Sunday, April 29, 2007

Don Gordon sues Joe Moore

On the night of the Chicago municipal run-off elections, I got the following report from someone who had talked to an election watcher:
[Ald. Joe] Moore was intentionally and blatantly breaking the law by politicking at polling places. They kept reporting him, and he kept moving on to another before the authorities got there, apparently with the intention of just paying the fines.
That is second-hand, unconfirmed, to be taken with a grain of salt, etc. Still, I find myself less skeptical than I might otherwise be about challenger Don Gordon's lawsuit against Moore for illegal electioneering.

That type of after-the-fact suit is hard to win, of course, and who knows if Gordon's accusations are true. But for Chicagoans interested in bringing political independence to city council, wouldn't a Moore loss now be the best possible outcome?

The historic anti-incumbent wave that hit Chicago City Council this year was largely funded by labor unions. This is basically a welcome development, of course, but union money tends to beget union hacks, and a city council beholden to union dollars might not be that much better than one beholden to Daley.

Besides, over time Daley could co-opt the unions! Then we'd be back where we were.

Now suppose Moore's win is overturned. We would still have the anti-incumbent wave citywide and we'd have an ouster of the most visible and leading labor-union-pol. The message to aldermen would be: Too much hackish adherence to Daley is dangerous and so is too much hackish adherence to unions.

1 comment:

Levois said...

I see your point. Sure the unions helped them get in, however that means if they're concerned about your political career then they'd have to find a way not to be beholden to the unions or to Daley. That is the challenge. If money is an issue then perhaps these new aldermen have to make their own contacts. This just seems like there has to be sometype of strategy in this.