Similar actions, differing outcomes, for former Congressmen Jackson, Schock

Both of them were once up-and-comers within the Illinois delegation of Congress who had the potential to rise to positions of great authority within our local political scene.

SCHOCK: Has a chance at life after politics

They both wound up being found using money donated to their campaign funds to do some redecoration of their official government offices in their own style.

BOTH WOUND UP facing the wrath of federal prosecutors who were inclined to believe that actions previously considered legitimate were actually criminal in nature.

But that is where the similarities end between Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Aaron Schock.

The former House of Representatives member from the South Shore neighborhood wound up facing the prosecutorial pressure and pleaded guilty – ultimately getting a 30-month prison term and doing his time, in part because prosecutors also went after his wife, Sandi, to tighten the screws even further.

Jackson is now free from prison, but will go through the rest of his life with a criminal record. Something that thoroughly satisfies those people who enjoy saying that the namesake son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson is nothing but a convicted felon.

BUT AS FOR Schock, the former House member from Peoria will face a different fate.

JACKSON: Would he have liked a Schock deal?

For federal prosecutors this week reached an agreement by which they’ll drop the criminal charges that Schock faced for using the campaign funds to decorate his congressional office in the style of the British television series “Downton Abbey,” along with using money to pay for a flight back to Chicago so he could attend a Chicago Bears football game.

There might be some people, myself included, who’d say that Schock and Jackson were similar.

Remember that Jesse Jr. used the campaign funds to purchase items of memorabilia that he intended to use to give his congressional office a colorful touch. Such as a fedora once belonging to singer Michael Jackson, and boxing gloves once used by prize fighter Muhammad Ali.

BUT JESSE GOT the intense pressure that ultimately led to his guilty plea – in part to reduce the amount of time that prosecutors would seek to have his wife serve.

SANDI: Feds took her down too

For Sandi Jackson herself faced an indictment – mostly because as his spouse, she co-signed the tax returns that the congressman used to try to claim that his use of the money for the purchases was legal.

Of course, the fact that Sandi Jackson was an alderman from the South Shore neighborhood at the time meant prosecutors got a “double” out of that case. A corrupt congressman AND Chicago alderman. Somebody got two notches on their career belt out of the Jacksons.

Could it be the fact that Schock gave up his own congressional seat from central Illinois so willingly meant he was no longer a prosecutorial prize for some attorney trying to build up his career record?

Would Mayor Emanuel and Gov. Rauner have occurred … 

AS THINGS TURNED out, a “guilty” plea was entered this week against Schock’s campaign committee – a misdemeanor offense that he didn’t properly report his expenses.

But if Schock is not running for future office, that isn’t much of a penalty. Schock himself had all the criminal charges dropped against him – provided he repays $68,000 to the campaign fund and $42,000 to the Internal Revenue Service.

… if Jackson, Schock had been politically viable?

Schock won’t be doing prison time. He won’t have a criminal record. A deal that I’m sure Jesse, Jr., would love to have been offered all those years ago. But wasn’t, because there was no way anyone bearing the moniker “Jesse Jackson, Jr.” could be offered anything resembling a prosecutorial deal that would have been sensible.

And there’s one other thing the two have in common – they both are stories of what “might have been” in Illinois politics; with Jackson as the mayor Chicago never got and Schock being the governor who might have spared our state the levels of partisan political nonsense it endured during the Bruce Rauner years.

  -30-

Millionaire Rauner thinks it wrong his political opponent is outspending him

Listening to Gov. Bruce Rauner complain about how he’s being outspent by Democratic challenger J.B. Pritzker’s desires to replace him come Tuesday’s elections strikes me as being the whines of a political crybaby.

RAUNER: Being beaten at own game?

Rauner is seriously trying to get people – at least those of us who live in Illinois outside the Chicago metro area – all worked up over the notion that Pritzker is trying to use his personal wealth to buy the governor’s post for himself.

AS THOUGH RAUNER is the pauper who just can’t compete in such a political environment.

Even though I personally find it appalling to have to pick from so many excessively-wealthy people amongst our candidates, I can’t find any sympathy for our incumbent governor – and not just because I think Illinois will be much better off the moment we send Bruce packing.

For Rauner is very much the reason this trend of needing millionaire candidates with little interest in traditional campaign fundraising has come to Illinois.

Let’s not forget the 2014 election for governor; the one in which a record was set -- $127.3 million was raised and spent by the two major party candidates.

WITH RAUNER ACCOUNTING for some 70 percent of that spending. Rauner IS the ultimate rich guy who bought himself a political office to appease his ego and make him feel like his life is contributing to our society.

PRITZKER: Makes Rauner look like pauper

Of course, Rauner’s personal background (a venture capitalist who buys struggling businesses and bleeds them dry of any assets they have) mean he’s inclined to be sympathetic towards interests that the bulk of us living here are not.

If anything, this election cycle was expected to be more of the same. Remember back over a year ago when it was reported Rauner had already come up with some $50 million for his re-election campaign.

Along with money to support Republican allies in the General Assembly and other state government posts? This was supposed to be yet another year in which a Rauner version of the Republican Party would buy dominance over us all.

QUINN: Treated in '14 like Rauner is now

EXCEPT THAT DEMOCRATS managed to come up with a candidate in Pritzker who could produce his own funds to be competitive with Rauner.

Heck, Pritzker has already spent enough money on his campaign that he alone crushes the 2014 record. When you add in the Rauner bucks, we may wind up at just over $200 million for this election cycle in Illinois.

Is what really bothers Rauner is that his record of ’14 is already crushed into oblivion? Is Illinois Democratic Chairman Michael Madigan’s real political “sin” that he took the Rauner game plan and played it better than Rauner did himself?

It’s why I honestly hear nothing more than “Wah, wah, wah!!!” when Rauner tells a campaign rally in Quincy that Pritzker, “is outspending us by $100 million. Good grief, he’s trying to buy the election.”

HAROLD: Will she be Rauner legacy?

IT TRANSLATES INTO blunt-speak English as, “he’s trying to buy my election away from me!” Or perhaps more like a line from the 1980 film "Cheech &Chong's Next Movie" in which Cheech Marin’s character is upset that someone stole from him the thing he stole earlier that day.

“Somebody just ripped off the thing I ripped off,” Marin said. A sentiment that Rauner may very well sympathize with these days.

Does Rauner identify these days with Cheech?

Because as things now stand, all the money Rauner has pumped into himself and other Republicans to try to rebuild the one-time Party of Lincoln in his own image may have all been for naught. It may wind up that the only Republican who prevails Tuesday is Erika Harold’s state attorney general bid (it’s possible that some voters will be backward enough to reject Democrat Kwame Raoul’s campaign just because of a funny name).

Then again, carrying the taint of taking Rauner’s campaign money may be enough to drag her down, and make this Rauner era of Illinois government a complete and utter failure.

  -30-

Interested in truth? Or only politicking?

It will be interesting to see how (if at all) the Supreme Court of the United States reacts to a brief by several current and former local politicos asking the high court to issue a definitive ruling as to what constitutes bribing a government official.

Only Blagojevich image that interests some

What’s bringing this issue us is Rod Blagojevich – as in the former Illinois governor who is now into serving the sixth year of a 14-year prison term on charges that he tried to solicit bribes in exchange for political appointments.

BLAGOJEVICH, OF COURSE, claims he didn’t have criminal intent. He claims any money given him was purely political contributions made to Rod by his supporters.

An excuse that some may snicker at (Political contributions?!? Yeah, suuuuuure!”) and find absurd.

But to the 19 political people (including one Republican, former state Rep. Angelo “Skip” Saviano who now is village president of Elmwood Park), they wonder if there is enough confusion that exists as to what is a legitimate campaign contribution and what is a bribe.

In their brief, they say they think the Supreme Court ought to take up the Blagojevich appeal on the grounds that it would allow them to issue a legal opinion that, once and for all, establishes what is a campaign contribution and what is a bribe.

THEY WANT THERE to be a definitive ruling that says just what a government official is obligated to do for his financial backers, and what do those backers have a right to expect in exchange for the checks they write out to political people.

Several current and former Illinois members ...

Which are legitimate questions that ought to be resolved. Although I don’t doubt that some people will not want to hear of such talk. They’re the ones whose distaste for Blagojevich is so intense they don’t care if he was grossly over-sentenced for his offense.

Just so long as he gets punished, they’re happy.

Heck, Illinois Republican Party officials on Wednesday were using the legal brief filed by so many Dems as reason to lambast likely Democratic gubernatorial nominee J.B. Pritzker and tie him to Blagojevich.

... want high court to rule on what's a bribe?

HOPING THAT THE mere mention of the boogeyman they call Rod will be enough to ding Pritzker even further. For them, Blagojevich serves a political purpose that is far more important than any serious interpretation of a legal issue.

The tie is that so many current Dem officials signed off on this brief – including Congressmen Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Luis Gutierrez, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush and Jan Schakowsky. Along with former Congressmen Bill Lipinski, David Phelps and Glenn Poshard.

This issue will become so overburdened with partisan politics that the fear is any legitimate legal ruling will become drowned in political slop. Because being able to ding somebody with the Blagojevich label is all-important to some people.

These politicos who put their names on this brief probably are right that the high court is going to have to be the final arbiter on this issue. That is, after all, the reason for the Supreme Court’s existence.

ALTHOUGH THERE ALSO are those individuals who think the high court itself ought to be the rubber stamp to implement their partisan ideals (while squashing anything the opposition party might try coming up with).

In this Age of Trump, it might be asking too much to expect the Supreme Court to stick its neck out and establish a stance on a crucial issue that could wind up restricting Republican fundraising efforts as well as Democratic ones.

Is Sosa the Blago equivalent?

It’s almost as confusing as the ongoing quandary concerning Baseball’s Hall of Fame and whether ballplayers caught using steroids are worthy of admission. Sportswriters who make that decision have sought advice from the Hall of Fame – only to be told it is their issue to resolve.

Will the Supreme Court ultimately ultimately take the same attitude; thereby reducing the issue of political bribery to the same confusion as to whether one-time Chicago Cub Sammy Sosa deserves his bronze plaque in Cooperstown, N.Y.?

  -30-

Can one really ‘give back’ a campaign contribution once money was spent?

Let’s say one thing up-front; the Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein probably is a pig!

Weinstein still has his Oscar

The reports are coming out about how Weinstein has treated various women – including many who appeared in the films he produced. We may hear in coming days of more and more actresses willing to admit publicly of things they were pressured to do for Weinstein’s gratification.

BUT THERE’S ANOTHER thing we’re going to see a lot of in coming days – political people trying to rewrite history in ways that would make it appear they never relied on Weinstein’s financial support to get themselves elected to office.

For Weinstein throughout the years has been one of the big-money interests who has supported Democratic Party candidates for high-ranking office across the nation. It was supposed to be evidence that Weinstein was a “progressive-minded” guy with high-minded ideals on many social issues.

Now, we have many political people checking their campaign finance records to see how much money they ever received from Weinstein – and are now going out of their way to publicly make charitable contributions of their own for identical amounts.

Just a couple of examples include Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. – both of whom would like for us to believe they never took Weinstein’s money.

OBAMA: $61,900

WORKING ON WOMANHOOD is a Chicago-based group that has received $10,900 from Emanuel, and will get another $2,000 in the near future. The larger figure is the total of two donations Weinstein made to Emanuel mayoral campaigns, while the $2,000 is for a donation Weinstein made to an Emanuel congressional campaign back in 2004.

The Chicago Sun-Times also reported that $1,000 will be donated to the American Red Cross by Durbin – an effort to erase the contribution Weinstein made back when Durbin first ran for the U.S. Senate back in 1995.

Now before anybody thinks I’m trying to single out Emanuel or Durbin for abuse, keep in mind that I realize this is a common tactic by political people who certainly don’t want to be tainted by their ties to someone who later turns out to be scummy in nature.

EMANUEL: $12,900

There have been many charitable organizations used by government officials to try to erase their potential sins-by-association. I’m sure the organizations were able to put the money to good use.

BUT JUST AS I always thought right-wing idiots who wind up taking money from white supremacists or other leeches on our society shouldn’t be able to erase their stain so easily, I’m not sure that anybody should be so quick to dismiss the Weinstein affair.

What we really need is an honest accounting of his behavior and efforts to try to raise the level of conduct in our society so that we stop harassing women just because. Merely giving up some money that came from campaign contributions seems like a lazy effort to make the problem “go away” without doing anything to make it actually go away.

DURBIN: $1,000

Besides, my own gut feeling is that the money donated to campaigns by Weinstein certainly got spent years ago. Trying to give it away now doesn’t erase the fact that there was a Weinstein impact to the past elections.

It seems like a lazy response to a very real problem.

WHAT WE NEED is for people to speak out with more than their campaign wallets. Take former President Barack Obama (whose own presidential re-election campaign of 2012 received over $61,000 in Weinstein donations) – he and one-time first lady Michelle issued their statement denouncing Weinstein’s behavior and saying, “We should celebrate the courage of women who have come forward to tell these painful stories.”

TRUMP: Saying as little as possible about issue

Which stands out compared to the thoughts expressed on behalf of our current president. Donald J. Trump admitted recently that he knew Weinstein personally, and was “not at all surprised” to hear such stories.

Of course, Trump himself probably can’t go farther in being critical of Weinstein because there are many tales out there of pre-presidential Trump behaving in a boorish manner – many of which he told about himself throughout the years during appearances with broadcaster Howard Stern.

Which is just as much a problem as those elected officials who think they can make a perception problem go away by “returning” money they really spent years ago.

  -30-

Taxman’s taking my money; there’s nothing left for political contributions

I can’t help but laugh at the most recent financial pitches I have received through the e-mail seeking my money.

We may fantasize, but is it worth our cash?

They’re coming to me in this weekend when I have to make my annual accounting to the Internal Revenue Service as to how successful I have been financially as a freelance writer, and I have to “pay up!” my share to the government.

SO THE IDEA that I have anything to spare right now, other than marking that one box on the tax return that asks if I’m willing to kick in $3 to the presidential election campaign fund, borders on being humorous.

Although to tell you the truth, a part of me is so appalled by the way the electoral process turned out this past cycle that I don’t know if I want to make the symbolic gesture that is supposed to benefit all of the general election candidates.

A part of me finds the CHC Bold PAC’s request for as little as a $1 donation to be more worthwhile, although if one reads their e-mail, it is quite clear they’re more than willing to take significantly larger donations.

And, of course, the group that wants to promote Latino political involvement in Congress is using a common tactic – they say their records show I have made “no donation” to their effort.

WHOSE PURPOSE IS to promote the concept of impeaching Donald Trump. Which personally is a goal I think will turn out to be pointless. So I’m not about to give up any cash, and not just because I’m a reporter-type person who never gives to such causes.

Actually, it would be more accurate to brand me a cheapskate than say I’m taking a principled stand. But even though I’m amongst the ranks of those displeased with the behavior of our nation’s 45^th chief executive, I realize that the Republican leadership in Congress isn’t about to dump on the guy whose presence gives them the potential for total domination of our federal government.

Do you really think Las Vegas ...

If the House of Representatives were to vote to impeach and the Senate were to preside over a trial, it would be because the conservative ideologues in charge there would think Trump isn’t being irrational enough in his political thought.

So Impeaching Trump, for those of us with a touch of rationality in our thought, just isn’t worth our time or money.

NOT THAT I’M saying we ought to blindly be following The Donald’s lead. We ought to be letting him know at every opportunity that he does not speak for the majority of our society.

... and Bernie Sanders go well together?

Which is the focus of another pair of e-mails I have received during the past couple of days from the Democratic National Committee – one from the party itself and another from new Chairman Tom Perez.

It seems in exchange for my contribution of as little as $3 (or as much as $100, or more, if I wish), I can be entered in a contest of sorts along with other Democratic Party faithful.

The prize? An all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas (and NOT the one in Illinois – remember the old “Green Acres” episode?) where one can participate in a Come Together and Fight Back rally with Perez and (drumroll, please!!!) Sen. Bernie Sanders.

HE BEING THE Democratic Socialist who, after years of trying to maintain his distance from the Democratic Party, decided he wanted the party’s presidential nomination.

Or, he being the guy who couldn’t even beat Hillary Clinton in the primary – even though there are some political operatives who want to spin the line that Clinton was the candidate so weak she couldn’t even beat Donald Trump come the November general election.

Should 5 percent appear too small, be thankful I don't take it all

The party claims they’ll pay the flight and hotel costs of someone to participate in the rally – getting to see the political process in action. Although to tell the truth, the idea of spending time in Las Vegas with the senator from Vermont seems less than enticing.

Even if the IRS (and the Illinois Department of Revenue) weren’t about to take my spare money, I think I would have no problem taking a pass on either of these offers. While I now turn to the wise words of wisdom of George Harrison.

  -30-

$1.6 million? Rahm's a political pauper, at least when compared to Gov. Bruce

The reports were in the Chicago Sun-Times on Thursday – Mayor Rahm Emanuel has managed to raise some $1.6 million from various sources during 2016 – which gives him a nice chunk of change to start off his re-election fund he will need three years from now.
 

EMANUEL: Labor wants Rahm back in '19

It makes me feel old to admit that I remember a time when I’d be thinking that made Emanuel overwhelming and dominant and someone who could not be messed with on Election Day.

YET WITH THE modern circumstances, I have to admit my initial react was to think to myself something along the lines of, “$1.6 million? What a cheapskate!”

Largely because it was just a week ago that Gov. Bruce Rauner juggled some money around his political bank accounts so as to provide $50 million for the fund he will be relying upon for his 2018 re-election bid.

Of course, there is one difference. Rauner is looking not only to get himself re-elected as governor, he also wants to be able to help out in the campaigns of various candidates for the General Assembly.

Because the biggest problem (at least as he views it) for Rauner is that he has had to deal with a state Legislature that does not agree with any of the measures he wants to impose – and has been more than willing to tell him to stuff it!

A GOVERNOR RAUNER paired up with the existing legislative circumstances will result in no significant change. There also are, of course, those people who would say that dumping Rauner himself is the key to breaking the deadlock.

All I know is that Rauner is making it clear he’s more than willing to use the personal fortune he amassed as a venture capitalist in order to keep the post that cost him some $65 million to win back in 2014.

It’s really a sign of how the business-oriented folks want government to look out for their interests over all else, to the point where they’re now willing to run for office themselves. Because they saw that political people couldn’t be trusted – they might actually put the needs of the electorate above all else.

 

RAUNER: Makes Emanuel look like a pauper

So Rauner juggled about the funds and now has an intimidating financial base from which to campaign. It may well take a J.B. Pritzker (of Hyatt Hotels fortune) as the Democratic challenger in order to be able to match the Rauner funds.

ALL OF WHICH makes the Emanuel campaign fund appear all-the-more miniscule. Of course, Emanuel won’t have to go through as competitive a fight as Rauner will.

I don’t doubt someone will come forth in 2019 claiming to be a candidate of the people to challenge the political pomposity that is the Emanuel persona. But once he makes it past the primary, he’s in.

Unlike Rauner, who will have to focus primary attention on making sure no wiseacre Republican thinks of challenging him, then taking on the Democratic political structure of Chicago and Illinois.

Which is what is largely responsible for the Emanuel money.

THE CHICAGOLAND OPERATORS Joint Labor-Management PAC and the International Union of Operating Engineers local 399 political education fund both gave the maximum amount of cash they could for this year to the mayor, and likely will come up with more money in future years.

 

PRITZKER: Can he match Rauner' s money?

Of course, those labor interests likely will be devoting some significant attention to the Rauner race as well – because dumping the governor would be their highest priority, perhaps even more than helping Emanuel come up with so much cash that he scares away any potential challengers.

And now that they see the $50 million figure that Rauner has concocted for himself, they’re going to have to get busy on trying to help any aspiring gubernatorial challenger match it.

Because money has become far too significant a factor in determining just whom we vote for on Election Day. Particularly when too many people vote knee-jerk for whichever name they most recognize from all the televised campaign ads they see trashing one another.

  -30-

EXTRA: Not too late to take my $$$

I couldn’t help but be amused by a pair of e-mail messages I received mid-day Tuesday.
 

CLINTON: She still wants my money

One was from the Hillary Victory Fund, run by the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties in several states – although not Illinois.

THIS PARTICULAR E-MAIL informed me that their records showed I haven’t contributed a dime to support Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. It gave me one last chance to cough up some cash to help Hillary’s election fund pay the bills.

“When you wake up on tomorrow will you have done EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN to elect HILLARY CLINTON and DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE COUNTRY?” the e-mail asks me.

Yes, it’s true. I haven’t donated anything. Because I never do. It’s part of my own reporter-type mentality to not make a financial tie to any campaign. Either that, or I’m just a cheapskate.

But my guess is that someone thinks I should feel a guilt trip. As though it’s my fault if we somehow wind up with Donald Trump as president. Excuse me for not feeling all that guilty.

FOR IF IT turns out that Trump truly is able to make his segment of the electorate large enough to be a majority, I’d argue it is due to those people who despised what he said but were too lazy to vote.

In which case, the American people will get what they deserve.

And if Trump doesn’t win, then we can all load up on the Xanax we’ll have to take after dealing with all the ideologues who will spend the next four years lambasting Clinton every opportunity they get!

 

TRUMP: Does he not want me to vote?!?

One other e-mail caught my attention – one put out by the Washington-based Latino Victory Project, which has helped to create greater awareness that is largely responsible for the apparent strong voter turnout by voters with ethnic origins to Latin American countries.

IN THE EVENT a would-be Latino voter runs into hostility at the polling place from someone claiming they don’t belong or somehow aren’t registered to vote (even though they really are), a number to call to file a complaint is 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA.

Or “Go-and-vote!,” en Español. Standing up to hostility and intimidation – which really is the chief political tactic of the Trump camp of supporters – is the key to defeating them in the end.

And I’m sure that having a toll-free telephone hotline number that works in Spanish will somehow particularly infuriate the knuckleheads’ sensibilities all the more.

  -30-

Ivanka does Chicago! Donald does Bolingbrook? Trumps in Chicagoland

We won’t be seeing Donald Trump anywhere within the Chicago city limits anytime soon, if ever, during this campaign cycle.
 

Trump sends 'better half' to Chicago for campaign cash

There’d be far too many people inclined to mock him mercilessly for his initial debate performance – particularly from those people who are convinced the lousy microphone system was, in reality, a case of a candidate with “the sniffles.”

AFTER ALL, ISN’T Hillary the one who toughed it out on the campaign trail while suffering from pneumonia, continuing to make appearances at a time when ordinary people would have been staying home in bed and whining for their spouse to bring them another bowl of chicken soup?

Trump likely will have to do more debate prep for his next appearance Oct. 9 at Washington University in St. Louis, and probably will put the squeeze on his vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence, who has his lone debate event Tuesday at Longwood University.

But we in Chicago may get a taste of Trump this week – for it seems that daughter Ivanka is scheduled to make several stops in Illinois on Wednesday.

Those include an evening cocktail party/fundraiser in the city, along with a breakfast-type/coffee event in Quincy and lunch in Peoria.

MUCH IS BEING made of Trump’s recent comments implying he thinks Chicago’s homicide rate makes it a far-more-dangerous place to visit than reality reflects.

Is Donald scared? Actually, he’s probably more realizing that any assault he’d face in Chicago would be in the form of verbal harassment and insults. As we saw quite clearly during his first debate performance Monday night, he doesn’t like being questioned or criticized.

He likes to be the one who dishes it out.

Besides, I do find it somewhat odd that Trump may be in the metropolitan area (as in outside the city proper) on Wednesday. Supposedly, he’s going to show up in Bolingbrook for a political luncheon that twice already has been cancelled.

SOMETHING KEEPS COMING up that knocks the event off the schedule. Will Trump finally honor this commitment?

Considering that Bolingbrook, is some minds, is nothing more than the municipality that once employed Drew Peterson as a law enforcement officer, you’d have to question the idea that the community is all that safe.

After all, not many communities can claim to have one of their officers now serving a lengthy prison term (he’d have to live to at least 93 to ever be free again) for murder. Although it seems that Peterson is only a threat to the young girls who fall for him, thereby leaving Trump safe.

Anyway, back to Ivanka, who could be an interesting persona. There is evidence that she may be the one of all the Trump kids (the jury is still out on Trump’s youngest son, Baron) who amounts to anything – what with her corporate role with the Trump Organization and the fact she plays a significant part in the business.

HOW MANY WILL come out to see Trump’s eldest daughter? Will they bring their checkbooks and make donations to try to give Trump a campaign fund that comes close to approaching the many millions that Democrat Hillary Clinton will have access to?

And what kind of crowd will Trump himself garner. Politico reported estimates from Republican party leaders that some 400 supporters will be on hand for the suburban event. Although there’s always the chance that some activist types will want to show up to cause a ruckus.

We’ll have to see if Trump has a sufficient explanation for his less-than-stellar debate performance Monday night.

Or will it amount to little more than a gruff demand that the questioner “Stuff it!!!!” up a certain bodily sphincter? Ouch!

  -30-

Keeping Trump quiet? Or they really just despise the thought of Hillary?

Remember back to March when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made derogatory remarks about the Ricketts family; implying they ought to keep their opposition to his candidacy quiet lest he start revealing their “dirty laundry” so to speak?
 

TRUMP: Trying to unite Republicans

Well, it appears the family that founded TD Ameritrade and whose members now own the Chicago Cubs are heeding Trump’s advice. Because they’re showing support for Trump in the clearest way possible.

THEY’RE GIVING HIM money.

As in $1 million being donated by family head J. Joe Ricketts to a political action committee that is backing the Trump campaign, according to the Wall Street Journal.

What better way for them to indicate support than to give campaign cash to the guy who theoretically is as capable of self-funding a serious presidential bid as anyone in this country? In fact, to a guy like Trump, cold hard cash probably is the only form of "respect" he appreciates!

Of course, it can be argued that Ricketts is not making the donation to Trump himself. Rather, it is to a political group that will benefit Trump’s presidential aspirations by expressing its belief that we ought to have anybody EXCEPT Hillary Clinton as president resulting from the Nov. 8 elections. So much for Cubs ownership showing its appreciation for one of their most prominent (even if she has claimed New York Yankees fandom during her residency out east) fans.

WHICH IS PROBABLY the best way to describe what the Ricketts family may feel about this election cycle. They probably still don’t think much of the man, but are willing to put their money where their mouth is – so to speak – by expressing opposition for the opponent.

 

RICKETTS: Tom's family in line behind Trump?

In short, the Ricketts answer to “Who do you hate the most?” is Clinton herself.

Either that, or there really are some serious Ricketts family secrets that Trump could have unveiled – which is what he hinted at when the Ricketts family members started making too much noise in his opposition back during the primary election cycle this year.

Of course, Trump tried to play the thing for a laugh by then by saying he’d be airing campaign advertising spots reminding us of Chicago Cubs ineptitude throughout the years and tagging it to the Ricketts family.

 

CLINTON: Cubs fan can't say Cubs owners in her bloc?

WHICH WOULD WIND up being ridiculous these days in light of the fact the Cubs actually were the first team to qualify this season for a playoff spot on the path to the World Series. Although that doesn’t rule out the possibility the Cubs could blow it in the playoffs, thereby creating more ineptitude that can be laid in the Ricketts’ family lap.

Not that the Cubs are really a factor in this political equation. It’s more about the confusion caused by the fact that many people who usually lean Republican don’t have a clue what to do about the garishness that is the Trump persona.

Take former President George H.W. Bush (as in father of “Dubya,”), for whom it became publicly known this week that he will cast his ballot for Clinton. The man who is about as Republican establishment as you can get is just that displeased with the notion of The Donald as The President.

Although I found it amusing that the reason this tip got out was because of a Kennedy family member (about as establishment Democrat as the Bushes are GOPers) let the word leak publicly, according to Politico.

WHICH IS TO say that I doubt Bush himself would ever have said anything aloud, and probably regards the tidbit about his ballot to be as gauche as Trump himself.

It will be intriguing to see how many Republican types Trump can actually keep on board his campaign. Too many defections ensure loss to Clinton come Election Day.

I’m sure there will be many people rationalizing their reasons for voting the way they do. Take the National Rifle Association, which the Washington Post reports says is fully in line with Trump because they’re concerned about the Supreme Court – which they want to remain as a judicial body with conservative political leanings. They want the court biased in their favor.

Although there are just as many other people who are eager to vote for Clinton solely because they want the shift in the high court’s leanings. Which is to say that anybody who says they know now how this election cycle will turn out is seriously stretching the truth.

  -30-

EXTRA: Rauner thinks campaign money can make politicians behave

Gov. Bruce Rauner has made it clear he’s not really interested in negotiations or compromise. He wants to get his way, and nothing else!
 

RAUNER: Turning to his wallet

And since the venture capitalist is quite wealthy, he’s used to the idea of throwing his money around to sway people to go along with his desires.

WHICH IS THE way he plans to go about governing for the remainder of time that he’s the chief executive of Illinois government – a title I suspect he’s probably more comfortable with than governor.

It explains the way he’s approaching this election cycle; one in which he has made many significant donations to Republican legislative candidates. He’s hoping he can create a gigantic sway in the partisan leanings of the General Assembly.

In his wildest dreams, he’d like the House of Representatives and state Senate to sway over to Republican control – which would be a big leap considering that both legislative chambers are so overwhelmingly Democratic that they theoretically can override any attempt by the governor to use his veto power.

Some $16 million, the Associated Press reports, is being spent this election cycle by Rauner to bolster the chances of GOP legislative candidates of winning.

WHO’S TO SAY what the chances are it will be successful. Since in the past, Rauner’s money hasn’t had much of an effect politically. Although I’m sure the governor is thinking that the past is the past. All he cares about is the future, and all it will take is one election cycle for him to try to undo all the opposition he has faced during his two years as governor thus far.

Rauner on Tuesday made his attitude all the more clear, what with the way the state Supreme Court refused to reconsider its rejection of a proposal that would have allowed for a voter referendum come November related to redistricting.

 

State Supreme Court wouldn't give gov power he desired

One that I’m sure he dreams would have allowed for the redrawing of political boundaries to eliminate that majority of legislators who are never going to give in to his idea of reform – which really amounts to nothing more than reducing the influence that organized labor has over government.

Or which can also be described as giving big business interests a dominant place over government as it tries to protect the public interest!

AS RAUNER PUT it, “now that the courts have denied Illinoisans the right to vote on a redistricting referendum in November for the last time, it is up to the General Assembly to address political reform – term limits and independent redistricting – as soon as they reconvene in the fall.”

Which isn’t going to happen, let’s be honest. So Rauner will focus his attention on trying to rig the Legislature to his favor.

I suspect Rauner was paying way too much attention to the City Council all these years, which acted as a rubber stamp to whatever desires the Chicago mayor had at any given time. Do we really think we’d be better off if the General Assembly started behaving in such a manner?

I also wonder how many of the ideologues inclined to back Rauner are also of the sort who are thankful that Congress has acted as an obstructionist body to President Barack Obama. Which means I don’t really want to hear any idealistic political theory talk from them!

WHAT WE HAVE these days is a well-funded candidate who can use his own personal wealth to try to buy silence from those people who’d oppose him.

 

HOLCOMB: Will it be enough cash?

Which is the best way to view the $100,000 he has donated to the gubernatorial campaign of Eric Holcomb in Indiana. Holcomb is the recently-appointed lieutenant governor who wants to succeed Mike Pence – who is now Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate.

Pence has been a royal pain in the derriere to Illinois and to Rauner what with his initiatives to steal away piddling little businesses from Illinois to the Hoosier state, and Rauner would like to see a change in Indiana attitude.

Perhaps he figures a hundred grand is enough to get Holcomb to back off and stay on his own side of State Line Road in coming years.

  -30-