“Yes” For Illinois

Fear and Loathing on the Con-Con Trail

From Rich Miller

The groups that will put $3 million into a “Vote No” campaign on the constitutional convention ballot question held their inaugural press conference yesterday. From a press release…

Members of the Alliance acknowledged the state faces real problems, but they stressed that electing better representatives and leaders is the real answer, not putting one of the most citizen-friendly and progressive constitutions in America up for grabs.

This new coalition includes the Illinois Chamber, the Illinois AFL-CIO, the League of Women Voters and on and on and on. In other words, the very same groups that have been endorsing and funding legislative and statewide candidates for decades. Now they say they goofed and backed the wrong people? Please.

* From Chicago Public Radio…

Nancy Kaszak heads the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution. It’s a group of higher-ups representing business groups mostly. Kaszak says she doesn’t trust the current leadership in Springfield to be involved in possibly changing the constitution.

KASZAK: It’s a gimmick to distract voters from Springfield’s failure. These politicians are blaming the constitution rather than taking responsibility for their own failures to solve problems.

Only a tiny handful of legislators are calling for a con-con. Most who have spoken up are opposed. So Kaszak’s argument is simply designed to incite fear and loathing in the electorate.

* Back to the press release…

A constitutional convention is not the only way to amend the constitution, which already provides a clear mechanism for amending it. This amendatory process is proven to work — Illinois voters have considered 18 amendments; ten were passed.

Besides the House cutback amendment, the other amendments first had to be approved by the General Assembly. Only amendments dealing with the structure of the GA can be put on the ballot without first being approved by three-fifths of both chambers. So, the above argument is a fairy tale. The system will not change itself. Not. Gonna. Happen.

* More from the release…

“Scheduling a convention for 2010 would freeze any movement on pressing issues that need to be addressed,” said Kevin Semlow, director of state legislation for the Illinois Farm Bureau. “

That’s not a bad argument, but will anything get done anyway? I doubt it.

* Rep. Franks, unsurprisingly, disagrees with the “No” coalition…

But one of those lawmakers, Democratic Rep. Jack Franks of Woodstock, accused the alliance of using “scare tactics.”

“It’s about protecting fiefdoms and protecting the status quo,” Franks said. “We need to end the status quo. We’ve got to end business as usual.”

“This is our best chance to end the culture of corruption that has infected both political parties in this state,” he added.

* And Pat Quinn chimes in…

People are sick and tired of the political feuds, they don’t like an unfair tax system and corruption that exists for far too long in Illinois and this is our chance to send a message to Springfield that it’s time to reform and the people are gonna get the job done.

The idea is to tie a “Yes” vote to the fury over the total Statehouse breakdown That may be a good idea, politically, but it’s not completely honest. There’s serious work to be done here.

* And what about the cost?

Kaszak says a Con-Con could take years to finish and cost more than $100 million.

That’s probably an extreme overestimate, but Quinn’s numbers are way too low…

Quinn says a constitutional convention would cost about $13 million.

* And, finally…

Jan Czarnik, executive director of the League of Women Voters, added, “No one has shown us how a con-con is going to address the problems we all agree are endemic in our state government.”

Well, they didn’t look much then. A tougher balanced budget provision, scaling back amendatory veto powers, requiring computerized legislative redistricting, more precisely delineating special session powers, strengthening the education funding “preponderance” language to make it crystal clear to the Supreme Court are just a few ideas off the top of my head.

* John Bambenek adds…

Many of the problems that Illinois faces are a direct result of a constitution written in 1970 to create a “strong government.”

Yep.

* And Dan Johnson-Weinberger sums up…

Only the electorate could amend the constitution. The delegates to the convention could suggest amendments. But only the electorate could approve or reject them.

The boogeyman is coming and he is going to have a $3 million campaign behind him to scare you into voting against giving yourself more power over improving your state government. Don’t hide under the blankets.

* Let me be very clear: I haven’t closed my mind on this topic by any means. I’m totally open to sound, logical, reasoned arguments for a “No” vote that don’t resort to silly fear and loathing tactics. But those were few and far between during yesterday’s press conference. It truly insulted my intelligence.

If they want to be leaders, then they should lead. Don’t treat us like children who are easily frightened and should do what we’re told.

This sums up the situation of Illinois as it stands today. Also, it points attention to the fact that the same people who are against a constitutional convention are the ones running the state right now.