The campaign is heating up now. No, not the presidential race. I’m talking about the battle over whether Illinois should have a constitutional convention, or “con-con.” Organizations and coalitions are forming, and we can expect to see political ads from both sides.
Yes
On the “yes” side, there’s a couple of groups I’ve found. One is called United Power for Action and Justice, which has a site advocating a con-con. Then there’s Yes for Illinois, an effort of the nonpartisan Illinois Citizens Coalition (ICC). Here is an episode of the Illinois Issues Forum where ICC founder Bruno Behrend explains why he’s a proponent of having a con-con, and refutes the arguments of opponents:
No
On the other side, we have the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution. They apparently don’t have a website yet, but I expect they will soon. According to the State Journal-Register (Springfield), “the alliance expects to spend about $3 million getting its message out to voters.” Their message?
Members of the new Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution say that convening a constitutional convention in 2010 would cost an estimated $100 million or more and would do little to solve state government’s problems. The real solution, they said, is to elect better leaders.
And just who is part of this alliance?
Members of the alliance include the Illinois Business Roundtable, Illinois AFL-CIO, Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Retail Merchants Association, Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and League of Women Voters of Illinois.
My Take
I’m for a con-con. I think it would be worth the money and the risk. The biggest surprise to me in that list of alliance members is the League of Women Voters. They have long decried the gerrymandering of Illinois’ voting districts. How are the people of Illinois supposed to “elect better leaders” when lawmakers choose their voters through gerrymandering? Or when Illinois limits ballot access to third party candidates? It’s naive to think that these problems can be rectified by anything less than a constitutional convention.
Interestingly, Presidential candidate Barack Obama is getting some heat over this issue. The Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Martin reports that Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod is lending the aid of his public relations firm to opponents of a con-con. Martin quotes this letter from United Power for Action and Justice to Obama:
“Our nonpartisan organization . . . was surprised to learn that David Axelrod’s public relations firm has negotiated a contract of at least $2 million to lead a campaign against the state’s best chance for change in 20 years — the upcoming referendum on whether or not the citizens of Illinois should call a constitutional convention to deal with the mess in Springfield. While your campaign manager is heading a presidential effort whose slogan is “Change you can believe in,” his firm is running a local campaign whose slogan should read, “Change we must fear and undermine.”
But then, cognitive dissonance doesn’t appear to be a problem for Obama, as his multiple flip-flops on issues show.
There appears to be a big disparity in money. Opponents have $3 million to spend convincing Illinoisans to vote against a con-con. I can’t find any figures on the two proponent organizations, but they don’t appear to have a lot of money. But they do have the Illinois legislature and governor on their side. Oh, not explicitly, of course. I just mean that as long as they keep displaying their dysfunctional and embarrassing antics down in Springfield, it only serves to stoke the fires of voter discontent. Maybe legislators can choose their voters, but the con-con vote crosses district lines.
A con-con has so many pros and so many cons (no pun intended) this will be a really tough vote for me the in fall. Though your reasoning that this would be a great time and great way to effect some sensible change (esp. gerrymandering and third party ballot access) makes a great deal of sense. Thanks for some perspective on the issue, CJ.
I read the article about Obama’s “flip-flops” and I have to disagree with 3, 4 and 5. I know they came from WaPo and not you, but I’m trying to dispel the “flip flop” tag so many are trying to attach to Obama right now.
#3 – When Obama made the first remark, Fidel Castro was still in power and the embargos weren’t working, I agree. But now that brother Raul is in power, he seems to want to improve the lot of the Cuban people and he is reaching out – so indeed, you could say that now, the embargo is having an effect. And this situation in which it might be lifted is entirely different. A reasonable change of opinion IMHO.
#4 – there is a difference between wanting to “crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants” and “crack down on employers who take advantage of the situation.” There are employers out there who hire illegal immigrants and pay them decent wages, give them health care coverage and treat them like human beings. Cracking down on employers who are taking advantage of illegal immigrants is a whole other situation that I’m pretty sure I don’t have to explain – wages, health care, slavery style workhours, etc. etc.
#5 – SO Obama said he would consider eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana. Yes, eliminating such dire penalties as 20 years in prison for some dude caught with a single joint. Eliminating penalties for a woman with a pot plant in her basement, found when her home burned down. Decriminalizing marijuana as a whole is a different argument entirely. That’s making it legal to sell, grow, etc, etc. Again, not a flip flop, simply a carefully considered argument on the details.
I am cofounder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition… I can’t speak for United Power but we have only raised 500 which is why you don’t see a filing from us.