Lightfoot smacks around 11 aldermen, hurting only herself
For a mayor who claims to prize robust debate and respectful disagreement, Lori Lightfoot has a weird way of showing it when it comes to Chicago aldermen: Cross her and face a public shaming.
Maybe the mayor thinks that’s the best way to bring around her critics on the City Council — scare them into voting her way. But more likely, they’ll just get their backs up more. In certain wards and circles, an attack from the mayor can be a political plus.
Lightfoot’s political action committee, Light PAC, has created a website, chicagobudgetvotes.com, that singles out each alderman for how they voted late last month on her $11.6 billion city budget.
If your alderman voted “yes,” the website urges you to “click here” and send the alderman a big thank you. If your alderman voted “no,” the website urges you to “click here” and give him or her a piece of your mind.
Consider Ald. Daniel La Spata’s offenses, as explained on the website:
“1st Ward Alderman Daniel La Spata voted NO on a progressive, responsible budget that maximizes the efficiency of our city’s government, ensures we maintain the quality of services our residents depend on, and does everything it can to prevent hard-working Chicagoans from bearing the burden as we strive to put our city finances back on track.
“Alderman La Spata offered no viable alternatives to comprehensively close a historic $838 million budget gap ...
“Click here to let Alderman La Spata know that Chicago needs a fair minimum wage and more resources for affordable housing, mental health, homelessness, and violence prevention.”
For each of the 11 aldermen who voted against the budget, the language is the same, boilerplate.
Where’s the spirit of respect for honest disagreement in this? A willingness to brook a difference of opinion?
OK, so nobody has ever accused Chicago’s political powers of permitting too much dissent. The late Richard J. Daley ruled with an iron fist, doling out patronage jobs in exchange for aldermanic loyalty. More recently, mayors, governors, Illinois House speakers and others have controlled cash-rich political committees that could make or break an alderman or state representative’s re-election.
Lightfoot, as a mayoral candidate, said she had a problem with any squelching of dissent. As do we.
A spokesperson for the Lightfoot PAC, Dave Mellet, defended the website as simply a matter of stating the facts. He said it is “not specific to anyone.”
But, to our thinking, it’s as specific as can be. Visitors to the site must click on an alderman’s name to get to the praise or criticism.
The great hypocritical irony, as Sun-Times City Hall Reporter Fran Spielman pointed out in a recent story, is that an ally of the mayor assured his fellow aldermen just before the budget vote, on Nov. 26, that there would be no political retaliation. The aldermen were told to vote their conscience.
“Whether you vote for or against this budget, you have no fear in your choice,” Finance Committee Chairman Scott Waguespack (32nd) said.
Every Chicago mayor rewards City Council supporters and punishes opponents. As mayor, Rahm Emanuel strongly backed many allied aldermen when they ran for reelection, offering campaign money and making personal appearances.
But to baldly bully 11 aldermen so early in an administration, just for the offense of voting against your first budget, strikes us as something new and petty — and not smart.
We’re a long way from the 2023 mayoral and City Council elections, and we wish Lightfoot would pick better fights. We agree with her that the Council — especially in light of the corruption allegations against Ald. Edward M. Burke — must reform its ways. That will require her to work with all 50 members, or at least to be able to have civil conversations about change.
Maybe the aldermen who voted against her budget — a pretty lefty bunch — would never come around to the mayor’s side, try as she might to extend the olive branch and meet them half way.
But at this rate, she’ll never know.
TO BALDLY BULLY 11 ALDERMEN SO EARLY IN AN ADMINISTRATION, JUST FOR THE OFFENSE OF VOTING AGAINST YOUR FIRST BUDGET, STRIKES US AS SOMETHING NEW AND PETTY — AND NOT SMART.