A simple plan to get "big bucks" out of judicial elections

It is long-past time for the Illinois Supreme Court to make a new rule to get “big bucks” out of Illinois Judicial Elections. That rule should be designed to remove the incentive for donors to dump obscene amounts of money into Illinois Judicial elections.

What am I talking about?

Example 1. Lawyer X runs to fill a vacancy on the Illinois Supreme Court. X is a lifelong Democrat. To get Lawyer X on the Supreme Court, The Democratic Governor of Illinois contributes $1 million and the Democratic Speaker of the Illinois House contributes $350,000, to Lawyer X’s “Campaign Committee.” They do so because they believe it is more likely Lawyer X will approve the Congressional reapportionment map drawn by Democrats, than his Republican opponent.

Example 2. Lawyer X wins election and is now Mr. Justice X. After serving his 10-year term, he faces a “Retention Election.” He has no opponent. The ballot simply askes, “Shall Judge X be retained.” Q and Z are two Republican billionaires. Because Q and Z consider Justice X likely to vote for the Democrat’s reapportionment map, which they consider outrageously “gerrymandered,” they create a “Committee for an Honest Judiciary” and fund it to the tune of $7 million. With that $7 million they plan to run newspaper ads labeling Justice X, who has declined to recuse himself from consideration of that reapportionment case, “The best Judge money can buy,” “The governor’s pet judge.” Etc.

The governor and the speaker will be de facto parties-defendant (in their official capacities) in the suit to have the Democrat’s map declared “unconstitutional. The “CHJ” will also funds TV spots, bellowing that “Justice X, who has refused to recuse himself, after having taken $1,350,000 from the two defendants, is guilty of creating a gross appearance of impropriety.” And the “CHJ” will probably go on to accuse Justice X of “corruption” — “No honest judge takes $1.35 million as a campaign donation, and then sits on a case involving the donors.”

Lost in the hyperbole is the concept that the money wasn’t really given to the judge; it was, instead, given to his “campaign committee,” and that committee never told the judge of the S1.35 million. But then, of course, news of the donations makes all the newspapers.

My point is this: If Justice X sits on a case where a party donated $1.35 million, he paints a target on his back, and puts himself in a “no win” situation. Even if his decision is impeccably correct, roughly half the voters in the state will focus only upon the fact that he has taken $1.35 million from a party. This brings not only Justice X into disrepute, but, even worse, it brings the entire Illinois Judiciary into disrepute.

Can limits be put on the amount of money a person, corporation or other entity can contribute to a judicial campaign? Could the Supreme Court write a rule that said, “No judicial campaign committee shall receive a donation from any person, corporation, or other entity exceeding $100?” $500? $1,000? (Note: the sum would have to be small enough that no reasonable person would believe that such a campaign donation would be sufficient to influence any rationale judge.)

But would such severe limits pass constitutional muster? I don’t know. Donations have been equated with free speech in the case law.

I would therefore opt for an alternate “solution.” I would strongly suggest that the justices of the Illinois Supreme Court write the following Rule of Judicial Conduct:

“After his/her election or retention, the judge shall promptly make himself aware of all donations made to his “campaign committee “and keep a list of all those donations on hand. 

 

"The judge shall have a duty to recuse himself/herself in all cases where it appears that donating person, corporation or other entity has donated directly or indirectly more than $500 to the judge’s “campaign committee.”

I suggest the sum of $500 because no Illinois Judge, making an annual salary of $212,058 to $258,456 is going to be bribed for $500.

I am reasoning that if a litigant, who otherwise would donate $1 million or $5 million to a Judge’s “campaign committee,” knows that the judge won’t be able to hear his case, the incentive to donate vast amounts of money to the judge’s “campaign committee” will immediately disappear.

Maybe I am a “Pollyanna.” But I don’t like seeing judges paint targets on their own backs.

I don’t like judges doing anything that is likely to create an appearance of impropriety. The conduct of a single judge can bring an entire judiciary into disrepute — even if it is “ethical” under existing rules.

The drafters of the 1970 Illinois Constitution’s Judicial Article wanted to get money out of judicial elections. It’s time for the Illinois Supreme Court to implement that intent.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 11, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Street Gangs — A return to Barbarism and the Dark Ages

At the end of the first century, or at the beginning of the second an unknown Christian moralist wrote an instructional tract known as the Didache. It begins as follows: “There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways.”

 Recent events on the streets of Davenport demonstrate that that statement still rings true nearly 2000 years later. It puts in focus what happens when segments of society opt for “revenge,” rather than working within our criminal justice system, based on our U.S. Constitution. 

 

There is a fine line between a civilized society and barbarism. That line is crossed when citizens discard our criminal justice system, with its built-in safeguards for victims and defendants alike, and op instead for “revenge.” In doing so, the discard civilization and choose instead a “system” of survival of the fittest — might makes right —the ends justify the means. 

 

There was a time in human history, when there were no written laws and there were no courts to punish criminal acts. 

 

Moses and the Jewish people wandered for 40 years in the Sinai Desert. Moses realized that when the Jewish people reached the “Promised Land” they would need laws to punish murder, theft, perjury, and interference with established marital relationships. 

 

The Mayflower Compact of the Pilgrims was a similar acknowledgment. 

 

In the absence of the criminal law, to obtain justice for a wrong done, the injured party, his family, or his tribe relied upon “revenge.” Our newspapers daily show that that can happen even in a modern American city. Street gang killings are generally “revenge” killing. “Revenge” is their justification.

 

A recent Disptach front-page article by Tom Loewy, “It just a fact of life,” demonstrates the point. 

 

With no little effort the following facts can be extracted from the article. 

 

1. On May 19, 2018, 16-year-old Jovontia Jones was shot to death outside Hilltop Liquor,

during a drive-by shooting. No one has ever been charged in connection with his murder. 

[Note that his death is posited as the justification for the following criminal acts]. 

 

2. On Tuesday, May 22, 2023, John E. Hanes III was found guilty of the 2021 murder of Jamon Winfrey (age 14).

 

3. Nessiah Clark is presently on trial for the August 2022 attempted murder of Delmont Thomas. Clark is also charged with additional offenses, including possession of a firearm by a felon. 

 

To understand, how revenge fits into this equation, consider the following:

 

1. A woman present as a spectator at the trial of Nessiah Clark, identifying herself as Nessiah Clark’s mother, told Mr. Loewy, 

 

“I will say this: the violence of that day happened because of what happened in the past. Nobody shot anybody that day out of the blue, for no reason. Nessiah has been shot at before, and his half-brother (Aden), was shot at in the same incident. …. [D[id he carry a gun. Yes. he did. ….

 

“I would rather Nessiah to have a gun and not need it, rather than need a gun and not have it. … Maybe people don’t understand it, but there are killers out there. The threat of violence is very, very real for these yonng men. 

 

“It’s when he’s out on the streets, that I worry. Every time I hear sirens I wonder if he’s the one laying somewhere dead….”

 

2.. Davenport Police Sergeant Jordan Sanders said, Hanes was a member of the MMG. Street gang. Hanes fired on the car Whitney was in, because he believed members of Savage Life street gang. Sanders continued, “MMG and Savage Life had a “Shoot on sight” policy, when the spotted each other.”

 

3. According to Jovontia’s aunt, Sylvia Abbey, “MMG was basically a gang formed to avenge Jovi’s death.

 

 

Any rational writer or reader, of course, must be cautious when accepting the statements of street gang members, their family members, and their “associates.”. People who are willing to justify [revenge] murder, attempted murder, and possession of firearms by convicted felons, might just be inclined to lie when it serves their purposes. 

 

But my point is this: Street Gang Violence is a return to an age before criminal justice systems were known.  It is a return to survival of the fittest, and might makes right. It is a system which affords no rights whatsoever to the accused, and provides no safeguards for the innocent. Street gang violence, to be blunt, is a return to barbarism — and to the dark ages, where each killer is his own judge, jury and executioner.  

 

The people who eschew the criminal justice, turn their backs on assisting the police, and tolerate for street gang violence, deserve exactly what the get. 

 

Is it really possible to claim “Lives Matter” when guys with guns, probably acquired on the “Black Market,” gun down a 16-year-old boy standing outside liquor store? A 14-year-old-boy riding in a car? Another male outside a city gas station?

 

Is it really possible to claim that “Lives Matter” when rival gangs have a “Shoot on sight” policy? When a mother “would rather her son, a convicted felon, have a gun and not need it, rather than need a gun and not have it? And why did the convicted felon “need” a gun? Here, if the State’s allegations are true, he “needed” a gun to attempt murder.

 

The residents of a community have a choice There are two ways: The community can assist the police in bringing criminals to justice; or, they can put their trust in street-gang gunmen who operate a system of  “revenge.” 

 

I spent most of my professional life around police officers. A very few were not fit to be a police officer. But no cop that I have ever known has had “a shoot on sight policy” toward any group of people.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 4, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

 

 

Prediction: Bail provisions of the Safe -T Act will be found to be unconstitutional

On Nov. 9, 2022, a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed by the states’ attorneys from 66 of 102 Illinois counties. Their petition for summary judgment alleged that Public Act 101-652, and how it was enacted, were in flagrant violation of the Illinois Constitution, and the act should be stricken as void in its entirety.

In December 2022, a judge in Kankakee County declared certain portions of the “so-called” Illinois Safe-T Act unconstitutional. The ruling dealt with portions of the Act limiting the power of judges to impose “cash bail” on those arrested for various criminal offenses.

The state then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The court issued a stay of the lower court ruling, and heard arguments from the opposing sides in March 2022.

The 62 prosecutors put forth six arguments. I will address only two; they should be dispositive.

First: Because the act is not limited in scope to the “criminal law” even under a generous reading, it violates the single-subject clause set forth in Article IV, Section 8(d) of the Illinois Constitution, and is void in its entirety.

The argument is that “reforming bail” is “criminal in nature.”

A state law pertaining to “whistleblowing,” applicable to 7,000 units of Illinois local government, isn’t “criminal in nature.” Nor is a law expanding the “Treatment Act” to other first responders. Nor is an act specifying how penitentiary prisoners must be counted for the purpose of determining representative districts. Nor is granting the attorney general increased powers to pursue civil actions, etc. for the court of claims.

The gist of the argument is this: “The “plain language of the act addresses multitudes of subjects with no natural or logical connection to criminal law. “

On this argument alone, the 62 prosecutors should win. Otherwise, the single-subject clause of the Illinois Constitution is a nullity. If they prevail on this argument, the court would not need consider the remaining arguments, because the Illinois Supreme Court has held that when the law violates the single subject clause, the entire law is struck down.

Second: By eliminating monetary bail and by creating a myriad of rules and strictures that severely restrict the exercise of judicial discretion to consider and assign appropriate weight to the most germane facts, the General Assembly encroached upon the inherent functions of the judiciary and violated the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution in Article II, Section 1.

Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution provides: “The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are separate. No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another.” The Illinois Supreme Court has held that if “power is judicial in character, the legislature is expressly prohibited from exercising it. Judicial power is that which adjudicates upon the rights of citizens and to that end construes and applies the law.”

Legislative enactments undermining the “traditional and inherent” powers of the judicial branch, particularly, those restricting judicial discretion, violate the Separation of Powers Clause.

The Supreme Court has also recognized that “matters concerning court administration” fall within the inherent power of the judiciary, and the legislature is “without power to specify how the judicial power shall be exercised under a given circumstance.”

The Illinois Supreme Court has specifically held that bail is “administrative” in nature, and that the court has independent, inherent authority to deny or revoke bail to “preserve the orderly process of criminal procedure.”

The Supreme Court has held that the trial court had inherent discretion to hold the defendant in custody even though he was eligible for bail under the Illinois Constitution.

In Elrod, the Supreme Court expressly recognized that the court has the ultimate authority in determining the appropriateness of bail. The defendant in Elrod was charged with non-capital murder and held without bail, even though the Illinois Constitution at the time imparted a right to bail to “all persons ... except for capital offenses.” The court began its analysis by stating:

“In our opinion, the constitutional right to bail must be qualified by the authority of the courts, as an incident of their power to manage the conduct of the proceedings before them, to deny or revoke bail when such action is appropriate to preserve the orderly process of criminal procedure.”

Although Public Act 101-652 does grant very limited authority to the court to enforce its pretrial release orders through sanctions, this does not cure the legislative overreach into the inherent powers of the judiciary. 725 ILCS 5/110–6. The legislature is “without power to specify how the judicial power shall be exercised under a given circumstance.”

The Illinois Supreme Court held that even though the Juvenile Court Act made no provision for the bail of an allegedly delinquent minor, the court had inherent power to set bail.

Since its beginnings, (in medieval England) the concept of bail has always involved money – whether cash, collateral, credit, or the conditional promise of payment by a surety. Requiring a “bond with sufficient sureties is premised on the assumption that economic loss to the accused, his family or friends, will assure his appearance for trial.”

Acting as a surety must involve some threat of loss and, accordingly, bail bonds secured by cash deposit or stocks and bonds equal in value to the bail are constitutional. Determining appropriate surety to compel the appearance of a defendant is a judicial, not a legislative function.

Argument two standing alone should also be dispositive of the case. I can’t imagine any judiciary ceding its constitutional authority and discretion to control bail to any legislature.


My prediction is that the trial judge will be affirmed.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 30, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Many owe Trump — and others damaged — a full, fair and very public apology.

“In short, the freedom and liberty of every American rests upon nothing more than a fragile understanding,” written on a 15-page scrap of paper” (the U.S. Constitution) John Donald O’Shea, Moline Dispatch, Dec. 1, 2014.

On May 12, 2023, John H. Durham, Special Council for the United States Department of Justice, submitted his report on matters related to intelligence activities and investigations arising out of the 2016 presidential campaigns to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.

The 306-page report is a damning indictment of the conduct of the “top men” in our FBI and our intelligence agencies.

But will most Americans even consider reading its 13-page “Executive Summary?” Or is this a case of, “Don’t bother me with the facts; I already have made up my mind.”


In his Executive Summary, Durham writes:

“Based on the evidence gathered in multiple exhaustive and costly Federal investigations on the matter (including those of the U.S. House, the Inspector General, and Special Counsel Mueller), neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appear to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of Crossfire Hurricane investigation." 

 

“Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents. The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when, at about the same time, the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence.”

The bottom line is this: the “Trump Collusion Claim” was a hoax, an attempt to frame President Trump, and a fraud upon the American people, which was begun with no basis in evidentiary facts, fueled by perjury and slovenly practice in pleadings before the FISA court, and funded, directly or indirectly, by operatives of the Hilary Clinton campaign, based on a dossier, with no basis in truth, that it paid for.

As a result of the fraud, the lives of innocent Americans — George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and Gen. Flynn — were financially wrecked and their reputations destroyed, as they were indicted, publicly arrested, jailed, convicted on false testimony while exculpatory evidence was purposefully withheld.

President Trump was falsely labeled a “traitor,” and his administration was enmeshed in a web of lies and two impeachments over the course of four years. And the campaign of lies probably cost him the 2020 election.

And as all this was going on, a Democratic Congress, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and major newspapers throughout the nation, political spokesmen like Adm. Kirby, Twitter and Facebook all eschewed their independence and integrity. And most continued to “peddle the hoax” even after the Mueller Report found their was ‘no Russian collusion.”

For me, the last sentence of Durham’s “Executive Summary” seems to “say it all.”

“The promulgation of additional rules and regulations (to govern the FBI handling of such investigations) to be learned in yet more training sessions would likely prove to be a fruitless exercise if the FBI’s guiding principles of “fidelity, bravery and integrity” are not engrained in the hearts and minds of those sworn to meet the FBI mission of “Protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution of the United States.”

(Note the similarity of my 2014 quote, above).

So, what’s my suggestion to put an end to this monumental hoax and fraud upon the American people? How are the reputations of Donald Trump, et al to be restored? How do the likes of the NY Times, NBC, CNN, et al, ever regain their integrity, self-respect and public respect?

They publicly and unequivocally must confess their errors. Next, they must fully and unequivocally apologize to the American people, the victims of the baseless prosecutions, and to now private-citizen Donald J. Trump. If newspapers, they do so, with banner headlines, perhaps for a week straight. If TV or cable media, they do so, so openly and repeatedly — perhaps for a solid week — so that none of the regular viewers could miss their apologies,

There is a passage in the Act of the Apostles where Paul and Silas are deprived of their rights as Roman citizens, beaten, jailed and put in chains by the magistrates of Philippi. Then when the magistrates were apprised of their error, they personally went to the jail, and publicly made their apologies. No less should happen here.

Nor should this ever happen again in America. 

Any bets?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 21, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

If policy differences basis for termination, let voters know

On April 22, 2023, the Dispatch-Argus ran Olivia Allen’s article, “A ‘mutual’ separation for board, Lawrence,” on the paper’s front page. Perhaps, because I do not live within the Rock Island-Milan School District, I did not read the article.

I did not give the article a second-thought until a friend of mine at the golf course asked, “Why the school board got rid of the superintendent? And why did they agree to pay him $350,000?”

After having had to admit, that “I didn’t know,” and that “I hadn’t read the article,” I went back and read it.

In reading the article, I learned that Dr. Lawrence was the board’s superintendent, pursuant to a contract with the school board. Lawrence had served four years under his contract, and that his contract was not up for renewal until 2025.

I also learned that Dr. Lawrence’s performance as Superintendent had recently been evaluated, and that the Board discussed that with him at a closed meeting of the Board on March 21st. (A closed hearing for that purpose would be proper).

I further learned that Dr. Lawrence had not been “fired.” Rather, his contract had been terminated pursuant to the mutual agreement of Dr. Lawrence and the school board, with the board paying him $350,000 for Lawrence agreeing to the early termination. (I saw no problem with that, either).

In the words of Board President Terrell Williams, “The circumstances leading up to the contract termination were a “personnel matter, that the Board … will not comment on. …. (The goal was) always to do so amicably.”

But that was followed by the rather inexplicable comment by outgoing Board member, Tiffany Stoner-Harris: “(She) could see Lawrence being a great superintendent somewhere.”

So, why do you get rid of a superintendent who could be a “great superintendent somewhere?”

And why do you pay him $350,000 to go somewhere else, quickly?

Personally, I have no interest in whether Dr. Lawrence remains superintendent or not. I have never met the man, nor followed his handling of board’s affairs.

But the voters in the Rock Island-Milan School District do.

As an old Moline Corporation Council, before writing this, I spent four or five hours examining Illinois’ Open Meetings Law, in which the underlying “policy” is clearly stated:

“Policy. It is the public policy of this state that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business, and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business.

“In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

“The General Assembly further declares it to be the public policy of this state that its citizens shall be given advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way.

“Exceptions to the public’s right to attend exist only in those limited circumstances where the General Assembly has specifically determined that the public interest would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed rights of individuals would be clearly in danger of invasion.

“To implement this policy, the General Assembly declares:

    (1) it is the intent of this act to protect the citizen’s right to know; and

    (2) the provision for exceptions to the open meetings requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings.”

The Board here appears to have properly closed the meeting under what is commonly called the “personnel exception:”

(a) Openness required. All meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public unless excepted in subsection (c) ….

(b) Construction of exceptions. The exceptions contained in subsection (c) are in derogation of the requirement that public bodies meet in the open, and therefore, the exceptions are to be strictly construed, extending only to subjects within their scope. The exceptions authorize but do not require the holding of a closed meeting to discuss a subject included within an enumerated exception.

(c) Exceptions: A public body may hold closed meetings to consider the following subjects: The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees ….

Here the meeting appears to have been properly closed to discuss “employment, compensation, … performance, and dismissal of a specific employee” — the superintendent.

Nobody, however, involved seemingly is making any claim that Dr. Lawrence’s “performance” was deficient in any substantial way that would justify his termination for cause. Rather as the board president indicated, it was a mutually agreed amicable termination. Indeed, Ms. Stoner-Harris states that she “Could see Lawrence being a great superintendent somewhere.”

Ms. Stoner-Harris' statement gives credence to Dr. Taylor’s comment that the termination came about because Dr. Lawrence did not see “eye to eye” with a majority of the Board members.

I think that my friend, and the school district's voters are entitled to know wherein the board and Dr. Lawrence did not see eye to eye. That is a matter of policy, and not within any exception to the Open Meetings Act. The voters are entitled to know where the board members stand on “policies” affecting the students of the district.

If issues of policy were in fact involved, it is difficult to see how, if a straight-forward joint statement was made setting out the differences between the Board Majority and Dr. Lawrence, “the public interest would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed fights of individuals would be clearly in danger of invasion.”

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 7, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Failure to recuse in eyes of reasonable public

On April 18, 2023, The Dispatch ran a front-page story: “New justices won’t recuse themselves” (in a case challenging the state’s recently passed ban on assault weapons and high- capacity magazines).

The Justices involved are both Democrats: Mary Kay O’Brien and Elizabeth Rochford. (I have never met either).

The motion asking them to recuse themselves, or requiring that they be disqualified from hearing the case, alleges that during their 2022 campaigns for election to the Illinois Supreme Court, both newly elected justices received substantial “campaign donations” from Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Speaker of the Illinois House Emanuel ‘Chris” Welch — both Democrats —both of whom are named in the suit as defendants (in their official capacities).

While they were candidates, both judges received:

$500,000 from the ‘J.B’ for Governor campaign; and
$500,000 from the Jay Robert Pritzker Revocable Trust;

In addition, Justice O’Brien received $350,000, and Justice Rockford received $150,000 from the Welch Campaign Committee.

(Both received endorsements from two prominent gun-control lobby groups: The Gun Violence Prevention PAC, and The Gifford PAC. Because of word limitations, this op ed won’t address the problems, if any, that such endorsements might pose).

So, why would anybody donate $1 million to get a judge elected. I can only think of two reasons:

1. The candidate will be a brilliant, hard-working, impartial, independent judge, brimming with integrity. 

 

2. The donors believe that the judge, once elected, will be grateful, loyal, and inclined to repay “the favors.”

For purposes of this op ed, I am assuming here that both judges are “brimming with integrity, etc.”

But what does it look like to the public when a judge hears a case when a defendant in the case — the governor of Illinois — has just given the judge $1,000,000?

Does it appear any better because JB Pritzker is being sued only as governor, and not personally?

Does judging a case, after taking a $1,000,000 donation from one of the parties, “promote public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary?”

Judges are mandated to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Even if the judge is “brimming with integrity, etc.,” doesn’t it look improper for that judge to sit on a case where a litigant contributed $1 million to secure the judge’s election?


The first and most important rule governing the conduct of judges is this:

“A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”

In Illinois, once a person becomes a judge, the rules are strict. A judge shall not accept any gifts, … benefits, favors, or other things of value, except as follows:

(1) Items with little intrinsic value, such as plaques, certificates, trophies, and greeting cards; ….
(10) Gifts, loans, bequests, benefits, favors, or other things of value, only if the donor is not … likely to come before the judge ….

Is a $1,000,000 campaign contribution of little intrinsic value?


But can a candidate for judicial office accept any gifts, … benefits, favors, or other things of value? No and yes.

No, because a judicial candidate shall not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions.

Additionally, the candidate shall prohibit employees … from doing on the candidate’s behalf what the candidate is prohibited from doing under the provisions of this rule.

Yes, because a judicial candidate subject to public election may establish a campaign committee.

“A judicial candidate subject to public election shall direct the campaign committee: (1) to solicit and accept campaign contributions only as permitted by law;

The comments to these rules are explanatory.

“Judicial candidates are prohibited from personally soliciting campaign contributions or personally accepting campaign contributions. … This rule recognizes that, in many jurisdictions, judicial candidates must raise campaign funds to support their candidacies and permits candidates … to establish campaign committees to solicit and accept reasonable financial contributions or in-kind contributions.

 

“During the campaign, the candidate and the campaign committee should be aware that a contribution may affect the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judge and may create grounds for disqualification if the candidate is elected to office.”

Were I on the Judicial Inquiry Board — and I am not — I would read the preceding paragraph in conjunction with the first rule of Judicial Conduct (set out above).

“A judge must not take any campaign contribution that creates, in the eyes of reasonable members of the public, any “appearance of impropriety.”

And I would further read it to say that, 

”In any case coming before the judge, where one of the judge’s campaign contributors is a party, and where in the eyes of reasonable members of the public there would be an appearance of impropriety, to preserve the public trust in the impartiality of the judiciary, all doubts must be resolved in favor of recusal.”

Recusal here would leave the Supreme Court two short of its full seven judges. But the court has power to appoint two judges to fill those temporary vacancies.


There are plenty of judges — currently sitting or retired — who could be appointed to fill the two temporary vacancies to hear the case. Judges who would not carry with them the “appearance of impropriety.” This would promote public confidence.


By failing to recuse, Justices O’Brien and Rockford, put themselves and perhaps the entire Illinois Judiciary into a “no-win situation.” If they rule for the defendants, they will look like “the best judges money can buy” — even if their decision is impeccably correct. They cannot rule for the defendant without creating an “appearance of impropriety” or worse, a stench of corruption.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 30, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Ideas should win or lose in “The marketplace of ideas.”

I have recently written and published two op eds questioning the wisdom of spending $400,000,000 to create high-speed rail service between Chicago and Moline (or Davenport or Iowa City).

My goal, as an opinion writer, is to take a position that forces my readers to think the issue through. I make every effort to take, what I believe to be, the sound position. I feel I have achieved my goal when my opinions provoke strong responses — expressing supporting and contrary opinions. As I have stated frequently, I believe the best ideas ultimately prevail in the “marketplace of ideas.” That is why I have no use for people and governments who would suppress opposition speech.

In response to my two Amtrak op eds, I have received two letters. The first utterly disagrees with me. The second, thanks me. I set both out in full below. You judge which one makes more sense — when you are being asked to expend 400 million taxpayer dollars. I have no recollection of ever having met or spoken to either man.

The first letter came in the form of a Letter to the Editor, from Tom Walsh of LeClaire:

“The Times recently printed former Judge O’Shea’s opinion that rather than expand Amtrak to Moline, his “best guess” is that Amtrak advocates should instead buy toy trains. That supercilious conclusion is followed by a litany of unanswered questions. Allow me.

“Cost of train vs. Airfare? Flying to Chicago coast $225 — $450. (Booking.com) vs. $16 — $26 for the Princeton — Chicago train, which extrapolates to $24 — $40 for Moline — Chicago.

“How many people would use Amtrak? A “best guess” is that people now squeezed into airplanes would gladly choose Amtrack comfort — and security — at one-tenth the cost.

“Additional travel costs getting to one’s ultimate destination, by taxi or Uber? Chicago has an excellent public transportation system for commuter and tourists alike, linked to O’Hare. By remarkable coincidence, many commuter trains operate from Union Station, just like Amtrak does. Who would have thought?

“Travelers headed to the Loop can walk. No need for Uber, your honor.

“Subsequently, O’Shea tried to justify his foregone conclusion with an article focused on Amtrak’s recent operating losses, which were magnified by COVID. He implies that Amtrak’s profitable Northeast Corridor is an anomaly. Instead, it is a model to be replicated — an efficient, environmentally superior system, unfettered by slow-moving freight trains.

"O’Shea questions whether Amtrak can recoup the $400,000,000 in track upgrades. Curiously, he omitted such analysis of another $1,200,000,000 infrastructure upgrade — the I-74 bridge.

“Thankfully, O’Shea merely fulminates here, no longer dispensing his foregone conclusions and double standards from the bench.”

The second comes from Ron Moore:

“I recently read your column titled “From Moline to Chicago: By Amtrak? Or by limousine?” and would like to share the service my company already offers.

“I own Burlington Trailways and we are a motorcoach company that is appropriately licensed, insured, and compliant with FMCSA regulations.

“I have owned the company since 1981 and currently run three motorcoaches from Davenport, Iowa, to Chicago, Illinois, every day. A passenger can take our motorcoach from Moline, Illinois, to Davenport, Iowa, to catch these schedules.

“Our motorcoaches are 45’ (long) vehicles with seating capacity for 54 passengers. Each motorcoach is also wheelchair lift equipped and can accommodate two wheelchairs onboard. There is a restroom onboard and plenty of storage underneath the cabin for luggage.

“Tickets for these schedules can be conveniently purchased from www.trailways.com or in-person at the Davenport or Moline depots.

“I am happy to answer any questions or provide more information if you desire. Thank you for bringing attention to transportation in the area!“

The essential question is how many people will “commute” on a daily basis between Chicago and Moline (or beyond) using Amtrak? 100? 200? 1,000? (It is the “commuters” who make the NE Corridor profitable).

It is suggested that since $1.2B was spent to build the new I-74 bridge, that spending a mere $400M on high-speed rail, is money well-spent. But more than 80,000 vehicles cross the I-74 bridge daily — 29.2 million yearly! Even were Amtrack to carry 1,000 per day, that’s 1/80th of what the bridge carries. So, which is the better bargain?

It is opined is that most “commuters” who now fly, will switch to Amtrak. How many “air commuters” are there?

It is easy to spend money when it isn’t yours — especially when the government spreads it around like manure. But if the $400M must be spent, is spending it on high-speed rail the best transportation option?

Can anybody point to a single Amtrak route outside the “NE Corridor” that has ever turned a profit? If not, then, in addition to the $400M “start-up costs,” expect additional substantial annual losses. Just look at any Amtrak P & L.

The new Amtrak cars look terrific. They should for $400M! But how much of a subsidy would it take to allow the extant limo or motor coach (bus) services operating between Chicago and Moline to up-grade their equipment? If it were to take $4M a year, they could operate for 100 years on $400M. And busses and limos run on roads and bridges that already exist. And if they ran at annual losses, they’d be out of business.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 23, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea