• In Wisconsin, ad wars, and National Guard vs. unions?

    From NBC's John Yang and Domenico Montanaro
    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) new budget is drawing praise from some and criticism from others. The budget makes public workers, well, the public enemy. It goes after their collective-bargaining abilities and mandates that they ante up for their health care.

    “The Wisconsin State AFL-CIO on Sunday launched a major advertising campaign against Gov. Scott Walker's plan that would erase almost all collective bargaining rights for most public workers as a way to shore up the state's finances,” the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel writes. “The television and radio ads say Walker and other politicians plan to "take away rights of thousands of nurses, teachers and other trusted public employees" and are doing so with almost no public discussion or debate.” More: “The Legislature could act this week on the bill, which would shore up the state's finances through June 30. A public hearing is expected on the bill Tuesday in the Legislature's budget committee. The bill would require the vast majority of state, local and school employees to pay half the costs of their pensions and pay at least 12.6% of their health care premiums.”

    And then there’s this: “The bargaining law changes would apply to all public workers except police, firefighters and state troopers. The unions for state troopers, Milwaukee police officers and Milwaukee firefighters all endorsed Walker, while most other unions endorsed his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.” 

    The union ad buy was largely in response to this Wisconsin Club for Growth ad in support of the governor's plan. The ad went up on Friday, shortly after Walker announced his plan. The conservative group is run by a former top Walker campaign adviser.

    So could it pass the state legislature? While the Republicans have a commanding 57-38 majority (plus one Independent) in the Wisconsin house, they have a much narrower 19-14 majority in the state Senate. The Senate majority leader says he doesn't know when the chamber will take it up, effectively acknowledging he doesn't have the votes yet. Four Republicans were quoted in the Journal-Sentinel saying they weren't ready to commit to support the legislation and another four Republicans whose districts have lots of state workers wouldn't return phone calls.

    The Journal-Sentinel’s editorial board largely backs Walker on his moves: “Walker is right to do this. He must insist that state workers pay a bigger share of their benefits. And he's right to take steps to compel them to do so. The governor is overreaching in some respects. And even if he wins the bruising fight to come in the state Capitol, he risks alienating broad swaths of independent voters. But Walker must fill a gaping budget hole of $137 million for the fiscal year that ends June 30 and a much larger imbalance in the next two-year budget. Something has to give.”

    And AP had this: “Gov. Scott Walker says the Wisconsin National Guard is prepared to respond if there is any unrest among state employees in the wake of his announcement that he wants to take away nearly all collective bargaining rights. Walker said Friday that he hasn't called the Guard into action, but he has briefed them and other state agencies in preparation of any problems.”

    The mention of the National Guard in Walker's Friday news conference was specifically in reference to state prisons. He said he would call out the Guard to take control of prisons if Corrections Officers went on strike or took any other sort of job action. Union officials say they don't have any plans to. One union official said the governor was "baiting" guards.  Walker’s bill would maintain the workers' ability to negotiate over pay and only over pay -- it would strip them of their rights to negotiate any other benefits or work rules. Any raises couldn't exceed inflation, all contracts would be limited to one year and employees would be required to vote every year on whether to recertify the union as their bargaining agent.

  • Ill. court issues stay; Rahm back on the ballot

    From NBC's John Yang
    The Illinois Supreme Court has just issued a stay of the appeals court's order knocking Rahm Emanuel off the ballot and directing the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners to restore his name to the ballot.

    This is a strong indication that the court will accept the case and, perhaps, of which way the justices are leaning.

    *** UPDATE *** NBC's Pete Williams has more:

    Less than 24 hours after an Illinois appeals court bumped Rahm Emanuel off the ballot for Chicago's election for mayor, the state's supreme court put that ruling on hold and ordered the city to include his name on any ballots being printed.

    "The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering this case, the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago," the Supreme Court said in a one-page, unsigned order.

    The court said it acted after receiving legal briefs from Emanuel and from his legal opponents who claimed he was unqualified because he did not meet residency requirements of state law. Today's order left unresolved whether the state's high court would take up the entire case on a speeded-up basis, but the order gave Emanuel the rapid relief he was seeking -- to keep his name on the ballot.

    *** UPDATE TWO***  NBC Chicago's Mary Ann Ahern reports that the court will hear Emanuel's appeal.

  • Emanuel's attorneys file appeal

    From NBC's John Yang
    Rahm Emanuel's attorneys have filed their appeal with the Illinois State Supreme Court.

    Technically, it is a request for permission to file an appeal. It takes four of the seven justices to agree to hear the case. One of the justices is Anne Burke, the wife of powerful Chicago Alderman Ed Burke, who has endorsed Emanuel opponent Gery Chico. Ed Burke is also the chairman of the panel that decides which Democratic judicial candidates get the blessing of the Cook County Democratic Party -- so a lot of judges owe their election to his support.

    Both the traditionally Republican Chicago Tribune editorial page and the editorial page of the Chicago Sun-Times blasted the appeals court ruling that knocked Emanuel off the ballot. The Trib editorial's headline: "Judicial Arrogance." The Sun-Times': "Rahm ruling a disservice to voters."

    *** UPDATE *** NBC's Pete Williams breaks down the appeal:

    Yesterday's court decision "is one of the most far-reaching election law rulings ever to be issued by an Illinois court, not only because of its implications for the current Chicago mayoral election but also for the unprecedented restriction that it imposes" on the ability of people to run for office, Emanuel's lawyers say in briefs filed today.

    The lower court found that while Emanuel was qualified to vote in the election, he wasn't qualified to run, because he did not physically live in Chicago for at least a year before Election Day. Such a finding has never been endorsed by any state appeals court in Illinois, his lawyers argue.

    In fact, Emanuel's lawyers say, previous court rulings hold that the residency requirements for candidates are based on the rules voting eligibility. The lower court simply made up a stricter standard for candidates, they argue.

    They also claim that the lower court's new standard -- that a candidate must physically live in a city for a year in order to run for local office -- would create all kinds of doubt. What about people whose companies assign them to work for a month on a special project out of town? How about members of Congress who are typically gone for several days a week? Would they be barred from running for a municipal office, on the grounds that they did not physically live in the city for an entire year before an election?

    Monday night, Emanuel's lawyers asked the state supreme court to block the lower court's order and direct election officials to keep his name on the ballot. The court has not yet acted on that request.

  • Emanuel to appeal residency decision

    From NBC's John Yang
    CHICAGO -- Rahm Emanuel's attorneys say they intend to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, perhaps as soon as tomorrow.

    Four of the seven Supreme Court justices have to agree to hear the case. One of the justices is the wife of Chicago Alderman Edward Burke, who has endorsed one of Emanuel's opponents. One of Emanuel's attorneys tells WMAQ's Mary Ann Ahern that they do not intend to ask her to recuse herself.

    Emanuel's lead attorney also acknowledges to Ahern that the state Supreme Court does not usually overturn the appeals court.

    And early voting in the race starts one week from today -- Jan. 31.

  • Leadership fights, you don't know what you're missing

    From NBC's John Yang
    The arrangement to avoid an intraparty leadership fight as House Democrats head into their new minority status may be good for their party unity, but it's definitely bad for connoisseurs of political drama. For political junkies, few things match a congressional leadership contest: Politicians politicking politicians, an entertaining mix of the simplicity of a high school class election and all the scheming and intrigue of dinner at the Borgias.

    Congressional history is littered with lawmakers who found their colleagues the toughest precinct they'd ever worked. As members assess the candidates, they weigh what the success -- or failure -- of each would mean to their own standing.

    Politicians are not only adept at telling people what they want to hear, they sometimes hear what they want to hear: Commitments of support are not always what they seem to be. The late Robert C. Byrd was a master at vote counting. From 1967 until 1987, Bryd was 10-for-10 in Senate Democratic leadership contests, rising from Secretary of the Senate Democratic Caucus to Senate Democratic leader. Byrd became whip by challenging Ted Kennedy, ending his hopes of a career in the leadership.

    When he announced he was stepping down as leader in 1988 to claim the chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Byrd told me and my then-Wall Street Journal colleague and mentor, David Rogers, one of the secrets of his success. He said he never settled for anything less than an unequivocal pledge of support. "If someone said, 'Oh, you don't have to worry about me,' I never counted him for me -- never!" he said.

    Bryd also learned that in secret ballots, "firm" pledges had ways of melting away. In one leadership election, the number of votes he got -- still a majority -- didn't match the number of commitments he had collected. So Byrd saved the handwritten ballots, examined them and ultimately determined the identity of his not-so-faithful supporter.

    In the 1988 caucus meeting that elected George Mitchell to succeed Byrd the party's Senate leader, the wily West Virginian moved that the ballots be burned.

    Things are even more complicated in multi-candidate races, in which the hopeful getting the fewest votes in each round is dropped until someone wins a majority.

    In 1976, the late Rep. Mo Udall was one of five candidates to replace Carl Albert as House Democratic Leader, as Albert moved up to become speaker after the retirement of John J. McCormack. As Udall supporter David Obey later recalled, the proper question of colleagues was not, "Can we count on you to vote for Mo?" It was: "Can we count on you to vote for Mo on every ballot?" In the end, Udall made it to a head-to-head final round against Hale Boggs. Udall lost as his vote total among the House Democratic caucus fell well short of what he thought his commitments were.

    After the results were announced, Udall, renowned for his sharp wit, faced reporters. The Arizonan turned his campaign lapel pin upside down so that "MO" became "OW" and delivered a quip that has lived in the annals of congressional reporting ever since: "The difference between a cactus and a caucus is that with a cactus the pricks are on the outside."

  • How Harry Reid won

    From NBC's John Yang
    LAS VEGAS -- In a year of anti-incumbent fervor and anger over the economy, how did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) beat the odds and win a fifth term in a state battered by the bad economy?

    A look at interviews with voters as they left the polls suggests it was by making Sharron Angle, his Tea Party-backed Republican opponent the issue, not the economy.

    In a state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, 40 percent of voters said they'd been laid off in the last two years -- and Reid won them, 49 percent to 39. In a state with the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation, 53 percent of voters said they or a relative were worried about losing their home -- and Reid and Angle split them, 46-48.

    In the closing days of the campaign, Reid's TV ads pounded away at Angle, painting her as extreme and out of the mainstream--an opponent of Social Security and a proponent of privatizing the Veterans' Affairs Department and eliminating the Education Department.

    In the exit poll, 44 percent said Angle was "too conservative," and Reid won moderates, 62-33.

    At the same time, Reid's get-out-the-vote operation capitalized on Angle's tough stand on illegal immigration to mobilize Hispanics, who turned out at a greater rate than in the 2008 presidential election and voted for Reid, 66-31. And Reid got help from organized labor, as union households voted for him 69-29.

    In this contest between the grassroots intensity of the Tea Party movement and a well-oiled campaign machine, the machine won.

  • Shake up in Team Blago?

    From NBC's John Yang and WMAQ's Phil Rogers
    There's growing speculation in the Chicago legal community that Sam Adam Sr. and Sam Adam Jr., the unlikely father-son nemeses of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, might not be at the defense table for a retrial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

    They have steadfastly avoided answering whether they'll continue. When asked on a public television show Tuesday night, Sam Jr. talked about the need to make money, demands of other clients and the like--but never gave a direct answer.

    Both Blagojevich and his campaign fund, which has paid for his defense, are broke. Judge James B. Zagel has said Blagojevich could ask the court for public funds, but the lawyers would have to agree to accept only $110 an hour, the same rate court-appointed counsel gets. The court could also sell Blagojevich assets, such as his D.C. condominium, to pay for his defense.

    Lawyers speculate that Sams Sr. and Jr. could ask the judge to withdraw from the case at the Aug. 26 hearing, when Zagel is expected to schedule the retrial. The lawyers say there are three possibilities:

    --Zagel could refuse the request and tell the Sams that they have an ethical duty to their client to continue.
    --Co-counsel Sheldon Sorosky could take over the defense along with his team of rather young associates and the retrial could quickly begin.
    --The whole team could change, which would like necessitate a lengthy delay while the new lawyers get up to speed on the complicated case.

    There's growing speculation in the Chicago legal community that Sam Adam Sr. and Sam Adam Jr., the unlikely father-son nemeses of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, might not be at the defense table for a retrial of Blagojevich.

    They have steadfastly avoided answering whether they'll continue. When asked on a public television show Tuesday night, Sam Jr. talked about the need to make money, demands of other clients and the like--but never gave a direct answer.

    Both Blagojevich and his campaign fund, which has paid for his defense, are broke. Judge James B. Zagel has said Blagojevich could ask the court for public funds, but the lawyers would have to agree to accept only $110 an hour, the same rate court-appointed counsel gets. The court could also sell Blagojevich assets, such as his DC condominium, to pay for his defense.

    Lawyers speculate that Sams Sr. and Jr. could ask the judge to withdraw from the case at the Aug. 26 hearing, when Zagel is expected to schedule the retrial. The lawyers say there are three possibilities:

    --Zagel could refuse the request and tell the Sams that they have an ethical duty to their client to continue.
    --Co-counsel Sheldon Sorosky could take over the defense along with his team of rather young associates and the retrial could quickly begin.
    --The whole team could change, which would like necessitate a lengthy delay while the new lawyers get up to speed on the complicated case.

    NOTE: the Clerk of Court in conjunction with the Blagojevich trial sent out the following note:

    It has come to the Court's attention that certain jurors in the Blagojevich trial are calling and complaining about numerous phone calls from the media asking for interviews and visiting their homes. The United States Marshal has advised the jurors to call 911 to report the incidents. Please keep in mind that some of these jurors simply do not wish to talk, and if they have not agreed to talk with you, we ask that you respect their privacy.

    Wow. It's a new one for a court to tell people to call 911 for unwanted media calls.

  • Blagojevich guilty on one of 24 counts - lying to FBI

    NBC's John Yang reports that the jury has reached a verdict in the Rod Blagojevich trial. It has not yet been announced, as of 5:20 pm ET. Stay tuned...

    The Washington Post with some color:

    "Blagojevich adjusted his tie and held his wife, Patti's hand as he arrived at the courthouse. Stepping off the elevator, he asked spectators to 'say a prayer for us.' His brother, Robert, arrived a few minutes later, as did U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald."

    *** UPDATE *** The jury found Blagojevich guilty unanimously on just one count.

    *** UPDATE 2 *** The count he was found guilty on was essentially lying to FBI.

    *** UPDATE 3 *** Judge Zagel says intends to declare a mistrial on all remaining counts for Rod and for all counts related to Robert.

    *** UPDATE 4 *** The prosecution says it will "absolutely" intend to retry Blagojevich on these charges. Yang reports that he expects Blagojevich to speak to reporters.

    *** UPDATE 5 *** NBC's Stephanie Himango reports Blogojevich will remain free on bond. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald will speak to cameras in the lobby.

    *** UPDATE 6 *** The next court date is set for Aug. 26. The government has been given until Sept. 7 to announce a re-trial. Prosecutor Reid Schar says the government "will absolutely retry this case."

  • Jury asks for verdict form in Blago case

    From NBC's John Yang
    CHICAGO -- The jury in the Rod Blagojevich trial had two questions of the judge:

    One was to be provided a copy of the oath they were administered. In federal court, jurors swear to decided the case "upon the law and the evidence." The judge agreed to provide it.

    Perhaps more signifcantly, the jury asked how they should fill out the verdict form in case they are unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The judge told them to write a note to that effect on the form and have each juror sign it. They were specificially told NOT to indicate the numerical division of the jury on those deadlocked counts.

    The judge said it appears the jury could return a verdict this week and so asked that Blagojevich be within 30 mionutes of the courtroom.

    Body language: The defense team was smiling broadly, the proscution looked very grim.

  • Taxpayers to fund Blago defense?

    From NBC's John Yang
    CHICAGO -- Rod Blagojevich could soon ask for U.S. taxpayers to pick up his legal fees.

    He had been using money from his campaign fund to pay his legal team, but a $73,693 payment on Friday cleaned out that account, which had started out at about $2 million in cash. That means the former governor, who is reportedly about $200,000 in debt, may ask the court for public money to pay for his defense at the same $110-an-hour rate that public defenders are paid. The court could order Blagojevich to first sell personal assets.

  • Keeping your friends close, and your exes closer

    From NBC's John Yang
    CHICAGO -- The greatest threat to Republican Senate candidates in Illinois could well be ex-wives.

    In 2004, GOP nominee Jack Ryan dropped out after divorce records surfaced in which his ex-wife alleged he took her to sex clubs and pressured her to have sex in public. That election made a U.S. Senator out of a little-known state lawmaker named Barack Obama.

    Some wondered if Illinois voters were in for another episode when the divorced wife of this year's Republican nominee, Mark Kirk, gave a scathing interview to Chicago magazine saying she'd never support her ex-husband as long as consultant Dodie McCracken was part of the campaign.

    Kimberly Vertolli called McCracken a "Svengali" who pushed Kirk to the far right and suggested she was responsible for the 2009 divorce that ended Vertolli and Kirk's eight-year marriage.

    But, perhaps following Lyndon B. Johnson's advice that it was better to have J. Edgar Hoover "inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in," the Kirk campaign has brought aboard Vertolli as an unpaid adviser.

    As an Annapolis graduate, former Navy officer and former CIA lawyer, Vertolli could help Kirk defend himself against charges that he embellished his own military record.

    CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post referred to Vertolli as a paid adviser. The Kirk campaign tells First Read that the congressman's ex-wife will not be paid.

  • Bribery, Joan and Melissa Rivers, pink elephants in Blago closing arguments

    From NBC's John Yang and Stephanie Himango, with WMAQ's Phil Rogers
    The prosecution in the trial of disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was dry, systematic, methodical, using a PowerPoint presentation to walk through the evidence in its closing argument.

    The defense was dramatic and emotional.

    Blago lawyer Sam Adam Jr. started right in with his biggest challenge -- what he called, "The pink elephant in the room" -- his opening statement promise that the jury would hear from Blagojevich directly. "I had no idea that in two months of trial, they would prove nothing," he said of the prosecution. "I told you he'd testify. We were wrong. I was wrong. Blame me."

    (After a few other references to himself, Judge James Zagel interrupted: "It's nice if we didn't talk about one's self.")

    "He had no intention of bribing anybody, no intent of extorting anybody," Adam said of his client. "Think about it: They're telling you he's trying to extort the President of the United States! Give me a break!"

    Adam tried to dismiss the secret FBI wiretaps. "If you put Joan and Melissa Rivers in one room, you wouldn't get that much talk," he said, describing his client's comments are merely the talk of an insecure man surrounded by weak aides. Turning to Blagojevich, Adam said: "I'm sorry, guv, but you've got absolutely horrible judgement in people." Turning to the jury: "And they want you to find him guilty of these horrible things because of that."

Newer postsOlder posts