You are still wrong regarding the dates of the contributions. So funny that you think it came in on February 5th, 2010! Sure, the first $5,000 came in then. But the one worth mentioning, the contribution that is 15x what the limit was two days later, came on December 28th. Sure, her sugar-momma CME group commodities trader has given her tons of money, but the whopper of a donation came 48 hours before the law changed.

It’s laughable that you imply Kelly doesn’t report her contributions. She’s filed what, a dozen reports since January 1st?

This isn’t mudslinging, it’s about who we as a community trust to get big money out of politics. When one of the candidates in the race seems, in action and in omitting it from her ethics plan, doesn’t care one bit about regulating individual donations, that is not good at all.

That omission makes corporate and even party caps moot points. In a world where Paula gets her way, a corporation can’t donate much but the CEO could write a billion dollar check. A party leader could send little through their party fund, but write a billion dollar personal check. Hell, the donor who gave to her is a CME group related broker, and guess what Kelly just voted against? A huge bailout to CME! I would hate to imagine how a candidate funded almost entirely by a CME broker would have voted!

This would be the biggest back door we have ever seen in campaign finance, and that is simply undeniable. If individuals can cut $75,000+ checks, ALL other caps are completely out the window.

Maybe you’re not clear on the concept. Ronen *is* running. Check your ballot.

“One bad supporter doesn’t mean anything.”

Are you kidding? Ronen isn’t a supporter. She’s like a patronage queen. She cashes juicy pension checks, paid for by you and me, and gets to decide single-handledly who does and does not get appointed to offices within the district.

“Kelly was a cosponsor for the bill that restored the cuts made before she came into office to things like drug rehabilitation and transitional housing, while simultaneously funding it. I’d call that strong work so far.”

I’d call that filing a sponsor sheet. The heavy lifting, such that it was, happened before she got there and in rooms she wasn’t in. Come on. She’s had weeks in session. If Kelly is your candidate, you’re doing her no favors by inflating her record.

“You are flat out wrong that the large contribution came “months” before the law changed.”

Um, no, I’m not. The first of the three contributions came on February 5, 2010.

“So Paula Basta, running for state rep clearly violates the spirit of the law, and your response is “well this other politician that supports Kelly violated it as well!””

No, that’s what you’re saying. I’m simply pointing out that Basta complied with the law. This “spirit” argument is just some sort of WD40 that works for your Basta bash. As for Ronen, the other politician, she doesn’t “support” Kelly, she gave her the freaking job and now it looks like Kelly and her supporters have their nickers in a twist because someone has the audacity to run for the seat. Super pouty, don’t you think?

“That doesn’t address the facts. How in the world can we trust Paula on campaign finance reform when she is only in this race due to a single massive contribution?

Ha! That standard might disqualify every current officeholder on the north lake front. The fact is the single massive contribution you cite doesn’t exist. There are three, legal contributions. As for characterizing these contributions as “massive,” I can only conclude that you are new to these parts. Unlike so many slated candidates, Basta reports her contributions. Let’s see if Cassidy, under the tutelage of her mentor, does the same.

Instead of beating this dead horse, let’s elevate this debate and talk about something real. How about the budget? Or pension reform? Or medicaid reform? Or, how about a softball like party caps. I think both of these candidates are capable of engaging the issues instead of this kind of mud slinging.

Kelly was a cosponsor for the bill that restored the cuts made before she came into office to things like drug rehabilitation and transitional housing, while simultaneously funding it. I’d call that strong work so far.

You are flat out wrong that the large contribution came “months” before the law changed. The new caps went into effect on January 1st, 2011. Paula recorded a $75,000 contribution on 12/28/2010. Later, that donor and her partner kicked in an additional $10,000. Don’t believe me on the dates? Pull up the 7/1/2010 to 12/31/2010 D2 reports.

So Paula Basta, running for state rep clearly violates the spirit of the law, and your response is “well this other politician that supports Kelly violated it as well!” That doesn’t address the facts. How in the world can we trust Paula on campaign finance reform when she is only in this race due to a single massive contribution?

Ronen sponsored the pension reform legislation that closed the loophole that she later exploited when it was time for her “retire.”

That’s a whole lot of spirit.

Then there are the hundreds of thousands of dollars she bundled to reelect Blagojevich, which was richly rewarded with that 8-week pension spiking gig. Then there was the fact that she was his Senate floor manager and fostered some catastrophically bad legislation that has cost us all, including her former colleagues who she left to unwind it. It goes on. And on.

The donations you find so “violating” first came to Basta months before the law changed, not hours. I’ll be quite interested to hear what you have to say about spirit when all the typical, and pricey, party favors start showering down on Cassidy’s campaign. Those contributions will be legally reported after the primary.

Wow. There’s that spirit again. It’s freaking everywhere in 48, isn’t it?

Cassidy’s “done a lot of great work on the budget already”? That’s not even remotely possible and I’m not saying that because I have any beef about her abilities (in case you haven’t noticed). She may well be a great legislator but praising her for accomplishments she hasn’t had a opportunity yet to achieve is nothing but election year crap and tells me you’re probably flacking for the campaign (don’t forget to report it) and you know absolutely zip about state budgeting.

And what is with this intense focus on Carol? Sure, she made the appointment, but why not evaluate Kelly on an individual level? Sure Carol supports Kelly. So do the Firefighters, Police Officers, union men and women, LGBT groups, pro-choice groups, and many many many more.

She’s done a lot of great work on the budget already, both working to restore the cuts to critical social services, while working to move to a more progressive revenue system that can balance the budget while making sure that middle class families and small businesses aren’t overburdened.

” Just like his leadership on civil unions, he has the respect on both sides of the aisle to provide the ray of hope for those waiting for equal marriage rights.”

Oh, so this is an ad for Greg Harris. The others are decried as “machine incumbents,” but not him? Who completely acted as a machine puppet and O’Connor lackey with the Walgreen’s liquor license legislation? Okay.

Seems to me only a regular would expect Basta or anyone else to compete with one arm tied behind her back. While you make not like the law or Basta personally, she didn’t do anything wrong. You just can’t say the same thing about Ronen & Co.

Bottom line is Basta and Kelly are strong candidates, both are capable, both are qualified. And rather than peddling arguments like this one, how about we focus on something important. Like the budget.

For a legitimate developer, though, great idea. If they could get through the red tape around the property.

When you do something that would be illegal if you had waited 48 hours, that’s problematic in my eyes.

Second, why focus on these contributions and ignore the super rich party two-step? The party routinely transfers benefits of similar value (and more) but doesn’t book the contribution until the day of the election or afterwards. Also, and not insignificantly, in-kind donations (like, say, tens of thousands of dollars of printing and mailing) do not trigger A1s. You get to read about those contributions when the quarterly report comes out. Of course the cash contributions that Kelly can receive from House Democrats are not capped like individual contributions so if you think money is the problem, its not Basta you have a beef with, its Madigan who scaled the limits differently for individuals, PACs and caucus leaders.

And Aville, you need to do some fact-checking, too. The cost to tax-payers for Carol’s pension spike is north of $1 million (you need to compound the automatic cost of living increases over her expected lifetime to get to the right number).

Although David Ormsby flacks for House Assistant Majority Leader, Lou Lang and it is his job to bang the drum for Kelly, he’s not wrong about the cost of special elections. They are expensive. Even at the federal level they are used sparingly—only for filling Senate seats and even then, I’m not sure they work to stem corruption (recall, J3 emissaries and Mr. “I’ve got this thing and it’s f—— golden”)

As for the last election in the district, it was 20 years ago in 1992, when Carol was elected to the House, though some would argue that wasn’t much of an election given the meddling of her mentor and fellow pension abuser, Art Berman.

And finally, there is a long history of active, influential residents throughout the district who have done a lot more than talk about reform. The reality is Basta is running, in part, on their legacies. So to say, “It’s about time somebody talked about ethics reform up here” ignores these individuals and their contributions and credits their many years of work to Basta, which I don’t believe is your intention.