A Strong Endorsement for Julie Hamos

It is with great pride that I endorse Julie Hamos for Congress in Illinois' 10th Congressional District.

Julie Hamos knows what it takes to be a good legislator. Her policies are driven by her constituents and a desire to stand up for people who don't have a voice. She's a coalition builder who isn't afraid to find allies from the other party to build toward a common goal. And she has shown she's not afraid to tell it like it is, particularly when a well-intentioned bill is derailed to protect the Springfield status quo.

Such was the case last year, when a reform bill was introduced that, in its original form, would finally have taken some money out of Illinois politics. Instead, Springfield insiders gutted the bill of its strongest restrictions, effectively giving party leaders even more power to raise and spend money during elections.

The Chicago Tribune denounced it, yet only two Democratic legislators had the guts to oppose it. One of those legislators was Julie Hamos.

Even in the face of a challenge in her primary election, Julie didn't back down. Instead, she stood up for what was right, as she explained on her campaign website:

I believe that the final version of Senate Bill 1466 was not meaningful campaign finance reform. It is campaign finance redistribution - more money, power, and control into the hands of political leaders in Springfield. This is not real reform for a state that desperately needs it.

Earlier this year I supported a bill that I hoped would be a sound beginning and generate ongoing negotiations for meaningful finance reform. If yesterday's bill was the result of those negotiations, it's clear that the calls for reform fell on deaf ears.

Early voting starts this week. Voters will brave the snow and cold to decide who best will represent them in Congress. I urge you to choose the one progressive, independent candidate who isn't afraid to take on tough battles.

Now more than ever, we need Julie Hamos in Congress.

 

Comments

[akhalfan]

09:23 AM on 01/23/2010

How can someone deceive voters by touting her fundraising numbers as the main reason people of the district should vote for her? What’s interesting and upsetting is that Julie Hamos used a loophole in campaign finance law that allows her to transfer money from her state account to her federal account. Over the past six months, Julie used this loophole to transfer approximately $500,000 to her federal campaign account! Dan Seals is the only candidate who has both financial support and voter support from within the district. Please share this information with all voters and join me in expressing your outrage!

[SteveD]

06:46 PM on 01/19/2010

..........."I'll take someone dedicated to our district who's honest, thanks"..........You imply that Hamos is NOT honest, but cite exactly nothing to back that up. And, as to her dedication (1) she has moved to Wilmette to convince voters of her dedication, (2) she has raised over a million dollars without the unions or trial lawyers, to show her commitment, and (3) finally, I will readily put her years of hard work and her ACCOMPLISHMENTS in the GA against those of Dan Seals........ any day. BY THE WAY, WHAT EXACTLY ARE DAN SEALS's ACCOMPLISHMENTS? What does he point to when asking me for a vote? Oh yeah, he's a nice guy who says all the things progressives want to hear. But what has he ACTUALLY DONE? ................ZIP ZILCH, NADA, BUPKIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[OneConservative]

10:12 PM on 01/13/2010

I disagree. She is another far left Liberal like Schakowski. We don't need any more people like that in these offices.

[10thdem]

08:18 PM on 01/13/2010

I'd rather have someone who knows the district, is willing to take stands against party leaders, and most importantly, hasn't misled voters in several emails. We've had to listen to Kirk's lies for nearly 10 years - it's time we had an honest representative. I have voted for Hamos in the past, but this time she has done nothing but disappoint, beginning with her selfish and divisive decision to run.

[crazyarnie]

11:16 AM on 01/14/2010

You know, I felt the same way about Obama - how dare he run in 2008! That selfish fellow! Because of Obama's decision, I decided to write in John Kerry, not because he was the most qualified or exciting, but because he ran against Bush when nobody else would.

[10thdem]

08:28 AM on 01/16/2010

you're right. hamos is just like obama. what was I thinking? and the fact that she tells audiences she's supported campaign finance reform, when she voted FOR the weak bill that gave madigan more power and AGAINST the stronger bill that most others supported makes her brave. she wanted to be attorney general (and, from her interviews, a few other statewide positions), and chose this as a fallback. I'll take someone dedicated to our district who's honest, thanks.

[crazyarnie]

12:22 PM on 01/13/2010

So, while Hamos was making difficult votes and decisions in Springfield (and receiving high marks from progressive, union, and other community activist organizations), Dan Seals was campaigning and "learning a district"? If we're talking about associations, then I think you better start looking at Seals. Sure he's a "successful" businessman - he worked for Sprint and GE Capital (for a couple of years). He was a "Director of Marketing." How many credit cards offers did he create and send out to the public? What was his role at GE Capital for those two years?

In this time of financial reform, do you really want to send a former GE Capital employee to Washington? I'd rather send someone with a public record than someone who has worked in marketing for a company that requested and received bailout money.

[joeperc]

11:25 PM on 01/12/2010

We don't need another career politician in D.C. I'm disappointed in Nekritz. She should have remained neutral instead of endorsing one of her fellow Springfield club members. Just one party hand washing the other. I thought Nekritz was more independent.

[Jimmy Seidita]

10:17 PM on 01/12/2010

What's with all the mud from the Seals people? This is going to be a tough race to beat Coulson in November, and I hate to see Democrats sniping at their own.
Just about everyone I know involved in environmental causes in Illinois knows Julie Hamos to be one of the smartest and most effective champions we have. Her commitment is genuine. I'm looking forward to voting for her (early!) this week and then again in November. She'll match up well against Coulson in what will certainly be a tough general election, and then she'll be a great representative in Congress.
But I'm not tearing down Seals. Heck, I voted for him twice before (when he lost) and if he wins this primary, I'll probably be voting for him again. Let's not make it easy for the Republicans by tearing down good candidates with bogus attacks.

[my two cents]

10:53 PM on 01/12/2010

I don't consider this mud - these are just the facts. She doesn't know the issues or the district. Hamos has polled twice and was unable to release a single result - we know what that means. She entered the campaign with 8% of the vote and things are not looking much better for her now. Coulson isn't a shoo-in, currently running behind Dold. IHowever, in a matchup between Hamos and Beth, Julie would lose for her political connections- Greiman , Madigan and Blagojevich - for both of them, their Springfield connections will weigh in negatively with the public, fairly or not. It's overly simplistic to think a woman should run against another woman. Finally, she is simply a bad fit for the district - at the Arlington Heights debate, she claimed to be a fiscal conservative, pandering for votes with a statement which is patently untrue. She voted for tax increases something like 7 times in 6 years - again, good or bad, the 10th will not go for her. When she's run with opposition, she has ALWAYS lost in the precincts which are in the tenth. She is an Evanston politician, and that's where her base lies. Dan Seals base is strong and deep, and extends throughout the district. The activists have stayed with him.

[my two cents]

07:23 PM on 01/12/2010

10thdem is right. She voted for the weaker bill which gave unprecedented power to her husband's best friend, Mike Madigan, and then voted against the bill when those powers were watered down. Nekritz forgot to mention that she voted for the bill herself. Nekritz made the awkward and unseemly attempt to endorse Julie at a township endorsement meeting, making a hash of their contradictory votes- praising Hamos' s vote as courageous while trying to justify why she voted differently herself. Hamos has not received one endorsement from any of the district's Democratic Township organizations.

Hamos IS merely a blind follower of party leaders. She invokes Obama's name the way Giuliani used 9/11. She said that she supports the escalation in Afghanistan because she trusts that the generals know what they are doing. General McChrystal, who was involved in the Tilman coverup. She gave blanket approval to the health care bill when it passed and tried to piggyback on the victory, with no awareness of the Stupak amendment. I'd call her incurious and entitled rather than courageous.

My vote is with DAN SEALS, along with all of the activists. Dan stood up for the progressives and ran against a powerful, well-funded incumbent when it took real courage. Where was Julie before the seat was open? She was considering a run for any open seat ! That's not courage and this job is not a political appointment despite what our Springfield politiclans want to believe.

[SteveD]

08:28 PM on 01/13/2010

OK, Dan Seals had the courage to run against Kirk in successive cycles. How is that a persuasive reason for me to choose him to be my congressman. This is about who can win in November, not who makes the progressives feel good. The poster's statement "My vote is with DAN SEALS, along with all of the activists" is quite telling; the activists can go have a milk and cookies party when the defeat of Seals is announced, cuz that's all they'll have. ...........SEALS was always a ho-hum candidate, never a compelling presence in the room, never a strong orator or debater, and he never had the resume or experience to beat Kirk. The anger against Bush/Hastert/Kirk was deep but never wide enough.

[10thdem]

03:54 PM on 01/12/2010

Actually, Hamos voted for the earlier, weaker campaign finance reform bill that was more favorable to powerful leaders like Speaker Madigan, and then she voted against the second, stronger bill. That vote, as well as her vote to raise the State income tax and many other taxes, make her voting record an easy target for Republicans.

Her decision to run, after her first choice of office - Attorney General - became unavailable, was opportunistic and divisive. Our district is fortunate to have Dan Seals, a brilliant, caring, policy wonk with both public and private sector experience, who lost by 2.5 points to one of the best-funded incumbents in the country in 2 elections in which NO Illinois incumbent lost. Needless to say, it's a whole new election without incumbent Mark Kirk, and Dan Seals is poised to win it. Watching Hamos in a number of appearances, it's become very clear she does not know our district or its issues well, and she is a blind follower of party leaders. Seals has demonstrated both knowledge of the district and its voters as well as clear critical thinking when it comes to issues facing Congress, and that's why most of the active Democrats and Democratic organizations in the 10th have endorsed Dan Seals for congress.