Categories
ballot access insider corruption local leaders

Clown Car of Felonies

“It’s overkill of epic proportions,” John Kass writes in the Chicago Tribune, “like using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat, or firing off a nuclear weapon to kill a sparrow.”

In three columns, Kass tells the story of David Krupa, a 19-​year-​old DePaul University student, who gathered over 1,700 voter signatures on petitions to gain a spot on the ballot for alderman of Chicago’s notorious 13th Ward.

Why notorious? It’s Boss Madigan’s home.

Yes, the “Land of Lincoln,” home to nearly 13 million people, is ruled by one man, Michael J. Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House, “the longest-​serving leader of any state or federal legislative body in the history of the United States.” 

And 13th Ward Alderman Marty Quinn, the incumbent, is Madigan’s guy.

Quickly, a lawsuit was filed challenging Krupa’s petitions and, as Kass explains, “A crew of mysterious political workers — perhaps they were Buddhist monks, or the gentle sun people known as the Eloi, or maybe Madigan precinct captains — filed 2,796 petitions of revocation of signature.”

While almost three thousand people executed affidavits stating that they wanted their signatures removed from Krupa’s petition, only 187 actually signed his petition.

Since the revocations require swearing to a legal document, under penalty of perjury, and perjury is a felony, more than 2,500 people — and their knowing helpers — appear to have committed what Krupa’s attorney calls a “clown car of felonies.”

Then — voilà! — the legal challenge evaporated. Young Krupa won’t be squashed; there will be a challenger on the 13th Ward ballot for the first time in decades. 

Is that enough? No. 

Election process corruption and the possible suborning of thousands of felonies must be investigated. 

No quarter for boss rule.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Michael Madigan, Speaker, House, Illinois, corruption, machine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
ideological culture term limits

Hating the Senate

The longest-​serving politician in Congress — ever — thinks he has the perfect reform to put American government back on track.

Former House Democrat John Dingell wants to abolish the Senate.

According to him, the United States should go unicameral.

The ancient bicameral tradition — which goes back to Sumer — is so old hat. He thinks that, these days, “in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous.”

Dangerous? Well, he has always hated the Senate. He sees it as a place where “good bills go to die.”

His new book explains this at length, but I confess: it would go against my principles to put any money into that man’s pocket by buying The Dean: The Best Seat in the House (2018). He almost personifies everything I’m against. His very career is an atrocity. In 1955, John Jr. took over the House seat from his father, a 22-​year incumbent, and then six decades later, in 2015, basically bestowed it on his wife.

That’s 86 years and counting.

How many times did he swear to uphold the Constitution? And yet he doesn’t seem to understand that Article V, governing the amendment process, establishes one specific limitation: “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

Jettisoning the U.S. Senate would seem to be such a deprivation.

The opposite of this Dingelldorf reform would be more in keeping with the spirit of our system: term limits.

To keep anything like a John Dingell Sixty-​year Stretch from ever occurring again.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 


PDF for printing

 

Photo credit: University of Michigan


» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency term limits

Promises & Limits

Last year, Americans — everywhere from Montgomery County, Maryland, bordering the nation’s capital on the east coast, to sunny Santa Clara, California, on the west coast — voted to impose term limits on their elected officials.

There were 40 separate local votes to enact term limits or, conversely, measures put up by politicians to weaken or abolish those limits. In every single case — that’s 100 percent — voters came down on the side of strong term limits. And by a whopping average vote of 74 percent.

Not. Even. Close.

Back in 2014, term limits admittedly did not fare quite as well. In that election year, a mere 97 percent of local term limits ballot measures prevailed. You can’t win them all.

Most folks I know believe we most desperately need term limits on Congress.

Even in these days of division, with our nation racked by partisan rancor and recrimination, a constitutional amendment to term-​limit Congress has better than two-​to-​one support by folks across the spectrum — favored by 77 percent of Republicans, 67 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of independents.

President Donald Trump pledged in the campaign’s homestretch that, as his first order of business in “draining the swamp,” he would push Congress to propose an amendment limiting House members to three terms, six years, and Senators to two terms, 12 years. Those are the limits in the term limits amendment already introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R‑Tex.) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R‑Fla.).

Speaker Paul Ryan has promised to bring it to the floor for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused. McConnell’s office number is (202) 224‑2541.*

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* His Facebook page is here.


Printable PDF

 

Categories
ballot access ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The Stupidity of 15

Most Americans think there are only two choices for the presidency. And will thus vote for either Clinton or Trump.

They are wrong. There are two popular minor party contenders, and one will even be on all 50 state ballots.

In other election cycles, one could argue that a “third party” candidate has no reasonable chance to win — so, just ignore.

A self-​fulfilling criterion?

Sure. But it works … for the major parties.

This cycle, however, it just doesn’t apply. A third party-​candidate could indeed become the next president … even without capturing 15 percent nationally in the polls … or, get this, in the actual voting!

Confused?

Founded and run by Republican and Democrat bigwigs, the private non-​profit Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is not an honest broker. The CPD’s 15 percent national polling threshold for inclusion in the debates neglects a crucial fact: presidential electors aren’t won nationally, but by winning states.

According to the latest Washington Post/​SurveyMonkey poll, the Libertarian candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, isn’t polling quite 15 percent nationally. But he is polling 25 percent in his home state, where Trump is at 29 and Clinton at 37 percent.

Yes, Johnson is within striking distance to win New Mexico’s five electoral votes.

If Johnson does win there, and Trump keeps it close, winning say Ohio and Florida, no candidate may gain a majority of the Electoral College. The presidential contest would be thrown into the House of Representatives, the first time since 1824! With each state delegation casting one vote, Johnson could serve as the compromise, even consensus, choice.

It seems to me that the next president ought to be in the debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

President, Presidential, vote, House of Representatives, tie, illustration

 

Categories
tax policy

Instead of a Tax Hike

The new Congress is in session and already there’s a push for a tax hike. Republican Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma says, “nothing is off the table.”

Of course the Democrats are chomping at the bit to raise … the gas tax. With gas prices having plunged so low, they see a green flag. But then, high prices at the pump are something they like. You know, to “save the planet.”

And across the aisle in the Senate, anyway, it’s not just Inhofe who’s sending up smoke signals to indicate a willingness to “bargain”; Senators Hatch (R‑Utah) and Thune (R‑SD) seem onboard. (Thankfully, House Republicans appear less enthused.)

To aid the cause, Inhofe calls the gas tax a “user fee.” Euphemistically. He has the tiniest of points: the modern “deal” has been to tax fuel and then use that revenue to pay for new roads and upkeep.

But recent congresses have been spendthrift, misusing the revenues on idiotic projects (hiking trails, bike paths, museums) and not so much on repair. In that context, the call for higher taxes almost looks responsible.

There’s a problem, though. Several.

You cannot go on rewarding government when government fails. They waste money? Why, give them more! Sheer folly.

Further, lower gas prices have meant an effective increase in incomes for regular people. Taxing that away, after so many bad years, is just cruel — to both the middle class and the poor.

Only a politician could call that “responsible”!

I have a modest alternative proposal: Devolve all federal roadways to the states; abolish all federal taxes on fuel. Let the separate states figure best how to fix “our crumbling infrastructure.”

Congress, after all, has failed. Miserably.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.