Tom Kacich: Rosenberg mailer turns Madigan into a hypocrite

Tom Kacich: Rosenberg mailer turns Madigan into a hypocrite

One of the newest mailpieces from Sam Rosenberg, the Democratic candidate for the Illinois House in the 103rd District, gets an award for political chutzpah.

It's paid for by the Democratic Majority political action committee chaired by House Speaker Michael Madigan.

What does Tom really think? Ask him here

But the mailer — one of about half a dozen sent out in the last week on behalf of Rosenberg — hits "politicians who failed to properly fund the state's pensions," and promises that Rosenberg "will oppose any legislation that unfairly strips workers of their retirements."

On both counts, that's Michael Madigan.

Madigan has been in Springfield longer than any other state legislator (elected in 1970), has served as speaker for all but two of the last 31 years, and was running the House during the famous "pension holiday" of 2005, when Gov. Rod Blagojevich persuaded lawmakers to cut pension funding by $2.3 billion over two years (Madigan voted for it, as did state Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana, who has also endorsed Rosenberg).

Also unsaid in the mailpiece is that it was Madigan who last year pushed through the Legislature a bill — vehemently opposed by public employee and retiree groups — that slows the increase in cost-of-living raises.

"The bill would not have passed without me," Madigan boasted in a statement after controversial Senate Bill 1 was signed into law.

"The promise of a secure retirement was made to hundreds of thousands of workers in Illinois," says Rosenberg's anti-Madigan mailer paid for by Madigan.

The mailer never says that Madigan, as head of the Democratic Majority committee, had a major role in breaking that promise.

Meanwhile, Rosenberg's campaign continues to benefit from Madigan-related groups. Of the $109,149 the campaign has raised so far (including loans and in-kind contributions), more than $42,000 has come from either the Democratic Majority or the Friends of Michael J. Madigan.

Rosenberg's primary opponent, Urbana City Council member Carol Ammons, has raised a fraction of Rosenberg's sum, about $11,229.

Gill leaving state job

Dr. David Gill, the Democratic candidate for the 13th Congressional District race in 2012, last week left his $127,739-a-year position with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

Gill said his resignation was effective March 1 and that he would "get back to full-time emergency medicine," working at hospitals in Normal, Gibson City and Alton.

Even though he was appointed assistant director of the public health department in May, he was never confirmed by the state Senate.

"I leave without any negative feelings. I think the people doing that work are making a sacrifice," he said. "As far as the family budget, to do right by my family, I needed to get back to the full-time practice of emergency medicine. But I leave there very amicably."

He said he plans to continue working at the three hospitals, "just expanding my hours."

When he ran for Congress in 2012, Gill disclosed that in 2011, he made $311,420 as an independent emergency-room physician.

He said he eventually hoped to run for public office again, but likely not this year.

And he said he would continue to "stay neutral" in this spring's three-way 13th District Democratic primary among Ann Callis, George Gollin and David Green.

But the seat "still interests me," Gill said. "I want to see the people of Illinois 13 represented appropriately. I still feel that the voters got a raw deal last time, with the views by (independent candidate) John Hartman and I winning the day by 6 or 7 points, but those views aren't being represented in Washington, D.C., right now."

In the 2012 election, Gill got 46.21 percent, Hartman got 7.24 percent and the winner, Republican Rodney Davis, got 46.55 percent.

"I certainly would like to see the majority of people have their voice in Washington, which I believe they aren't. They got cheated by the way John Hartman and I split the votes," Gill said.

Harold to speak at CPAC

Erika Harold of Urbana, one of three Republican candidates in the 13th District, will speak Saturday at CPAC 2014, the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., as one of the top 10 conservatives under 40.

"We are pleased to announce that Erika Harold has been selected as one of our top 10 conservatives under 40," said American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas. "Our focus at CPAC has always been to showcase rising stars in the conservative movement. The depth and diversity of young leaders like Erika provides hope for America's future as we face tough challenges ahead."

Harold, a Harvard Law School graduate and Miss America 2003, is challenging U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Taylorville, in the March 18 primary, along with Michaal Firesching of Moro.

Callis endorsements

Democratic congressional candidate Ann Callis picked up the endorsement of about 30 local Democrats last week, including Jakobsson; Champaign Mayor Don Gerard; Urbana Mayor Laurel Prussing; State's Attorney Julia Rietz; county board members Michael Richards, Josh Hartke, Chris Alix and James Quisenberry; and Champaign City Council member Marci Dodds.


Sen. Mike Frerichs, D-Champaign and former Champaign County Board Chairwoman Patricia Avery will host a fundraiser for county board candidate Tony Fabri (suggested donation $25) from 6 to 8 p.m. today at Radio Maria, 119 N. Walnut St., C.

Joanne Chester and John Peterson will hold a brunch fundraiser for Callis from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Sunday at their home, 702 W. Pennsylvania Ave., U. Suggested donation levels are $25, $50 and $100.

Naomi and Eric Jakobsson will host a fundraiser for Rosenberg (suggested donation $25) from 2 to 4 p.m. Sunday at their home, 803 W. Main St., U.

Tom Kacich is a News-Gazette editor and columnist. His column appears on Wednesdays and Sundays. He can be reached at 351-5221 or

Sections (2):News, Local
Tags (1):2014 election

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jms wrote on March 05, 2014 at 10:03 am

I'd like Sam Rosenberg to talk about his role in allowing Carle to be considered a non-profit, and thus not having to pay property tax. My property taxes will be going up as a result, and Parkland College will be taking an $800K hit. I know it was his job as an attorney, and you do what your company tells you to do, but this is still something he needs to address.

I also think Naomi Jacobssen, having voted to defund our pensions, should quietly disappear from politics and refrain from endorsing anyone. I feel the same about her husband, who seems bent on hurting Carol Ammon's reputation.

wayward wrote on March 05, 2014 at 2:03 pm

How exactly did Naomi Jakobsson vote to "defund our pensions?"  Can you provide an example?

As far as Carle, Rosenberg's position is here:

New Reality wrote on March 05, 2014 at 11:03 am

If it wasn't clear already, it should certainly be obvious now, that Sam Rosenberg is much more of a follower than a leader. He cannot, and will not, fight for this district. Failing to protect our pensions, à la Madigan, is a failure to protect our families…

jms wrote on March 05, 2014 at 12:03 pm

that's how i see it too. he wants entry into a political career. he has aligned himself with a company that hurt this district, and with politicians who hurt us as well.

Local Yocal wrote on March 05, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Profile Picture

Speaking of hypocrites:

In the last debate, Rosenberg was confronted by the reality of Springfield Politricks and revealed he will cooperate with whoever butters (supplies) his bread. Rosenberg understands the terms of employment in Springfield and how political careers are made- or broken. Talking from both sides of his mouth, Rosenberg attempts to sound like a populist willing to overthrow the corruption that has held Illinois government hostage; while at the same time, assures his Masters he will be a good boy.

Attending the U of I law school has definitely prepared Rosenberg to deceive the ignorant about the contents of The Illinois Constitution, and Rosenberg shows his political chutzpah by selling the public that what they want is "too hard."
For keeping the status quo, Madigan has chosen well.

On March 4, on Focus 580-WILL AM talk radio,

a caller at the 19:11 mark of the debate
between Rosenberg and Ammons asked the candidates
1) whether the Illinois General Assembly
needs to restructure "the rules of the game;"
(whereby the Speaker of the House controls whether a legislator's bill can go to a committee for consideration,
whether a bill will be called for a vote if it passes the committee,
or whether a bill can be called for a vote if it first passes in the Senate) and
2) would either candidate vote for the current Speaker of The House,
who's been there for the last 30 or so years.

Rosenberg's answer begins at 22:12:
"Sure,...I think [the caller] brought up some excellent points. First with regards to the Speaker, I am not sure if I would vote for him as Speaker of the House. I, I, have not met the man, and I would have to have a conversation with him and see who else is running of course. Just as one does not vote on a bill until they read it, one does not vote for someone until they've heard their positions.

As for the structural situation that exists within Springfield, and the amount of power that rests in the Speaker's office, [the caller] is exactly right. There is a significant amount of power that rests with Speaker Madigan. And,... as for where we go in the next five/ten years,, we need to be electing representatives who are able to work within the system that he has developed over the past thirty years; but, are able to work so we are benefiting this district in particular.

Restructuring the by-laws, the rules of procedure, the- in some instances even The Illinois Constitution as for how the State Legislature works would be a very intensive and very-...uh,...I don't want to say politically risky, but politically,...uh, it would take someone really sticking their neck out and making sure that every single ally and every single proposal is worthwhile. Additionally, you'd be running up to some stiff opposition because there are individuals who have made careers of being in Springfield, and taking advantage of their knowledge of those rules.

That's one of the reasons I'm in favor of term limits, that's one of the reasons that I believe we should be representing and voting for individuals who stand up for what is important for their district. Since Day One, I have stated my opposition to Senate Bill 1, the pension reform bill; I've stated my position of favoring the progressive income tax. Additionally, I have stated I am against the proliferation of charter schools- all things Speaker Madigan is against.

But if I am to go to Springfield, working within his mechanism- at least for the first few periods where I am still a junior representative- is going to be necessary. Because no freshman legislator is going to be able to go to Springfield and re-write The Constitution. I'll never forget one of my first weeks in law school, our professor stood up and said, 'Most kids go to law school thinking they're going to re-write The Constitution and they end up handling mechanic's [?]' the change is, uh, is drastic, but it is something I believe we can do over time so we do have more transparency and better representation in the Statehouse."

clayeater65 wrote on March 05, 2014 at 1:03 pm

If you want a candidate who's not going to be in Madigan's pocket, why not just choose one who's already not in Madigan's pocket? 

Madigan's pension grab and corporate tax giveaway are on one side, funding and staffing Rosenberg's campaign.  Carol Ammons is on the other side, opposing the pension grab and the corporate tax giveaway, and opposed by Madigan and his big-spending supporters.

cjwinla wrote on March 05, 2014 at 1:03 pm


My rough calculations show that 85% of Rosenberg's contribution $$ came from outside the 103rd District. When you add in the $$ from his dad the ratio goes to 92%. Then add in the $5k he kicked in himself and you have to ask yourself... Did he raise any money in the 103rd District ? Then you have to ask yourself if a young inexperienced candidate is being funded by the Chicago powerbrokers, how will he effectively represent the people of the 103rd District ? I feel comfortable the people of the 103rd will make the right choice ..... Carol Ammons.

wayward wrote on March 05, 2014 at 2:03 pm

The State Board of Elections disclosure site doesn't show a first quarter report for 2014 available yet.

Moreoever, individual contributions under $250 don't have to be itemized.

So let's see ... we don't even know how much money has come in to his campaign during the 2014 first quarter in total, let alone how much of it was itemized and non-itemized.  Yet you feel comfortable "calculating" what percentage of his funds came from where?  SMH.

cjwinla wrote on March 05, 2014 at 2:03 pm


The candidates are required to report all contributions over $1,000 within 24 hours of receipt. If you go on the site and search contributions to Sam Rosenberg you will find the totals I describe there. You can shake your head all you want but when you are so wrong it really does not become you.


wayward wrote on March 05, 2014 at 3:03 pm

Yes, I gathered that.  But given that you don't have data available on how much total money his campaign has taken in this quarter, you don't have any basis for calculating percentages yet.  It's just simple math.

Moreover, if you look at his report for the last quarter of 2013, almost 30% of the contributions and transfers in were not itemized.  That means you really can't say where they came from, though it's not unusual for local small donors to not be itemized because they're under the $250 threshold.  It would not surprise me if there was also a fair amount of donations and transfers for the first quarter of 2014 that were also not itemized.

Did Sam Rosenberg get a fair amount of money from outside the district?  Sure.  I'm also not aware of Carol Ammons turning down any contributions from outside 103, though it'd be interesting to hear about it if she did.  Of course, PACs and unions generally aren't headquartered in Champaign County, so any money either of them got from those sources would show up as being outside the district.

cjwinla wrote on March 05, 2014 at 3:03 pm


Well considering the 92% was derived from a $109k total contributions received over the $150 reporting threshold  it would take a whole lot of small contributions to move that needle so Its safe to say he has recieved 90% from outside the District. The underlying issue is do you believe all of that Chicago money comes with no strings attached ? Couple that with the fact that the downstate interests are distinctly different from Chicago area it is a fair question for voters to ask whose interests will Sam represent ? The money people in Chicago who are funding his campaign or the people of the 103rd ? His support of tax cuts for big coporations gives real insight as to where his priorities will be.

wayward wrote on March 05, 2014 at 5:03 pm

"All the Chicago money?"  A lot of the contributions are coming from Springfield, which is about 1.5 hours southwest of C-U.  There are a lot of union-related donors, and not much that looks corporate.  I counted three Chicago donors - one union, the Illinois State Medical Society PAC, and Michael Madigan's own committee.

New Reality wrote on March 05, 2014 at 5:03 pm

Madigan Mailers aren't going to win this election. The Voters of the 103rd District are going to decide who represents us. We don't need a candidate to "mail it in". The clear choice is Carol Ammons.

Local Yocal wrote on March 05, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Profile Picture

My understanding of Pay-to-Play in Illinois, and please anyone correct if wrong, is that: labor unions stand to benefit from corporations getting state government contracts when corporations use union labor to build their mighty empires.

So rather than all this outside money considered a vote for Sam from the "common working man," the sudden interest in Champaign-Urbana politics should be seen as a future bribe for Sam's vote on more pork that will benefit these out-of-town philanthropists.

Southern Central IL Laborers' Political League, $2,500, out of Marion, IL.
 Illinois Political Action Committee for Education, $2,500, out of Springfield, IL. The Illinois Laborers' Legislative Committee, $10,000, out of Springfield, IL.  Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois PAC, $1,000, out of Springfield, IL
Illinois Pipe Trades PAC, $4,000, out of Springfield, IL.   I.U.O.E. Local 150, $2,500, out of Countryside, IL.   I.U.O.E. Local 399, $2,500, out of Chicago, IL.  ect.

But before there can be Pay-to-Play, there must be Buy-to-Fly. Speaker Madigan appears to be purchasing the next Naomi to be the hapless goober putting his paper clip in the yes button for,....what do all these unions and PAC's have in common?: They are frequent donors to Madigan's PAC's/Empire. Perhaps Mr. Kacich can verify such.

$100,000+ from mostly (Madigan's) out of towners for an unknown candidate who's never even held a seat on a drainage district but supports cutting the corporate tax. Very strange. All Happening in a city that's about to do North Prospect II. If you liked the North Prospect Development by the late Mr. Atkins, you're gonna' love the South Neil Street Development.

wayward wrote on March 06, 2014 at 11:03 am
Local Yocal wrote on March 06, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Profile Picture

"So did it also bother you when Ammons took union money, or was that different?"

Did you bother to compare your links to Sam's donors? You know the answer to your question as to the difference. Ammons received the endorsements of unions whose workers work in the 103rd District because she met with the rank and file and they were convinced she represents their interests as working people.

Rosenberg's Sugar Daddy Madigan picked up the phone and called Springfield, Marion, Chicago, ect. and said, "I need you to do me a little favor. I know you never heard of him. No, he's never held elected office but do it anyway. He'll be on the team."

David Krochet wrote on March 06, 2014 at 10:03 am

As a voter who has supported Naomi for years I have been following this race since the beginning so please forgive the length of this comment.

I was on the fence and leaning towards Carol Ammons even when Mike Richards was still interested but when he dropped out I didn't automatically say I'm with Carol Ammons. I wanted to really listen to Sam Rosenberg and then make my decision. So I attended the first debate. Even members from his team have accepted that he lost the first debate. He made a couple of comments that showed his lack of experience and when it was revealed that Speaker Madigan had sent a paid staffer to direct his campaign, the young man responded by saying that Madigan, who has been the speaker of the house for thirty years, has millions of dollars in his war chest and literally controls what bills come to the floor to be discussed," is just another Democrat who supports me", I knew he was either too naive or showing us that he would say and do anything to get elected.

I have also heard him twice now say that political experience means nothing in this race. What an immature and insensitive statement. How can he appreciate the years of service and ride the coattails of some elected officials and then completely disregard the sacrifices and years of experience that Mrs. Ammons has?

He exclaims that "NOTHING in the 103rd District can prepare one for Springfield, it is a beast all of its own"! Well, how would he know that? If Mrs. Ammons electoral experience (6yrs) community involvement (13yrs) and life experiences are not adequate preparation for Springfield then he would really be in trouble!

Lastly, knowing from seeing her work in the community. Even reading in the news gazette about soup kitchens, clothing drives, and her and two others personally driving food and supplies to victims of Hurricane Katrina (serving as an ambassador for our community) her love fir this community is obvious.

Rosenberg said on Will 580 "I graduated and stayed here because I fell in love with this community."
But the TRUTH IS: he moved to Chicago to become a prosecutor for two years the he returned here to work for the firm that ultimately helped Carle Hospital get its Tax Exemption Status! The latter was news to me to....icing for the cake, the same law firm is currently suing the City of Urbana, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Urbana Park district, and millions from the Urbana school district. Then he tells us that he supports giving corporations a 50% tax cut!

I hope you are no longer confused about who the two candidates are and whose interests they will represent.

wayward wrote on March 06, 2014 at 11:03 am

Even members from his team have accepted that he lost the first debate.

Really?  That wasn't the impression I got.  Can you provide anything to back up your assertion?

As someone who lived in the Springfield area for over 25 years before moving to Urbana in 1999, I'd agree that C-U and Springfield are very different places. Any new state rep from 103, be it Ammons, Rosenberg, or Wlliamson, is going to have a learning curve when taking office.

David Krochet wrote on March 06, 2014 at 2:03 pm

Wayward, maybe you should run for State representative since you lived there for so long. I'm sure you have a better grasp than Rosenberg does.

Kacich thought he lost and to my knowledge no one has publicly disputed that....but that is really not the point now is it?

You seem to know a lot about his campaign. Tell me, will he go back to suing school and park districts if he doesn't become state representative? Will he continue being a corporate pawn or start acting like he really cares about people?

You sound like a reasonable person and if you lived in Springfield for so long then you know a little bit about Madigan's ruthless reign, how do you feel about those conservative style mailers that drum up fear in the minds of voters? Do you really think Madigan's giving up 50k and pulling strings for another 35-40k because he likes this guy......

wayward wrote on March 06, 2014 at 3:03 pm

Kacich thought he lost and to my knowledge no one has publicly disputed that....but that is really not the point now is it?

But you claimed that even Rosenberg's supporters thought he lost, which is different than Kacich saying that some of Rosenberg's answers were weak.

Why do I think Madigan's willing to drop a lot of money on Rosenberg's campaign at this point?  Given that I've never met Madigan, I'm in no position to speak for him.  That said, my guess is because he'd prefer to get a Democrat in the seat who'll be able to hold onto it in future races. A well-liked incumbent tends to need fewer resources to stay in office than a new candidate does to get elected to an open seat.

Madigan actually didn't recruit either Ammons or Rosenberg to run for the seat.  From what I heard, he was initially planning to stay neutral in 103 until some Dems who were familiar with both candidates persuaded him to support Rosenberg.  It sounds like the perception was that some of the things that Ammons did on County Board and City Council wouldn't work in Springfield. For example, an earlier article quoted Laurel Prussing as saying about Ammons, "...I think that on several occasions she has jumped to conclusions and started attacking people without really having the facts." I really doubt the state legislature leadership (especially Madigan) would put up with that kind of crap.

From what I understand, if Ammons wins the primary, chances are good that the state Democratic party would just write off the seat for 2014. The state GOP would probably go after it aggressively for Williamson, shredding Ammons in the process. But trying to knock Williamson off in 2016 to get the seat back would be even more resource-intensive for the Dems than going for an open seat. So it's greatly to their advantage to get the candidate they can tolerate (Rosenberg) in there now, and that's what they're doing.



Local Yocal wrote on March 06, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Profile Picture

If Madigan is the problem with the State Government, i.e. unfunded pensions, a deliberately unconstitutional reform to fix pension funding, a dysfunctional deficit budget, elimination of the mental health system, the drug war, underfunded k-12 schools, underfunded financial aid for college, pork barrel spending for construction projects of dubious quality, missing money, spending allocations that reflect a pay-to-play system where campaign donors become government vendors, and underfunding the U of I......if those things are attributable to the one who CONTROLS ALL LEGISLATION and budget approvals out of the House for the last 30 years,...

....then won't the Republicans also go after an unknown candidate who's source of funding comes from this same Speaker of the House; and who's also writing his campaign script? Seems like it's Rosenberg who carries the most unwanted baggage into a November race....because:

....Looking at the real history of Naomi Jakobsson's 14-year run of allowing all the above ills to occur on her watch, her 14-year run of accepting over $800,000 of campaign donations from Speaker Madigan, and her campaign ads from 2010 squealing that she said "no!" to Speaker Madigan as the reason to vote for her again, and then,....just "somehow," Jakobsson thought it best to vote Madigan Speaker of the House every time and vote for his parlimentary rules every session .....suggests the Madigan-campaign donations to Rosenberg comes with some expectations from the Boy Wonder. Vote me Speaker, vote my rules, and cut that corporate tax, boy.

But you are right about one thing, incumbency is most desired. Once in, never out. If you support the Speaker, the Speaker will support your next campaign. And all the Naomi's said, "amen-igan."

Madigan would prefer not to have to deal with the "crap" of Ammons jumping to any correct conclusions that the problem in Springfield is the way the game is played in The House of Madigan. Hence, the monster investment to buy this election for the "good (obedient) democrat," Rosenberg.

Kristin, watch how dirty The Machine plays this spring. You're next. Best you don't get any uppity ideas about actually winning in November and maybe Madigan can work you into a future in politics at a later date. Just not in November, okay Sweetheart?

Mr Dreamy wrote on March 07, 2014 at 2:03 pm

To David Krochet: a little truth here, and not in all caps.

Rosenberg was an Assistant States Attorney in Champaign County working in Julia Reitz's office.

He then was offered a job at Thomas, Mamer and Haughey, a very old-line law firm in downtown Champaign. That law firm has many local orporate clients, and it seems Carle is among them.

The sunshine of truth isn't as slimely as lies. 

locavore wrote on March 07, 2014 at 3:03 pm

This is not the general election, where one might expect that the Democratic party would rally around their candidate, regardless of differences about specific issues. it's not even a district that is at great risk of falling to the Republican challenger. Why would Madigan spend his money here?

Just to be clear, Madigan is investing a great sum of money in a candidate who has no experience whatsoever as a civic leader, a policymaker, or an organizer. Even as an attorney, Sam Rosenberg has done nothing to distinguish himself. What earns him such luck? Do you think Madigan just likes the kid? According to Rosenberg, the two have never met.

It seems obvious that $42,323 is the 2014 purchase price of the 103rd district. Madigan is buying our representation out from under us, and the fact that no one is selling seems to make little difference.

We can play a guessing game about what specific votes will ultimately be purchased with that money, but please let's not get starry-eyed in imagining that it's genuinely a gift, that Madigan expects nothing in return for it. That Rosenberg himself doesn't yet know what that money will require of him shouldn't surprise us. That's why it's called machine politics -- there's simply no one to whom you can ask these kinds of questions.

The only ethical choice was for Rosenberg to reject the money. I'm not shocked that he accepted it, but that he doesn't regard it as a crisis -- that we aren't collectively regarding Madigan's influence as a crisis -- seems short-sighted, cynical, and sort of lazy.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on March 08, 2014 at 10:03 am
Profile Picture

I think the more accurate headline would be "Madigan mailer turns Rosenberg into a hypocrite."

Mr Dreamy wrote on March 08, 2014 at 4:03 pm

Don't you love the way the News Gazette is bashing Rosenberg in order to help Ammons? Why? Because Williamson can beat Ammons, but not Rosenberg.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on March 08, 2014 at 10:03 pm
Profile Picture

@ Mr. Dreamy, where are you and other Rosenberg backers getting this idea from?  The 103rd is overwhelmingly Democratic.  Barring a 2010-style national wave election in favor of Republicans and/or an extreme money disadvantage in favor of Williamson, Ammons will wipe the floor with Williamson.

Also, by the way, the N-G has hardly been "bashing" Rosenberg.  When he stated at a press conference that he would play by Madigan's rules if he got to Springfield, the N-G didn't even print a word about it until numerous people on these comments pages pointed out that glaring omission.

readcarefully wrote on March 09, 2014 at 2:03 pm

This is exactly why I am voting for Ammons.  Did Rosenberg really say he had never met Madigan?  Then maybe could he wouldn't mind calling the Speaker to ask him to kindly STOP SENDING MAILERS to my house???  We've made up our minds, and you can please stop killing trees trying to buy our votes.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on March 09, 2014 at 4:03 pm
Profile Picture

I've recieved about 20 mailers from his campaign in the past couple weeks.  Several of them were repeats.  One particular mailer, I recieved three different times.

readcarefully wrote on March 10, 2014 at 12:03 am

Once we got two different mailers in the same day.  Since each one only had about two sentences--it seemes like the least they could have done is combine them--and saved a couple a trees and likely a few thousand dollars in the process.

What do I know--maybe this is how campaigns are run?  but it all just seems like a big waste to me.  

We live in an apartment and our whole mail area is overrun by these mailers, a bunch of them have muddy footprints on them from people walking all over them because they have fallen on the floor.  

Recently one of my neighbors commented, "I don't know who this Sam Rosenberg is, but I will be glad when he is done doing whatever it is he's trying to do."

Couldn't agree more.