Tag Archives: Aaron Schock

2008 Campaign

More endorsements for Schock

41 Comments

From a press release:

Aaron Schock Earns Support from 9 Unions

(PEORIA) Representative Aaron Schock picked up the support of nine unions in his bid to succeed Ray LaHood as Congressman for the 18th District.

The unions include:

  • National Education Association, NEA, the largest union representing teachers in the 18th District
  • Illinois Education Association, IEA
  • The International Union of Operating Engineers
  • The National Association of Police Organizations, NAPO
  • The Illinois Police Benevolent and Protective Union
  • The Peoria Police Benevolent and Protective Union
  • The International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, FIREPAC
  • United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
  • Airline Pilots Association International Union

In issuing their endorsement, the NEA wrote to Schock saying, “The NEA and IEA are proud to support the election of federal candidates, like you, who measure up to the issues that most concern our members.

The NEA and IEA are the union representing the largest number of teachers in the 18th District.

Schock recently was the keynote speaker at the Illinois Police Benevolent and Protective Union’s annual convention in Springfield earlier this month. He received a warm welcome and rousing ovation for his remarks to the members and the leaders held a news conference with Schock announcing their endorsement.

NAPO represents more than 2,000 police unions and associations, 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers, 11,000 retired officers and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.

The International Union of Operating Engineers; the Carpenters Legislative Improvement Committee of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners; the National Education Association’s NEA Fund, and the International Association of Fire Fighters AFL-CIO FIREPAC also sent the maximum allowable $5,000 contribution to Schock’s campaign fund.

“I am honored to have the support of working men and women and the support of these organized labor unions,” said Schock. “I had a productive relationship with union representatives as a State Representative and my door will always be open as I try my very best to represent all the people of the 18th District.”

2008 Campaign

LaHood says Callahan is not telling the truth

34 Comments

From a press release:

Congressman Ray LaHood calls on Colleen Callahan to pull TV ad

LaHood “irritated” Callahan is using his name to smear Schock in a “dishonest” ad

(SPRINGFIELD) In news conferences today in Peoria and Springfield, Congressman Ray LaHood expressed his irritation with Colleen Callahan’s latest TV ad using his name and that of his predecessor Bob Michel to attack Aaron Schock.

“The ad is dishonest and I am calling on Colleen to pull it,” said LaHood. “Honesty requires you to tell the truth and Colleen Callahan is not telling the truth in this ad.”

LaHood continued, “If people want to carry on the legacy of honesty and integrity in the 18th District then Aaron Schock is the person who should be elected. The Chicago Tribune said that today. Bob Michel has said it and I am saying right here and now.”

“Using my name to insult the integrity of Aaron Schock really irritates me and it’s just not true. Colleen’s ad cites the Chicago Tribune which today strongly endorsed Aaron Schock for Congress in a lengthy, well-reasoned editorial. Using Bob Michel’s and my names to say that Aaron is dishonest is a dishonest attack itself. To that I say, Colleen Callahan pull that ad.”

LaHood said the notary issue that Callahan’s ad focuses on is a non-issue, “It was a clerical error eight years ago and it didn’t take long for a Democrat State’s Attorney to find no merit to the allegation.”

LaHood said the campaign ought to focus on the issues confronting our country now instead of “October Surprises”. LaHood noted Schock has aired ads on the economy and jobs, agriculture, energy, the environment and saving the river, while Callahan has only aired ads attacking Aaron Schock. LaHood said, “Colleen’s ads are not only negative attacks, they are dishonest and this one needs to be pulled off the air.”

“I strongly support Aaron, his integrity is rock solid and he has been an outstanding State Representative who is fully prepared to step up to represent the district in Congress. I want everyone to be clear on this,” said LaHood.

LaHood said, “Colleen Callahan should talk about what she is going to do, where she stands on the issues and how she wants to represent the people instead of attacking her opponent all the time and not picturing him in a way that is just plain not factual.”

When asked about Callahan’s calls for candidates to release tax returns, LaHood said in his 14 years he has not released his tax returns and that Bob Michel did not release his tax returns during his 38 years in office. LaHood said the reason is that there already are tough financial disclosures required by candidates and Members of Congress and these disclosures are far more detailed than a tax return. “Unlike a tax return, these financial disclosures list all assets, income and debts,” said LaHood.

Schock noted he has had to file financial disclosures for the past eight years as a school board member and state representative. He urged his opponents to catch up to him by filing disclosures for the past eight years.

In response to Callahan saying Schock has not addressed the notary issue, Schock said, “While I keep hearing I have not addressed this, I have repeatedly responded in numerous media interviews saying the first time I was aware of the issue was in press coverage this summer, that I made a mistake eight years ago and that I’m sorry. With that said, all three of my opponent’s television ads are negative attacks, and the lion’s share of her news releases and news conferences have been nothing more than attacks on me. It is certainly fair then to ask why Colleen’s campaign has been so completely negative.”

Schock said that in keeping with his past campaigns, he would remain focused on the issues and not attack his opponent. “People do want a change from our broken political system and the politics of personal destruction. Regardless what others do, I will stay positive and provide voters with yet another example of what a campaign should be.”

LaHood concluded by saying, “This is desperation on the part of a candidate who knows she is way behind but it’s not going to fool the people.”

2008 Campaign, Aaron Schock

State’s attorney closes Schock notary case

3 Comments

A press release from the State’s Attorney’s office via the Schock campaign:

NOTICE TO THE MEDIA

Last week our office was asked by a congressional candidate to review allegations that an opposing congressional candidate had notarized but wrongly or improperly dated a document in early 2000. Commendably, both candidates seem to agree that it would be best for any such review to be conducted and concluded as timely as possible. Accordingly, the State’s Attorney has asked me to conduct such a review and I have done so.

Any potential violation here under the Notary Public Act would be a misdemeanor called “official misconduct by a notary public”. This is not to be confused with the more common felony of Official Misconduct which involves criminal conduct during the performance of a duty in a public office (no such allegation of that has been made here).

One level of this type of misdemeanor requires the notary’s infraction to be “knowing and willful”. A lower level misdemeanor occurs if the notary’s infraction is merely “reckless or negligent”. No information is presented in this matter to show whether any of these descriptions occurred.

This area of law has its own section for extended limitations that somewhat lengthens the usual period that misdemeanors be filed within 18 months of their commission. However, under the most generous interpretation available, any such statute of limitations for filing an infraction on allegations such as these. would have expired approximately three years ago.

Therefore, this completes the review requested of our office.

Seth P. Uphoff
Assistant State’s Attorney

Case closed.

2008 Campaign, Aaron Schock

Schock splitting hairs in notary flap

11 Comments

But as a notary public, Schock was required to provide accurate information about witnessing documents being signed. Schock declared that he witnessed the documents being signed on Jan. 1, 2000, but they weren’t actually signed until more than a year later.

“I can honestly tell you I don’t remember signing anything. I’m sure I did,” he said. “But to ask me what day I signed a document eight years ago, I’m sorry to tell you I don’t remember.”

Schock […] commented on the subject while meeting with the (Springfield) State Journal-Register editorial board. He said he had notarized the document when he was 19, before he held elective office. “So I mean, the question of what I would be like if I was elected to office can be answered, has been answered,” he said, reciting his experience of being elected to the District 150 School Board and later to the Illinois House of Representatives. “I stand by my record in public office.”

These quotes prompted me to try to construct a timeline. I went back in the archives and determined that Schock decided to run for school board in December of 2000. In February of 2001, his petitions were challenged and he was ultimately removed from the ballot. He then mounted a write-in campaign and won on April 3, 2001. He started his term on July 2, 2001.

Based on published statements that the document that was dated Jan. 1, 2000 was actually signed “more than a year later,” that means it was signed after Jan.1, 2001. If it was signed before Schock “held elective office,” then that would mean it was signed before July 2, 2001.

So, I guess what we’re being asked to believe is that, in the less than six months between when Schock notarized a back-dated document and when he was elected and installed on the school board, he… changed. That stuff in early 2001 was a youthful indiscretion. But once he took office, he proved himself more mature, and not like that guy mere weeks before who engaged in professional misconduct.

Well, first of all, I think he’s splitting hairs. But secondly, Schock’s “record in public office” shows that he never really lost his inclination to playing fast and loose with the facts.

In 2006, when Senate Bill 2477 was being debated in the House, Schock told the lawmakers in Springfield a whopper. SB2477 was the bill that authorized District 150 to access funding through the Public Building Commission for their new school buildings. He told his colleagues, “This is a piece of legislation that is not only supported by our school board, but also our entire city council.” But the city council never took a position on the bill, nor were all the council members in favor of its passage. But the legislators in Springfield didn’t know that. They only know what our representative tells them.

Don’t forget what his support of that measure meant to Peoria: keeping our property taxes high without a binding referendum. If that bill hadn’t passed, the school board still could have gotten funding — they just would have had to ask the citizens of Peoria to approve the funding via referendum. Instead, the school board was able to go forward with their plans without any accountability to the voters at all.

I guess the common thread among all of Schock’s controversies of late is this: Can we trust him? Can we trust him to make the right decisions? To accurately represent our interests? To support the best policies? To do the right thing when he thinks no one is looking?

That will be up to the voters to decide next month.

2008 Campaign, Aaron Schock

Official misconduct? Who cares?

52 Comments

The big story now is that Aaron Schock notarized back-dated documents for his father seven years ago. The story states that neither “Schock or his parents benefited financially from using the incorrect date,” but that nevertheless, “using an incorrect date would be misconduct. Under the Illinois Notary Public Act, knowingly committing official misconduct is a Class A misdemeanor. Doing it through recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.”

Schock’s response to the Journal Star when asked about it:

Schock told the Journal Star the information, released just weeks before the Nov. 4 primary, likely is the work of his “political opposition trying to paint me in a bad light.”

“Obviously, perception is everything and as a public official I have always worked hard and done my best both in public office and in private business. When you enter the public arena everything you do and say regardless of whether it pertains to public office is scrutinized. This is a case in point example of that,” Schock said.

I thought about exploring whether this issue is just political mudslinging or if it really does expose Schock’s character. But then I remembered that nobody cares.

We have a candidate for the 92nd district, Jehan Gordon, who shoplifted, was fined, but then didn’t pay the fine for several years — not until she was running for office. And yet she was nominated by the voters over Allen Mayer.

Schock earlier in his campaign had advocated selling obsolete nuclear weapons to Taiwan to try to intimidate China; he initially stood by his statement, then said it was a joke, then eventually said it was a mistake. And yet he was nominated by voters over Jim McConoughey and John Morris.

So official misconduct as a notary public seven years ago? Whoop-de-do. That won’t even be a blip on voters’ radar screens.

2008 Campaign, Aaron Schock, City of Peoria

Schock does the right thing; case closed

14 Comments

Rep. Aaron Schock held a press conference yesterday with Mayor Jim Ardis to announce he will “voluntarily” pay back the City of Peoria for costs incurred when President Bush visited Peoria for his private fundraiser. As far as I’m concerned, this matter is now closed. I agree we should move on and talk about more important issues.

I think it would be a good idea for the city council to settle the policy issue, just so we don’t have a controversy like this again in the future. But as far as the candidates are concerned, I think this issue is over.