[MUSIC] >> Welcome to Capitol view on WSIU.

I'm Brian Sapp.

This week the General Assembly continues its work.

They have a little more than a month left in the spring session.

One of the things they're working on is working on meeting the state's budget needs with tight funding.

And one option that they're hammering out is a millionaire tax.

We'll talk about that.

And there could be some changes on the roads.

Some cars, more cars, maybe less cars.

There are some bills addressing driverless cars and drivers with suspended license that are working their way through the legislature.

Joining us today to talk about these stories are Mawa Iqbal.

She's a Springfield reporter for WBEZ and Jason Pisca.

He's the director of the public affairs reporting program at the University of Illinois in Springfield, Mo.

And Jason, thank you for joining us.

Good to see you.

>> You too.

>> We're going to start off with immigration.

Last fall, the Trump administration actually started before then.

But the Trump administration did some immigration enforcement in Chicago.

It was quite a bit of chaos that happened, um, during that immigration enforcement.

The legislature, General Assembly worked on some bills to try to, I think, bring some order, what they thought to it.

And they're continuing that they've got a bill working its way through that would limit immigration detention centers.

Malik, can you tell us a little bit about what this bill legislators hope to accomplish and where it stands?

>> Thanks, Brian.

So this bill is an initiative of Speaker Chris Welch, and he says that it's an issue that's really personal to him because his district actually covers the broad view detention center.

So that's in the suburbs of Chicago.

It also became a flashpoint during the Trump administration's, um, escalated deportation campaign this past fall, which they called Operation Blitz.

So, you know, a lot of protesters would come out to Broadview.

Um, a lot of Ice agents would be there.

Um, you know, and then the local police, the state police would come to try to keep the peace, do crowd control, but oftentimes you would see these very violent clashes between protesters and armed Ice agents.

And, you know, the local leadership in Broadview has talked about how this has really having this detention facility here has really caused that town, which doesn't have a big population.

It's probably like in the thousands, you know, it's it's not a very big suburb or town, but, um, it, it, you know, by, by Chicago standards, but um, it's, you know, the mayor, you have the mayor of Broadview, uh, Katrina Thompson, who said that this has caused her town so much money and resources.

And so this bill would basically bar any detention facility that's being used by federal immigration authorities for the purpose of detaining federal immigration.

Um, you know, people who are being processed under the federal immigration system from being within 1500ft of certain protected areas.

So, so those areas would include schools, residential areas, daycare centers, places of worship park districts.

It's a, it's a pretty large, um, large list, a pretty long list of places.

And the idea is just that, you know, this, these sent well, specifically this one center broad view is not that far away from where people frequent, you know, like, uh, going to their homes and going to houses of worship, dropping their kids off at daycare centers.

And so the speaker, Chris Welch, who's again carrying this bill, was saying, you know, on the floor that this the idea is to basically bring order back into people's lives where there has been so much chaos and discord.

And so now the bill has passed the House, it's going to move through the Senate.

And unless the senators add any amendments to it, it will go.

Once it passes the Senate or if it passes the Senate, which it likely will, given the the large Democratic support, it will go to the governor's desk and we're we're pretty certain that the governor will sign it into law.

Given how outspoken he was against Trump's operation midway blitz.

>> As we as we look at this, Jason, I wanted to kind of ask you this follow up question.

Previous bills last fall, they passed a few bills limiting where Ice officers could, um, uh, pursue civil immigration warrants.

And they seem to have not really paid attention to that.

We have this federal power kind of give and take.

Do you think that, this is maybe Illinois's way, or these Democratic legislators way of trying to assert some local authority and sovereignty for Illinois.

>> Yes.

This Broadview situation over the last several months has been very chaotic for the for the members of the community there.

They felt very little power being able to control anything.

Uh, so this is, you know, the state's efforts to try to help those local residents, uh, restore some order to their neighborhoods if we ever have a violent, uh, or, you know, chaotic uprising like this again, of Ice agents coming into a community.

Uh, a couple of points important to note about this bill.

It wouldn't affect the broad view facility.

It would sort of be grandfathered in.

And this bill, if it were to pass, would affect all future, uh, detention facilities that, that would, uh, come into Illinois.

Um, and, you know, and along those lines, Republicans as they were, you know, opposing this bill, you know, brought up a couple points.

They mentioned that California has approved a bill like this that would actually call for a complete ban of these new facilities.

Um, and there's some questions about the constitutionality of that.

And Republicans here wondered if this bill would face the same constitutional challenges if it were to go through.

Uh, and then the other point made by Republicans was just that why are is Illinois just continually being aggressive toward the federal government?

Why are we finding ways to fight with the federal government?

Let's work with them to try to get this done.

Uh, still, despite those, uh, arguments, uh, the bill passed pretty handily with all the Democratic votes that there are in the House.

>> Okay.

Well, we'll see how see it make its way through.

And I'm sure that, uh, immigration enforcement is going to be a topic for a while yet.

Moving on to another bill, working its way through the legislature, junk fees.

We see them when we buy goods and services.

Tickets for concerts and other events have been one of these big things, and then also some renting.

And the legislature, General Assembly has been working on some bills on that.

I think.

Marwa, you had a story about that.

What can we.

What's the problem that legislators, as they see it and how are they trying to tackle this?

>> Yeah.

So with junk fees in general, that that was actually a proposal that Governor Pritzker rolled out during his state of the state address back in February, that he had like maybe 5 or 6, kind of like priority areas.

And one of them was eliminating junk fees, which he says are basically hidden surprise fees that people will encounter when they're making their transaction for like a certain good or service.

So that could be like when you go to, um, like Ticketmaster and you buy tickets for a concert or like when you purchase something online, like, like a, like a product or like when you, go to a hotel, right?

And like book a hotel room for a night or two.

So, so there's, you know, it's a very like kind of broad, broad bill that would apply to a lot of different, um, scenarios that the customers, people in Illinois will face if they're purchasing things.

But he was basically making the argument that, you know, these surprise junk fees do end up costing people money.

And, you know, this kind of goes back to this whole affordability theme that I feel like has become a buzzword not only for, you know, candidates running in the March primary elections, but also leadership here in Springfield.

You know, we've got the speaker, Chris Welch.

You've got Senate President Harmon, the governor, a lot of people in the legislature talking about affordability and how do we make sure that we are not squeezing people at at, you know, at the grocery store or at the pump, right at the gas pump?

So, um, junk food is just one of those ways that, that, you know, the governor and some other Democratic lawmakers think is to to tackle that affordability issue.

It cleared the House pretty handily.

Like like Jason was saying, we have, you know, a pretty broad Democratic support in both chambers of the legislature.

So it didn't really encounter much opposition.

Um, I guess, yeah, some of the Republican lawmakers were bringing up how this could maybe harm businesses, right?

That that, you know, that people may not want to frequent certain businesses or companies as much, and this will ultimately end up hurting them in the long run.

But of course, Democrats and people who are supportive of this bill talked about how it's really just, you know, not, you know, bringing more transparency to how these companies, these service providers advertise their, their products, right?

So, so making sure that the price is displayed fully upfront and that any advertising they do as well will include the full price, right?

So, so in all the advertising materials that a company will release.

You know, not not to include or to include how much everything will cost upfront.

Um, and then also, like you mentioned, there's another separate bill that's being proposed by representative Bill said that would go after what she calls junk fees when it comes to people renting from landlords.

So, so it's like a tenant junk fee thing.

And that one also received opposition from Republicans.

You know, they brought up some concerns that this would, uh, put landlords in a very precarious situation, that people could argue that, uh, fees related to like security deposits or, um, damages to a dwelling that, that, that people, tenants could argue that that's a junk fee and therefore I don't have to pay for it.

But, um, representative side said that, you know, the bill, the way it's structured doesn't, you know, include that.

And you know, that's also one of those things where once it makes it over to the Senate, we'll see, you know, how the senators decide to amend it to to maybe clear up some of that language and address some of the concerns from opposition.

But yeah, it's, it's a it's yeah, like a two pronged sort of sort of, uh, plan to, to carry out Pritzker's, um, dream.

>> Okay.

Um, I wanted to keep it moving.

We have about halfway, halfway through here.

I wanted to keep on moving and move on to budgets.

We've, there's been, I think, bubbling to the surface, trying to.

The governor in his state of the state address talked about how he was going to there was a small raise in budgets.

Keeping that tamped down.

As soon as that happened, there were lots of advocacy groups that were calling for the budget to look at this place, look at this place and the legislature to increase budgets.

One of the things that's been talked about, I think getting more publication or more press, positive and negative, is this idea behind the millionaire's tax?

Um, where where do we stand on this?

The legislature would have to pass this as or put this on the ballot for the voters to approve in the fall.

Are we getting closer to that?

Seeing that getting passed and getting on next year's ballot?

Um, Marwa.

>> It's tough to say, right?

Um, you know, there's right now there's two proposals that have been introduced, one by Representative Natalie Manley and the other by Representative LaShawn Ford, who actually has also won the Democratic nomination to succeed Congressman Danny Davis's seat.

So, um, you know, but both lawmakers are Democrats in the House, right?

And with Natalie Manley's plan, you know, she's proposing that with this millionaire's tax, which would be a 3% surcharge tax on those whose incomes are $1 million or higher.

And so she's proposing that the money that's generated from that, which the state estimates could be upwards of $4.5 billion in the first year.

That that money be split between property tax relief and local school relief.

So funding to property tax or homeowners and then also local schools.

Whereas Ford's plan is just just solely, you know, property tax relief and giving people $1,500 rebates, right?

As, as a result of this money that that's generated.

So, you know, it's, it's interesting right now because I think the when I talked with the speaker about this, he said that there are just a lot of conversations that are being had that members of the Democratic caucus are trying.

That's the real question is like, okay, we we all support this idea.

We think that those who make more should pay more.

And we have a regressive tax system in Illinois.

But what we're split on, right is, is just where should this money that this 4.5 billion, which is quite a bit of money, where should it go.

Right.

And there's these areas that are severely underfunded, right?

We didn't even mention that, you know, we have a pension obligation, like a like a pension funding crisis in the state.

So Welch has thrown that out as well.

Um, and yeah, like you said, you know, the, the lawmakers want to put this as a ballot question to voters on the November 3rd general election ballot and have it be a binding question, which means that if the voters do approve it, it's going to happen.

But in order for them to do that, they need to not only pass a plan by May 3rd, which is, you know, the clock is ticking on that.

Um, certainly, but also they need a supermajority.

So, so typically in the legislature, you just need a simple majority to pass most bills with constitutional amendments.

You need a supermajority in both chambers.

Um, so it's, it's an uphill battle I think.

But, but also Welch kind of said to me, he was like, you know, anything can happen in Springfield.

Things can change at the drop of a hat.

So stay tuned.

>> Um, Jason, I wanted to kind of bring in like bringing you to what are we seeing when it comes to, well, the electorate?

I mean, would this be something that they would pass?

I know that the state has largely voted in the Democrats that are in charge.

But are people is this a initiative that people are willing to to push once the legislature maybe gets this passed across the line?

>> Yeah.

I mean, if we look back in history, these these proposals all sort of are reminiscent of the progressive income tax that Governor Pritzker pushed when he first got into office.

Uh, and that was an idea that would tax, uh, people more on their income based on how much they make.

People who made smaller amounts would actually see their income tax rate go down, and those who make in the millions would see their income tax rates go up.

Uh, that actually did make it to the ballot and it failed in November 2020, uh, mostly thanks to a very strong, uh, campaign by Republican forces that instilled some concern and some fear in the electorate about whether, you know, the legislature was able to or the.

This amendment allows them to to change the Constitution so that, you know, we can't have a flat tax like the Constitution says.

Now we can have this variable tax.

And that would give the legislature some power just to change the taxes anytime they wanted on whatever income level they wanted.

And that level of uncertainty, I think, scared off enough voters from voting for it the first time.

I think that's part of the reason why many Democrats have sort of been gun shy from wanting to try this concept again.

Uh, but it looks like it's going forward to some extent here.

Um, so we'll see where it goes.

But, but again, if we look at history, uh, it, it didn't work out that first time.

>> Okay.

Like I said, if we want to get that on the ballot, they got till May 3rd.

Um, we'll see.

Legislature has been, uh, working its way through and we'll see what is able to bubble to the surface.

Um, change sticking on the idea legislature, but changing a little bit.

The seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard appeals from those that were convicted.

Um, Mike Madigan and some of the other committee, uh, executives heard appeals.

And as a recording Wednesday, like late Tuesday afternoon, the seventh Circuit had made some decisions to overturn or look to, I believe, overturn Jason King kind of fill us in what happened where we are, at least right now as we record.

>> Sure.

Um, we remember, uh, a few months ago, members of the so-called committee for which were four people who were implicated in this scheme to, uh, sort of provide benefits to parties associated with speaker Mike Madigan to help legislation move along in the in the General Assembly.

They were convicted.

My speaker, Madigan, was convicted as well, currently sitting in prison.

Uh, but these four people were also convicted.

Uh, two of them, Springfield lobbyist Mike McLean and former CEO Anne Pramaggiore, uh, were have been in prison for the last three months or so.

Uh, they had a hearing this week asking for a retrial.

And the basis for the retrial is there's been this case that's sort of been floating in the background all throughout the Madeleine case and the comet case over the last couple of years, uh, involved a mayor in Northwest Indiana who was convicted of, uh, some bribery and, you know, paying off people to, to get things done.

Uh, and ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, if it's a matter of a gratuity, like a tip, uh, you know, giving a politician a financial reward after something happened, kind of like you make a tip in a restaurant after you get good service, you give that server some some extra money.

Uh, those gratuities are are not criminal.

Um, so with that ruling by the US Supreme Court, uh, the two defendants here want their case retried under that concept.

So, uh, the appellate court heard that, uh, this week and actually decided, yeah, I think they deserve a retrial and they've actually ordered that, uh, McLean and be released from detention, uh, from prison, uh, as of as we're taping this on Wednesday morning.

Uh, Bureau of prisons website still listed them both as in custody.

So we'll see how quickly that release happens.

But, uh, but yeah, it looks like they're going to get a retrial and, uh, we'll see how it goes from there.

Uh, and again, this all happened about a week after, uh, Speaker Madigan, former Speaker Madigan lawyers themselves were in court also asking, uh, to, to appeal his conviction.

Um, so we'll, again, we'll see where that all goes.

>> Yep.

Works through the legal process.

Very deliberative.

And we'll just see how that goes.

I wanted to move on a story that I had seen and you suggested Jason talking about we have several car stories.

One of those was interested by the idea of driverless cars or autonomous cars.

Some legislation going through Waymo is one of the big names that's out there.

What is the legislation that's being considered and what would it hopefully do?

>> Yeah.

So Waymo is the company, as you mentioned, that, uh, is piloting testing out driverless cars around the US.

They actually are already operating in large cities like San Francisco, LA Phoenix and some other, uh, Texas and Florida cities.

Uh, and it's kind of like Uber, but there's no driver.

It's all, it's all controlled with, uh, you know, robots, you know, leading you down the road.

Uh, Waymo really wants to bring their operation to other states, including Illinois.

So a bill being considered would sort of set up a pilot program in Illinois.

That would allow Waymo to start testing their driverless vehicles in certain counties, including Cooke, where Chicago is.

People can already see some Waymo cars on the roads down there.

They do have drivers behind them, but they are out sort of mapping all the roads and figuring out how roads work.

Um, so the bill sort of languishing in a committee at the moment, so I'm not sure how far it's going to get during this session.

Uh, but, uh, you know, there's some efforts by Waymo and the legislators who support this to, to get this thing moving.

Uh, and this week there was a news conference by some union people, trans union and construction union people who voiced concern about legalising Waymo in Illinois.

Uh, their main concern is safety, of course.

And probably more prominently, they're concerned about jobs they mentioned.

You know, every time we have a driverless car, we don't need a driver anymore.

We don't need to pay a driver.

That's a loss of jobs overall for the state.

And that's not good either.

Um, but yeah, and also the safety issue is, is to consider as well.

If you think about all the areas where Waymo exists now.

Uh, it's all warm weather cities.

I, they're interesting to see how Waymo would handle a typical Chicago winter with, uh, two feet of snow on the ground and, uh, piles of snow everywhere.

So we'll see where that goes.

But again, the future's coming to Illinois and, uh, the legislature is trying to figure out how to legislate it.

>> Jason, we're going to stay in Springfield there and talk about some labor issues, higher education, UIs, um, the faculty, there's a strike by the union there.

Can you kind of give us some background?

And this isn't the only, um, state higher education that's seeing some labor strife.

>> Yeah.

We're going on, uh, completing two weeks of a, of a strike by tenure track and tenured professors at UIs.

Uh, full disclosure, I'm.

I am a tenured professor here at UIs, but I'm, uh, sort of sitting on the sidelines for, for the strike and all the activities that the union are doing.

So, uh, I'm confident I can discuss this in a, in a very objective way.

Uh, but yeah, they've been, uh, the main contention is salary, of course.

Um, they're pretty far apart still.

They've been talking every day, the administration of the union about, uh, trying to get together on some salary figures that everyone can live with.

Uh, but they're still pretty far apart and that's, uh, you know, really causing a stalemate in the negotiations.

Uh, the union contends that the university can't afford to, to pay its professors more.

They want, uh, amounting to about 3% raises for each of the next three years, along with some increases in minimum salaries for, uh, different levels of professors.

The university wants less.

They're wanting more, like 1% increases over the next three years, or maybe even less in some cases.

So again, a pretty far apart there, the university contends that, uh, there's serious financial problems here at UIs.

They estimate at the end of this fiscal year, uh, UIs will be about $19 million in the hole for the, for the year, which is a concerning number for them.

And they've had multi-million dollar deficits each of the last several years as well.

So they're trying to cut into that.

And by controlling the size of faculty salaries, they think that will help the the union comes back with that.

Uh, you know, the U of I is the biggest system in the state, uh, you know, an $8 billion budget they can afford to pay.

And, uh, you know, the, you know, and really, I think, uh, both sides may agree that not all of them are saying this, but a lot of it has to do with just how universities are funded in Illinois.

whether the university system is giving enough money to the lower campus here in Springfield and whether the, you know, the state legislature is giving up enough money to, you know, state universities in general.

So we'll continue on here.

Uh, our service union people, clerical workers, food service workers, uh, building maintenance, uh, have also authorized the strike.

They haven't started one yet.

Uh, so we're waiting to see what happens there.

And as you mentioned, uh, the service workers at Illinois State University in Bloomington have also been on strike for several days, uh, over, you know, wages and things there.

It looks like they've hired some replacement workers to fill in and they're making do, but, uh, but again, it's, it's tough all over the state with trying to afford to keep our colleges open.

>> Great.

Thank you for the update on that.

And I think like you said, it does play into the bigger issue of higher education funding.

And that's another topic that the legislature will have to tackle.

Well, Marwa and Jason, thank you for joining us.

And viewers, thank you for joining us.

That's it for this week's edition of Capital View.

[MUSIC] [MUSIC]