Burke’s wife cleared, but Preckwinkle still reeks of stink from alderman cash

I’m sure there are those people who are going to be grossly offended that a Burke has been cleared of wrongdoing. Or at least legal types are conceding they can’t prove anything against her.

ANNE BURKE: Judge cleared of wrongdoing

Yes, her! For the Burke I’m referring to is Anne, as in the spouse of Alderman Edward M. Burke who, in her own right, serves as a justice on the Supreme Court of Illinois.

ILLINOIS JUDICIAL INQUIRY Board has been conducting its own investigation into a fundraiser that the Burkes held in their Chicago home for the now-failed mayoral aspirations of candidate Toni Preckwinkle.

The inquiry board was trying to determine if Anne Burke herself did anything inappropriate – as in engaging in conduct unbecoming a judge of any type. Particularly one sitting on the state’s highest court.

But it would seem she’s off the hook, so to speak. Nothing that could be deemed inappropriate. Except in the mini-minds of those individuals who want to believe that everything a government official does is wrong – and worthy of prosecution.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported this week about a letter saying the inquiry board had reviewed the matter and “determined to close” it. The letter gives no explanation of why the investigation is over – or any details of what it uncovered.

THE INQUIRY BOARD cited confidentiality rules as a reason for refusing to publicly disclose what it learned. Although Jeffery Orr, the son of now-former county Clerk David Orr and the man who filed the original complaint that got the inquiry board thrown into the mix, said he was “disappointed” by the ruling.

He seems more interested in getting nit-picking details that would further enhance the image of all things related to Burke as being inherently corrupt. Or as he told the Sun-Times, “Part of the problem in Illinois and Chicago is the secretive way of doing things.”

For what it’s worth, Anne Burke had no comment on the matter, although this decision comes close to the time that federal prosecutors let it be known that they want more time to investigate Alderman Ed himself.

PRECKWINKLE: Still being blamed for Burke

He will continue to have legal types probing his affairs – searching for evidence that he did something that can be construed as illegal. Although it seems anybody who was hoping for the Burkes to be taken down as a couple will be disappointed.

ALTHOUGH THE BURKE issue has already managed to inflict its harm on some political people – all the people disappointed that they couldn’t beat Ed Burke in his re-election bid back in February wound up taking it out on Preckwinkle.

Which accounts for that roughly three-quarters of the vote in the April runoff election going to Lori Lightfoot. Who herself insisted on continuing to smack Preckwinkle about for having accepted campaign contributions from people who were motivated by Ed Burke to do so!

Preckwinkle is insisting she has tried giving the money away to other sources, although Lightfoot claims Preckwinkle has kept the funds – which could wind up bolstering her efforts to remain politically relevant while serving as Cook County Board president AND as county Democratic chairwoman.

No doubt Lightfoot would rather see Preckwinkle wither away into irrelevance – and certainly not become a competing political figure. After all, with the way the electorate can be politically fickle, it could work out that many voters would come to the conclusion they voted for the wrong person back on April 2.

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, the Chicago Tribune contends that some $72,000 of the roughly $116,000 that Preckwinkle got from a Burke household fundraiser has yet to be returned.

ED BURKE: Guilt by association?

Not that Burke would be getting any money back. The usual way for political people to try to erase negative connotations to any contributions they receive is to give it to some charitable cause.

Which really doesn’t erase the fact that the money was received by the candidate in the first place. It just allows for a lot of self-righteous rhetoric by candidates who’d rather not be tagged for the sins committed by their political supporters.

Which is what Lightfoot most definitely wants to continue to happen in the case of Preckwinkle and Burke. If we can’t get the two Burkes put away somewhere, I’m sure those wanting to operate on ideological grounds will be more than glad to see Toni pay, in place of Anne Burke.

  -30-

Who’s to blame for Preckwinkle fizzling out at end – if that’s what it is!

This election cycle that was supposed to be of a historic nature is turning out to be absurdly anti-climactic. I’m ready for it to end – without really caring who will prevail.

PRECKWINKLE: Is it over for her?

There are those who sense that the momentum has swung to the mayoral campaign of Lori Lightfoot – even though on paper she’s clearly the inexperienced candidate. Or at least no one this time around is willing to reward Toni Preckwinkle for her superior (on paper) qualifications.

IT’S TO THE point where both Chicago major metro newspapers have reported that the Preckwinkle campaign has pulled back the funding they would have spent this week and next to flood the airwaves with a lot of advertising messages whose purpose would be to make us think Lightfoot is totally unfit for the office she seeks.

Is Preckwinkle broke? Does she privately realize she’s lost and doesn’t want to waste the money? After all, it would benefit her if she was the county board president/Cook County chairman who had something of a financial stash that she could then distribute to other political people.

Emphasizing her clout in future years when clout won’t be held against her.

Or it could be that we’re in line for some incredibly negative and nasty surprise gesture – something meant to show that Preckwinkle can play political hardball with the best of them.

SOME SORT OF last-minute surprise a week or so from now meant to create one incredibly nasty negative impression that could sway all the people who actually wait until Election Day April 2 before casting a ballot.

Of course, that idea is undermined by the fact that some people already have cast their ballots – the early voting center downtown opened during the weekend, and the neighborhood centers in each ward have been open since Monday.

Could it be that some have essentially given up – with the focus already shifting to placing blame. Just how could Preckwinkle – the one-time front-runner for the mayoral post – be the one who winds up trailing behind in the public eye.

LIGHTFOOT: Has she won already?

And no. We really can’t blame it all on the public sentiment being against incumbent political people. Because there’s always a little taste of that at work in any election cycle.

ACTUALLY, THERE ARE those who already are saying, “It’s Ed Burke’s fault.” As in voters are punishing Preckwinkle for the fact that she has been supportive all these years of Burke in his role as the most powerful alderman in the City Council.

Of course, Burke himself managed to get enough political support in the initial Feb. 26 election that he won re-election as alderman without having to face a run-off. And despite the fact that the ethnic demographics of his ward have changed so much throughout the years that Burke himself should have been a goner years ago.

Mostly because Burke knew how to turn out the vote in the precincts where his continued supporters live, and how to downplay turnout in the rest of the ward. He got his “people” to show up to vote in strength.

But in what most likely is the evidence that Preckwinkle isn’t a true hard-core old-school politico no matter how much the Lightfoot team tries to portray her as one, Toni likely won’t be able to do the same at the city-wide level.

THERE ARE POCKETS of people who will want to see Preckwinkle become mayor, and who will think it a travesty that it likely won’t happen. But Toni ain’t Eddie. If she really were the old political hack some want to say she is, she'd find ways to survive. While instead, the kind of people who wish they could vote Burke out of office (but can’t, they don’t live in his ward) will gladly use Preckwinkle as a surrogate.

BURKE: Did he cost Toni a mayoral victory?

Which will create the ultimate irony if, come May when newly-elected politicos are sworn in to office that Preckwinkle is vilified while Burke returns to office.

Admittedly, Burke has his legal travails to face. He may get a literal “day in court” at some point in the future.

But it will be annoying if, come this spring, Burke remains a part of the City Hall “scene” to face Lightfoot while Preckwinkle remains relegated to the County Building side of that massive concrete block downtown that has housed our local politicos for more than a century.

  -30-

I laugh in his face at the thought of giving Trump any campaign cash

As far as I’m concerned, this week’s horrific arctic-like weather is the ultimate proof of damnation. Hell truly has frozen over!

TRUMP: He wants your cash!

How else to explain that someone, somewhere out there made a decision that I might be inclined to make campaign contributions to support the continuation of President Donald Trump’s political aspirations.

IT’S TRUE. MY load of e-mail messages included, amongst with all the other junk I often receive, pleas in the name of Trump himself and his daughter-in-law Lara – insisting that I respond by Midnight to show my support to The Donald and overcome the hysterical nuttiness of the Hollywood crew.

Whom they insist are trying to raise significant amounts of cash meant to support a serious Democratic Party presidential challenger come the 2020 election cycle.

Obviously, I let that deadline come and go. I was not a part of any attempt by Trump to get people to give his campaign at least $1 million by the FEC reporting deadline that has passed.

Which was so important to the Trumpster because his ego felt the need to make a statement showing that people actually like him. Rather than all the ego-bashing he’s been enduring as the public (the true majority) made it clear we were more than willing to blame him for the federal government shutdown that lasted more than a month – and could theoretically resume in a couple of weeks IF Trump is so inclined.

LARA TRUMP, IN the plea attributed to her (it’s actually the Trump Make America Great Again Committee that’s issuing all this e-mail traffic) says “all the top Democrat contenders for the White House have been raising big money from Hollywood donors to jumpstart their presidential campaigns.”

Which is something I find amusing because Trump, by engaging in such tactics, almost makes it seem like he’s channeling Sally Field and her famed Oscar acceptance speech of “You like me, you really really like me” that she never actually said.

But the man’s ego is such that he feels compelled to make a grandiose gesture. In that regard, he’s like the organization Democrats within Chicago government – who often have trouble accepting the idea that people might legitimately not support them on Election Day and honestly believe near-unanimous voter outcomes are to be expected.

LARA TRUMP: Trying to help father-in-law

I have no doubt on some level that Trump will never truly get over the fact that some 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and that he only won due to a glitch within the Electoral College process.

HIS GOAL PROBABLY is to try to get something he can claim to be a majority in 2020. So he can then try to re-write history to erase the facts of Election ’16. Similar to the old Soviet ways of rewriting history to reflect the perception the powers-that-be want to be remembered.

Perhaps that’s the real attraction between the Trump persona and the ways of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Regardless, it is ridiculous that we see the modern trend of electoral politics is that of government officials of significant wealth trying to buy their way to Election Day victory. I suspect they think if they buy their way to office, then no one can tell them what they can or cannot do.

But in Trump’s case, if he does get significant amounts of campaign cash, it’s likely to be from those lower-middle-class people who make up the bulk of the roughly one-third of the American population who still approve of the president’s performance in office.

DALEY: Trump fantasizes of his victory margins

IN SHORT, PEOPLE who really can’t afford to make significant donations. Which is all the more reason Trump touts the gimmick that he can “triple” the amount of money one donates.

A $250 donation becomes a $1,000 payout – all in the name of boosting the ego of Donald John Trump. Which is why I’m sort of offended that Trump’s fund-raising plea began by saying, “We haven’t seen your name…,” as though implying I’m under some sort of investigation that could penalize me for failing to support the Trumpster.

The thought that anybody ever seriously thought I’d support this president financially is laughable – until you realize it means somebody noticed my work and put my name on the potential donors list without seriously reading what I've written.

That, I must admit, is a serious blow to my own ego.

  -30-

EXTRA: Burke political impact harsher on others rather than on himself?

It would seem that long-time Alderman Edward M. Burke has his share of political backers who will kick in with the most significant kind of help – campaign cash!

BURKE: Hurt on others, not himself

But the possibility that Burke is headed for a criminal indictment by a federal grand jury? It seems that likelihood’s possibility is most likely to hurt other people – as in the ones who all these years thought having Burke on their side was their greatest strength.

ADMITTEDLY, THE SOURCE of this perspective is one with a bias. It seems that mayoral hopeful Toni Preckwinkle (who once was considered to be the mayoral frontrunner for the upcoming elections in February and April) is losing support because it is known that she was Burke’s preference to become the city’s next mayor.

It seems that the pollster working on behalf of mayoral opponent Susana Mendoza (and also worked for new Gov. J.B. Pritzker) says that Preckwinkle’s “favorable” rating dropped from 47 percent in December to 36 percent now.

Meanwhile, her “unfavorable” rating went up 15 percentage points – to 46 percent.

By comparison, the Gallup Organization gives President Donald Trump a 39 percent approval rating these days. Do fewer people like Toni than do The Donald?

PRECKWINKLE: Favorable worse than Trump

COULD IT BE that the one-time front-runner has developed about as much distaste amongst the Chicago public as Trump has amongst the national electorate?

This drop is largely due to the perception that Preckwinkle is too aligned with Burke, and even had to go to the trouble of returning campaign contributions she had received from people who were doing Burke a favor by giving her money.

The same poll that now shows Preckwinkle’s favorability rating on the decline shows her now tied (at 11 percent support each) with Mendoza in the 14-candidate mayoral race. With William Daley close behind at 9 percent, rising slightly.

MENDOZA: Thinks she'll benefit

I find it humorous that Preckwinkle had to return campaign donations that carried the taint of Ed Burke, while Burke himself has a campaign fund so far ahead of his own opponents that he’s going to be able to bury his opposition financially – particularly since it is likely that any indictment won’t be handed down until AFTER the elections are past.

BURKE COULD EASILY be re-elected to the beginning of his second half-century in the City Council by the time we know if he’s actually going to be charged with anything – which will make it easier for him to disregard the issue during the actual election cycle.

How much better off financially is Burke?

Burke went into this month with some $9.7 million on hand and having spent some $3 million already. By comparison, the Latino ethnic challengers to Burke are poverty-stricken. One opponent, Irene Corral, literally has $0.

While Tanya Patino, who’d like to call herself the front-runner of the Latino Burke challengers because she has Rep. Jesus Garcia’s endorsement, only has $16,274 to spend.

I HAVE NO doubt there will be some people living in the Southwest Side neighborhoods of the 14^th Ward that have developed a significant Mexican-American population who will be eager to vote for “one of their own” for alderman.

PATINO: A pauper, next to Burke

But Burke isn’t going to be buried politically because he’s lacking in finances.

There will be those eager to see him maintained as a City Council presence – even though he technically no longer holds the Finance Committee chairman position that was the source of his political influence.

The sad reality could be that Burke gets himself re-elected to the City Council, with people choosing to take out their contempt with Eddie when they cast their vote for mayor.

  -30-

Daley the big bucks (sort of) candidate this time around in ’19 election cycle

I’m not sure what to think of the fact that William Daley’s bid for Chicago mayor is the one that has the campaign fund overflowing with largess.

DALEY: The 'big bucks' guy of '19

The Chicago Tribune reported that Daley’s fund now exceeds $3 million – more than any of the other people with dreams of serving as mayor of the city of Chicago. Daley’s list of donors even includes a Kennedy – it seems that one-time Rep. Joe Kennedy II, D-Mass., wrote out a check for $10,000.

BUT CONSIDERING THAT in the last mayoral election, Rahm Emanuel managed to raise some $24.4 million for his own benefit (much of which paid for all those television spots that asked voters to give Rahm a “second chance” as mayor back in 2015), it would seem that Daley is lagging behind.

Then again, we just finished a gubernatorial race that saw the two candidates – incumbent Bruce Rauner and ultimate victor J.B. Pritzker – come up with in excess of just over $200 million to pay for their campaigns.

By those standards, Bill Daley and his $3.1 million is nothing but a political pauper.

Then again, it is evidence of just how ridiculously wealthy the two governor candidates were, and how both probably suffer from delusional personality characteristics that they were able to spend so much of their own personal wealth in order to try to get elected to office.

KENNEDY: Kicked in cash to help elect a Daley

SO MUCH SO that the Illinois governor race of 2018 is a record-setter – at least until someone in 2020 decides to waste away their own fortune to try to buy a political office for themselves.

Neither Daley, nor any of the other candidates running for mayor in 2019 seem capable of doing quite that. Instead, they seem intent on funding their campaigns the old-fashioned way.

PRITZKER: Used to be Dem donor

As in soliciting donations from politically-motivated people who may, or may not, be hoping to buy political goodwill from the people they are giving money to.

If anything, it hurts that Rauner and Pritzker spent so much on themselves. Since in the case of Rauner, he had become the most significant financier of Republican candidates for office.

RAUNER: Would anybody take his money now?

WHILE PRITZKER HAS a personal history of being THE wealthy guy that Democrats turn to for checks of significant dollar amounts to pay for all those expenses that campaigns incur to try to sway voters to cast their ballots for them.

I suspect both men are now tapped out, financially and emotionally, from wanting to think about donating any funds to someone else. Plus, the fact that there are so many people tossing their names into the hat – so to speak – to run for mayor.

It’s going to be hard for any one candidate to build up a significant fund. This could wind up being a pauper’s election cycle – by comparison to recent years.

So maybe it makes sense that Daley, the son and brother of past Chicago mayors and a former White House chief of staff and cabinet member in his own right, is the one with significant political contacts that he’s going to have more money than anyone else at this stage of the mayoral game.

I CERTAINLY DON’T see someone like Lori Lightfoot, or even Susana Mendoza, being capable of making trips (as Daley did) to Boston and Washington, D.C., where he participated in fundraisers for his campaign for Chicago mayor and got donations from assorted Kennedy clan types and one-time Bill Clinton allies.

EMANUEL: Could have outspent everybody, IF he ran again

The trick is to figure whether this financial edge is an advantage or a millstone for Daley.

Because it could be that Daley will appear to be too far removed from the nitty-gritty of Chicago problems by associating with so many out-of-towners – the kind of voters who think city politics is the most important type of government because they pick up your trash or clear the streets of snow during the winter.

The kind of governing that his father, Richard J., so excelled at over all other issues, and which is the reason anybody bothers to pay attention to the Daley name when it runs for any other political post.

  -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-

Powers-that-be don’t have qualms about thought of another ‘Mayor Daley,’ but what about the voters?

Lori Lightfoot, the former Chicago Police Board president, is the mayoral candidate who let it be known she thinks none of the political dreamer who are only now jumping into the mayoral field for 2019 should be taken seriously.

DALEY: Is he raising sufficient funds?

Yet it would see that the political establishment – those people with money who are willing to use it to prop up that candidates they think are worth taking seriously – doesn’t agree.

FOR IT SEEMS that the candidacies of William Daley and Gery Chico are taking in large amounts of campaign cash in recent weeks to give them just as much money as those candidates who have been in the running for months to become mayor in next year’s elections.

Seriously, Daley (the brother and son of former Chicago mayors) filed reports with state Elections Board officials indicating he has raised $885,100.

By comparison, Lightfoot’s campaign reported having raised $827,794 – but she has been at it for months. During the same time period during which Daley came up with his total, Lightfoot raised some $313,073.

There’s also the campaign of the one-time Chicago schools superintendent Chico, who once was a Daley family ally. But isn’t about to get the Daleys to go against their own family tie to reclaiming hold on City Hall.

CHICO: Is he capturing enough voters?

BUT CHICO HAS managed to come up with $519,500 since throwing himself into the campaign a few weeks ago. What makes his tally intriguing is that it is a combination of money from 87 individuals or entities.

While I’m sure some will try to dis Daley’s campaign total because some $500,000 of it came from a donation the one-time presidential cabinet member (Commerce secretary) and chief of staff made to himself.

Although another $200,000 came from a Madison Dearborn Partners official who in past quarters had been a significant donor to Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral aspirations.

Could all those people who would have given their campaign contributions to Emanuel’s desires for a third term as mayor now shift to giving Chicago its third version of “Mayor Daley?”

PRECKWINKLE: Can she gain supporter

THIS REALLY IS becoming an election cycle where none of the long-running candidates mean a thing! It seems to be all about the newcomers who waited until Emanuel decided running for a third term in office would be too risky to his political legacy to chance.

After all, he might have won, or maybe he wouldn’t have. A notion that gained some credence in recent days following the “guilty” verdict handed down against the Chicago police officer who repeatedly shot a teenage boy to death some four years ago.

Some people are forevermore going to want to claim Emanuel’s departure from City Hall was because of that act – although I wonder if it will wind up turning out to be irrelevant, since it could be argued that the new mayor will be just more of the same.

That’s why we watch for tidbits of evidence to see whose campaign might turn out to have enough strength to prevail come Election Day Feb. 26. Or on April 2 – the date set aside for a run-off election; should there be a need to hold one.

LIGHTFOOT: Surpassed in cash

WHICH IS WHY some are speculating that the mayoral hopes of Toni Preckwinkle may wind up fizzling. All she reported raising during the current fundraising period was $245,000 – although $100,000 from the Service Employees International Union local 1.

That donation is considered significant enough by some to have chased Jesus Garcia away from running for mayor and settling for the seat in Congress he’s running for come the Nov. 6 elections. Since it was expected that union would have been a significant Chuy financial backer, but chose Toni instead.

WILSON: Can he afford mayoral price tag?

Admittedly, it’s still early. We haven’t even begun to cast ballots yet for Illinois governor. Things could change between now and next year’s Election Day. Yet that could make the mayoral aspirations of Willie Wilson the most intriguing. He has some $660,000 on hand, with $100,000 coming during the most recent filing period. Yet almost all of it is from checks he has written to himself.

Is Wilson (the man whose fortune began with McDonald’s franchises on the South Side) really wealthy enough to buy control of the mayor’s office for himself next year – similar to how Bruce Rauner and J.B. Pritzker are trying to buy the governor’s mansion this autumn?

  -30-

$1 million for a prosecutor? Cheaper to just ‘drop a dime,’ call U.S. attorney

Gov. Bruce Rauner’s effort to buy political supporters for his dream of a second term in office is costing him some money; particularly a $1 million contribution to the Illinois attorney general campaign of Erika Harold.

RAUNER: Trying to 'buy' political allies

Which Rauner says is essential because Harold is necessary to “prosecute” Michael Madigan, the Illinois House speaker whom the governor has based an entire campaign strategy upon calling crooked and corrupt and the reason Illinois has problems to begin with.

OUST MADIGAN, RAUNER would have us think, and Illinois goes back to being the paradise it ought to be.

There’s just one problem with that line of logic.

It really seems that Rauner doesn’t fully comprehend exactly what it is the various officials of Illinois state government do. There’s no way that Harold – if she were to get elected as state attorney general – would be going into any court to file an indictment against Madigan. Or anybody else, for that matter.

The attorney general is the legal counsel FOR state government. Many municipal governments are able to get by with an attorney hired part-time, or perhaps a few full-time attorneys to handle the legal issues they encounter.

ILLINOIS GOVERNMENT IS a big-enough scene that it takes the whole crew that works for the Illinois attorney general’s office to defend it every time a law suit is filed against the state, or any time government officials need legal advice on how to conduct themselves without violating the law. Essentially, Illinois has its own law firm.

MADIGAN: Partisan actions, not criminal

And yes, it may sound odd that the General Assembly (a body by-and-large filled with licensed attorneys) would need legal counsel. Although when you consider the legislators are politicians at heart – and NOT legal experts – it makes sense.

So if anything, if Madigan in the future were to find himself in a predicament with a prosecutor somewhere, it most likely would be that the attorney general would be a part of the team defending him from legal prosecution.

Too many people seem to think the attorney general is some sort of super-prosecutor who oversees all in the criminal justice world. Instead of being more of a civil law expert (and in reality an aspiring politico with a law school degree who wishes to run for an even higher office someday).

HAROLD: What could she do, if she wins?

IN REALITY, IT is the various state’s attorneys scattered around Illinois’ 102 counties who have the authority to go about prosecuting state officials if they think they can prove their actions are harmful to the interests of the people in a criminal manner. If the attorney general really tried to usurp that authority, they’d be the first to complain.

More likely, it is the U.S. attorney’s office (mostly in Chicago, although there also are federal prosecutors in Springfield and Marion) that would be inclined to review state government activity and determine that federal laws are being violated.

While federal prosecutors in the central and Southern Illinois districts traditionally don’t get involved in taking on state government, the activities of the offices of state government located in Chicago certainly aren’t alien turf to the prosecutors based out of the Dirksen Federal Building.

Otto Kerner learned what federal prosecutors could do

Just who do they think it was that challenged (and beat) those “four Illinois governors” who wound up serving time in prison for their activities – along with many other state, Cook County and Chicago municipal officials throughout the years.

I HAVE NO doubt that if Madigan were doing something truly corrupt (and not the Rauner definition of corrupt which mostly is Madigan’s refusal to go along with all the anti-organized labor acts the governor desires in the name of “reform”), there’d be a prosecutor more than willing to make his name off pursuing the case.

THOMPSON: Made his rep on Otto

Similar to the way then-prosecutor James R. Thompson turned his post into four terms as Illinois governor through overseeing the prosecution of then-Gov. Otto Kerner.

So if Bruce Rauner is really making a special donation of $1 million to support Erika Harold’s Republican campaign for attorney general because he expects her to prosecute Madigan (as he’s saying publicly when appearing on radio stations in Southern Illinois), I’d say he’s being foolish, and wasteful of his money.

If he really knows of specific illegal activity, it would be much cheaper for him to follow that old cliché and “drop a dime” to call the U.S. attorney’s office. Otherwise, we can only assume Rauner has got nothin’ on Madigan – which may be the real reason many people won’t vote for Rauner’s re-election come Nov. 6.

  -30-

Now we can see why the Dems wanted Pritzker so badly to run for governor

Whodathunkit! The big-bucks governor … 

How different would things be these days if Christopher Kennedy or Daniel Biss had somehow managed to win the Democratic primary for governor back in March?

I wonder that because the party’s establishment always made it clear they wanted J.B. Pritzker to be the nominee who challenged Gov. Bruce Rauner’s desire for re-election to a second term as Illinois governor.

… is being outspent. For now!

AFTER LOOKING AT the latest campaign disclosure reports, it becomes blatantly apparent why J.B. was the favorite of da Dems. His wallet.

The Chicago Sun-Times went so far as to break down the totals showing that Pritzker was capable of spending $207,000 per day during the three months ending June 30. By comparison, Rauner was a virtual pauper at a “mere” $83,000 per day on his campaign.

The bulk of that money went to all those annoying campaign ads we’ve been seeing on television taking pot shots at both of the major party candidates. How many more times do we need to see a Pritzker parody taking the sledge hammer to his toilet – so as to cheat the government out of property tax monies he allegedly should have paid.

For the record, the Pritzker campaign spent some $20.1 million during the past three months and had some $18.3 million in its bank accounts as of June 30.

MEANING PRITZKER WAS anxious to try to bury Rauner in so much campaign dung that he’d never be capable of crawling out of the heap. Similar to the 1994 election cycle when Gov. Jim Edgar managed to bury Democratic challenger Dawn Clark Netsch in so much sludge related to her alleged desire for tax hikes that she never was able to gain ground when the campaign cycle peaked in autumn.

Of course, the Rauner campaign isn’t exactly struggling financially.

Some $7.8 million was spent by the Rauner camp trying to make J.B. out to be the ultimate con artist cheating Chicago out of property tax revenues by making his second home technically uninhabitable (no functioning toilets). I’ve seen those campaign ad spots so often, particularly the one with a J.B. lookalike that looks nothing like him.

But Rauner is trying to pace himself, it would seem.

FOR THE SAME campaign reports showed Rauner with $31.8 million in bank accounts on June 30.

Either Pritzker is going to have to cough up significant amounts of more cash for himself or go on a political fundraising spree to match Rauner. Or else accept the fact that he’s going to be significantly out-spent by Bruce, who’s bound to have more sleaze to fling J.B.’s way between now and the Nov. 6 elections.

This is kind of odd, to me at least. Because I’m used to political circumstances where Republican candidates are the ones who have access to the real big money. After all, the very rich want political people in office who are sympathetic to their needs.

Times have changed since days of Jim Edgar

They are capable of outspending the special interest groups that raise money, then donate it to political people they think will sympathize with their causes.

RAUNER WAS DIFFERENT because he showed back in 2014 that he WAS one of those very rich people, only he got tired of giving his money to other people to look out for his interests. Instead, he’s running for office himself.

It seems the Democrats, this time around, trotted out the guy THEY usually turned to for financial support for their candidates. It seems Pritzker already has coughed up some $100 million of his own money to fund his campaign.

Which puts to shame the “mere” $50 million that Rauner donated last year to the fund paying for his campaign and those of assorted Republicans running for General Assembly posts that Bruce wants to win so he can have political allies.

The point being both of these guys are quite a bit different from the days of, say Jim Edgar, who actually had to live off the roughly $150,000 annual salary Illinois paid him to be governor. Between Rauner and Pritzker, one of these guys is in for a serious emotional shock when he realizes how much of his own money he blew on a failed ego trip by running, and losing, for governor.

  -30-

‘Give it back! as ridiculous a command from GOPers as ‘Lock her up!’

Are Durbin and Duckworth (below) ...

The Illinois Republican Party is trying to do its part to overhype the degree to which Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., is thought of as the ultimate pervert when it comes to political people, rather than Ray Moore of Alabama.

While I understand why they would engage in partisan politics on this issue (I don’t expect them to come to the defense of a Democrat), I can’t help but think of the tactic as one that reeks of absurdity.

... really obligated to give back anything?

HEARING REPUBLICANS ARGUE that Sens. Richard Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Illinois Democrats, are obligated to get rid of any money that was raised for their campaigns through Franken’s celebrity status is just ridiculous.

Hearing them say the two should give it back is as ridiculous as a year ago when they were constantly getting themselves all worked up in frenzied chants of “Lock her up!” whenever the name of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came up.

About the only thing those chants really accomplished was angering the segment of the electorate not disposed to back Donald Trump’s presidential dreams – to the point where Trump had better hope he never actually gets caught doing anything illegal.

FRANKEN: Is he really Moore's equal?

Because you just know there will be some people inclined to show up at a future Trump sentencing and chant “Lock Him Up!” at the moment punishment is imposed.

BUT THAT SEEMS to be the way the Republicans think these days – even the ones in Illinois who like to think they’re not quite as extreme as the Trump mentality, but would have withered away into insignificance if not for the personal money of Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Is Moore really as believable ...

Which often makes me think I should clarify in copy that the “R” following the name of GOP elected officials ought to stand for Rauner Party, rather than Republican Party.

So what’s the latest issue that’s getting the Illinois Rauner Party (I’m sure seeing what happened to the entity once thought of as the “Party of Lincoln” would make Honest Abe roll over in his grave more than anything that Rod Blagojevich ever did) soiling their drawers?

... as Trump would have us think he is?

It’s the fact that Franken is not a standard issue elected official. He has a certain celebrity status that he has used to help his colleagues in politics raise money to support their campaigns.

SEVERAL OFFICIALS HAVE to admit to having received contributions from Franken – who now has a couple of women claiming he behaved in a manner that was probably worthy of the response of a slap across the face.

In the case of Durbin, who has been a D.C. public official from Illinois for 30-plus years, it comes to $21,000. Which isn’t the largest amount in the world. Although it’s tremendously huge compared to Duckworth, who only has $5,000 to account for with Franken connections.

Neither one of those amounts of money are huge. Yet that’s not the point of the Republican actions.

It’s a matter of distraction, trying to get people to think that Franken’s heterosexual behavior is worse than any of the teenage girls that Moore is now alleged to have been involved with back when he was in his early 30s (he’s now 70).

CLINTON: Will Hillary get last laugh?

THEY’D LIKE IT if people would focus attention on Franken, but would probably settle for it if they would think of him as the Democratic Party equivalent of Moore.

Which is just too ridiculous a claim to take seriously.

Now as for Durbin or Duckworth giving back money (or actually, making charitable contributions of an equal amount), I stand by my belief that doing so doesn’t mean a thing. But here’s a thought – how about looking into the financial records to see which people or groups are giving campaign money to Moore, despite knowing of his proclivity for young girls?

Those people are the ones whose political and moral judgments ought to be questioned.

  -30-