SEIU Spends $350,000 On Chicago City Council Race, Backed Candidate Wins by 28 Votes

Welcome to the new politics in America everyone - we have entered a new age where public sector unions will try to control who represents you in all governmental offices, including those as far down the list as city council offices.

This article from the Chicago Daily Observer points out that in a tightly contested Chicago city council runoff election, the SEIU spent $150,000 on their candidate and had previously spent $200,000 on a different candidate in the primaries. That's $350,000 spent by a PUBLIC sector union in a CITY COUNCIL election! Almost unbelievably, their candidate won by a mere 28 votes.

From the article:

What if the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Chicago Federation of Labor, through their political action committees, had not flooded the ward with negative mailings, provided staff, and spent $150,000 to defeat Garrido? In the primary, the unions spent $200,000 on behalf of Marina Faz-Huppert.

But give credit where credit is due. John Arena, the 28-vote victor, ran a brilliant campaign. His advisors and strategists well understood that the path to runoff victory lay in demonizing and discrediting Garrido, not in promoting Arena.

A blizzard of 17 wardwide attack mailers, over half funded with union money, blistered Garrido as “not one of us,” accusing him of being a “partisan Republican” who was allegedly opposed to union collective bargaining rights, supported privatization of city services, favored “concealed carry” of guns, and got contributions from those who prospered from the city’s parking meter deal. “All lies,” fumed Garrido. But extraordinarily effective.

Arena’s negativity transformed the runoff from a choice between two charismatic, articulate candidates into a referendum on “Big, Bad John” Garrido. Arena gave voters a multitude of personal and political reasons not to vote for Garrido, and Garrido lacked the resources to rebut and reciprocate.

So, I have a simple question. If the SEIU is willing to spend $350,000 on a city council alderman race in Chicago, just how much are they willing to pump into the coffers of the Barack Hussein Obama Presidential campaign for 2012?

Oh wait, one more question...in Madison, WI we saw public sector unions protesting and carrying on over their pensions and healthcare benefits and their ability to protect those through collective bargaining....so I ask, if you add up all of the contributions nationwide by the SEIU to Democrat and Communist politicians, wouldn't that money be more than enough to increase the benefits to their members ten fold?

I wonder if any public sector union workers ever read stories like this and would rather their dues go to THEIR overall welfare than a two bit politician's?

(Hat Tip: Right2thepoint)

$350,000 From the SEIU in the 45th Ward Grabs an 8 Vote Victory for John Arena


Blame it on Attention Deficit Disorder. Blame it on the SEIU’s money machine. Blame it on George Bush. Blame it on a nasty, negative campaign.

When losing an aldermanic election by a microscopic 28 votes, as John Garrido did in the 45th Ward on April 5, there’s an avalanche of blame and tons of fault. Turnout in the ward’s 53 precincts was 12,132. Garrido lost by half-of-a-vote per precinct. The most inconsequential mistake or oversight assumes gargantuan proportions. “What ifs” proliferate.

What if Garrido had not run unsuccessfully in the 2010 Republican primary for Cook County board president? Then the yoke of Bush and “failed Republican policies” would not have been hung around his neck. Garrido’s Republican affiliation cost him hundreds of votes.

What if the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Chicago Federation of Labor, through their political action committees, had not flooded the ward with negative mailings, provided staff, and spent $150,000 to defeat Garrido? In the primary, the unions spent $200,000 on behalf of Marina Faz-Huppert.

What if Garrido had raised more money? He spent $112,846 in 2011, and had two runoff mailings. In the pre-Feb. 22 campaign, with seven candidates, Garrido got a solid third of the vote, emphasizing his job as a police lieutenant and his pledge to “protect” the ward. In the runoff, Garrido’s “message” was drowned in a pool of negativity.

What if Garrido had run against Faz-Huppert, the “unions’ sweetheart,” who was backed by outgoing Alderman Pat Levar’s (45th) Democratic organization? She got 3,092 votes (19.5 percent) in the primary, despite 15 mailings, and was a seriously flawed candidate. Garrido would have beat her.

But give credit where credit is due. John Arena, the 28-vote victor, ran a brilliant campaign. His advisors and strategists well understood that the path to runoff victory lay in demonizing and discrediting Garrido, not in promoting Arena.

A blizzard of 17 wardwide attack mailers, over half funded with union money, blistered Garrido as “not one of us,” accusing him of being a “partisan Republican” who was allegedly opposed to union collective bargaining rights, supported privatization of city services, favored “concealed carry” of guns, and got contributions from those who prospered from the city’s parking meter deal. “All lies,” fumed Garrido. But extraordinarily effective.

Arena’s negativity transformed the runoff from a choice between two charismatic, articulate candidates into a referendum on “Big, Bad John” Garrido. Arena gave voters a multitude of personal and political reasons not to vote for Garrido, and Garrido lacked the resources to rebut and reciprocate.

The official result was 6,080-6,052 (50.1 percent). Arena carried 33 of the ward’s 53 precincts and, south of Lawrence, in and around his Portage Park base, won 16 of 17 precincts. Garrido, from Gladstone Park, won 20 precincts, but lost 17 of the 36 precincts north of Lawrence, his base.

It will be recalled that a prior 45th Ward column (see www.russstewart.com, March 23, 2011) made one erroneous and one prophetic prediction. I forsaw a 6,800-6,100 Garrido win in a turnout of 12,900. That was half-wrong, as turnout was 12,077, and Garrido had 750 fewer votes than expected. But I accurately prophesized that Arena, to win, had to amass 60 percent of the vote in the ward’s south end, and more than 45 percent in the north end.

That’s exactly what happened. Arena got 45.4 percent in Garrido’s north base, and 60.2 percent in his south base.

In the primary, Garrido had 5,138 votes (32.4 percent), finishing first in 33 precincts, and Arena had 3,595 votes (22.7 percent), finishing first in 13 precincts. The other five candidates – Faz-Huppert, Don Blair, Anna Klocek, Mike Ward and Bruno Bellissimo – had a total of 7,398 votes. Blair, Ward and Bellissimo endorsed Garrido. Faz-Huppert, a lobbyist and political director of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, gave Arena a $5,000 personal contribution, and helped swing the unions behind him. “Just watch,” observed one Levar precinct captain. “I’ll bet she is the next (Democratic) committeeman.”

On April 5, Garrido had 914 votes more than in February, while Arena had an uptick of 2,485. Presuming that the primary’s Garrido and Arena voters returned to the polls for their champion, then 4,054 of the other contenders’ voters didn’t. Based on that presumption, of the 3,344 who did vote, Arena got over 70 percent.

Here’s why:

The line of demarcation between the candidates’ bases is Lawrence Avenue. To the north, in Gladstone Park, north Jefferson Park, Forest Glen and Edgebrook, lie 36 precincts, The area is working-class, culturally conservative, and normally inclined to support pro-Daley Democrats like Levar. It cast 10,825 ballots on Feb. 22: Garrido had 4,082 votes (37.7 percent) and Arena 1,977 votes (18.2 percent).

In the runoff, the north cast 8,289 ballots, 2,536 fewer than in February – a decline of 23.4 percent. Garrido got 4,522 votes (54.6 percent), just 440 more than in the primary, while Arena’s vote nearly doubled, from 1,977 to 3,767 (45.4 percent), an increase of 1,790.

Forest Glen, nestled between Cicero, Foster and Elston, is indicative of why Arena won. In the primary, two Glen candidates, Anna Klocek and Mike Ward, got 279 votes in the area’s 3 precincts, to Garrido’s 279 and Arena’s 195. But in the runoff, Arena won by 373-362. Likewise in the 2 Edgebrook precincts, which Arena won 314-273. By defining Garrido as a Republican, Arena put a ceiling on Garrido’s vote in those independent areas.

To the south, in Portage Park and south Jefferson Park, lie 17 precincts. The area is economically mixed, with many professionals, culturally liberal, and very disinclined to support machine Democrats like Levar. Arena calls himself an “Obama Democrat,” which means he typifies the neighborhood. It cast 5,039 ballots on Feb. 22: Arena had 1,618 votes (32.1 percent) and Garrido 1,056 votes (21 percent).

In the runoff, the south cast 3,843 ballots, 1,196 fewer than in February – a decline of 23.7 percent. Garrido got 1,530 votes (39.8 percent), just 474 more than in the primary, while Arena’s vote surged from 1,618 to 2,313 (60.2 percent), an increase of 695.

In the precincts around their home, each candidate rocked. In the Elston-Austin area, Garrido won 11 precincts with more than 60 percent, and his home precinct with over 70 percent. In the Six Corners area, Arena won 8 precincts with more than 60 percent, and his home and adjacent precinct by over 70 percent.

Of the 31 precincts where the winner got under 60 percent, Arena won 23; and in the 14 precincts where the winner got under 55 percent, Arena won 11. “Many, many people have told me that they forgot to vote, or their spouse didn’t vote,” groaned Garrido. With signage all over the ward, and anti-Garrido mailers bombarding every household every other day, only an ostrich was unaware of the election. Attention Deficit Disorder is a non-excuse.

Garrido lost because he couldn’t expand his base, not because he couldn’t turn out his base. Arena won because he packaged himself as a “Democratic alderman,” and that was just enough to solidify his vote both north and south of Lawrence.

Arena’s campaign proved that the power of the postal service is best utilized negatively, not positively. Faz-Huppert’s barrage of 15 mailers, filled with bland bromides, made nary a dent. The unions could not sell their product. But in the runoff, slick pieces featuring Bush and Sarah Palin, plus allegations that Garrido “hit the jackpot” on the parking meter deal, would “draw two city pensions,” and donated to Bush’s campaign, got voters’ attention.

The lesson: It’s easier to unsell than sell a candidate. The cost: SEIU and their union allies spent roughly $350,000 to elect a 45th Ward alderman. Faz-Huppert got 3,092 votes, and Arena 6,080 votes. That’s $38 per vote. Will they get a return on their investment?

“I’m not beholden to anybody,” snapped Arena. “They (the unions) will have no influence. They get a seat at the table. But I will deliberate on every issue.” He won because of his “positive, grassroots campaign.” Arena’s committee spent $106,038 in 2011.

“I wish him well,” Garrido insisted. “I hope he does a good job. But he has no mandate. He won because of his negative campaign.” As for 2015, Garrido “won’t rule out a rematch.”

“I certainly do have a mandate,” retorted Arena. “The people want new leadership. They want an independent alderman. They rejected an Organization Democrat” – meaning Faz-Huppert.

To coin a phrase: We’ll see. Arena promised not to run for ward Democratic committeeman in 2012, a post held by Levar. The outgoing alderman has already snagged a job with a major union. If he quits his party post, he can prevail on his captains to choose Faz-Huppert or his son, Pat Jr., as successor.

We’ll see whether the “independent alderman” cuts a deal with the “Organization Democrats.”