(bright music) (dramatic music) - Welcome to Capitol View on WSIU.

I'm Jeff Williams sitting in this week as we take a look at what's making news around the state in Illinois politics.

And to help guide our discussion this week, we have Hannah Meisel, statehouse and Chicago reporter for Capitol News, Illinois.

And John Jackson, visiting professor for the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute.

Both of you, welcome back.

- Thank you for having us.

- It continues to be a rather hectic and busy news cycle.

And at the top of the list, Illinois's Senior Senator Dick Durbin, announced that he will not seek reelection in 2026.

A lot of ramifications and implications in wrapped up in, in the senator's retirement.

John, you've observed Senator Durbin during his rise to power in Congress of the past 30 years, and you've known him for many more years than that.

What does this announcement at this time mean for not only the senator but for Illinois, and for the U.S. Senate?

- Well, Jeff, you're right.

I first met him when he was a young staff member for Paul Simon.

And so go back to when he was about 24, 25 years old, and I've watched his career for a long time.

This is definitely a loss of power and clout for Illinois and it won't be replaced easily.

He's a second highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, second only to Chuck Schumer.

Up until the change from Democrat to Republican control, he was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Appropriations Committee.

And all that comes from seniority and respect from his peers.

Of course, we've got a wide range running.

I'll list them quickly.

Democrats are Lieutenant Governor Stratton, who's already been endorsed by the governor.

That gives him an advantage, Congressman Wise, and I'm going to call him that because he spoke down here at the law school recently and he said his last name had 30 letters in it, and I can't pronounce it, although I counted them.

It's only 15.

So he exaggerated a bit.

Congresswoman Robin Kelly, Congresswoman Lauren Underwood, treasurer, Mike Frerichs, and maybe others that I've missed, but those are the ones that I've heard about.

The only Republican I've heard is possibly Ray LaHood run, not Ray his son, Congressman Lahood.

- Darin.

- Darin.

- Darin, Darin.

I got his dad and him mixed up.

Congressman LaHood talked about, he's a downstater.

I'd say it'd be tough to give up a safe seat for him to run.

So I think the next member of the Senate from Illinois will come from northeast Illinois.

I don't think there's much doubt about that, but I will say Durbin emphasized this when he was talking about getting out and he said that whether you're from downstate as he is or not, what really counts is do you see Illinois as one state?

Do you emphasize that which unites us?

And he said, that's what you've got to do and that's the way you've got to run.

And I certainly agree with that.

Quick symbolic issue on that, the downtown Paul Simon Federal Building has Senator Durbin as a tenant for the last 30 years.

And I think that recognition in southern Illinois has been important for him and something other Democrats will have to emulate.

- Hannah, we know that probably Lieutenant Governor is a front runner on this from what you're hearing and seeing is she the heir apparent on the democratic side or is there going to be more of a power play as we get into into the election season?

- Well, she certainly has the advantage of being the first one out the gate.

You know, it was not a surprise to see her announce her candidacy just the day after Durbin announced his retirement.

You know, she has now the backing of Governor Pritzker, who of course is as we'll talk about later in this program, I'm sure, ever increasing his footprint on the national stage and becoming more of a voice there, but also of course the wealthiest Democrat Illinois has ever seen and one of the wealthiest Democrats, in the entire United States.

So that carries a whole lot of weight.

And then also Monday morning, U.S.

Senator Tammy Duckworth, the junior senator who when Durbin leaves will be our senior U.S. senator, also gave Juliana Stratton her endorsement.

So, for now she definitely has all of those advantages of money, of name recognition of, just being the first one out in the field.

But we know that Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, who is from the Schaumburg area, who represents, a very big and growing district here as I'm filming in the suburbs of Chicago, he's going to make quite a play too.

And we know that he has $19 million in his campaign account.

Now Stratton, she can't convert state money, money that had been raised for her and JB Pritzker's runs for lieutenant governor, but I don't think that's going to be a problem.

There's plenty of other ways for her to fill that campaign account that, I'm sure that Governor Pritzker and his team have already been working on.

But Raja Krishnamoorthi definitely going to make a big play.

John, you had mentioned other names.

I would say that, Lauren Underwood, if she does want to get in, she would, she'll have to pick a very specific lane.

Might be really difficult as these days go on.

And again, Juliana Stratton is taking up more of the oxygen, but I wouldn't be surprised either way, honestly, if we saw Robin Kelly get into the race or if we didn't see her get in the race, Dick Durbin said that he did not want to endorse, but he is closely aligned with Robin Kelly and if she did want to get in the race, I wouldn't be surprised if he got behind her in some sort of way.

- This Senate seat has been held by a Democrat for many years in Illinois.

Do either one of you think, is there an opening here for the GOP?

Will the GOP try to target this seat in the upcoming election?

- You know, I think that they could make a play, but it wouldn't be the wisest move money-wise.

I don't know that, looking at statewide races for the last however many cycles that Republicans could make much of a play.

Perhaps if Darin LaHood did play it right, he could get some more traction than conventional wisdom would say.

But Darin LaHood has also closely aligned himself with President Trump and again, looking at those statewide election results from the last, several cycles, I'm not sure that he would get anywhere close that would justify the spending of millions of millions of dollars in Republican money that could be spent in other states and other races.

- Yeah, we, Hannah you mentioned Governor Pritzker a little earlier.

The governor is continuing to, well act presidential, he was in New Hampshire over the weekend on Sunday, a keynote at a major democratic party fundraiser there.

He is, we've talked about this in the program before.

Is this another stepping stone in his path to a potential run for president or is he just trying to stir the pot?

- Well, I'd be eager to hear what John thinks, but like we said, he's clearly been trying to advance his national footprint and pretty openly flirting with the idea of running for the White House.

But first he has to get through 2026 and he should, if he does intend to run for governor again for a third term, you might expect him to announce sometime in the next month maybe two ahead of try starting to collect signatures to be on the ballot, which starts in, mid to late September.

- Yeah.

- John, is there any, oh yeah, go ahead.

- Well, I think the only question's been raised is will he run for a third term and use that as a springboard or like Jimmy Carter and others get out and then get back in as a presidential candidate for example.

I think he'll run for a third term.

I think he can make a real good argument that he's been a successful governor, that he's done the major thing that needed to be done that nobody had done in generations.

And that is to do something about our structural deficit in this state.

He can claim with credibility that he's balanced the budget every year, although it gets tougher this year for sure, but he's got all kinds of reasons to want to run on that record.

And this goes way back with him.

You may remember that in, I think it was January of Trump's first term, he had the governors to the White House and the one that took him on and got the most publicity that night was JB Pritzker.

I don't think, it could be something about billionaires and billionaires butting heads, but he's always spoken out.

And I think a term that I've not seen used for him is pragmatic, progressive.

He's clearly progressive, but he's also pragmatic and wants to get the job done and can argue that he has gotten the job done in this state.

Now it's a big national stage, but he's got some arguments he can make.

- John, you mentioned that it makes me think in his speech on Sunday he was an equal opportunity offender.

He reached out and poked at both Republicans and Democrats.

What lane is it do you think he is trying to carve out here?

- Well, it's the lane of those who say the Democrat's message has failed and they've got to get a message that resonates better.

And I think that message is mostly the progressive side of the equation and I think that was where he was going with that.

And sort of indirectly maybe taking a poke at those like both Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin who voted for the budget at the federal level, it seemed to me was an echo there.

I'm not sure that's the best lane for winning a general, but it may be the best lane for winning primaries.

- You know he-- - Go ahead.

- You know, he explicitly said, these democrats who have chosen timidity, who have chosen being comfortable, who have chosen to criticize other Democrats for being too progressive.

They're the ones who have caused a lot of this, they have been the ones who've gotten to us to where we are today.

And it, so I think, you ask what lane he's trying to carve out.

I think he's trying to carve out a lane of, having other people follow him because he senses that other people in the Democratic party in these leadership roles have too much to lose.

Whereas in Illinois, where he is politically safe and of course he is more than insulated by his own money, he can say the things that rank and file Democrats that democratic voters want people to say, but have been craving but haven't been able to see.

But also, as John mentioned that pragmatic progressive, I'd like to think I coined that term a little more than a year ago, but I don't-- - Maybe I got it from you.

- Thank you.

But I think he also wants to be able to show that I think the term progressivism Republicans have been very able to weaponize it over the last, I don't know, 10 years.

And he wants to show that progressivism doesn't mean, pie in the sky, budgets that are made up that explode deficits and he does have some track record to run on in Illinois, but we also have a really difficult budget season coming right up.

I mean we've been in it, but it's going to become more public in the next month as we get to the end of legislative session in Springfield.

And that is definitely a time to test that sort of thing.

You know he's been reticent throughout his time as governor to explore more revenue areas, but it might be time for him to loosen up that sort of internal policy if he does want to get serious about walking that line between pragmatic, progressive and carving out this kind of new path where he feels like he could actually make an impact and have his message resonate, but not just his message, but have something behind it to show for it.

- He's, as you might expect, Republicans have pushed back a little bit on some of the comments that the governor made, especially in his speech in New Hampshire.

Hannah have we seen any pushback in terms of Democrats and in terms of getting his legislative agenda through this session?

Is there any, I mean, downside to what he is doing on the national level in terms of getting the job done here in Illinois?

- Yeah, you mentioned pushback from Republicans.

I do want to note that in this speech that we'll probably look back at for a while, it seems to be kind of a marker in his career.

He called for a nationwide protest in addition to calling for other Democrats to stand up.

And of course Republicans have not taken to that kindly, the White House, other Republican figures.

They have claimed that in doing that he has incited violence.

But, you know, in terms of is his, are his national ambitions getting in the way of anything in Springfield?

I'm not sure that the national ambitions are necessarily getting in the way.

I would say that the same thing that has thwarted him, at certain points in the last six years are probably the same things that are getting in the way of things in Springfield.

Like he, for example, had suggested all these, in addition to his budget in February, he had called for a host of different sort of other policy things that we have seen kind of slow and stall in Springfield.

And I would say that maybe is more of a talking to the legislature sort of issue.

And we've seen those rifts not just in his six years but in other governors.

So is it the national, I think that some Democrats might begrudge him, but I would say that the things that have stalled his other parts of the agenda are more practical than that.

- Sure, I want to shift gears just a little bit.

Another topic that's been at the top of a lot of news feeds and that involves Illinois State Senator Emil Jones III.

His federal bribery trial resulted in a deadlocked jury and a mistrial last week.

And I know you've been been following that.

Kind of bring us up to speed on what's going on with that.

- Sure, it was a trial that lasted twice as long as we thought it would, and so stayed twice as long at the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago as I thought I might.

But basically State Senator Emil Jones III, who of course is the son of former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. Who served in that role from 2003 to 2009, called himself Barack Obama's political godfather and was closely allied with Governor Rod Blagojevich.

When the governor had zero friends left in Springfield, Emil Jones III had been accused of agreeing to accept bribes from a red light camera entrepreneur who unbeknownst to him at the time was actually an FBI cooperator.

And this FBI cooperator had caught a host of other elected officials, mostly mayors in Chicago southwest suburbs, but also then State Senator Martin Sandoval, who actually died after he was, after he had pled guilty, started cooperating with the feds.

But then he passed away in late 2020 from COVID complications.

Now, Emil Jones was probably the last of the folks that this FBI Cooperator had caught in his year and a half, openly or excuse me, secretly cooperating with the FBI.

And he basically pressured Jones to come up with a figure for fundraising, eventually he said, okay, you can raise me five grand, but also I have this former intern working for me, can you get him a job?

And so the feds say that once he said that, and then once he agreed, the conversation kept going to this bill that the FBI cooperator in his official capacity as this executive of a red light camera company didn't like, Senator Jones was trying to get a statewide study of red light camera systems and more or less agreed to limit it to the city of Chicago so it wouldn't affect his business, which operated primarily in the suburbs that he had completed the bribe.

But as you said, we ended in a deadlocked jury, which is now the third time in seven months that the feds, all or some of the counts that the feds had brought in a high profile corruption trial, actually ended in deadlock.

And you know, it's really interesting because six of the counts in the case of former Illinois House speaker Michael Madigan ended in a deadlock and then mistrial in those counts.

And then back in September, the five counts against a former Illinois AT & T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza, who was himself accused of bribing Madigan.

That jury also ended in deadlock.

And I think it would give the feds kind of some pause to evaluate how they've been doing things, but it's kind of too early to tell what will happen with Jones.

For now, we have not seen anyone move for really a retrial of Madigan, but Paul La Schiazza, he will have a retrial in June.

- All right, alright, well meanwhile, the legislative session marches on.

We're winding down.

What, about 30 days or so left in the five minutes or so that we've got left.

What's cooking?

What are we looking at, what's on track to make it through?

Obviously, I'm guessing probably the budget is one of those things that's at the top of the list.

- Yeah, definitely the budget.

You know, like I said earlier, it is a tougher budget year than Illinois has seen.

You know, Illinois has got kind of been saved by a booming economy in the post COVID era.

And even pre COVID, you know, just month after month, higher than expected tax returns.

But in an economy that has been kind of seeing the first effects of these Trump tariffs, we might not be able to count on that anymore.

And I think that is definitely a scary prospect for, not just budgeteers, but everyone who lives under an Illinois budget that pays for services that you might not even think of.

But I'd love to hear John's thoughts on what is coming down down the road.

- Well, I think we've begun to touch on the important things in terms of the Illinois legislature and getting out of town on May the 20th.

And I wouldn't be surprised that they get that done.

But it's being done with a lot of question marks as Hannah's just indicated, mostly surrounding the budget.

There could be a special session called later and could be a longer veto session in the fall.

But this is all happening all across the U.S. every state, no matter whether it's Democrat, Republican, red or blue, they are struggling with what Donald Trump has done with the whole bargain that federalism is all about.

He's basically issued so many executive orders, taken so many steps and basically created so much uncertainty that the states are now experiencing what the international community has experienced.

On the international front, he has completely upset and changed what had been for 75 or 80 years since the end of World War II, especially the western world's view of how the foreign and defense policies should be managed.

That would be NATO of course, and that would be trying to spread democracy.

And all of that worked well, at least in terms of stopping World War III.

It had been plenty of regional, but no total wars like one and two had been.

So it had basically worked pretty well for the United States for sure, when we got richer and better off, in spite of the fact of having the biggest defense budget.

He shook the foundations of the world economic trade with the tariffs, and now he's shaken the basis of federalism.

Our federalism system as we've known it, has been in place since Franklin Roosevelt in the New Deal.

And it was expanded considerably by Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society.

And now there's great uncertainty about which bills the feds have been paying, won't pay anymore, how many people they're laying off.

Things like the post office, for example, now been marked for 20,000 employees to be laid off and 70 sites to be closed.

These are real people with real jobs and communities and many of those are in the most rural areas that depend on the USPS.

And it's uncertainty there.

It's uncertainty about Medicaid, it's uncertainty about Snap.

On and on it goes, and there are no answers that are going to be available by May the 30th, and everybody is struggling with what Trump has done to upset the dominant paradigm that we've lived under that has been federalism forever.

And so that budget uncertainty will be here and our general assembly and with the governor, but it's not unusual.

It's going to be all across the country just because of the chaos and uncertainty that he has created.

- John we'll let you have the last word.

John, Hannah, thank you so much for joining us this week.

As often it does happen, more to talk about than we have time.

So thank you for joining us this week on Capitol View.

I'm Jeff Williams, this is WSIU, powered by you.

(dramatic music) (dramatic music) (dramatic music) (dramatic music)