March 27, 2017
(Arlington Heights) Daily Herald
The Mendoza line on legislators pay
The popular idea that Illinois legislators should see their paychecks penalized when failing to ensure that all the state’s other creditors get paid is not a new one.
Nor even a partisan one.
The question is, is it a genuine one?
It’s certainly a confusing one.
Former Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, tried to freeze lawmakers’ pay in 2013.
Then, former state Comptroller Leslie Munger, a Republican, tried to withhold lawmakers’ pay a year ago.
Neither attempt was successful after being challenged in court.
But successful or not, it’s good populist politics. It certainly taps into voter frustration with the ineptitude of state government.
It’s such good politics, in fact, that not only did Munger build her entire 2016 re-election campaign around the “No budget, no pay” slogan, but her Democratic opponent Susana Mendoza attempted to co-opt the message by running on a pay-them-last theme.
And lo and behold, Mendoza won last November’s election.
Then, as things get curiouser and curiouser, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat whose father helped block the Quinn legislative pay freeze, filed suit to withhold pay for state workers over the objections of Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, who worried that the maneuver would quash “the grand bargain” he hoped legislators could reach on the state budget impasse.
If, by now, you’re scratching your head over who is on what side in this debate, or how effective the paycheck threat can be, we don’t blame you. After all, if Springfield made sense, maybe the bills would be paid and a budget would be passed.
One thing that does seem clear, however, is that Mendoza’s commitment to pay-them-last is bullhorn loud but razor thin.
When a Cook County judge ruled last week that “there may be discretion by a comptroller as to certain expenditures but as to expenditures that are compelled by Illinois law, that discretion doesn’t exist,” Mendoza instantly caved.
Rather than seeking, as would be expected, a stay of the ruling while appealing the decision, Mendoza immediately released the legislators’ back pay.
In fact, it sounds like the paychecks are already going out.
As we have warned more than once in this space, we are living in an Orwellian time.
But the Orwellian politics isn’t limited to the Fake Spin in Washington. There’s plenty of Fake Spin in Springfield too.
Enough is enough.
___
March 27, 2017
The (Champaign) News-Gazette
Constitutional prescription
For those in the medical marijuana business in Illinois, you’ll soon be free to make political contributions. Until last Friday, that wasn’t the case.
U.S. Judge John Z. Lee in Chicago declared unconstitutional an Illinois law that banned marijuana facilities from making political contributions and candidates from accepting such contributions. As have other legislative attempts to fetter campaign contributions, the law violated the donors’ and the candidates’ First Amendment rights to free speech and association.
In 2015, Libertarian candidates Claire Ball of Addison and Scott Schluter of Marion filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court to have the law overturned. Ball, then a candidate for state comptroller, and Schluter, a House candidate, told the court that they support medical marijuana and wanted financial support from licensed dispensaries and cultivators. They argued that barring anyone in the legal marijuana business from making themselves heard in an election campaign violates their right to speak freely on public issues.
As we have stated before, spending money to be heard in a public debate constitutes speech. Lawmakers, who have in the past used campaign finance laws to handcuff competitors and shield themselves from unsavory issues, run afoul of the Constitution whenever the effect of legislation is to broadly limit speech. Rightly so, political speech enjoys the most robust protection.
If a law on political contributions is to pass constitutional muster, it must be carefully tailored to promote a compelling government interest and use the least restrictive means possible to achieve that goal.
In the case of Illinois, the state attorney general’s office contended that the law was written to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. With a limited number of licenses for dispensaries and cultivation centers, the state argued, political contributions could be used to gain political favor to win or keep a permit. Further, as a new industry, medical marijuana needs to be protected from actual or perceived corruption. To support their claims, the state’s attorneys pointed to the state’s long history of corruption.
Judge Lee rejected those arguments. In terms of political and advocacy speech, medical marijuana is no different than any other business that requires state licensing. Why prevent a dispensary from making a political donation but allow a pharmacy to do so? They are both legal entities selling a product that requires a doctor’s prescription or approval. Further undermining its case, the state did not show that any actual corruption or appearance of corruption has even occurred.
“Defendants have offered no justification for imposing an outright ban on contributions from medical cannabis cultivation centers and dispensaries when more moderate measures, such as dollar limits on contributions, are available,” Judge Lee ruled. “Nor have they explained why the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption might be uniquely problematic in the medical cannabis industry.”
This is a classic case of viewpoint discrimination, and the federal court has wisely struck down a clearly unconstitutional state law.
___
March 21, 2017
The Quincy Herald-Whig
Herald-Whig View
Tinkering with drinking age a bad idea
Legislation proposed in the Illinois General Assembly would allow people who are 18 years old, but not yet 21, to consume wine or beer in restaurants if they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.
With due respect for parental rights, this is a bad idea and lawmakers should reject it.
Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984, setting the legal age for consumption of alcohol at 21 years.
In the years leading up to that law, states had a patchwork of legal drinking ages. According to 49 studies, the states with lower drinking ages saw double-digit increases in alcohol-related traffic crashes. After the minimum drinking age was set at 21, there was a 16 percent decline in alcohol-related crashes. One national study indicated that by raising the minimum age to 21, about 900 highway deaths were prevented each year.
Medical professionals also have pointed to evidence that people who drink alcohol at young ages have a higher risk of alcoholism and alcohol-related health issues. A study released in 2013 by Washington University School of Medicine indicated that brain development continues into the third decade of life and teen suicide rates are higher when alcohol consumption is a factor.
Establishing “a loophole” where underage drinking is allowed under certain circumstances also would send a mixed message to teens whose access to alcohol has been blocked by federal and state laws.
Many restaurant owners oppose the proposed law. It would put them in the uncomfortable position of confirming that adults accompanying underage individuals are truly parents or guardians.
Teens also would find themselves in trouble if they drove a vehicle within hours of consuming an intoxicating beverage. Illinois has zero-tolerance laws that prescribe loss of a driver’s license and other serious penalties for any underage drivers with alcohol in their bloodstream.
Sponsors of the legislation might have good intentions, but there are too many chances for a bad outcome.
A few underage individuals might be disappointed if they can’t lift a toast at a restaurant with their parents. Disappointment is not fatal.
The drinking age of 21 should stand.
___
March 26, 2017
Belleville News-Democrat
All along the watchtower, cameras kept the view
A recent story about Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner proposing cameras to replace guards in the towers at our lesser-security state prisons was captivating.
The technology could potentially do a better job, reduce the number of guards and shift more to where they can better control the inmates and save $4 million a year. The story went on to say that Pennsylvania did it and saved $5 million and Michigan did it and saved $15 million.
Makes you wonder why we couldn’t save even more?
It was an unexpected surprise to find we do prisons better, or at least cheaper, to begin with.
All three states house roughly similar numbers of inmates. Illinois does it for $1.1 billion less than Pennsylvania and $563 million less than Michigan.
By inmate, ours each cost taxpayers $31,856 a year while Michigan spends $46,376 per inmate and Pennsylvania $50,000. Illinois and Pennsylvania each run 25 institutions, but we do it with 3,400 fewer employees.
Still, we are a heck of a lot broker than our peers. Cutting costs through technology has been a Rauner theme, and a recent point of contention as our Madigan acolyte of a state comptroller, Susana Mendoza, blocked spending on technology that improves efficiencies and secures state financial systems and personnel records against hackers. Politics again take Illinoisans hostage.
If technology can be constantly vigilant with thermal cameras and software that can set off alarms if it recognizes an inmate fight, an escape attempt or someone trying to toss a bag of drugs into the fence, then cheaper and better is the way to go. Corrections officers can be better used than just staring out at a yard for months on end awaiting a few minutes of trouble.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.