This issue was discussed on here in July, and the State Board of Elections has never required someone challenging nominating petitions of a candidate to register as a PAC, but Frank Calabrese campaign wants to make that the requirement.
Frank Calabrese, who will face Democrat Naomi Jakobsson in the November election, filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections last month against Champaign firefighter Patrick Devaney, a legislative representative for the Associated Fire Fighters of Illinois and a county Democratic leader.
The complaint alleges Devaney failed to comply with state campaign disclosure rules because he did not form a political committee to oppose Calabrese when he challenged the Republican's election paperwork last spring.
Calabrese's attorney, John Maloney, said Devaney must have spent more than $3,000 – the threshold under state statutes – to try to get Calabrese off the ballot.
IMO, there is no requirement (and should be no requirement) for someone to form a PAC to challenge nominating petitions.
Of course, this also begs the question: is this an effective way for Calabrese to convince people he should be their State Representative? I'm a process guy myself, but I doubt that the petition challenge process is a sufficiently important issue to the voters of the 103rd District to warrant a full-scale press conference six weeks before an election.
Yikes.
Never underestimate the depths of incompetency in the local GOP.
Calabrese needed to do something to get some press attention. I haven't heard a word about this campaign in a month.
"Calabrese needed to do something to get some press attention."
He could rob a bank, too. That would get press attention.
I think he should try to get positive press attention, not this.
Still, the point's valid. Calabrese has sunk without a trace. I mean, we knew it was hopeless, but I didn't expect it to be hopelessly hopeless.
Calabrese also has stated that he is going to run to the far left of Naomi on every issue! Great, Barickman has recruited another Lincoln Chafee! As for me, I would rather lose an election in a landslide than sell out my principles. Good going Mr. Calabrese, the IMC will surely love for you to be on board with them!
Regards,
Robert Dunn
As usual there is not going to be a real choice against Naomi in this election. WoW----Naomi must be doing a much better job than people on this Blog seem to believe. I'm thinking if the local politicial parties spent just part of their energys actually coming up with viable canidates instead of feathering their political nests through good-ole-boy patronage etc, Illinois would be a much better place to live.
Look, this is way beyond the good ole boy network of any party. Calabrese did not even bother to show up at the 4th of July Parade in CU, a definite must for a candidate for the 103rd in any party! He also was conspicuously absent from this years GOP Fall Festival! Even other unprincipled Republicans were irritated at his absence! Look forward to 2 more years of Naomi. The good thing is that in 2010, she may get a primary from Brendan McGinty! Id vote for McGinty over Naomi or Calabrese any day!
I never really heard a rational explaination as to why the voters elected Naomi in the first place. Regardless, we have her as a representative for a minimum of two more years.
In the first place, Frank did not make this an issue, I did. Frank did not hold a press conference on this issue and I had no idea he had one. I did not attend. At the press conference the NewsGazette asked about the status of this and to quote the reporter who called me, she said; "Frank was not sure of the status of what was happening and said I should talk to you." (meaning me)
Frank's committee, of which I am the chairman, filed an objection to Devaney not forming a committee. Election law requires anyone who spends more than $3000 for or in opposition to a candidate to form a political committee. Ironically, this was the same objection that someone (Naomi, the Firefighter's Union, the trial lawyers benefit fund, or the Democrat Party) made to the Republican's slow mailing of Frank's certification.
When this first came down, I sent a nice letter to Naomi asking her to withdraw it. I fully expected her to do so at the first hearing because I went and got the information from the party and had Frank drive it down the next day to Springfield. The Board of Elections mistakenly thought he was trying to amend his petition, so they didn't take it. There is no time limitation to file this, so I had every expectation that this would be withdrawn. Prior to the first hearing I gave an additional copy of the certificate that the Republican party had duly nominated Frank to Mr. Devaney's attorney.
It was not up to Frank to file this certificate, but the party. The certificate showed that the Committee that nominated Frank had the authority to nominate him. There was no objection to Frank's nominating papers, only that the party had not mailed in this certificate in what they claimed was a timely fashion. (the statute says immediately)
Mr. Devaney's only complaint was that he did not get this information so he could tell whether Frank was properly nominated. This was all he alleged. I have no problem with anything that happened up to this point. Mr. Devaney had every right to the information and he got it. The information showed that Frank was the duly nominated candidate, so that should have ended the matter, but apparently, both parties play little games called driving the other off of the ballot. They run up big lawyer's bills on small procedural points that sometimes, as was the case here, did not even involve the candidate.
This matter had been going on for a month. You never heard me mention it. I didn't even give the reporter my brief on this issue because my only interest was in seeing that this stuff stopped. This is why 10 days ago I made Mr. Kaspar an offer to dismiss the complaint if the election board would simply take up this issue at their next rules meeting. He called me and said Devaney turned down this offer.
I can assure you that this was not something Frank did to get his name in the paper. The only way I can see that this helps Frank is that Mike Madigan did not think enough of Naiomi to inform her he was filing this objection. Apparently he would not let her withdraw it either. If her party boss does not respect her enough even discuss the matter with her, what does that tell you? I don't mind arguing with anyone about local politics, but I really resent it when a Chicago pol sticks his nose where it doesn't belong.
IP is right. This is just a flat out, bonehead stupid argument.
Since our original discussion on this subject, I have become more convinced than ever that it contains an obvious, fatal flaw: he bases it entirely on the provision that anyone who spends over $3,000 in opposition to a candidate must form a committee and report. What he stubbornly refuses to understand is that the filing of nominating papers (and by extension, any challenge to those papers) are all part of the process of becoming a candidate.
Until that process is successfully completed, the individual is not yet a legally defined candidate. If the challenge is successful, for example, the individual never actually becomes a candidate. Whether the challenge is won or lost, either way any money spent to challenge is not spent in opposition to a candidate, because the individual whose process is being challenged simply is not yet an official candidate as defined by the law.
This will take about two seconds for the SBOE to sort out., but the damage to Frank's credibility and the public perception of his judgement (or lack thereof) will last much longer.
If you want to create a new requirement that objectors need to create PACs, this is an exceptionally weak case on which to do so, as you have no evidence Devaney spent more than $3,000, and he denies spending more than $3,000, and in Illinois, we largely rely on PACs to self-report.
That's without even considering the politics of your complaint about Devaney. It's not going to accomplish anything, and it has created the impression that Calabrese is behind it, which means his campaign hasn't had any press for a month or longer, and now all of sudden this? It looks (and is) incredibly petty and retaliatory, and it's a terrible thing for voters to think a candidate is focused on six weeks before an election. In my opinion, your filing this complaint is a huge mistake, because won't change the law, and it is making Calabrese's campaign look less than serious. Just my opinon, though.
What he stubbornly refuses to understand is that the filing of nominating papers (and by extension, any challenge to those papers) are all part of the process of becoming a candidate.
Until that process is successfully completed, the individual is not yet a legally defined candidate. If the challenge is successful, for example, the individual never actually becomes a candidate. Whether the challenge is won or lost, either way any money spent to challenge is not spent in opposition to a candidate, because the individual whose process is being challenged simply is not yet an official candidate as defined by the law.
The argument can also be made that the process of challenging a nomination supports the other candidate. Challenging a nomination increases the chance of running unopposed, thereby increasing the chance of your candidate getting elected.
Had Devaney's challenge been upheld, would Naomi be in a better or worse position to win the election? Does that not qualify as supporting a candidate (and, logically, fall under PAC requirements)?
Gordy, I think you misunderstand the argument I am making. I have no problem with the threshold of $3000 which is the law. We spent $5000 ($3000 for other lawyers) and I reported $2500 for in kind)-I also gave him $500 cash. Kaspar's argument was not that Devaney did not spend the $3000. He suggests he has argued this point 7 times before (winning all but this one). He says that since he did this before, it cost only a few bucks to prepare his lengthy briefs and attend at three hearings. There would have been more except that Chase Leonard ruled on this without appearances.
If us poor country lawyers spent $5000 defending this, I am arguing tommorrow that the big shot Chicago lawyers must have spent at least $3000. If you buy the Kaspar argument, then a host of lawyers will descend upon any candidate and allege all manner of petty things (hanging participles) for no other reason that to keep good candidates from running. Now if it was something that the candidate did, maybe you could argue he has made his bed and he should lie in it. On the other hand, when this is clearly a party fight, the parties should disclose it and pay for the fight and allow the candidate to keep the funds he raises for his campaign, not to fight off the other party.
It's not going to accomplish anything, and it has created the impression that Calabrese is behind it, which means his campaign hasn't had any press for a month or longer, and now all of sudden this? It looks (and is) incredibly petty and retaliatory, and it's a terrible thing for voters to think a candidate is focused on six weeks before an election. In my opinion, your filing this complaint is a huge mistake, because won't change the law, and it is making Calabrese's campaign look less than serious. Just my opinion, though.
Well said.
"Kaspar's argument was not that Devaney did not spend the $3000."
And you have no evidence to the contrary, other than the conjecture you are drawing from your own fees. And - not to be too rude about this - perhaps it's possible that Kaspar has done so many of these that it really does only take him 15 minutes, while taking you substantially longer?
And, again, there has never been a requirement that an objector create a PAC. So you're attempting to create a new requirement based on an incredibly flimsy case, IMO, and making your candidate look bad in the process.
Thoughtpolice. In my view, Devaney at best made a conditional objection which he had every right to make. The context in which this objection is usually made is when two candidates from the same party for the same seat, both contend that they were nominated which sometimes happens when a nominating committee of a party changes its mind. As I said, this was perfectly legitimate request. But when you ask for something and get it so you can see, as you stated in your objection "that the candidate was properly nominated", then you have to step forward and allege that the candidate was not properly nominated or you need to go away because at that point you have NO STANDING. You have already won your case. He never alleged that Calabrese was not properly nominated, he alleged he could not tell if he was. There is a difference.
Kaspar will argue tommorrow that if this was the issue, I should have appealed the decision of the 3 member panel or Judge Leonard's appeal finding in our favor. The problem with this argument is that I cannot appeal something that we won. He kind of acknowledge this when he patronized me by suggesting that I should be satisfied with winning this one case out of the 7 times it was argued. He suggested, without saying it, that the hayseed panel members should have ruled the other way anyway.
As I said, I was not making a big deal about this, but sometimes you just want people to think about the fairness of this particular situation. Do you have some problem with that my liberal friend?
As a democrat I welcome this challenge and I hope that it continues to get appealed so that this is the main thing that people know about Frank Calabrese and his plan, that he enjoys to litigate everything!
Thank you Mr. Maloney!
Tonight, I chatted with someone very close to Jakobsson's campaign, and he said that the complaint wasn't a problem for Naomi, but probably wasn't the smartest move on the part of Frank's campaign.
Gordy. The hearing tommorrow is what you might say is a probable cause type hearing. In other words, is there enough evidence to get this to a discussion with the Board of Elections (4 dems and 4 r's). I know how to prove up an attorney fee case-I was the trustee that objected to fees of Peter Francis Geraci for overcharging in a bankrutpcy situation. (that case would up with a Petition for Cert to the US Supreme Court)-So thank you, but I don't need you telling me about what I need for evidence at this point. Why are you hung up on the PAC thing? It is basically unfair to punish someone for something they did not do. Do you have a problem with that? It is basically unfair to hide behind an undisclosed principal. Do you think otherwise? If you wanted to run for this seat, you had plenty of opportunities, would you have thought this fair if it happened to you? Do you want Mike Madigan to drive every candidate from the ballot just because he can? What's up Gordy?
He never alleged that Calabrese was not properly nominated, he alleged he could not tell if he was. There is a difference.
Right, but that in no way contradicts my argument. Filing an objection to Calabrese's nomination, regardless of the basis of allegation, cannot possibly (as far as I know) help Calabrese. Therefore, the action implicitly helps Naomi's campaign, thereby requiring a PAC (if expenditures exceed $3000).
I see parallels in the election law, and the added requirement (which some believe has no merit) seems logically consistent. You must form a PAC if you support a or oppose a candidate. You must form a PAC if you support the nomination of a candidate, but you do not have to form a PAC if you oppose the nomination of a candidate. That seems inconsistent.
Gordy. The hearing tommorrow is what you might say is a probable cause type hearing. In other words, is there enough evidence to get this to a discussion with the Board of Elections (4 dems and 4 r's). I know how to prove up an attorney fee case-I was the trustee that objected to fees of Peter Francis Geraci for overcharging in a bankrutpcy situation. (that case would up with a Petition for Cert to the US Supreme Court)-So thank you, but I don't need you telling me about what I need for evidence at this point. Why are you hung up on the PAC thing? It is basically unfair to punish someone for something they did not do. Do you have a problem with that? It is basically unfair to hide behind an undisclosed principal. Do you think otherwise? If you wanted to run for this seat, you had plenty of opportunities, would you have thought this fair if it happened to you? Do you want Mike Madigan to drive every candidate from the ballot just because he can? What's up Gordy?
Did the Supreme Court grant cert to your case?
First, challenging candidates' petitions is often about money - it's cheaper for one party to knock the opposing candidate off the ballot than it is to run a campaign. That's why the challenges have become part of the game. Second, I'm not convinced that there is any "undisclosed principal" here. Pat's a smart, ambitious guy with a lot of friends, and wouldn't need to have Madigan in the background calling the shots.
One last thing Gordy-when you use up all your campaign funds just staying on the ballot, you hardly have anything left but to walk door to door which is what Frank is doing. But isn't that the point of all this?
"Why are you hung up on the PAC thing?"
Because I think you're wrong about one being required for objections, and I don't want to see some obscure case (which you already won) create a stupid new obligation for all objection filers.
"It is basically unfair to hide behind an undisclosed principal. Do you think otherwise?"
I don't think anyone is hiding. Devaney was the objector, and Kaspar was the attorney. We all know they were doing it at Madigan's behest, but you have no evidence Madigan actually spent any funds doing so. So nothing is being hidden.
"If you wanted to run for this seat, you had plenty of opportunities, would you have thought this fair if it happened to you?'
Heh. I had no interest, have no interest and will never have any interest in running for this seat.
As for the "fairness," I don't really care about who the "victim" of the objection was - I care about the policy, and I don't like the new rule you're proposing. Requiring a PAC wouldn't give anyone any new information, and would just be another stupid rule making this stuff harder for non-attorneys to understand, making the entire process even more complicated than it already is. It would have exactly the opposite effect you intend, ensuring that the only challenges ever filed would be the ones filed by the most powerful objectors.
"Do you want Mike Madigan to drive every candidate from the ballot just because he can? What's up Gordy?"
You won this case, and that Calabrese is still on the ballot, so Madigan didn't drive anyone from the ballot in this instance. So what's up with this petty retributive complaint pushing another onerous inaccessible rule that you've filed after you've already won your case?
I am sure that Mr. Devaney is a good stand up guy. When Kaspar tells me he has done this in 7 other counties, it is not because Devaney is pushing it. This is Madigan. You can see from my posts that I was not intending to make this a big issue, I just wanted Madigan's attorney to know that I think that when there is a pure fight between the parties, it should be the party that does the objecting. The Rules of procedure are made up by the Election Board. Yes, they write their own rules. In a situation like this, there should be a rule that permits a conditional objection to the candidates petition and to the parties nomination. If the conditional objection is disallowed (as it was in this case), the two parties can fight it out, because they are the ones that have an interest in the case. I just want the Board of Elections to consider this as a rule. Let the real parties in interest be the ones to do the litigating.
it's clear that denying ballot access is cheaper than running a race. its a reasonable strategy, one used by all sides. If one can drive the other side to distracted madness, fits, and spurious lawsuits, that can be effective too.
I do not require a PAC-the present rule demands that anyone that supports OR OPPOSES a candidate that expends $3000 in cash (or in kind), needs to list who the cash or in kind contribution comes from. This is a rule now. I am not demanding a new threshold of $500 or $1 or anything like that.
In court cases, only the real party in interest has "standing" to proceed. If I sue someone based upon an "assignment" there are certain disclosures I have to make explaining how I acquired the cause of action. This is essentially to show that the assignee has standing. If you look in the procedure section under "parties" in either the State or federal rules you will see the same thing.
I am not trying to make this harder for non-attorneys. If you think that a mere suggestion to have the Board of Elections take this up at their next rule discussion was "pushing this", I disagree. And I did not make a big deal about this either- They can require disclosure of these things on their form that is used for complaints. You need to know who is pushing the complaint because sometimes these matters get settled and it is nice to know who you need to know where the opposition is coming from and whether you are wasting your time.
RK-I disagree that an unconstitutional strategy is a reasonable one.
"I do not require a PAC-the present rule demands that anyone that supports OR OPPOSES a candidate that expends $3000 in cash (or in kind), needs to list who the cash or in kind contribution comes from. This is a rule now. I am not demanding a new threshold of $500 or $1 or anything like that. "
You are asking for an existing rule to be applied in a new way, to people to whom it should not and need not apply.
"I am not trying to make this harder for non-attorneys."
But if you get your way, that is exactly what will happen.
"They can require disclosure of these things on their form that is used for complaints. You need to know who is pushing the complaint because sometimes these matters get settled and it is nice to know who you need to know where the opposition is coming from and whether you are wasting your time. "
They already require objectors to identify themselves. That is sufficient, IMO.
Your new rule wouldn't really change anything except to make it harder for regular people to file objections. Looking at the example of your own case, if there was some stupid rule requiring Devaney to identify who was really "pushing the complaint," why wouldn't he just say he was doing it himself? Certainly he is politically savvy enough and smart enough to know how to do it and to know what to say when asked. Or why wouldn't Devaney say that it was the Illinois Association of Fire Fighters, for whom he lobbys?
Your rule wouldn't do anything except make objections even more difficult for anyone except the experts in some misguided and ineffective effort to have an objector point to Mike Madigan. Ain't gonna happen, even if you do get your rule.
Common-sense already tells you who was behind the objection in your case. Creating some new obtuse rule to verify what common sense is already telling you is only going to make this more opaque.
"The argument can also be made that the process of challenging a nomination supports the other candidate. Challenging a nomination increases the chance of running unopposed, thereby increasing the chance of your candidate getting elected.
Had Devaney's challenge been upheld, would Naomi be in a better or worse position to win the election? Does that not qualify as supporting a candidate (and, logically, fall under PAC requirements)?"
---
"Filing an objection to Calabrese's nomination, regardless of the basis of allegation, cannot possibly (as far as I know) help Calabrese. Therefore, the action implicitly helps Naomi's campaign, thereby requiring a PAC (if expenditures exceed $3000)."
The key word in these three paragraphs is "implicitly." While opposing the nomination of Frank may indirectly benefit Naomi, the electoral financial disclosure requirements have never been interpreted to cover actions which support or oppose a candidate only indirectly.
There are obvious reasons for this, not the least of which is the difficulty of arriving at a consistent definition of what actually constitutes indirect support. As a result, the election laws have always been both designed and interpreted as applying only to actions which directly support or oppose a named candidate; that is, the candidate in question must be the direct and immediate recipient of the action, whether positive or negative.
Calabrese needs to just drop out of the race and focus on whats most important in life! BEER PONG!!!!