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-

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-

Touch of old-school politics; replacing holiday turkeys with paid-off bills?

I’ve heard the stories from Chicago’s political past, from the days when certain aldermen – usually those whose constituents were amongst the poorest and least fortunate of the city’s populace – would give out their annual holiday turkeys.

WILSON: Handing out cash

Or hams. Or something else that could be a main course at a holiday dinner – thereby ensuring that some poor family would have something to eat on Thanksgiving or Christmas. Just like all those rich folks who could afford to buy their own holiday meal.

THE PAYOFF, OF course, was that the alderman was trying to build up good will amongst people who had a vote come Election Day. They’d remember who gave them something tangible and would be inclined to cast their ballot for the alderman’s re-election – along with the higher-level politicians aligned with the said alderman.

When you look at things that way, it would seem that Willie Wilson (the African-American executive who started with a South Side McDonald’s franchise and self-made himself a fortune) is playing old-school politics and trying to maintain good will amongst the kind of people whom he thinks would be inclined to take him seriously should he actually run for mayor come February (and an April runoff) 2019.

Wilson has attracted public attention in recent days for the fact that he showed up at a South Side church and gave away cash to anybody with hardly any questions asked. He wants to think that he’s helping the unfortunate by enabling them to pay off some bill that otherwise could devastate their life’s routines.

Some have questioned whether Wilson’s act amounts to bribery (buying peoples’ votes). Others are all offended because Gov. Bruce Rauner was at the church with him – and may have actually provided some of the cash that Wilson gave away.

ALTHOUGH IT ALSO appears state Elections officials interpret the law as being vague; meaning that neither Wilson nor Rauner nor anyone associated with either man is likely to face the prospect of a criminal indictment for their actions.

I stumbled across one weblog where the writer tried to claim Wilson’s actions are downright petty to all the favors and support that Mayor Rahm Emanuel will be able to buy with the roughly $12 million he has raised for his own re-election campaign fund.

Not that I’d agree with such thoughts. But I also suspect Wilson will not be bothered by his actions – and probably will go out of his way to denounce his detractors as being “out of touch” with the realities of urban Chicago.

RAUNER: Was gubernatorial money involved?

Appealing to the sensibilities of people who would regard having their telephone bill paid off as being more “real” than anything more conventional political people could ever offer them.

I’D ARGUE IT’S really taking advantage of people who don’t know better and buying them off dirt-cheap! Really, how many government officials of the past got themselves re-elected, and capable of cashing in on the political gravy train, for the mere cost of a holiday ham?

How much good will did Wilson get for the roughly $300,000 that he says his personal foundation (and not political campaign fund) shelled out at church this past weekend?

I’d say it’s cynical to think that coughing up some pocket cash (which is what people like Wilson and Rauner think of the sum offered up this weekend) can be used to buy up the good will of people with nothing else in life.

It is a tactic that ought to be firmly lodged in our political past – because it really does reek of buying votes, even though the law sees just enough of a gap in reality for the act to be construed as such.

NOT THAT I expect Wilson to care one bit about anything I write here, or anyone else says or thinks.

EMANUEL: The ultimate target of tactic?

He’d probably say I’m being all “high-minded” and that these “rules” aren’t realistic to daily life; existing solely to “hold down” the less fortunate amongst us. As if we’re making an issue of this only because it is African-American people continuing to benefit from something that used to be standard political practice.

If anything, it is more likely to be Rauner who will suffer political blows. Guilt by association, even though he has said he never would have given Wilson’s foundation any kind of contribution if he had known it were to be distributed in such a crass manner.

Which could be mere double-talk on Rauner’s part to escape the taint of this controversy involving the governor and possible mayoral candidate who do have one thought in common – both probably think it is Emanuel who holds down their ability to have greater influence politically. Because Rauner certainly hopes that any good will Wilson derives will spill over onto himself come Election Day on Nov. 6.

  -30-

EXTRA: Would ‘Gov.’ Michael Corleone have been wasted authority?

Remember near the end of the film The Godfather when Marlon Brando’s Don Vito Corleone character told his son Michael (a.k.a., Al Pacino) that his regret in life was that he couldn’t fix things so that his son could be the political big shot giving orders?

“I thought that when it was your time, that you would be the one to hold the strings; Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone. Something,” the Don said.

PERHAPS THAT’S THE reason why Gov. Bruce Rauner had enough interest in placing a bid two years ago when the private papers of author Mario Puzo were put up for auction.

It seems that Rauner won the auction, with what was reported at the time a $625,000 bid. To get possession of dozens of boxes of Puzo manuscripts – including the work on his 1969 novel “The Godfather” that became the inspiration of the 1972 film and its 1974 and 1990 sequels.

Rauner’s interest in all this was revealed recently by Dartmouth University. Rauner and first lady Diana are alumni, and it seems the papers are going to be stored in the Dartmouth Library’s special collections – which because of his past financial support, is named for Rauner himself.

Could it be that Rauner identifies with the story, as one where Vito Corleone wanted to use his influence to buy a political office for his son? Maybe that’s an inspiration for all the money he spent to “buy” the Illinois governor’s office for himself in the 2014 election cycle – and also spending much more on this year’s primary and general elections to try to keep the post.

THERE IS ONE part of this tale that particularly amuses me – the fact that he’d spend so much of his own money to buy these papers, along with an Olympia-brand typewriter that he may have actually used to write the Godfather manuscript.

It must be nice to have that much money to spend on such a luxury that includes a "may" and not an absolute. Although some news reports indicate that Rauner made the winning bid to Dartmouth one day after publicly talking of the need for Illinois universities to cut their spending.

It almost makes me wonder if I should take my own files of my 30-plus years in the news business and try to find a market for my own papers. I'll even throw in the laptop from which I publish the Chicago Argus -- which probably will be totally obsolete and useless.

The only problem is I suspect that when my time comes and I’m no longer of this particular realm of existence, my nephews and nieces most likely won’t hesitate to turn the paper pile into trash. Let’s hope they at least have the sense to dump it into a recycling bin.

  -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-

EXTRA: Rauner differs self from Trump on tax-return tactic

I almost feel sorry these days for Gov. Bruce Rauner.
 

RAUNER: Wants Trump voters, but not political baggage

He has gone to extremes to try to put distance between himself and his supposed partisan political ally – President-elect Donald Trump. To the point where his refusal to say anything about Donald has become laughable.

YET IF YOU look at the election results from Tuesday night in Illinois, we leaned largely Democrat. The only gains that can be attributed to Republicans were the pickups of some legislative seats in rural parts of the state where Trump’s presidential aspirations were predominate.

It can be argued that despite the millions of dollars that Rauner spent of his money and that of his business-oriented friends to influence the elections in his favor, the real swaying factor was Trump.

I suspect that the reason those Republicans succeeded in beating off rural Democrats was because of the Trump coat-tails. I suspect those voters wanted to pick people they thought would be allied with Trump, and probably would be more than willing to sacrifice Rauner in an instant if put to the choice.

But does this mean that Rauner is now going to have to sway himself to the ideological idiosyncrasies of the Trump types of people? I suspect Rauner himself desperately wants to stay away from that stuff. Aside from wanting to dump on organized labor, our governor has tried to stay away from other social issues.

SO HOW CAN he differentiate himself from Trump without going too far so as to irritate the many rural voters he’s desperately going to need come his own 2018 re-election bid?

Personally, I’m inclined to think that Rauner making public on Friday his income tax return for 2015 is one such step – largely because it is one that Trump himself has yet to make; and probably will go out of his way to avoid doing for as long as he lives.

It’s just enough of a gesture to appease the progressive mentality – most of which will never be able to comprehend making so much money in their lives. While not touching on the social issues that would thoroughly offend the ideologues amongst us.

MUNGER: Should she have expected larger donation?

For the record, Rauner, a former venture capitalist with personal wealth, reported having income during 2015 of $188.2 million, of which he paid $43.3 million in taxes to the Internal Revenue Service and another $6.9 million to the Illinois Department of Revenue.

WHICH IS SOME $50.2 million more paid in taxes than indicated in any tax return ever provided by Trump himself. At least we’ll have an idea now of what kind of finances our governor deals with – or how he can afford to provide so much money to try to buy political posts for people who would be allied with him in Illinois state government.

Although Rauner indicated he and his family foundation have made charitable donations totaling $11.6 million – which is something we’d all like to think we’d do ourselves if we had the kind of money to afford it.

  -30-

There’s always a crackpot with cash

Perhaps I’m just cheap, although I’d like to think it is because I have a little too much sense. Or maybe cents?

But I don’t comprehend the notion of feeling the compulsion to send off some cash as a donation to back up every one of my ideological idiosyncrasies.

SO I CAN’T help but shake my head in disgust with the people who feel the need to make donations to uphold their hang-ups with regards to gay marriage.

What started this latest round of donations was the fact that a neighborhood pizza joint in a rural Indiana town got public attention when it became known that the owner said he thinks he has the right to refuse to provide catering services to a gay wedding – if they were to try to hire him.

Honestly, I think the best response to that concept is the gay activist who quipped that no self-respecting gay person would serve pizza at a wedding reception. And I don’t feel compelled to identify the restaurant; why give them free publicity?

But the hostile reaction – initially reported by South Bend television station WBND – that came forth caused the restaurant’s owner to close up shop indefinitely, with the telephone now ringing endlessly rather than anyone picking it up to check if you want sausage or pepperoni, or just vegetables, on your pizza pie.

THE FACT THAT the owners, who also said they wouldn’t deny service to a gay couple if they actually came into the restaurant, are likely to suffer some financial loss by being so public with their hang-ups is what is now motivating some people to feel the need to show their support for a business that wants to dump on gay people.

There’s a page on GoFundMe.com where people can give some money to help the company, and as of late afternoon Friday there was $798,687 that had been given to the owners. It’s probably significantly more by the time you read this!

That’s quite a financial haul – certainly better than they would have taken in had they just remained open and sold pizzas.

Could this vocal outburst against gay people wind up being a profitable move?

THAT THOUGHT HAD a Berwyn-based fast food joint upset, and they went ahead and created their own GoFundMe.com page.

The Pioneer Press newspapers reported that Big Guys Sausage Stand is asking for donations under the heading, “Non-bigoted restaurant wants cash.”

Not that the restaurant wants the money – they say if anyone feels compelled to make a donation, they will donate it all to a charitable cause yet to be determined.

But owner Brendan O’Connor told the suburban newspaper group how he felt compelled to take the stand, because he was amazed that so many people would feel the need to take a public stand in favor of Indiana’s new (and already revised because it was so offensive) Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

PERSONALLY, IT DOESN’T surprise me that some people feel strongly in favor of measures that treat gay people like they are less than desirable in society. Some people will go out of their way to say stupid things – and that is their right in our society.

The United States of America gives people the right to be wrong. And it gives the rest of us the right to point out those errors – even though the “wrong” people often think that pointing out the triteness of their remarks is somehow an intrusion of their “free speech” rights.

Nonsense! Nobody gets the right to the “last word” on an issue – not even me. Since I’m sure at least one crackpot out there would feel the need to vociferously respond to this very commentary.

It’ just that when it comes to speaking with my wallet, I prefer to let my actual purchases (or refusal to buy from somewhere) speak louder than handing over my money to someone else.

  -30-

Will Bruce Rauner wind up being “da winner,” or the guy who spends the most per vote in a losing campaign?

This is what our election cycle for governor of Illinois has devolved to – it is between two guys who have differing ways of wanting to be perceived about the kind of campaign cash they’re actually raising.

Far in lead financially, for time being

We have one guy who’s more than capable of self-funding his campaign, yet he seems to want us to think that he’s actually raising the nickel-and-dime donations from the general public, so as to create the impression that people like him, they really, really like him!

BECAUSE IF WE truly comprehended just how wealthy Republican nominee Bruce Rauner was (he wasn’t exaggerating with that self-description of being in the 0.001 percent of society), we might actually think less of him.

We might figure that for all his money, he should find something better to do with his life than try to buy a government office.

Then, we have another guy who’s going to go out of his way to brag and boast about every dollar he manages to raise.

Because the perception some people want to have is that Gov. Pat Quinn is such a schnook that he can’t possibly come up with the kind of campaign cash to be competitive against Rauner’s personal wealth.

THE BOTTOM LINE is that we have two truly different men, and we have a clear-cut choice when we have to make our pick Nov. 4 as to who will be the chief executive of Illinois government.

Which has me wondering if Rauner, deep down, would like to proclaim himself the CEO of Illinois, rather than using such a mundane title as “governor?” But that’s a debate for a different day.

I make this observation in part after seeing the statement Rauner’s campaign released earlier this week about his campaign finances for the first three months of 2014.

RAUNER: Carhartt coat appeals to 60 percent?

Rauner highlighted the fact that 60 percent of the people who made donations to his campaign were individuals who gave $100 or less. In short, the Joe Schnooks of the world who decide to make some sort of symbolic political statement – rather than coming up with the kind of cash that gets a political person’s serious attention.

BUT WHEN ONE considers how much more money the remainder were donating, it makes that 60 percent majority seem so insignificant.

In fact, with Rauner raising not quite $9 million during those three months, it should be donated that $5.3 million were the donations Rauner – a venture capitalist who turned himself into an extremely wealthy man – made to himself.

That’s the part Rauner doesn’t want us to look at. In his best “Mighty Oz” impersonation, he tells us not to look behind the curtain that contains his personal checkbooks.

All I know is that while I do have a personal interest in public policy and government, if I had that kind of wealth, I could think of a lot more worthwhile things to spend the money on than trying to win an election.

THEN, WE GO to Pat Quinn. He’s the guy who had about $5 million raised previously, and raised about another $5 million during the past three months. Not bad for a guy who’s going to have a larger percentage than “60 percent” of Joe Schnook-type guys making campaign contributions for him.

The Chicago Sun-Times, however, pointed out what may be the intriguing part of the whole equation. Both candidates began the second quarter of this year far apart.

Rauner spent so much money to win his primary that his campaign account had about $1.3 million on April Fool’s Day, while Quinn had $8.8 million to work with. Largely on account of the fact that he didn’t have to do a thing in order to beat Democratic challenger Tio Hardiman.

Quinn is loving it these days, now that he’s the “big money” guy – although not really.
 

Would either candidate actually live here if they win?

FOR RAUNER HAS the kind of personal wealth that he can give himself yet another loan to catch up to that $8.8 million. And Quinn is going to have to start spending that cash in order to rebut all the knockdown allegations Rauner will try to offer up against him.

Although I’m sure Quinn will have his own share of political bodyblows – as I’m sure the labor union political action committees will be more than anxious to keep Pat adequately funded to cope with Bruce.

Which means the next seven-plus months will be headache-inducing, what with all the nonsense we’re going to hear spewed by the candidates and their lackeys toward each other.

The only winners? Those people who get their joy after Election Day from calculating who spent the most money per vote they actually receive! Even money on whether Rauner will be the big winner, or the most foolish man ever to try to get into Illinois politics, come Nov. 5!

  -30-

How odd is Rauner’s school behavior?

When it comes to parents trying to get their children into better quality (or, in some cases, less violent) schools, I have heard of a lot of extreme actions.

RAUNER; Are his challengers the 3 stooges?

There are those parents who made a point of moving into communities that they really couldn’t afford to fully be a part of, just so their children could claim a legal residence in a school district of some quality.

THERE ARE OTHERS I have heard of throughout the years who go out of their way to partake in lengthy commutes so they can get to a better-funded school than one that would be more readily accessible.

And, let’s be honest. There are those individuals who claim a false address in order to be able to attend classes in a district with schools more serious than the ones they’re “supposed” to attend.

So to learn that Bruce Rauner, in the days before he became a gubernatorial candidate, used his wealth and the influence it brings to get his daughter into a better-quality high school in Chicago?

What else is new? A part of me wonders how many other parents would have done the exact same thing, if only they had the kind of personal funds he did.

FOR THE RECORD, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Rauner had a daughter he wanted to attend Walter Payton College Prep, a fairly new high school on Chicago’s Near North Side (meaning it isn’t burdened with the results of decades of underfunding and urban neglect).

There is a complicated admissions process for students wishing to get in, and Rauner’s daughter initially was rejected. So Rauner used the fact that his wealth gave him connections to prominent people to meet with then-Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan (now the federal Education secretary) to see what could be done to reconsider her case.

A year-and-a-half later, Rauner happened to make a $250,000 donation to a foundation connected to Payton Prep.

Now I haven’t heard anything indicating the direct connection between “reconsideration” and “donation” that would justify bringing in the U.S. Attorney. This is being used more by political opponents as an example of how Rauner isn’t a typical person.

HOW MANY OF us could get Arne Duncan on the telephone to talk about our kid, then come up with that kind of contribution?

Therefore, don’t vote for him come March 18.

But, let’s be honest. I’m sure there are many of us who would think nothing of doing exactly what Rauner is alleged to have done – if they thought it would get their precious child into a better quality school.

If anything, this might merely bring about some envy that Rauner was capable of doing something they could not.

AS FOR HOW this would impact Rauner’s chances of becoming governor someday, I’m not sure. It might be a combination of this, along with the flack he’s still getting concerning whether or not he really wants to decrease the minimum wage in Illinois and whatever future tidbit crops up about him that makes him too “odd” in order to win.

If anything, this might further kill any chance he has of gaining significant voter support outside of Cook County. After all, here’s a guy fighting to get his kid into the Chicago Public Schools system – albeit at one of its cushier outlets.

Most of the rural and suburban people are trained to think of a Chicago school as something to be fled from.

But unless one of the alternate Republican candidates is able to make a legitimate claim that they can do better, they may still wind up as being the three “stooges” who fight amongst themselves to split up 70 percent of the primary vote – while Rauner takes the remaining 30 percent and “Wins!” come Election Day.

  -30-

Come Wednesday, no more $3 pitches

There is one aspect of the post-election cycle period that I’m looking forward too – the fact that my e-mail box associated with this weblog will no longer be cluttered with attempts by the Barack Obama presidential campaign to solicit my money.

OBAMA: $3 at a time

I can’t remember the last day that went by without my receiving something (usually several) asking me for something resembling a donation.

AND FOR WHAT it’s worth, the Obama people seem to like to play up the guilt factor more than my own mother ever did with me.

How many times have I been informed that some big corporate interest has a political action committee that just kicked in many millions of dollars – so now it’s up to me to help Democratic political interests try to match that so that Obama and his potential political allies don’t get grossly out-spent!

There also are the personal pitch e-mail messages meant for me to think that allegedly important people are taking the time to contact me personally.

Obama himself quite often, along with first lady Michelle. Then, there’s the celebrity crowd. I don’t really believe that singer Barbara Streisand took the time to write me a note – even though I got something from an e-mail account in her name.

THE SAME WITH comedian Al Franken – although my brother reminded me that the 1980s were the “Al Franken Decade,” which means his time to be influential is long-past!

Perhaps he can write a sequel book to his previous volume (entitled, “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot”) about his use in this campaign cycle.

ROMNEY: Going for bigger fish

The guilt factor even played on Sunday, as I received a message informing me that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (which is trying to get a Democrat-leaning House of Representatives in place to back Obama) has records indicating that I have donated NOTHING during this particular election cycle.

It also tells me that, “it’s critical that (I) make (my) donation immediately.” Or else it will be my fault if an Obama presidency gets stuck for the next two years with a Congress openly hostile toward his goals and desires.

MATCH THIS UP with an e-mail message I also received Sunday, telling me I should go to the campaign office nearest my home so I can help work the telephones for the next two days – all to try to persuade people to make a campaign contribution on behalf of Obama.

It has got to the point where I usually delete most of these messages from my e-mail box unread. It isn’t worth my time to read these generic pleas that are meant to appear as though they are personal.

In all honesty, I figure that Barbara Streisand is really trying to contact me about as much as that guy in Nigeria is a real-life human being in need of my assistance (and not just access to my bank accounts).

Why do I suspect that if it were possible, the Democratic political interests would just ask me to cough up an account number so they could make withdrawals as desired?

OF COURSE, I shouldn’t make this sound like purely a Democratic Party tactic. Republicans have their own ways of playing political hardball to get people to make financial donations to help pay for their political candidates who wish to overthrow the memory of the past four years. I also got an e-mail Sunday from "Mitt Romney" telling me how much he appreciates my "intensity" (and financial help) to bolster his own campaign.

And I got onto some Republican and Libertarian candidate e-mail lists (I get Gary Johnson updates, but nowhere near as many as the Obama camp sends out) in the same way I got onto the Obama lists – I signed up for e-mail alerts out of the hope it would give me an occasional tip as to what the campaigns are doing!

I haven’t donated to any campaign, ever in my life, and not just because I’m a cheapskate. It’s about that desire to appear disinterested in the outcome of Tuesday’s elections. I’m not among those who on Wednesday will be wishing they had written out “One More Check” to pay for another negative campaign ad on behalf of their candidate.

Because the bottom line is that the republic will continue to exist; no matter which side on Wednesday is convinced that the “End of the World!!!” has arrived because their guy lost!

  -30-