Reporter Whet Moser has more on that state and the referendum in general from Chicago Magazine:

The idea is simple: an increase of three percentage points on incomes over a million dollars, with the money going to education. Making the state’s income tax system progressive has been debated for awhile, especially as rising inequality has reduced the growth in state tax revenues in comparison with progressive-tax states.

It would be difficult, though, as the state’s constitution mandates a flat income tax; the non-binding referendum is just a toe-dip, a way of gauging support (and getting Democrats out to the polls). And, according to the Tribune’s poll, it’s a popular one, except in heavily Republican downstate Illinois.

And then there’s this: “While a majority of voters of all income ranges expressed support for the extra tax on millionaires, the question received its greatest support among people with household incomes of more than $100,000 — 61 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed.”

I was surprised, but perhaps I shouldn’t have been. In 2012, California enacted—by referendum—its own version of the millionaire’s tax, a one-percent increase on singles making $250k or more, married couples making $500k or more, and heads of households making $340k or more. Plus a 0.25 increase in the sales tax. So Proposition 30 affected more people—everyone, to some degree—on top of California’s already-progressive, already quite high income taxes on well-off households, which went up to 12.3 percent at the very highest bracket. It didn’t pass by much, but it passed.

And now California, which for so long was neck-and-neck with Illinois for the most fiscally screwed state in America, is in the black, and people are happy with the results of Proposition 30:

But today, few Californians are arguing that Proposition 30, which to the surprise of many political observers sailed to an easy victory in last year’s Nov. 6 election, hasn’t been a good thing for the state.

It stabilized school funding in California for the first time since the Great Recession began, allowing school districts to avert thousands of teacher layoffs. It helped the Legislature balance its budget for the first time in years without slashing social programs. And it helped a state whose fiscal mismanagement used to be fodder for late-night comedians suddenly become a poster child of sound budgeting that some say Washington, D.C., politicians should model.

Moser continues with a look at how things have worked in California as a comparison for what might happen in Illinois. It’s worth the read.

Third governor candidate to be off the ballot?

While Gov. Pat Quinn and Bruce Rauner have dominated the headlines, there is actually a third candidate for governor in Illinois. Chad Grimm represents the Libertarian Party on the November ballot, but if the Republican Party gets their way, Grimm won’t be on the ballot when voters go to the polls.

Associated Press reporter Kerry Lester has more:

Circuit Judge Patrick Kelley heard arguments Wednesday in Springfield over the appeal, in which the GOP attorneys question the validity of the voter signatures the Libertarian candidate gathered to get on the ballot. The conservative candidate could draw votes that otherwise would go to Republican candidate Bruce Rauner.

The State Board of Elections decided last month to allow Libertarian governor candidate Chad Grimm to appear on the ballot alongside Rauner and Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn.

At the same time, the board ruled that Green Party, Constitution and Independent candidates should not be included on the ballot because the parties gathered too few valid signatures. Democratic Party attorneys had challenged the validity of the signatures for the Green candidate, who could have taken votes away from Quinn.

Allegations arise that state senator took bribe

State Sen. Donne Trotter took a $2,000 bribe in 2009, according to allegations made by lawyers for a South Side man.

Chicago Sun-Times reporter Kim Janssen has more on the allegations against Trotter:

State Sen. Donne Trotter took $2,000 in cash from a convicted felon who got the money from an undercover FBI agent posing as an Indian businessman, lawyers for a South Side man allege.

And C. Gregory Turner’s attorneys hinted that other Chicago politicians also were approached as part of a federal sting in 2009.

Turner is due to stand trial later this month for illegally lobbying on behalf of Zimbabwean president and international pariah Robert Mugabe.

Trotter — who last year pleaded guilty to reckless conduct for attempting to take a gun onto a flight at O’Hare Airport — is a key government witness against Turner, who’s accused of a failed bid to open a back channel to President Barack Obama through Chicago politicians in an attempt to have U.S. sanctions against Mugabe and his ruling elite lifted.

But at a pretrial hearing Wednesday, Turner’s lawyers James Tunick and Michael Irving Leonard revealed they want to cross-examine Trotter about the alleged bribe, which they said was delivered by Turner’s former co-defendant, Prince Asiel Ben Israel.

“An FBI agent posing as an Indian businessman gave Prince money,” Tunick told U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo. “Prince then gave the money to the state senator.

“He didn’t report it as a political contribution.”

Trotter did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday afternoon, but Prosecutor Barry Jonas told the judge that Trotter “cannot recall” receiving the cash.

NEXT ARTICLE: Rauner camp denies access to journalism students, Rahm calls for Fallon to come back to Chicago

[Recommended]

  1. When is a job not a job? When it’s political and you’re seemingly hired for life 
  2. Don’t buy what the Illinois governor candidates are selling
  3. People are fleeing Illinois but flocking to Chicago?
  4. Pat Quinn, Bruce Rauner debate in Chicago Tribune forum
  5. Want to tell your elected officials what you think of the state of government in Illinois? Use our Sound Off tool.