Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Up Close and Personal With Your Aldermanic Candidates

Hey, have you heard, there's an aldermanic election coming up?  In just about a month and a half, voters in the 46th Ward will choose between three candidates, and voters in the 47th Ward will choose between two.  In the 48th, Harry Osterman is running unopposed.

So who are these people and what do they say they'll do for you if (re)elected?  The Tribune and Sun-Times sent out questionnaires that are now online for you to peruse, and the Independent Voters of Illinois has the answers of two 46th Ward candidates.

Click on the links after each candidate's name to get their questionnaire responses.  It's interesting to compare what they say, not only when comparing them to the other candidates' answers, but also comparing their responses to what they've said in other questionnaires.

46th Ward:
47th Ward:


  1. I just took a quick gander at those links. I will try to limit my fowl comments.

    Get it? Gander? Fowl? Nevermind.

    To Denice and Cortez: Spellcheck is not the work of Satan. Nuff said.

    Amy is reporting that's she's raised $140,000 so far with a $300,000 budget. It's nice to be a big firm partner. She must be raising some decent bucks in under $1000 donations because she's reported around 70-80 grand in larger donations.

    She also has a campaign manager, a finance manager and an attorney on staff. Must be nice. They also plan to hire some field organizers. Why we need our fields organized is beyond me, but organize away. I do find the finance manager and attorney bits amusing. Attorney? Freedom of speech related lawsuits? Angry letters? Please don't throw me in the litigious briar patch.

    For someone with relatively little "profile" in the ward prior to announcing she seems to be trying to make up for that with money and professional help. Might work. Might not. I'd vote for not.

    If I were Cappleman I'd just send out a flyer with her 70-80 grand in bigger donations. Last time I looked there was ONE donation from inside the ward besides her own. ONE being the operative word and acronym. Wink wink. Maybe I missed some others and as time goes on she will certainly raise some cash within the ward. I'd guess that perhaps ten percent of her projected 300 grand budget will come from within the 46th.

    Denice projects a $65,000 budget and has raised around $1650 with $6500 pledged and some scheduled fundraisers. I'm no LaSalle street finance wizard, but I think 65 grand ain't gonna happen. I will give the DD campaign one complement though. She's has run an effective campaign with minimal financial support. She is organizing and will likely get her voters out on election day even if she takes in no more money. After this is all done like the French Army she will be able to claim that she "lost with honor".

    I'd also like to complement Amy for making me feel ALMOST sorry for Denice. I didn't think it was possible. Here's Denice working at varying degrees of urgency for 18 months or so to get elected and some relative unknown comes along and raises 100+ grand with seemingly little effort. It's good to be a big law firm partner! Thank you Amy for ALMOST uniting me and Denice at least on that one issue. Perhaps you are the pragmatic unity type candidate who raises big bucks that this ward needs.

    When I sober up I will reread the links and perhaps make some more silly commentary.

  2. I'm confused by Amy's statement that she has the endorsement of Alternatives. It's a 501c3 that can't make political endorsements or get involved with politics in any way. Either they believe so much in Amy that they're willing to give up their tax-free status or she's not telling the truth about them endorsing her. I wonder which is true?

  3. Boohoo calm down or I will link to George Harrison singing "Wah Wah". It's a horrible song.

    The staff and board of Alternatives may very well support her and as long as they don't use non profit resources to tout her campaign that will be ok. If they start using their phones or spaces to raise money or votes for her that would be a big problem.

    If they festooned their 501c3 offices with her signs that would be a problem. If they offered her office space or use of their facilities that would be an issue. If they touted her campaign on their website etc etc.

    Even first rate attorneys such as Ms Crawford will use less than perfect language on occasion.

    In 2007 JPUSA festooned many of their superbly maintained buildings in the ward with Shiller signs. When questioned about it their response was basically something like "We're the JESUS People. You others are the SATAN people. F' Off." Then when you get into what's a for profit part of their dwindling empire of shame and what's a non profit part it gets even more confusing.

    Give her a break and let's see how this campaign shakes out. If 501c3 non profits start breaking the law and clearly using resources to support candidates bring it up. As I walk along the streets and pass curb cuts in the ward I'm always on the lookout for candidate signs. If one pops up in an inappropriate non profit I will bring it up.

  4. Section F of Denice's iviipo doc (linked above) is an utter train-wreck. After reading that parade of spelling and grammatical errors, I would actively work against her if I thought she had a chance.
    It's quite an amusing read.

  5. Oh, no, my friend, she's on thin legal ice if she claims Alternatives has endorsed her. She should know that, being a big deal partner for a big deal firm. Unless she's listening to her partner, Big Jim Thompson, Gov. Ryan's best buddy.

    The good ol' IRS says: "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

    1. If Alternatives or any other such 501 supports a candidate they are on thin legal ice. Candidates claiming they're support...........I'm not sure.

      I'd give her a break on this one, at least so far, but if you choose not to have at it. "Cry havoc and let slips the IRS". Woof Woof.

  6. Excuse me I hate to let facts get in the way of a conversation but Amy Crawford did not say she has the endorsement of Alternatives. She said she has the 'support' of Randall Doubet-King who is a board member of a number of places including Alternatives, read it again hair fashionites....

    1. Juan or do you prefer John. Let me start on this. On your Mark set go.

      You're right. Amy did say she has the support of the retired Reverend and not the support of the organizations. That is a key distinction. Reading is fundamental. Also fundamental is good hair care practice or as Cappleman might say "best practice".

      You really should start showing up at more meetings. While your hair lacks Littleltonian bounce and shine with a teeny bit of work and perhaps a few fur balls thrown in your personality could rival his for "obsession".

      Always happy to see another Uptown nutjob finding his own way on the internet. You've been developing now for quite a while adding ID's and websites. I always enjoy multiple personalities. Why have one when many are so much more fun.

      Have you considered crossdressing? Think D Hoffman in "Trixie". Wait I meant "Tootsie". Trixie sounds like a cat's name.

      Now as for Reverend King the last time I looked I think he was the only person in the 46th who had given her at least $1000. The other 70-80 grand was from outside our lovely ward. Now I expect that much big money will come from outside the ward for candidates, but I'd like to see it kept to a percentage of say under 95 percent.

      Do you agree? It's a rhetorical question.

  7. Uptown Rocks, you are wrong. In the IVI-IPO questionnaire------"Q. Please list all endorsements you have received so far. A. In addition to my recent first endorsement by Reclaim Chicago, I have the support of Ward leaders, such as Randall Doubet-King, a retired pastor and board member of Planned Parenthood, the Chicago Coalition to End Homelessness, and Alternatives (a youth organization based in Uptown)."

    What Ms Crawford omits mentioning is that Randall Doubet-King is not only a board member of Planned Parenthood, but also a board member of ONE, those lovely folks who wanted to solve the Lawrence House crisis by holding tenant meetings and whose idea of "action" is to throw guests out of meetings and take buses to their homes to protest. They were also the darlings of former alderman Helen Shiller and former aldermanic candidate Marc Kaplan. Could be why Ms. Crawford had Shiller posters in the windows of her home a few years back. She not only claims the support of an organization that is not allowed by law to give it----shame on her for not knowing that, or for being disingenuous and figuring out no one else would----and for trying to misrepresent Randall Doubet-King's main affiliation as well.