September 2005

Reyes Probably the Co-Schemer

I’m always fascinated by the different phrases federal prosecutors come up with, but Crain’s is reporting more people close to Daley are being identified in filings.

Federal authorities aimed new corruption charges at City Hall late Thursday?and in the process identified as a “co-schemer” a high-ranking city official that fits the description of former top mayoral aide Victor Reyes.
A federal grand jury indicted former city patronage coordinator Robert Sorich, ex-Department of Aviation staffer Timothy McCarthty, and former Department of Streets and Sanitation officials Patrick Slattery, John Sullivan and Daniel Katalinic on corruption charges. All specifically were accused of participating in an alleged scheme to funnel personnel and other city resources to political campaigns by rigging job tests to help political favorites.

….

But the bigger news was the indictment?s reference to an alleged ?co-schemer? identified as Individual A. The indictment does not name Individual A but says the person worked full-time in the city?s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs between 1993 and 2000, and helped run a political field group known as the Hispanic Democratic Organization (HDO).

That would appear to describe former intergovernmental director Mr. Reyes, who left City Hall in 2000 after joining the staff early in the 1990s, founded and still heads HDO, and was Mr. Sorich?s supervisor at City Hall.

I’m not sure this changes much in terms of interpretation of the big picture, but it leads to where a lot of people believed it would–Reyes.

My take on the overall situation is that Daley is probably not in much legal trouble and political trouble is generally overestimated, but could become serious.

The genius of the Machine as much as one can say it still exists–isn’t so much that it’s a highly centralized system with orders coming down from on high, but that it’s an operation that alligns the individual’s interests with those above them making it generally true that those at the top don’t have to be involved in decisions to support the Machine on the operational level.

Sorich and Reyes had every incentive to make Daley better off politically–because if he is, they are better off and they can benefit from the overflow of that power when they move on from public employment.

It’s a mistake to assume that, especially in a case like Daley, the plot goes all the way to the top. It could be true, but just because people as high as Sorich and Reyes are involved doesn’t mean Daley was. Is Daley negligent for not monitoring the behavior? Absolutely. Is he involved? That’s a question I trust Patrick Fitzgerald to answer–though that doesn’t release Daley from accountability. One suggestion by Shakman was to hold Daley and the City in contempt for violating the Shakman decree and that might well be called for in this case.

You do better in the Machine, as it stands now, by providing more foot soldiers and more effort–how you do it has never been questioned and it should have been by people at Daley’s level because they knew the history of abuse.

Crowing that Daley is being brought down isn’t going to make it so. The more likely challenge would be a credible challenge that brings white liberals, Latinos and African-Americans together–but frankly that person doesn’t exist right now (well he might–but he’s in the US Senate). Jackson Jr. is no Harold Washington and while he might get some press out of it, he’s not going to run against Daley in 2007.

It’s exactly the neglect by Daley that also attracts people like Tomczak or the Duffs–they know they can exploit the system and that is where Daley is at fault is by not making it clear that such behavior is not to be tolerated.

McSweeney’s Moves

It certainly appears that David McSweeney is getting a leg up on his competition to take on Melissa Bean. He’s gotten both Peter Fitzgerald’s endorsement and Ray LaHood’s and appears to be getting support from the NRCC according to this Washington Post article.

What made it different from the dozens of other meet and greets on Capitol Hill is that it was hosted by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the International Association of Fire Fighters — two major players in organized labor. It was the first such event for a Republican challenger the groups have hosted since the November election.

Bean’s vote in support of the Central American Free Trade Agreement in July enraged many in the labor movement and was the catalyst for this get- even event. Although McSweeney also supported CAFTA, the unions are willing to try to find common ground with him on the issue, given their animosity toward Bean, said a person in attendance.

McSweeney appears to be running a smart campaign and has DC support which matters a lot on the Republican side fo the aisle. While I’d prefer Bean face him instead of a more moderate Bartel, I am concerned at how well he seems to be doing.

I’m baffled by the anger at the CAFTA vote. For the unions I understand some disappointment given their position on the issue, but overall, how is David McSweeney supporting Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert do more to advance their agenda than Nancy Pelosi would?

The first question should be does McSweeney support the Administration’s efforts to suspend Davis-Bacon for Hurricane Katrina recovery-an act only invoked once before for a natural disaster—Hurricane Andrew. At the same time that companies getting reconstruction contracts will be doing well, why the hell should individuals working for them not be paid the prevailing wage? Is there some reason that people working recovery shouldn’t get a decent wage? And isn’t a decent wage critical to bringing back the local economies in those areas?

Melissa Bean is already a co-sponsor of George Miller’s bill to repeal the Administration’s suspension.

Would Dave McSweeney do that too? And if not, which is more important?

CAFTA was a mediocre trade agreement that was loaded down with handouts making it virtually a wash and so I have sympathies with those on both sides of the issue, though I’d come down for it. My time (limited admittedly) in Nicaragua impressed upon me the importance of trade and bring capital to underdeveloped economies. But let’s be clear CAFTA only makes the inevitable come a bit quicker. Whether it could have been better structured is an open question, but I cannot imagine how CAFTA is more important than Davis-Bacon.

Free trade has long been an issue that many Democrats supported–especially from districts like IL-8. CAFTA’s problems overrode a lot of that kind of support, but it’s hardly unreasonable to expect her to split on the issue. To throw support to McSweeney for labor is incredibly self-defeating.

Congressional Races

Using the Almanac of American Politics numbers, the Bush-Kerry numbers paint an interesting picture regarding what districts are vulnerable to challengers from either party.

3, 8, and 12 are covered in the previous post and obviously 8 is the Republican top target. 12 has a corrupt jackass who the Republicans can’t find a real candidate to run against. 3 is a safe Democratic seat with a conservative Democrat who got the job because his Daddy thinks it’s a family heirloom to hand down.

IL-1 Rush Safe 83-17 Kerry
IL-2 Jackson Safe 84-16 Kerry
IL-4 Guitierrez Safe 79-21 Kerry
IL-5 Emanuel Safe 67-33 Kerry
IL-6 Hyde (open) Competitive 53-47 Bush
IL-7 Davis Safe 83-17 Kerry
IL-9 Schakowsky Safe 68-32 Kerry
IL-10 Kirk Competitive 53-47 Kerry
IL-11 El Geraldo Competitive 53-46 Bush
IL-13 Biggert Safe 55-45 Bush
IL-14 Hastert Safe 55-44 Bush
IL-15 Johnson Safe 59-41 Bush
IL-16 Manzullo Safe 55-44 Bush
IL-17 Evans Competitive 51-48 Kerry
IL-18 LaHood Safe 58-42 Bush
IL-19 Shimkus Safe 61-39 Bush

Obviously other than Bean the only real pick-up opportunity is Evans for Republicans, but that’s still a tough sell there. Democrats have 3 seats that are under 10 points (and actually one that is Democratic).

And while Bean’s district was the most Republican in the State in 2000, that’s no longer true. Shimkus, LaHood, and Johnson are more Republican and 3 more seats are within a point of Bean’s District.

The Demographic shifts are pretty clearly mirroring those in the nation with suburban and exurban areas becoming the battlefield for parties while rural areas are becoming more Republican. In Illinois, I’d argue Dems do well with those shifts, though it isn’t at all clear in other states this wins.

Given Bush’s numbers I’d hate to be El Geraldo in Illinois 11. Illinois 6 is a bit more confused given the primary.

Bean’s Not a Problem

The DINOs you should be worried about are Costello and Lipinski

From Progressive Punch Wegerje points out two guys in far more Democratic Districts vote just as conservative or more conservative

According to the Almanac of American Politics the Bush-Kerry Split in 2004 for the 8th was 56-44 Bush.

The 3rd (Lipinski) 59-41 Kerry. Same rating.

The 12th (Costello) 52-48. More conservative and an unindicted co-conspirator of Amiel Cueto.

Think John Sullivan in the primary for IL-3.

Why REAL ID For Voting is a Disaster Waiting to Happen

Barack comes through and argues against requiring the use of the REAL ID for voter identification. Barack points out some initial problems in his press release.

Some others don’t quite understand the implications of such a move.

Barack’s points are pretty basic and point out the gulf between the middle and working class and those who truly live in poverty.

“This is a requirement that would be so restrictive that you couldn’t even prove your identity in order to vote with a U.S. military photo ID card or a U.S. passport,” Obama said. “This is a mistake.”

Lewis said the photo ID requirements passed by Georgia and other states are “a form of a poll tax,” used once in some states to keep blacks from voting.

“These laws take us back to the dark past where only a few groups of American citizens could participate in our democracy,” Lewis said.

Voter rights and civil rights groups have challenged Georgia’s law in court.

“Georgia has instituted a law that requires some of the poorest among us – those who probably don’t have access to transportation – to possibly travel great distances and pay up to $35 just for the privilege of making their voice heard,” Obama said.

“This is an extraordinarily heavy burden for the 150,000 Georgians over 70 who do not have government-issued photo identification. If other states followed suit, it would be a burden for nearly 1 in 8 Americans who do not have a driver’s license. And, we’ve got to remember who these folks are – disproportionately poor and without easy access to all the documents necessary for a government-issued ID,” Obama said.

Nationally, up to 10 percent of Americans are estimated not to have driver’s licenses or state-issued IDs, Obama said. Three million disabled people do not have driver’s licenses. Black Americans are twice as likely not to have a driver’s license as white Americans. Only 22 percent of black males between the ages of 18 and 24 have a driver’s license.

The burden isn’t just because someone is poor, but because with poverty comes all sorts of other problems including disabilities that severely limit mobility.

But this isn’t just the regular Driver’s license we are talking about, but the REAL ID. Remember that?

It’s completely a nutty idea that will add new meaning to slow bureaucracy.

It requires that each document used for identification to obtain such an ID be confirmed with the issuing agency and done on renewal as well as paper copies kept for 7-10 years. So every time I want to get a license, Will County will have to confirm my birth certificate and the information on it. Before I can get the actual license. My Social Security number will have to be verified with the federal government and any other identification such as a utility bill will have to be confirmed with the issuing company.

I’m a big fan of the ways Jesse White has improved and streamlined the Secretary of State’s office and made it easier to renew licenses for clean drivers and the such, but this would end it all.

One can theoretically get a license not up to the REAL ID act, but the proposals from the Baker panel would not allow those to be used to vote. Your passport could not be used to vote. Your military ID could not be used to vote. Your voter ID card as it now stands could not be used to vote.

If you take it one or two steps further, it only gets worse. What if you lose your ID within a few days of the election? Are you disenfranchised? What if you use it to post bond for a speeding ticket? Are you disenfranchised if you can’t pay in a couple days? What if a bouncer takes it claiming it’s fake when it isn’t? Are you completely disenfranchised? How do you verify the date of birth for an immigrant? Taking two common examples–The Soviet Union or Yugoslavia (as Durbin pointed out) don’t even exist–how do you confirm a birth certificate?

So what if you move to a new state and the State of Illinois can’t confirm that you cancelled your Missouri Driver’s License–you don’t get a new one until they can confirm such a move. You move in 60 days before an election, try to get a new license 30 days before an election, but Missouri can’t confirm in time (Trust me, not an unrealistic situation)? Are you disenfranchised for moving? What if you have a name similar to others—do they have their license cancelled then because the state can’t tell the difference (this has been quite common in purging vote files). So someone is now disenfranchised because of a bureaucratic mix-up.

Those are barriers for those who now have a licences–let alone the 10% of eligible voters who don’t have a license now at all.

Beyond that, a far more effective strategy would to be to actually employ someone at polls who is young enough to still have eyesight good enough to potentially catch a fraud. Right now, you could require the best ID in the world and the person behind the table wouldn’t be able to tell.

10% of people don’t have driver’s licenses or state issued IDs under current law. That’s likely to jump in the case of REAL ID. So are we really going to say that to vote you have to have such an ID? Or are there other options for individuals who don’t have such ID?

The impact of debilitating poverty on that portion of our society that is truly outside the mainstream is not understood by most. I spend a fair amount of time for work in areas that are poverty stricken and it is a different world. It’s a world where people don’t operate on the same assumptions as those in the blog world for sure and not the same that most people who read this interact wtih on a regular basis. It’s a life that’s not as oriented towards writing checks and using your debit cards, but making do to get through. One that doesn’t worry about six months down the line, but one that worries about the next couple days.

Add to that those who struggle to get through life because of disabilities (and having a disability is a big correlation to being poor) and requiring them to go through a tough process to get a REAL ID is a lot more than it sounds like to those of us who have easy transportation and can be annoyed while waiting at the DMV, but ultimately can do it without worrying about missing a treatment, or your nurse, or your daily food delivery that’s your primary sustenance.

Do we really want to disenfranchise these people?

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t look to make voting secure, but REAL ID or even a state ID shouldn’t be the only ID–a mailed Voter ID card or a recent utility bill actually makes fraudlent voting pretty difficult. Combine that with competent poll workers and we do far better enfranchising the worst off amongst us while protecting the integrity of voting. It’s the right thing to do.

Why Edgar Won’t Run

So this one has been running around my head for a while, though I’d now title it, ‘Why Edgar Might Not Run’.

Certainly the signs from Edgar are more positive than I thought they would be and others like Mike Lawrence seem ready to saddle up.

There are problems for Edgar that no one is really talking about. Pete Giangreco covered some of it in the now famous Capital Fax column, but he left out a couple issues that no one has touched yet.

MSI is obviously a big issue, but how much can a 10 year old issue really matter? Well, when your Deputy Chief of Staff is named an unindicted Co-Conspirator*

From the AP on August 23, 2000

Named as unindicted co-conspirators were former Edgar deputy chief of staff Michael Belletire; former Edgar personnel director Janis Cellini; James Owen, longtime assistant to Senate President James “Pate” Philip, R-Wood Dale; and Terry Bedgood and Terry Logsdon, who were MSI’s politically connected marketing consultants and shared in the millions reaped from MSI’s contract.

Now, the first point is that all of the people foaming at the mouth over Daley’s patronage chief–where’s the outrage at MSI? Pretty similar huh?

That said, I don’t think that means necessarily Edgar knew or was involved. Underlings often do things that they think the boss wants, but that actually horrifies the boss.

Pete took on the wrong issue in relation to crime and punishment. The scandal that few talk about today, is the abhorrent lack of control and order in the Illinios Prison System under Edgar’s Administration. The Speck videotape was the only real widespread public incident concerning an Illinois prison system that was largely run by gangs and out of control. It would truly be a shame if the spotlight on this issue weren’t shown in a 2006 race. While the tape was made in 1988 under Jim Thompsons administration and Edgar blamed the problems on what he inherited, few think the prisons really changed until after George Ryan became Governor. Of course, Ryan had a self-interest in a decent prison system.

Below the fold is a portion of a Kurt Erickson story on the problems in the prisons from late in 1996. That issue is one of the toughest Edgar could face in a fight with Blagojevich.

Add to that and the disaster that was DCFS as Giangreco pointed out and there is some new material to hit him that people don’t remember, but will be a lot harder to avoid discussing if he’s attacking Blagojevich’s ethics.

Furthermore, the problem of how to run on school funding is more complex than Giangreco portrayed. Long time readers know that I voted for Edgar in 1990 because Neil Hartigan was lying about school funding. I then voted in 1994 for Dawn Clark Netsch because Edgar was lying about school funding. And then Edgar turned around, repackaged Netsch’s school plan and tried to pass it.

But how does he run to the right and left of Blagojevich. Edgar can’t run too far to the right–his appeal is being a moderate. And running to the left on school funding and a tax swap has a small problem of, “Haven’t we heard that before”

Get out the flip flop costumes! Is he for a tax swap or against it? If he’s against it, who believes him after 1994?

If he’s for it, how does he placate his base? He’s socially moderate being pro-choice (except about beer tents at the fair), generally supportive of gay and lesbian rights and isn’t likely to join a jihad against gay marriage. So why would conservatives vote for him? Taxes. But what if Blagojevich has staked out the anti-tax position and Edgar takes what I view to be the responsible position for a tax swap. Doesn’t he lose his right flank? Sure the Chamber will still support him, but do the social conservatives who are becoming ascendant in the State GOP?

Some might argue it’s a Hartigan-Edgar race all over again, but with the increasingly blue nature of the state, does that necessarily mean an Edgar win this time? I’m not sure though Blagojevich’s current poll numbers might mean that Edgar would win.

The impact of these issues aren’t only going to exist in the general election. Edgar faced two primary challenges when he ran for Governor by Steve Baer and Jack Roeser. Neither gained much traction, but both candidacies helped form a foundation for social conservatives in the Illinois GOP that had long been dominated by moderates.

Some of the current candidates will drop out if Edgar runs. Judy will jump out of the way. I imagine Gidwitz will, though he’s irrelevant enough to not matter anyway. I think Brady will get out–he’s made suggestions he might. Rauschenberger insists he is in, but one has to wonder if he won’t be able to be moved to a ‘dream team’ slot as Treasurer nominee to run with Edgar as a slate. O’Malley may run, but he’s increasingly marginalized within his own party.

Essentially that leaves either Oberweis or perhaps Oberweis and Rauschenberger to run against Edgar in a bruising primary. In past years, Baer and Roeser couldn’t get press to save their lives, but it would be different this time with Oberweis able to get plenty of press with constant attacks on Edgar.

Oberweis and his allies at Family Taxpayer Network will attack him relentlessly over abortion, immigration, gay and lesbian rights, MSI, and DCFS all the while Blagojevich piles on while Edgar is too busy to attack Blagojevich.

I think Edgar wins that primary by about 5 points and wins a general election by 2-3. But does he want that nightmare of a campaign? Does he want that to define his legacy?

* I believe this is the first time I’ve used the word not tied to Costello
Read More

It’s Worse Than Everyone is Saying

The most recent Survey USA poll is worse than most are making it out to be for the Governor.

As always there are caveats with polls. First, Survey USA uses only robocalls for its polls, but has been pretty close to other polls taken at similar times so let’s work on the assumption the numbers are reasonable.

Second, one in twenty polls is wrong. That’s the most basic thing to remember about all polls. Polling is a science, but there is an art to understanding when a poll makes sense and when it might be that one in twenty. Beyond that, more than one in twenty can be wrong if all of the conditions of a valid and reliable poll are not met.

I can think back to a Bush approval poll in Illinois that showed improvement in his approval in Illinois while the national polls were stagnant or heading downwards. That is a case where I usually question the results because it doesn’t fit with what else we know is going on in the electorate.

Getting to the Blagojevich numbers, they have been low for some time. He’s been below 40% approval since May and the concern if you are a Blagojevich supporter is that when your poll numbers stay low, they tend to be hard to move upwards the longer they are low. There is good reason for this from the Political Science Literature. The tick mark theory as I call it suggests that individuals’ impressions of politicians or issues is set at the beginning and then moves marginally up or down based on small bits of information. So when you are in the pits, you try and stay out of the news and only have good news in the press so the marginal moves are slowly upwards until a campaign starts.

Blagojevich has generally good political instincts and he’d put together a good couple months since May to August where he wasn’t much in the middle of scandals or problems and was doing things with majority support–especially amongst Democrats and Democratic leaners. And as one might expect, his approval in August went to 43%. Still lower than an incumbent likes, but a good sign as the trend was in the right direction. Especially in a blue state, the numbers looked decent for a reelection with a trend going up towards 50%.

Then Public Official A hits and….he’s in Boy Blunder (Matt Blunt) Land again. But worse, his negatives had gone down and now shot back up. Those mental ticks are only so malleable and after sometime they won’t bounce back down if the negatives are reinforced too often.

Right now Blagojevich is getting the approval of about the 1/3 of people in Illinois who are Democrats do or die.

In a group that is overwhelmingly Democratic–African-Americans, he’s only +3 on approval and below 50%. While A-A decisions tend to be more reserved and come towards the end of the election, that’s abysmal. Worse, while Jim Edgar wouldn’t win with African-Americans, he’s always had better outreach to African-American constituencies than have other Republicans. That’ll take some rebuilding since he and Lawrence have been out of the game, but it’s a bad, bad sign.

His Latino numbers are essentially as bad as the overall numbers.

His pro-choice numbers are 40% approve, 50% disapprove. That position, barring an Edgar candidacy is one of the central themes he’ll run on in a moderately pro-choice state.

Frankly, the only good news was before the Public Official A scandal, Jones and Madigan effectively ended any chance for a serious primary. Otherwise, this is all bad news.