Monday, February 19, 2007
News / Clout City Left hanging
Posted by Mick Dumke on Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Shirley Coleman, alderman of the 16th Ward, is in a tough reelection campaign. She's been dogged by allegations that she flip-flopped on the big-box minimum-wage ordinance under pressure from Mayor Daley and that she took money from a friend who was involved in an aborted development deal in the ward. “Despite what has been written, I have not sold out my community,” Coleman told me last week.
According to state records, one of her opponents, JoAnn Thompson, has received more than $30,000 in staffing, direct mail, campaign research, and phone banking from the Service Employees International Union. Another opponent, the long-controversial Hal Baskin, is a talented organizer and received the Sun-Times’s endorsement.
Coleman says she helped sustain Daley’s veto of the big box ordinance because voters told her they didn’t want her to reject retail jobs for the ward. She also says she's asked the mayor’s campaign committee for money to help with her campaign. “I haven’t received it,” she says, adding that the union is sending out regular mailings attacking her. “I’m [practically] being blamed for high gas prices over here.”
Jerry Morrison, executive director of SEIU’s Illinois State Council, has a theory about why Coleman hasn’t received any money from Daley or the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. The mayor, he says, has received millions of dollars in support from Chicago’s business community and isn’t likely to spend much of it in his reelection bid, saving it instead to help aldermen in races where no candidate gets a majority, forcing an April runoff: “The mayor’s going to go to these aldermen and say, ‘You’re in trouble—I can protect you from the unions.’ Essentially the mayor is handling the business community’s money.” Daley’s campaign didn’t return a call for comment.
Comments (6)
Showing 1-6 of 6
Wal-Mart did not leave Shirley hanging. $1,500.00 2/5/2007 to 16th Ward Regular Democratic Organization
like
dislike
What's $1500 for a multi-billion dollar corporation that saved milions on the big-box ordinance? Also, what's $1500 compared to $40K + that the unions are putting in? She is being hung out to dry -- and I'm crying crocodile tears for her.
don't be surprised if Shirley loses outright next Tuesday. BTW I said the Mayor's campaign laundered the business community's money not handled it. These things happen. it is an imperfect worl...screws fall out everyday.
hope she loses. as Hal Baskin said, "maybe she wasn't giving her husband what he needed at home ?"
==PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT== This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning. I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'. While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind. I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public. This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s). Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected. In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%. It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties. So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!). Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula: * 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them. * 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate. * 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST. * 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST. * 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed. Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above. If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate? If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office? Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)? Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)? Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways? As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing. The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT. The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by their deeds. Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few. To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said: * You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time * You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time * But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.
Latest in Bleader
-
Blackhawks deep-sixed
The Blackhawks lose their sixth straight game
- Feb 9, 2012
-
Mart kills Art Chicago
Merchandise Mart cancels Art Chicago
- Feb 9, 2012
-
More I Saw Yous!
Missed connections from Reader readers
- Feb 9, 2012
- More »
Author Archives
-
City Council concludes its approval of Emanuel's protest rules
City Council passes Emanuel's protest ordinances, but not everyone's pleased
- Jan 18, 2012
-
Aldermen examine new protest rules before doing what they're told
Somehow Mayor Emanuel gets his way again
- Jan 17, 2012
-
Rahm's latest verdict: we're stuck with the meter deal
Even Emanuel has to acknowledge that the city's street parking system was sold.
- Dec 14, 2011
- More »
