2006 Election

I can argue all sorts of reasons why Dan Hynes is a better candidate than our current governor, but I imagine any readers here can check out the candidates' policies on their pages and history themselves for such a determination pretty quick. I'd just like to add to that consideration, especially those leaning towards or on the fence about Quinn, something that honestly should not be forgotten.

Our last election led to Illinois being center stage of a national embarrassment. This was not some unexpected shocker given that the guy who won the last Democratic Party primary was already under state and federal investigation with several corrupt acts in the public domain. And while Quinn personally vouched for the integrity and honesty of that man, and would love to get away with playing dumb now... don't let him.

I'll let the guy who ran the anti-corruption campaign against Blagojevich in that primary explain why people like Quinn simply do not deserve re-election in the State of Illinois let alone any position of trust over Illinois citizens (in its entirety here):

In 2006 I challenged Rod Blagojevich in the Democratic primary for governor. I ran because Blagojevich sold out the public for piles of campaign cash.

 

I said “no” to Blagojevich when it mattered.

 

A very savvy pol recently said to me, “Ed, if we only knew then what we know now.” I replied that we did know it then. He laughed and admitted it was so. That’s a far more grown up response than the “I-knew-it-was-bad-but not-this-bad” dodge that’s in vogue.

 

They all knew. The majority of the House impeachment report cited documents that were public before the election — the same documents I cited when arguing the governor should not be re-elected. Instead of standing with me at the time, the party leaders poured over my petitions to see if they could keep me off the ballot.

 

The governor had spent his first term raking in campaign cash at the astonishing rate of $2,667 per hour, giving him millions to spend on re-election. (I won’t here revisit how he raised this cash, who is already jailed because of it, or what services the people of Illinois were cheated out of to secure these gifts.)

 

Nearly all of the state’s Democratic politicians calculated, correctly but shortsightedly, that rallying around the governor would ensure their re-election. Voters count on their leaders to stand up when it matters. Voters also deserve choices. With the 2006 election looming, Democrats could look forward to neither.

 

...

 

I ran a tough but underfunded campaign and came up short. Still, by the time the election came I had a lot more company than I did at the beginning. A handful of Democratic politicians began to distance themselves from the governor. A few were quite helpful. Many others publicly worked for the governor’s re-election but privately wished me well. Several editorial boards endorsed my campaign. More than a quarter of a million ordinary Democrats voted for me and I carried a handful of counties.

 

On election night 2006 I talked about our values and the better angels of the Democratic Party. I said we would ultimately prevail and clean up our state. A reporter followed up asking me if that was a concession. I certainly was conceding the night. But I never would, and never will, concede the fight to change the poisonous culture of corruption in Illinois.

 

Edwin Eisendrath challenged Rod Blagojevich in the 2006 Democratic Primary. Eisendrath served as HUD regional administrator in the Clinton administration and two terms as a Chicago alderman.

Quinn played a central role in ensuring Blagojevich's re-election. He threw away his reputation and dignity. The choice is simple: hold Blagojevich's enablers responsible this election season, or send them a clear message that voters no longer care about accountability.

I'm voting for accountability. I'm voting for Dan Hynes on February 2nd.

Edwin Eisendrath, the Democrat who ran against Rod Blagojevich in the 2006 Primary election, has an op-ed today explaining just how effectively Illinois Democrats closed ranks to support Blagojevich in 2006, despite knowledge of Blagojevich's corruption:

The insiders’ reaction to my entry into the campaign was swift. Soon after they determined my petitions would withstand any challenge I received a call from a longtime friend who leads a non-profit that is partially funded by the state. She was being pressured to sign a letter asking me not to run. The letter, originated by a legislator with especially close ties to the governor, was co-signed by several good people and a few well regarded politicians. It said that running against Blagojevich could jeopardize everything for which Democrats have fought. Pressuring state grantees to write political letters to prevent contested elections? That’s not the sort of thing Democrats like me have fought for.

My phone rang again and again. A national party leader warned me that running would only “de-politicize the charges against the governor.” He meant, of course, that it would be better to write off any allegations in an election year as just Republican name-calling. The head of one of the most powerful unions in America warned that loyalty and unity were the things that mattered in politics. Both made it clear I would lose and pay a price for the effort. Turns out we all paid the price.

I found the influence of Blagojevich in unexpected places. In a suburban Chicago township, a place known for its open politics, I won enough support among party members to block an automatic endorsement of Blagojevich.

The township party leadership endorsed him anyway, telling everyone in a letter that the community stood to lose out by not endorsing Mr. Blagojevich. In another example, a state representative told me after a church service we both attended how much she disliked the governor and loathed his brand of politics. I was surprised when that legislator appeared as the governor’s surrogate at an endorsement session later the same day.

Only the pervasive influence of corruption can make decent people campaign against their own moral judgment.

Wouldn't it have been remarkable - and welcome, and praiseworthy - if the Illinos Democrats had policed their own corruption by refusing to support Blagojevich's run for re-election?

I just saw this from House Speaker Michael Madigan's press conference today:

Asked several times about his co-chariing of Blagojevich’s 2006 campaign, Madigan finally said: I can’t say I knew he was under intense scrutiny at the time.

Oh, come on.  Blagojevich's corruption was a huge issue going all the way back to too 2005.  His opponent in the Democratic primary made it the focus of his campaign.

Almost every single one of Illinois Democratic leaders supported Blagojevich's re-election in 2006.  It's just breathtakingly arrogant for them to claim now that they were unaware of the corruption.

I'm fond of saying that we get exactly the government we deserve.  My blogfather, Peoria Pundit, puts it a bit more bluntly:

We, the voting public, have to accept responsibility for Blagojevich. Sure, he ran as a reformer the first time. But by 2006, we knew he was under investigation. We knew he couldn’t govern. We suspected he was a nutcase. But we voted with our wallets. We listened to politicians say he’s still doing good things. He swallowed the lies he told on his television ads. We closed our eyes, covered out ears and hummed loudly to ourselves to convince ourselves that we weren’t seeing and hearing what was right in front of us.

We constantly complain about smarmy politicians who run on charm, good looks and lies. But we vote for them anyway because we cannot take our eyes away, and because we’ve convinced ourselves that honesty and integrity doesn’t matter as much as making sure we get a taste.

We are stupid voters.

Yesterday, the headline on the Journal Star was “State of Shame.”

Absolutely right. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

Discuss.

ADDED:  For those who'd like to think that in 2006 we just didn't really know that Blagojevich was corrupt, here's a bunch of TV commercials from the 2006 campaign pointing to issue after issue.  Of course, these are campaign commercials, so people tend to discount them in that context.  And they were also overwhelmed by a torrent of competing TV commericals (paid for largely by suspect fundraising) by Blagojevich that successfully (and now unbelievably) painted Topinka as more corrupt.

This one aired to late and too little to make a difference:

I'm not a big fan of pork, but I'd better get used to it:

Police stations, city halls, and fire trucks. Salsa programs, concession stands and graffiti removal.

Call them essential or call them pork. Either way, Illinois lawmakers would be able to hand out millions of dollars in projects under the state budget they're considering.

The $59 billion spending plan the House approved 99-9 Thursday sets aside money for hundreds of projects. Schools, hospitals, roads, churches and parks all would benefit.

Lawmakers said the budget provides more than $2.5 million in what legislators call "member initiatives" to each of the 59 Senate districts. That would be about $150 million, but the total wasn't clear. Each senator would control half the money for a district, and the two representatives would split the rest.

I wonder if there are any higher-priority uses for that $150 to $200 million?  Pension funding, education funding - heck, even health insurance for poor children?

Notably, State Sen. Mike Frerichs and the Senate Democrats have declined to identify their "member initiative" projects by line-item in the budget, meaning that the public won't know which projects will get state funding, and that the State Senators will be the sole arbiter of what is and isn't a legitimate project.  Frerichs, of course, campaigned loudly and vigorously against pork (and especially against this particular process of awarding pork) during the 2006 campaign. 

Frerichs said member initiatives should undergo some kind of review before they're included in the budget.

"After four years of watching George Ryan, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard," he said, somehow forgetting the Blagojevich years. "What we can do is have something similar to the Capital Development Board where you have objective standards and take it out of the hands of the politicians to determine what gets funded first, rather than who has more seniority, who cuts what deals and who's from what district.

"For too often and too long, we've governed like that. And sure, sometimes money goes toward good causes, but sometimes it goes to projects that don't pass the smell test."

Now, Frerichs has voted for a budget that follow the same process that last year didn't "pass the smell test" and a budget that includes:

The projects include $25,000 to expand the city hall in Johnston City in southern Illinois, $100,000 for security cameras in a Chicago ward and $200,000 for a new police station in Aurora.

There's also $20,000 for graffiti removal in Cicero, $40,000 for community programs through the Chicago International Salsa Congress, $60,000 for volleyball courts at Stars and Stripes Park in Chicago and $100,000 for a park concession stand in Brookfield.

I am disappointed, but not surprised.

UPDATE:  More from Frerichs on pork:

State Sen. Mike Frerichs, D-Gifford, said he wished that member initiatives were not needed to pass a budget, but acknowledged that they did play a role in getting some members to vote yes.

As of Thursday night, he said he had no idea what projects in his district would get funding and how much.

"I would like to see (member initiatives) all done away with, but if they are going to be in there, I don't want to miss out on the money for my district," he said.

Some people are convinced that George Bush stole the last couple elections. These claims are largely based on wild suppositions, the wildest of the suppositions being the claims regarding Ohio in 2004. In response to people's concerns regarding Diebold and possible vote tampering, a number of people are suggesting that after the election, election officials should do a sampling of ballots in every precinct to determine whether the machines are rigged. The proposals vary, but no one suggests more than a 10% sample of ballots be counted.

Under the sampling theory, we can know whether an election is fraudulent by looking at a mere 10% of the ballots. It's a ridiculous proposal, and will serve to increase voter cynicism and uncertainty about our vote counting process.

The proposal by the Election Defense Alliance has gathered a lot of attention and was brought to my attention after I spoke to the NIU law school Election law symposium in March. A person who is working with the EDA approached me about doing a pilot project in Champaign County using the EDA sampling proposal. I turned him down and referred him to our own vote count integrity program.

I offered a few points to him for which he had no response. Perhaps others do.

First, after a 10% sample, the results will all but certainly be different than the actual results. How much different will vary, but the likelihood of them being different by .5% is high. So for example, take the Myers Frerichs Senate race last year. Frerichs won by just under 1% (Frerichs - 27,149, Myers - 26,607, Parnarauskis - 1,894). Suppose we sample 5,565 ballots (10%) and we get the following results: Myers - 2,690, Frerichs - 2,685, and Parnarauskis - 190. This result is statistically not improbable. From a public relations standpoint it's a disaster. Certainly, those who understand or generally accept probability theory will not have an issue, except for those who have a vested interest in fomenting public dissatisfaction with the election process. A large number of other people will also have a problem because they simply don't understand the math. What we have done is not increased certainty, but rather increased uncertainty.

Second, the Election Defense Alliance suggests that they have a 99% chance of being accurate. That means, if they run this sample on every Congressional District, we will have four districts where the sample will show inaccurate results. In those areas, there will once again be a crisis of confidence.

Third, the random sampling will allow someone to program fraud into a system with a limited chance of being caught. So while the proponents of sampling speak of the high probability of 1% vote fraud being detected, they don't speak of the improbability of .2% vote fraud being detected. A computer programmer who wanted to drop one vote per precinct could have altered the Presidential election results in Florida, Iowa, Oregon, and New Mexico in 2000 and Wisconsin and Iowa in 2004. Sampling probably would not have caught this fraud.

Fourth, crimes are generally deterred by the probability of being caught. The Election Defense Alliance suggests that 40% of vote fraud would not be caught under a 2% sampling scheme as proposed in the Holt Bill. What that means is that anyone who rigs an election has a 60% chance of getting caught. I doubt that any computer hacker who is skilled enough to do all the programming work to steal an election would be willing to take that kind of risk.  In fact, I'm not sure what criminal activity with a 60% chance of being caught is ever engaged in by reasonable people.

Fifth, the public has a right to know that their vote counting equipment is 100% accurate. Only a redundant recount in a sample of precincts can actually instill that confidence in people. When we conducted our redundant count, we were able to point to specific ballots that were likely the result of the vote discrepancies.

The Election Defense Alliance is sound in requesting some automatic triggers for redundant counts. I would fully support that. I was actually pleased when the election in the Village of Ivesdale went to a discovery recount. I wanted to know that indeed the votes were counted as they were cast. We found out that they were, and both the winners and losers in that contest can rest easy in the accuracy of the results.

Regaining the public's confidence in our election system is not beyond us. The most critical part of regaining that confidence is to provide facts instead of supposition and to engage in rational debate instead of lobbing wild accusations. Sampling is certainly not the answer.

Karen Foster, the third-leading vote-getter in Tuesday's Champaign City Council primary, has a campaign website.  I've added her to the blogroll at right.

Consider this an Open Thread on Champaign's city elections on April 17.

For those of you wondering about the spending in the 2006 Myers-Frerichs State Senate race, the reports were filed yesterday.

Mike Frerichs, who won by 517 votes, took in about $1.08 million in the last six months of 2006 in direct and in-kind donations, with about $1.03 million of that coming from Political Action Committees (or PACs), including over $900,000 from the Illinois Senate Democratic Fund (ISDF), the party committee controlled by Senate President Emil Jones of Chicago. 

(As an aside, for those of you who said I was wrong to assume that Frerichs' early attack ads were paid for by Jones - the first ISDF contribution came on 9/4, exactly the day that the attack ads began airing on TV and radio.  That said, the attack ads worked, so being right is absolutely no consolation.)

Judy Myers took in about $900,000 in direct and in-kind contributions from July through December, with about $800,000 coming from PACs.  About $630,000 was from Sen. Frank Watson's two PACs (Citizens for Watson and the Republican Senate Campaign Committee) and the Illinois Republican Party.

The race in the 52nd State Senate district was easily the most expensive legislative race in the state in 2006, and may have been the most expensive in history (although I think there might have been a Chicago-area race in 2002 that was more expensive - Pam Althoff maybe?)

For the 103rd House race, Naomi Jakobsson raised about $215,000, with about 90% of it coming from PACs and Speaker Michael Madigan.  Her opponent, Rex Bradfield, raised and spent about $14,000.

Discuss (or gloat) if you want.

UPDATE:  Tom Kacich beat me to it, although his numbers don't include the in-kind contributions that make up a significant portion of the Party's support.

I apologize for the spammy feel of this as my first blog entry at IlliniPundit, but we at The Minority Report decided that a splash was in order.

Give TMR a look, click "About" and "Who", and join up if you want.

Especially, take note of Barack Who?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Minority Report Blog Launched

Los Angeles, February 1, 2007 - Bloggers today unveiled The Minority Report Blog (theminorityreportblog.com). The site will bring a decidedly different perspective on political news and events as seen by numerous seasoned blog contributors.

The Minority Report Blog views are generally aligned with Republican policies and conservative political perspectives. However, the site provides an opportunity for serious comments from users across the political spectrum. It will also provide links to political news headlines and other related sites of interest.

"We saw the relegation of Republican party to minority status as an opportunity' said The Minority Report Blog founder Steven Foley, "An opportunity to provide commentary from a different perspective with the aim of regaining the majority and holding it".

The blog and more information can be found at: theminorityreportblog.com

Contact:
Steven Foley or Administration @
The Minority Report Blog

Administration@theminorityreportblog.com

CapFax Blog has audio of the inaugural addresses of the statewide elected officials from yesterday.

For coverage of the Illinois inaugural festivities, go to CapFax Blog.

Congratulations to Sen. Frerichs and Reps. Jakobsson, Black, Rose & Cultra on their inaugurations.

WDWS has a podcast with County Clerk Mark Shelden (who blogs about  mostly non-Clerk-related stuff on IP).

(Quintessential Shelden photo by Adam Jadhav.  Click on the image for a huge version.)

Kudos to the Champaign County Board Republicans for nominating their own candidate for Board Chairman (John Jay of Mahomet).

Without delving too deeply into the history, County Board Democrats are currently split between at least two candidates: incumbent County Board Chair Barb Wysocki and current Champaign County Democrat Party Chairman Tony Fabri.

To date, there's been lots of talk about a Dem candidate needing some GOP votes for Chair. I hope the GOP nomination of Jay puts an end to that.

For my part, I can think of no conceivable reason that any Republican County Board members should support the Democrat Party Chairman for County Board Chair. It should be a non-starter, and though Fabri attended GOP caucus this morning to gauge the possibility of GOP support, he was firmly rebuffed. Fabri is, first and foremost, a partisan - he's his Party's Chair - and any Party chair who can't secure the unanimous support of his own Party's members certainly shouldn't be looking for votes from the people he is working to keep in the minority.

As for Wysocki, I know that she was elected Chair two years ago with the support of all 12 Republican members who were, in their own words, simply trying to get rid of former Chair Patricia Avery. After her election two years ago:

Wysocki urged board members "to embark on a new experiment in county government - an experiment where, no matter what our party affiliation, we begin to put the interest of the citizens of the county of Champaign uppermost in our minds ..."

I am hopeful that, after witnessing the last two years of problems with the Board Leadership, that most Republican members of the Board have realized that things have not worked out as well as they had hoped.

The right thing to do for County Board Republicans is to remain unanimous in their support of John Jay, regardless of how long the Democrats remain split over their own choice for Chair. There are at least two good reasons for Republicans to stand steadfastly behind John Jay:

• Republicans need to stand for something. Voting for Democrats to lead the County Board blurs whether Republicans stand for anything
• With a Chair from one party elected by a different party, accountability is impossible. This current vote for Chairman is the first opportunity either Democrats or Republicans have had to hold Wysocki (and Vice-Chair Steve Beckett) accountable for their leadership. Because of the unique circumstances of their ascension, they've really been answerable to no one.

Finally, the current Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board have talked for two years about bipartisanship, after being elected by Republicans. At this point, if Wysocki and Beckett find that there are no other Democrats who are acceptable candidates for Chairman, they should reciprocate the bipartisan gesture made by Republicans two years ago: they should support Republican John Jay for Chairman.

But under no circumstances should Republicans support either Wysocki or Fabri for Chairman.

And if any other Democrat is elected Chair due to the support of Republicans, I'll be highly disappointed.

John Jay is the best choice for County Board Chairman - he's the only candidate from either party who enjoys, at a bare minimum, the trust of at least 15 members. I hope the GOP members remain firmly committed to his candidacy throughout the selection process.

I have just had confirmed from the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board that the County's new certificate of need has been denied . This is very bad news, and makes it all but certain that the nursing home won't open by January 1, 2007 as promised by Steve Beckett. What's more, the cost to the county of reapplying is going to be $50,000.This is our second post election surprise from Mr. Beckett. You'll recall prior to the primary that he promised the nursing home would be open in April.

Perhaps most interesting about this is that the County didn't apply for the new certificate until the day before the election. Why not ask for it months ago? Perhaps because they knew that it might be denied and that it would be another black mark on Steve Beckett. How else to explain the 7 month delay from the time we knew that the certificate was needed and the day it was requested.

I talked to the IHFPB in July as I researched the nursing home issue. At that time I was told that getting an extension on the scheduled opening was perfunctory. However, getting an amendment to our certificate of need was not and that we should get it done soon. I was also told about the new rules that were coming into place in September.

In hindsight, I should have called Denny Inman about this so that he could pass this information on to our attorneys. But I knew that we were paying these attorneys over half a million dollars for their “expertise” in this area. Surely they would have known this bit of information which is prominently featured on the IHFPB website. In addition, Mr. Beckett has been known to extol the importance of having Denny Inman in his position because of his expertise on the permitting process as well.

I don't know all the implications of proceeding on this project without getting approval, but this portion of the above rules doesn't bode well for us.

1130.750

i) Any alteration undertaken without prior HFPB approval (when required) shall be considered a violation of the Act and shall be subject to the penalties mandated inthe Act and in Section 1130.790.

In reading 1130.790 from the above rules it looks like fines begin at $25,000 and go up from there.

It defies my imagination to describe my shock over this. We've known about the need for a new Certificate of Need since at least April. Why did they wait until after September 1, 2006 to apply for it?
Someone dropped the ball. And no one will be held accountable.

UPDATE: I guess I'll agree that it wasn't a NEW certificate of need but rather an AMENDED certifciate of need. Hope that makes Mr. Beckett happy. Anyone who reads the original document that I posted from the IHFPB could obviously see that.

Also, Mr. Beckett is apparently also saying that the County can proceed without any amended certificate of need and just pay the penalty. Oh, that's wonderful. What a great way to do business. Let's screw around for 7 months instead of doing what we're supposed to do, and then pay a $100,000 late fee.

The Auditor post yesterday evolved in part into a post on the new chairman for the Champaign County Board.

I think that Wysocki can garner four votes for chair (I'm including Melin) from Democrats, but not much more.  That means she needs ten out of 12 Republicans to vote for her.  I don't see it.

Wysocki alone might be tolerable to Republicans.  She's been reasonable as chairman.  But right now she has the baggage of Steve Beckett to lug around.  His constant criticism of board members of both parties makes him a negative for Wysocki.

So who will the Democrats put forward?  I think they'll find a decent candidate who will be able to get the 14 votes necessary to be elected.

There are rumors of deals being offered to Republicans.  I don't know what advantage that can hold for us, but maybe Republican board members can speak to that themselves.  But any deal that keeps Beckett in charge of facilities is a bad deal in my eyes.

OK everyone.  Let us all know who you think should be the next chair, and how do you go about forging the votes to do it?

I have not heard a peep from anyone about who will be the new Champaign County Auditor after Mike Frerichs enters the State Senate in January.

I suppose much depends on who will be Champaign County Board Chairman (the vacancy will be filled by the Chair) in January.

Let me just toss a name out there without any basis whatsoever:  Patricia Avery.

Any other ideas or gossip?

I put up a post on my County Clerk blog giving people a chance to make comments and suggestions.  Have at it!

It looks like the unofficial margin is Mike Frerichs winning over Senator Judy Myers by 517 votes. I'll have more detailed numbers tomorrow or the day after.

I just wanted to say congratulations to Mike and his team, and offer this thread as an opportunity for thoughts, analysis, gloating - please keep it profanity free, but you can personally insult me as much as you like. :-)

To everyone that I worked with in Champaign County and around the state over the past year, I'd like to say, "Thank you."

UPDATE: Here's what I have, unofficially, for each County: (click on the image for a readable version).

Senator Myers won Danville & Vermilion County by 3,088 votes (combined), getting 56.2% to Mike Frerichs' 41.6%.

Frerichs won Champaign County by 3,605 votes, getting 53.3% to Myers' 42.7%.

SEP candidate Joe Parnarauskis got 1,893 votes total, or 3.41%, which I think is too low to legally "establish" the SEP.

I thought Myers would get 60%-plus in Danville/Vermilion. If she'd have gotten 60%, she'd have won.

I'll post my precinct-by-precinct results as soon as I can get the remaining precincts I'm missing from the Vermilion County Clerk.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Matt Gladney for his kind words.  And congratulations to him on winning a seat on the County Board.  I hope he'll live-blog a bunch of meetings.

Results for Champaign County can be found at the Clerk's website here.

Take this opportunity to make comments about the election day process.  Good, bad, suggestions, advice.   I'll check in when I can, but certainly read it all in the aftermath.