Monday, July 14, 2008

Is Obama Afraid of Change for Illinois?

The presidential candidate for change has adopted the twin themes of "hope" and "change" for his political campaign. These themes are the creation of David Axelrod, Barack Obama's senior campaign adviser. It was a stroke of brilliance to tap into the widespread disaffection with Washington D.C. and the growing irritation among normal citizens that they have no say in their federal government. With approval ratings of the U.S Congress being around 9% (in other countries there would be an armed coup by now), the timing was perfect.

However, the same distrust and disgust are just as true with the state government of Illinois. We have a governor under multiple federal investigations, a General Assembly that can never seem to pass a budget, and political patronage happening out in the open with no regard for citizens. The gridlock in Springfield is universally despised and all other attempts to reform Illinois have failed. Change is sorely needed for Illinois.

That is why it is disappointing to see the same firm that crafted the candidate for change was just given a  two to three million dollar contract to oppose a constitutional convention. Among the arguments they will make is that convening a constitutional convention will give power to all the special interests, that the constitution will be made worse, and that there is no way to elect good people to a convention. They have already gone so far as to tell seniors that a constitutional convention will take their pensions away even though federal law is clear that it can't. In short, the ads can be reduced to a sound bite: "No… you can't."

In November, voters will be able to vote to convene a constitutional convention to amend the state charter. This would allow for the ending of gerrymandering, the practice of politicians picking their voters and not vice versa (see Illinois Congressional District 4's map for an illustration of how absurd the maps have gotten). An additional change could be adding the ability of citizens to recall elected officials, a right many states currently already enjoy.

Many of the problems that Illinois faces are a direct result of a constitution written in 1970 to create a "strong government." This allowed politicians to amass incredible power and to engage in rampant and overt corruption. For instance, the Cook County presidency was almost literally bequeathed from father (John Stroger) to son (Todd Stroger) reminiscent of a title of nobility in the Middle Ages. The constitution guarantees state pensions but it was also explicitly written to not require funding of the pensions. This has resulted in the worst funded pension system in the nation. We aren't even close to 49th place.

The governor can treat budgets as advisory and move money around at will. The leader of a legislative chamber can unilaterally kill a bill with no recourse by other members of the chamber (see House Bill 1 which was sponsored by over 80% of the Illinois Senate, yet still killed by Senator Debbie Halvorson).

In all this, the citizens are disempowered. Illinois election law is the most restrictive (and unconstitutional) in the Union. Third party and independent candidates are required to get over 10 times more signatures and are subject to capricious ballot challenges that keep them from being listed on the ballot. Ballot initiatives are not binding and routinely ignored by politicians.

Even the balanced budget requirement in the Constitution is considered a "moral imperative" when crafting the state budget. This requirement is unenforceable which is how the state gets away with trying to pass a budget $2 billion out of balance. Try considering paying your next property tax bill with a "moral imperative" and see how that works out.

Citizens are disempowered and government is dysfunctional. The result has been a grassroots movement comprised of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and those who normally would not associate with a political party. The citizens are demanding that Springfield change. The question is why the same people running Obama's campaign are saying, "Change you must fear."


John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for BC Magazine and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is author of the book, Illinois Deserves Better: The Ironclad Case for an Illinois Constitutional Convention and is an information security professional, part of the Internet Storm Center and a courseware author and certification grader for the GIAC family of security certifications. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.

4 comments:

bored now 6:16 AM  

so what the hell does this have to do with barack obama? or did you just throw in his name as a literary device?

Anonymous,  6:44 AM  

according to Dawn Netsch, IL constitution is fie, we have a leadership crisis, not a constitutional crisis...

Anonymous,  11:40 AM  

David Axelrod built the Obama campaign and its entire message. He's the same one running the "no" campaign.

As far as Dawn Clark Netsch, the same argument could be made for a monarchy... it's not a problem that we have a monarchy, we just need a better monarch...

The problem is that the current constitution gives FAR too much power to far too people and power corrupts.

bored now 4:59 PM  

i understand the relationship between david axelrod and barack obama. the question is, do you? you seem to suggest that it's ok to mislead people because you see obama and axelrod as the same. or you simply don't care what is true.

why don't you just provide a direct quote from obama where he says he's against change in illinois? at least that would be honest.

i get that you don't understand how the business of political (or media) consulting works. it's not that unusual for consultants to work on both sides of a message, so long as they stay on the same side of the partisan divide. your suggestion that axelrod's involvement means that obama is against change demonstrates a profound naivete on your part.

regardless, you can't back up your headline without extremely tortured reasoning. which leaves us wondering if you didn't apply the same kind of tortured reasoning to the rest of your diary. if only the truth was relevant here...

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP