“If a lawsuit challenging Illinois’ new pension-reform law reaches
the state Supreme Court, the overwhelming majority of justices might first want
to extend a ‘thank you’ before hearing arguments about the constitutional
merits of the case. That’s because they’ll be listening to their campaign
contributors — literally — make a case for and against the historic new law
that the General Assembly and Gov. Pat Quinn put on the books last month.
“All told, state records show six of seven justices have taken
close to a combined $3 million in campaign contributions tied to those with a
stake in the pension debate: labor unions, business groups and a political
committee controlled by House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, who last
month said the legislation could not have passed without his muscle…
“The largest beneficiary of pension-related money is Democratic
Justice Thomas Kilbride, a former chief justice of the court who in 2010 was
immersed in the nation’s most expensive judicial retention battle in nearly a
quarter century. During that fight, Kilbride took in $1.47 million from the
Democratic Party of Illinois, which is controlled by Madigan, the state party
chairman. That fund chipped in another $688,000 in 2000, when Kilbride was
first elected as a justice, assuring another decade-plus of Democratic control
of the state’s highest court.
“In his 2010 retention battle, Kilbride accepted another $467,360
from the Illinois Federation of Teachers, $100,300 from AFSCME Council 31 and
$16,000 from the Illinois AFL-CIO, all of which fought aggressively against the
pension legislation Quinn signed.
“Another member of the court who accepted substantial donations
from groups involved in the pension fight is Justice Lloyd Karmeier, a
Republican from downstate Nashville. In his 2004 ascension to the Supreme
Court, a battle that centered on tort reform and became the most expensive
state Supreme Court election in U.S. history up to that point, Karmeier
accepted $210,500 from the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, $35,000 from the
Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, $15,000 from the Chicagoland Chamber of
Commerce and $5,861 from the National Federation of Independent Businesses. All
of those groups lobbied at the Statehouse for the pension legislation Quinn
signed.
“The longest-tenured member of the court, Justice Charles Freeman,
also took in significant contributions from a Madigan-led committee during his
2000 retention campaign. The Democratic Party of Illinois gave the Chicago
Democrat $63,000. Those funds are on top of less than $3,000 from the Illinois
AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, which are both members
of the We Are One Illinois coalition that fought the pension bill…
“Other justices on the court who have taken $15,000 or less in
contributions from groups involved in the pension fight include Chief Justice
Rita Garman, Mary Jane Theis and Anne Burke. Justice Bob Thomas is the only
member of the high court who does not appear to have taken money from players
in the pension battle.
“In the December issue of Chicago Lawyer magazine, Garman said
there is no correlation between campaign fundraising and ‘judicial logic’ on
the bench. ‘I think politics plays no role in any of the issues that we have
before us,’ said Garman, who has received $6,750 in contributions from business
groups that fought the pension bill. If a legislative challenge goes up or
down, (it’s) based upon whether it meets the standards of our constitution. And
I think our court will analyze it that way. I know from time to time that there
is speculation about the party split on the court. That is not an issue with
the court,’ Garman [said].
“Justices now face no statutory limitations on the source of
campaign contributions. However, the Judicial Code of Conduct established by
the state Supreme Court bars judicial candidates from personally soliciting or
accepting contributions, assigning those tasks instead to a campaign committee.
In 2003, Obama led an effort to impose new campaign fundraising rules on the
state Supreme Court, but Madigan blocked the measure…
“Ironically, when the pension legislation was being deliberated on
the House floor, Madigan was pressed about why judges weren’t being asked to
sacrifice in the same manner as current and retired state workers, university
employees, lawmakers and downstate and suburban teachers. The Judges Retirement
System was the only one of five state pension systems carved out of the bill.
“‘The intent was to eliminate the possibility of a judicial
conflict during the adjudication of this matter through the court system,’ the
Southwest Side Democrat said when asked about the judges on the House floor by
Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington.
“In other words, the debate seemed to show Madigan didn’t want the
state’s seven Illinois Supreme Court justices being tempted to rule against a
controversial pension-reform package because their own state-funded pensions
were on the line.
“But the speaker was silent on the other ‘judicial conflict’ that
Obama and others have cited and that could emerge once the court wades into a
case that pits the interests of 750,000 current and retired government
employees against a prospective state budget meltdown caused by its $100
billion pension crisis.
“‘If it’s a conflict for judges to be in the pension bill,’ Rep.
Brady told the Sun-Times, ‘then it’s a conflict they’re taking money from the
groups they’ll make rulings about... Brady continued. ‘But you’re OK to collect
campaign contributions and remain fair and impartial, but you can’t be fair and
impartial and be in the pension bill? I’d be interested in how the speaker
answers that,’ he said.”
“…The lawsuit [filed Thursday] also contends the reform law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it does not apply to the Judges' Retirement System, the only one of the five state-funded retirement systems not affected…
ReplyDelete“Lawmakers excluded judges from the pension reform law to prevent what they said was a potential ‘judicial conflict.’ The lawsuit filed Thursday says that keeping judicial pensions intact while changing them for state workers and others ‘lacks a rational basis reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose.’”
from: http://www.rrstar.com/article/20140102/NEWS/140109914/?tag=1#ixzz2pOIlVBBB