Politics: Police endorsements are common in Illinois
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNBDUQbgt_w[/youtube]
As this YouTube video demonstrates, police officers in Illinois often appear in uniform in ads for politicians they endorse. In this case, the politician in question is Tom Allen, Democratic candidate for Cook County state’s attorney. Those complaining about local cops ought to take heed.
DeWayne Bartels is reporting that it appears that a photograph of uniformed Peoria Heights police officers posing with Republican Peoria County State’s Attorney candidate Darin LaHood in front of a police car may be a violation of election law. The top cop in the Heights has apparently asked LaHood’s opponent, incumbent Democratic SA Kevin Lyons to investigate this apparent violation.
If there are election law violations, they must be investigated and prosecuted. But here are the problems:
- It’s a screaming conflict of interest for Lyons to investigate a charge involving his opponent.
- The propriety of state’s attorney candidates by police unions is itself an issue in the LaHood/Lyons campaign. LaHood brags abut how every single police union has endorsed him. Lyons says he doesn’t accept police endorsements because he wants to maintain the independence of his office. It’s a brave stance to refuse to accept support from people who would rather eat their own young than offer support.
- The way I read the article, if this is a violation of the law, then the violators are those officers who posed for the pictures, not LaHood, even thought LaHood is in a better position to know election law, being a lawyer who has spent the better part of the past year as a candidate for office. Going after officers wouldn’t win Lyons any friends in uniform. But then, Lyons cites his willingness to prosecute police as proof of his independence.
- It’s been suggested elsewhere that Lyons would seek an outside prosecutor, like Tazewell County SA Stuart Umholtz. Trouble is, LaHood used to work with Umholtz.
In other Lyons/Lahood mudfest news, a judge has ruled that accused rapist Monterius Hinckle can be tried in Peoria County, despite the pre-trial publicity caused when Lyons held a press conference to complain that LaHood had tried to meet with the father of one of girls Hinckle is accuses of attacking.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Here’s an idea, DeWayne: Don’t carry the torch for Kevin Lyons and any other weird political friends he has. This is such a non-story that it barely deserves a blip on the internet screen. But, per usual, in DeWayne’s World, a molehill is not only a mountain, it’s also Io.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Note: Prego man slams DeWayne here. I also defend DeWayne.
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:45 am
Prego,
As an amatuer astronomer and a JPL/Nasa Solar System Ambassador I really appreciate your Io reference. Nicely done.
But, your reference to me being a torch-bearer for Kevin Lyons is going to make him laugh out loud.
Over the years Kevin has probably called me a lot of things. But, torch-bearer isn’t one of them.
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
Well, DeWayne, if that’s true, then I don’t get why you even ran with this non-story. Maybe you don’t like the Heights police. Or, maybe you don’t like the new Heights administration. Maybe because there’s an election coming up next April, you’re trying to stir the pot for the former mayor there in the Heights. But, it’s WAY too much time for a story that barely registers a blip.
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Sorry. I am a LaHood supporter and I recognize that a potential violation of election law bu police and/or a state’s attorney candidate IS a legitimate news story. The problem, as the above video illustrates, is that it’s so COMMON.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Billy, it’s not so much that I’m saying it DOESN’T deserve SOME coverage; but, it certainly doesn’t deserve the big shebang that DeWayne is runnin’ with. I mean, he makes it into a headline situation; and it’s all political, obviously. It doesn’t matter if he’s doing it for the politics of Lyons; Carter; or whomever; it’s just clearly a politically slanted story, and that’s what I think is so questionable about DeWayne’s reporting.
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Billy,
I looked at the tom allen commercial and there is an important distinction here that I’m surprised is being missed. With all of the furor over Schock’s use of city equipment for political purposes, lining the streets with dump trucks, there real question is the use of the peoria heights police vehicle as a political prop. I don’t care if individual officers want to stand up in a commercial for Lahood, that’s a first amendment right as long as they are not on duty. But I do object to them using a taxpayer purchased vehicle as a prop. Would we tolerate the use of a fire engine racing to an imaginary “fire” used intentionally as part of a TV commercial, if fire protection were part of a campaign for say city council? Of course not. This was obviously a staged shot and not some picture of opportunity at a parade or some other authorized function. And I love the fact that the police chief said “I’m sure they didn’t know it was against the law”. How far would that get you or I? And perhaps just as importantly in all of this, why doesn’t Peoria Heights have an ordinance as required by statute for nearly 5 years? Lahood should have known better, then again he should have known better than to insert himself into a pending trial. Anyone can make mistakes but his are piling up past the point of ignoring.
Be fair billy, give me a scenario where you think the use of a police car for political purposes would not be ok and explain the difference with the situation at hand.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Peoria Heights does have that ordinance in effect, gfalkes. Call their Village Hall to verify, if you don’t believe me. I called them, and even got the ordinance number; I just didn’t write it down. Just one more thing that DeWayne got wrong.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Also, “tax money” paid for those uniforms, too. Splitting hairs, huh? If it’s good for the goose, good for the gander, ya think? You think that photo looks staged? Looks more like a bad vacation photo. No one shaking hands. No one looking for a photo op, to get their pretty mugs up front. The police chief would probably use the same excuse for anyone who did something as innocent as this photo is. Not that it would keep you from punishment, but it would throw the whole “crime” into a different light, don’t you think? Like if you didn’t know it was against the law to hang a smelly thing from your rear view mirror. I think that would get you off with a warning. However, if you had been pulled over a few times for the same thing, then got caught… then a ticket might be in your hand.
It’s a clear, acceptable statement. Except for those who might have a political axe to grind. Just like Peoria, but on a smaller scale. Peoria just doesn’t have the Observer doing it’s best to undermine a “Carter-less” Village. I know, because I used to live in the Heights when Carter was mayor. And it wasn’t pretty place to live, so I moved. But, the Observer thinks it was. And, that’s all that counts in DeWayne’s World.
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
not sure about the heights but lots of departments require officers to buy their uniforms (a huge issue in chicago right now). So, may NOT be a taxpayer issue. (to split a hair) second, the ordinance did not appear on their web site so dewayne might be excused for that, and apparently the police chief didn’t know it either. I don’t care about the he-said he-said politics in Peo hgts. but I do care if some places demand that no public resources be used for “political purposes” while others do not. lahood should not have put the police department in this position.
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Prego,
Please re-read the story.
About half-way down you will find I do have in the story the village had the ordinance on the books. And, that it was passed before the statutory deadline.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Sorry, DeWayne. Jumped to conclusions after the statement from gfalkes.