “But enough is enough,” he said. “You have to stand up for what you believe in.”

The only senator voting against the legislation was Sen. Mike Jacobs, an East Moline Democrat who often speaks out against Blagojevich. He repeated earlier sentiments that “the cancer of Illinois is the governor.” Jacobs made the point that the governor’s ethics legislation approved by the Senate today would not target the actions of convicted felon and political insider Tony Rezko, found guilty of 16 counts of federal corruption. It also wouldn’t have stopped another political insider and hefty campaign contributor, Ali Ata, from testifying that he donated to the governor’s campaign in exchange for a high-powered state job.

Sen. James DeLeo, the Chicago Democrat sponsoring the governor's ethics bill, defended the measure and said it wouldn’t stop drug dealing or bank robbing, but it would improve the transparency of state government.

Pay-to-play ban becomes law

Monday did become Ethics Day. After three years of back-and-forth, the Illinois House and Senate finally agreed and enacted landmark ethics reforms that will become effective January 1. The governor and some legislators already are trying to expand the so-called pay-to-play ban, but that could take just as long as the first effort. In the meantime, Monday’s action is likely to generate a lot of campaign mail as incumbents and candidates enter the home stretch before the November 4 elections.

Meanwhile, as I write this, budget negotiators from both chambers and both political parties are meeting behind closed doors to hash out a plan that would prevent state parks and historic sites from closing this fall, as well as prevent hundreds of state employees from losing their jobs. Whether they will strike a compromise, however, won’t be known until Tuesday, when both chambers will reconvene in another off-season legislative session.

All day Monday, which included multiple special sessions called by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, served as a perfect example of how everything will change in January. In addition to new ethics laws that will affect the governor’s fundraising abilities, January marks the end of Senate President Emil Jones’ reign. Throughout the day, there was an acute awareness that Jones is on his way out of office with numerous individuals interested in taking his place. More on that later.

One set of ethics reform down, more to go
The Illinois Senate agreed with the House to override Blagojevich’s changes to HB 824, meaning new campaign contribution rules will take effect in the new year. Businesses holding state contracts worth more than $50,000 will not be able to donate to the political campaigns of the officeholder who signs the contract.

The Senate president said the new law contained in HB 824 doesn’t go far enough. “It turns hard money into soft money,” Jones said, later adding, “They’ll still be able to give the soft money through the back door.” He meant that instead of donating directly to the officeholder, state contactors will still be able to give money to statewide political parties that turn around and filter the money to the officeholder who signs the contract, anyway.

Jones supports the governor’s proposals, which would expand the so-called pay-to-play ban. The governor’s amendatory veto language was inserted into a new bill. It would:

• Ban businesses that hold significant state contracts from donating to legislators and statewide political parties, as well as statewide officeholders;
• Prohibit legislators from working second jobs in any unit of government, with some exceptions;
• Clarify the process by which legislators vote to accept their pay raises.

The Senate sponsor, Chicago Democratic Sen. James DeLeo, said SB 780 would level the playing field and help legislators avoid the perception that money buys influence.

Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and a main force behind HB 824, said it felt odd, but she had to oppose the new measure during a Senate committee Monday evening. She said the more expansive ethics legislation is “not ready for prime time, yet.”

She said she supports the concept but believes the governor’s proposal isn’t the right vehicle for enacting contribution limits on legislators. Banning state contractors from donating to elected officials who have no control over state contracts could invite a legal challenge based on the First Amendment that protects free speech, she said. She also questioned the fallout of prohibiting active state legislators from also working in some public sector jobs but not others. And she said the one aspect that would be ready to go if it were proposed as a stand-alone measure is the portion that would clarify the system of approving legislative pay raises.

Sen. James Clayborne, a Belleville Democrat, agreed with Canary and said the governor’s proposals need some more work, but he voted to advance the measure to the full chamber in hopes of working through more changes before a final vote.

Restoring budget cuts
Meanwhile, budgeteers are working behind closed doors in an effort to compromise to restore some of the governor’s $1.4 billion in budget cuts, which are resulting in plans to close 11 state parks and 13 historic sites, lay off hundreds of public employees and drastically reduce state funding for such human services as substance abuse treatment and prevention.

Earlier this month, the House approved two measures that would sweep about $221 million from special funds to plug some but not all of the budget holes. (See the spending portion in SB 1103.)

Sen. Donne Trotter, a Chicago Democrat and budget negotiator, said the Senate Democrats found $42 million of that $221 million that they would like to spend in a different way than approved by the House. That includes $37 million the House included to reimburse mass transit districts for the free rides granted to seniors and people with disabilities enacted earlier this year. The Senate Democrats would take that out and shift the funding, for instance, to increase the amount of money for college grants through the Monetary Award Program. The House also would restore funding for constitutional officers at 100 percent of the original funding level, while the Senate Democrats would restore them at 75 percent.

Republicans are involved in the budget negotiations. According to Patty Schuh, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, the GOP Caucus prioritizes restoring funding for state parks, historic sites and human services. But members argue that it doesn’t make sense to restore funding to the parks and historic sites and then sweep money from the special fund dedicated to the Department of Natural Resources.

Will Monday be Ethics Day? UPDATED

The Illinois Senate will return to Springfield to consider major ethics legislation, presumably in time to avoid a constitutional challenge about when an ambiguous 15-day clock expires.

Senate President Emil Jones Jr., who previously said he would not reconvene his chamber until after the November elections, said in a statement that he now is calling his members back to the Capitol to act on ethics reforms “only at the request of my friend Barrack Obama.”

Here’s the statement from the U.S. senator’s campaign: “Sen. Obama called Sen. Jones [Wednesday] to offer his strong support for the ethics reforms pending before the Illinois Senate and urged him to pass them at the earliest possible opportunity.”

Note that the date has not been set for that regular Senate session; however, the chamber will be back — and so will the House — Monday, September 22 because Gov. Rod Blagojevich called a special session to focus on ethics. But the governor’s proclamation requires the General Assembly to focus on Blagojevich’s version of ethics reforms, which the House already defeated last week.

But, as is common in Springfield, some legislative ideas come back from the dead. Rep. Jay Hoffman, a Collinsville Democrat and Blagojevich ally, has introduced another bill, HB 6699, that would do the same thing as the governor’s amendatory veto of HB 824. The governor wants to clarify the process of accepting legislative pay raises so lawmakers had to vote “yes” on public record, stop legislators from “double dipping” by working in another unit of government at the same time they’re serving in the General Assembly and require more detailed disclosure of lobbying work done by legislators or their spouses. See the background in our previous blog posts.

Cindy Davidsmeyer, Jones’ spokeswoman, said the Senate president last week promised Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, that he could call the unanimously approved HB 824 for a vote to override the governor’s changes. If that happens as expected, then businesses holding state contracts worth more than $50,000 could not donate to the political campaigns of the governor.

But Davidsmeyer said the vote to override the governor’s changes would have to be done in a regular session, which has not yet been set because some Senate members have conflicts with Monday’s special session.

She could only say that the Senate could take up a “variety of issues,” and there’s plenty to choose from. The chamber could consider actions taken by the House last week, including restoring budget cuts so that 11 state parks and 13 historic sites wouldn’t have to close this fall, as well as restoring cuts to human services and state offices that could result in hundreds of layoffs of state employees. The Senate also could consider the governor’s changes to Senate bills, including the another ethics bill, SB 2190. The governor would ban state legislators and officers from accepting political donations from government employees at any level, punishable by as much as a $10,000 fine for each offense.

Obama's campaign followed up with this: "Sen. Obama is pleased that Senator Jones has decided to take immediate steps to move ethics reform forward, and he plans to monitor the bill's progress next week."

Pressure builds

Senate President Emil Jones Jr. is under increasing pressure to call his chamber back to Springfield to vote on ethics reforms and budget restorations already approved by the House last week. But the pressure affects him differently than his members, as he's retiring in January. It's the remaining Senate Democrats who feel the most heat.

Jones’ office said Friday that the chamber would not return until the regularly scheduled fall session November 12, about a week after the General Election and about nine weeks after the House overturned Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s changes to unanimously approved ethics reforms and budget cuts. Jones’ decision starts a constitutional debate about when a 15-day clock starts to run before the ethics reform dies in legislative limbo. See more about the constitutional debate in our previous blog.

To demonstrate widespread support for immediate action on the ethics legislation, four constitutional officers — Comptroller Dan Hynes, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias — joined a bipartisan group of state senators in Chicago to urge Jones to call his chamber back into session before the elections. (I listened to the live audio provided in Springfield.)

Hynes said the Senate president has two choices: He can call the Senate back now to give legislators an opportunity to vote on the ban on so-called pay-to-play politics before voters head to the polls, or he can wait until after elections and increase the chance of being sued and to make the electorate feel even more disengaged. We wrote about a potential lawsuit last week.

Lisa Madigan, Illinois attorney general, also urged Jones to act now to avoid a lengthy and costly lawsuit about when the 15-day clock starts to tick. A lawsuit would put her in a tight spot because she would have to defend the state in court.

Members of Jones’ leadership team, including Sen. Debbie Halvorson of Crete and Sen. Terry Link of Waukegan, joined the news conference, along with the Senate sponsor of the ethics bill, Democratic Sen. Don Harmon of Oak Park. He said while he agrees with Jones’ interpretation of the state Constitution, the news conference demonstrates that the chamber is ready, willing and able to return immediately to avoid that constitutional challenge.

Senate Republican leaders also chimed in, saying they have supported the bipartisan effort but have opposed the Democratic “roadblock,” meaning Jones. Deputy Minority Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont said her Democratic counterparts elected Jones, so they should have some influence in forcing the Senate president’s hand to act now.

Hynes pointed out that the only one who could force Jones to do anything would be the governor, who is unlikely to call a special session of the legislature to override his own veto.

Such good government groups as the Campaign for Political Reform, the Better Government Association and the League of Women Voters also stood beside them. Dawn Clark Netsch, former state senator and state comptroller, spoke on behalf of voters. She said even if Jones is correct in his interpretation of the state Constitution about when the 15-day clock starts, it doesn’t matter to already skeptical voters who want to know where candidates stand before heading to the polls.

We're still waiting to hear from Jones' office this evening.

The Senate delays ethics reform

The Illinois Senate does not plan to return to Springfield until its regularly scheduled fall session starts November 12, and there’s a debate about whether that means highly anticipated ethics reforms will die before then.

The House on Wednesday overrode Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s changes to ethics legislation that would ban any governor from accepting political donations from businesses that hold state contracts worth more than $50,000. The Senate must agree to override those changes, or else the whole thing dies.

It gets hairy because there’s a time limit involved. But there’s also an argument about whether the state Constitution requires the Senate to act within 15 days of the House action — or whether the 15-day clock starts only after the Senate convenes session and reads the House bills into record.

Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokeswoman for Senate President Emil Jones Jr., said today that the president’s staff believes the chamber has 15 days once the Senate reads the actions into record, which would not be done until after the November elections.

Article 4, Section 9 of the State Constitution reads:

(c) The house to which a bill is returned shall immediately enter the governor's objections upon its journal. If within 15 calendar days after such entry that house by a record vote of three-fifths of the members elected passes the bill [which the House did with ethics legislation and other bills Wednesday night], it shall be delivered immediately to the second house. If within 15 calendar days after such delivery the second house by a record vote of three-fifths of the members elected passes the bill, it becomes law.

The House delivered the ethics bill to the Senate today. Steve Brown, spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan, said: “We have no comment. It’s up to the Senate.”

Patty Schuh, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, said this has never happened in the Senate before. By interpreting the Constitution in a “unique” way, she said, the leadership is jeopardizing the ethics reform. Ultimately, the legislation could land in court and further delay the implementation of the contribution limits. “In the meantime, the fundraising machines keep rolling."

Ann Lousin, a 1970 constitutional convention delegate, a former House parliamentarian and a current law professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, agrees with the Senate’s interpretation. Although she disclaimed that she has not been a House parliamentarian since January 1975, said she recalls, “The House is not the House unless it’s in session.” It follows, she said, that if the Senate is not in session, then it cannot receive the bills acted upon by the other chamber. She compared it to getting a letter on Sunday, which you can’t actually receive until the post office opens for business Monday.

Charlie Wheeler, longtime Statehouse reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times and current director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield, said while the more logical argument would be that the clock doesn’t start running until the message has been read into the record, the interpretation could be argued either way.

Someone would have to sue and argue that they’re being harmed in some way by the contribution limits, and he said that most likely would have to be a business that holds a big contract with the state and wants to donate to the officeholder.

What’s clear, he said, is that in the few decades he’s followed state government, these “nitty gritty, ministerial type of questions” never came up because there always was an understood protocol and a certain degree of civility. “In my mind, it’s just another indication of the unprecedented breakdown in the kind of basic cooperation and mutual decency that you need for an organization, and in this case, the organization being the General Assembly, to function smoothly.”

Cindi Canary, director the Chicago-based Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, has been one of the driving forces behind the contribution limits. She said she does not intend to “lie down and accept Emil Jones’ rule by fiat.” She said the bill is far from dead. Here’s the rest of her e-mail:

I have consulted with at least half a dozen attorneys today, and they are pretty evenly split on whether the clock starts now or can be delayed until the Senate returns. The only thing that they agree on is that this has never been litigated, so it is a gray area. I, for one, have no interest in seeing this become the test case.

We know that we have a nexus between large campaign contributions and state contracts, and the Senate has it in its power to enact this workable solution tomorrow. After three years of fighting this battle, I don't understand why, when the legislature knows what to do to address a problem, they continue to let politics and ego trump effective government. The bill is far from dead, but it is disheartening that another round of games playing has been proposed by President Jones.

"Where's the beef?"

In a whirlwind session Wednesday, the Illinois House restored funding to prevent state parks and historic sites from closing and hundreds of public employees from losing their jobs. It also agreed to let the governor lease the Illinois Lottery as a way to fund a major capital construction program and negated changes that the governor made to unanimously approved ethics reform.

But none of it will happen immediately.

1) It all requires Senate approval — the ethics reform needs that approval within 15 days, or it dies. The Senate, so far, is not scheduled to return to Springfield until after the November elections, but political pressure on Senate President Emil Jones Jr. and his Democratic members is expected to build so that they restore some budget cuts and enact ethics legislation before then.

2) Even if the Senate approves the lottery deal to fund a statewide capital plan, the earliest construction crews could move dirt would be in about 10 months. House Democrats say they want to find out how much money the lottery lease would generate before they made a detailed list of how that money would be distributed.

Budget cuts
About 400 public employees would retain their jobs under a measure approved by most House members. The House would restore about $260 million, which Rep. Gary Hannig said would prevent layoffs in many state agencies and constitutional offices. It also would keep 11 state parks and about 13 historic sites open and restore massive budget cuts to human services. Hannig, a Litchfield Democrat and point person on the budget for his caucus, proposed paying for it by skimming “excess” money from dedicated funds, with some exemptions. Such funds as the Asbestos Abatement Fund accumulate money by collecting licensing fees. The House would create a new fund, dubbed the “Budget Relief Fund,” so that the money could not be used for anything other than restoring the budget cuts.

The cuts are rooted in an unbalanced state budget, estimated by the governor’s office to fall short on revenue by $2 billion as approved by the General Assembly in May. So Gov. Rod Blagojevich cut $1.4 billion as he saw fit. So-called fund sweeps have been approved and used before under this administration and previous administrations.

A separate measure approved by the House, although by fewer members, would ensure that Medicaid providers would receive more timely reimbursements from the state, but the $371 million to do so would not be covered by the fund sweeps. Hannig said the House wants to work with the governor to find another funding source for the Medicaid payments. Most of the state dollars would capture federal matching funds.

Lottery for capital
The House approved legislation to let the governor lease the Illinois Lottery to private investors as a way to garner about $10 billion. About $7 billion collected in the first four years would pay for construction projects. The rest would be split among public education and, if profits exceeded $11 billion, help pay down compounding public employee pension debt, said House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie of Chicago. If bids for the lottery lease came in lower than $10 billion, she said, then the sale doesn’t happen. “The whole thing is predicated on the notion that if you don’t get $10 billion, you take your marbles and you go home.”

Rep. Jay Hoffman, a Collinsville Democrat and Blagojevich ally, said the measure does not constitute a capital bill that would create jobs because it lacks the spending portion. “The problem with this is, where’s the beef?” he said on the House floor.

Currie said approving the revenue side of the equation is a major first step and that there’s “no rush” to write the spending side. “I don’t think that it makes a lot of sense to establish a spending plan when you don’t know whether you’re going to have anything to spend. And if you do have something to spend, you’re not likely to see it for the next six or nine months.”

House Minority Leader Tom Cross said the absence of a spending plan is a “political hoax” because it gives House Democrats the ability to distribute campaign literature claiming they approved a capital bill even though the package is incomplete.

Ethics reform
The House rejected Blagojevich’s changes to a unanimously approved ethics measure. As approved, it would ban the governor from accepting political campaign contributions from businesses holding state contracts worth more than $50,000. The governor had expanded the ban to statewide officeholders, individual legislators and state political parties. Read more about the governor’s changes here. Rep. John Fritchey, the Chicago Democrat sponsoring the measure, said the governor’s ideas could have merit and deserve consideration, just not as they’re tacked on to an already approved bill without opportunity to revise them. Fritchey filed separate pieces of legislation that would do the same thing as the governor proposed. But by overriding Blagojevich’s changes to HB 824 by a vote of 110-3, the House sent a message that legislators want the so-called pay-to-play ban to take effect as is — and soon. The original legislation also received unanimous approval in the Senate before heading to the governor’s desk.

If the Senate fails to agree with the House within 15 days, then the whole bill dies. If that happens, the Campaign for Political Reform could try Plans B and C, said Cindi Canary, director of the Chicago-based nonprofit group. As a last resort, she said, that could involve starting over with a new bill or inserting the language into the ethics portion of a lottery deal.

We’re still waiting to hear from Senate officials about whether that chamber could return to consider the House’s actions within 15 days.

Insurance mandates
The House also rejected the governor’s changes to a few insurance-related bills. If the Senate fails to agree with the House and override the governor’s changes, then the bills die. Two are listed here:

HB 1432:
Insurance coverage of sexual assault services

Originally passed 94-20-0 in the House and 56-0 in the Senate
The House overrode the changes, 77-36, on September 10, 2008

Original intent: It would require insurance companies to pay for treatment of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa in addition to other mental health services they already cover.
Governor’s changes: The governor would add treatment and services for sexual abuse victims, as well as for their parents, children, spouses, siblings, domestic or same-sex partners if they die or commit suicide from the abuse.

HB 953:
Insurance coverage of autism services
Originally passed the House 100-7-0 and the Senate 48-4-3
The House overrode the changes, 84-29, September 10, 2008
Original intent: It would expand mandatory insurance coverage of mental health services to also cover marriage counseling or therapy.
Governor’s changes: It would require insurance companies to reimburse families for diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders for children younger than 21. The benefit would max out at $36,000 a year but would be annually adjusted for inflation. Families still would have to pay a co-payment and deductible as usual for their policies, but they could not be dropped from their policies simply because their children were diagnosed with a form of autism.

Friday follow-up

A few loose ends that we recently wrote about have been tied up today, while few more are about to reopen next week. The Illinois House returns to Springfield Wednesday and Thursday to debate funding for a statewide construction plan and to reverse some of the governor's recent actions.

AFSCME: It’s fair
First, a lot of rallies, meetings and political undertones potentially came to rest Friday as about 37,000 state employees have a new, agreed-upon contract with their top employer, Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration. Members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 vocally opposed increases in their health care costs that they say the administration sought. Months of negotiations led the union to request a mediator to bring the two sides closer together.

The result is a four-year contract that gives members a 15.25 percent wage increase during the life of the contract, and retired employees will retain the pension and health benefits they received under the former contract. However, employees are going to pay more for their health insurance premiums, co-payments and deductibles. Cohen said monthly premiums will increase by $12 twice during the next four years. “The state was asking for huge amounts, and we ended up are what we feel are modest amounts,” Cohen said, later adding: “Our members feel it was fair. When they looked at that contract, it wasn’t everything they wanted, but it was fair.”

He said they didn’t get relief from mandatory overtime, which they expect to intensify as more workers are laid off and the remaining employees do “more with less,” an all too familiar phrase.

The governor’s office also said in a statement that the contract was “fair" for both taxpayers and state workers. "Both sides spent months in negotiations, and this contract is the result of that tireless work.”

AFSCME: It’s unfair
Council 31, however, still disagrees with the administration about a separate issue: closing a once troubled facility for people with developmental disabilities. William A. Howe Developmental Center and the Tinley Park Mental Health Center in Chicago's south suburbs were decertified by the federal government for reports of neglect and other deficiencies. The lack of federal certification means the state no longer receives federal money to operate the facilities. But the Illinois Department of Human Services continued to operate and fund the centers without a federal match. We wrote about the centers, as well as some new plans for caring for people with disabilities, in the June Illinois Issues magazine.

AFSCME opposes shuttering the center because it would leave about 800 employees without their state jobs and benefits. About 600 are AFSCME members, said John Cameron, Council 31 spokesman. Some families also opposed the closing because they fear for the continuity of care for their loved ones with few alternatives. The administration announced that it planned to move residents to other state institutions or to community-based services. Yet, Cameron said, this affects people with high needs of services, and the union questions whether the state has enough capacity to support community-based services that already are under-funded and have long waiting lists.

The Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities said about 15,000 individuals are on a waiting list for such services. However, the council said shutting one door opens another. Instead of placing people with disabilities in more institutions, advocates look to community-based services as a way to improve what they describe as an outdated system. Read more in the organization’s report, “Blueprint for system redesign in Illinois.”

Home for the House days
State Rep. Jim Watson, a Jacksonville Republican and staff sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps, flew home from Camp Pendleton, Calif., today after serving more than six months in Iraq. Watch Illinois Issues magazine print edition to read more about the work he did to help one province establish its first form of representative government, which the U.S. military just handed over to the Anbar Provincial Council on Labor Day.

Watson arrives home just in time for the Illinois House to reconvene in a special session to discuss funding a capital construction program by leasing the Illinois Lottery to private investors.

But even if the House approves a lottery deal — with some modifications to the governor’s original proposal — it still has to go to the Senate, which isn’t scheduled to come back to Springfield before November. And even if the Senate approved a measure to let the governor lease the lottery, then it still would take months to figure out the amount of money it would generate and the amount of money that the state would have to borrow. Only then would the House draft a spending plan for that money, according to Rep. Gary Hannig, a Litchfield Democrat and deputy majority leader.

But voting on a lottery plan is a first step in that process. Expect the House to include such “safeguards" as requiring the state treasurer and comptroller to sign off on the lottery deal to ensure that it’s a good deal for taxpayers. Hannig also said an ethics portion would “ensure that there’s no temptation to engage in any kind of pay-to-play antics,” and they could limit the amount consultants and lawyers could make from the deal. “Hopefully we can pass this bill next week and send it to the Senate,” Hannig said. “And it isn’t that much different from what they have already passed.”

We’ll see about that.

The House also is expected consider some of the governor’s amendatory vetoes, including the unanimously approved ethics legislation that Blagojevich expanded. And House members could try to approve restoring some of the money the governor cut that resulted in hundreds of layoffs, closed state parks and closed state historic sites. But it would restore some, not all, of the cuts, Hannig said.

The GOP change agent?

Illinois Republicans have come to expect the unexpected with U.S. Sen. John McCain, their presumptive nominee for president, but Friday’s announcement about his new running mate was flat out shocking to some members of the Illinois GOP.

Taking attention away from the Democratic National Convention in Denver, where U.S. Sen. Barack Obama accepted the presidential nomination in a stadium of 85,000 people the night before, McCain selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She’s a virtual unknown who has since been described as an “outsider” to Washington, D.C.

“My first reaction was, ‘Oh no, another Dan Quayle,’” said Illinois Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, McCain’s chairman of legislators. He referred to the former Indiana senator who served as vice president under George H.W. Bush. “I thought, ‘Here’s another unknown, untested — from Alaska — that you question the electoral benefit it brings to the ticket.’”

But Watson said the more he learned about Palin and the more he listened to her speech, the more he believed that she would provide a fresh face with sincere character and an energy that the GOP ticket needs. (It’s easier to see her bio from the Illinois Republican Party’s Web site because her site has been down all day.)

Palin not only brings a whole new level of excitement to the ticket, said state Rep. Jim Durkin, but she also brings the gender issue back into the race.

“Barack Obama’s campaign had an opportunity to put a strong woman on as everybody’s president, and they decided not to do it. On a number of levels, I think it’s a great idea,” said Durkin, McCain’s national legislative co-chair. He added that Palin is a “strong woman” who has “good conservative credentials.”

Obama supporters immediately jumped on the fact that Palin has served about two years as governor and two years as a small-town mayor, saying it negates the argument that Obama lacks experience to run the country.

Illinois GOP delegates countered that by emphasizing her executive experience. “She’s made more decisions as an executive than Barack Obama has ever made in his days as a state senator and in the few moments that he’s been in the U.S. Senate,” Durkin said.

U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, a Peoria Republican, said today during a Statehouse news conference that McCain’s pick of Palin, who broke the proverbial glass ceiling as the first female governor of Alaska, is classic McCain. “His pick today proves that he’s going to do what he wants to do and what he thinks is right and what he thinks is best, and not what some poll tells him and not what his consultants or his advisors tell him.”

On the other hand, Christopher Mooney, political studies professor with the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Springfield, said Palin’s nomination seems to directly respond to the polls. “It appears, at this point, to be sort of cynical ploy to go after the Hillary Clinton supporters. That seems to be one of the main strategies. They saw a little thing in the polls that suggested that 20 percent of the Hillary supporters are not going to vote for Barack.”

But, Mooney said, she’s got more than youth and the token gender. She also offers expertise in dealing with energy issues and a set of ideals that could help compensate for McCain’s weakness in attracting conservative Republicans. Describing her as “aggressive in a positive way,” Mooney cited her lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for listing polar bears as a threatened species. “She got a public policy perspective. She’s got an ideology. And she’s going for it. She’s not a shrinking violet.”

And, he said, it’s hard to avoid the parallel between Palin and Geena Davis, who played the first female vice president who had to take over the U.S. presidency in the ABC show, Commander in Chief. “It just makes an interesting year that much more interesting. Hang on folks, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.”