Ed Rutledge for Lieutenant Governor

By Ed Rutledge

2010 Libertarian Candidate for Lieutenant Governor

01/28/2011

This post is a follow-up to my post from a couple of days ago – http://rutledge4illinois.com/blog-posts/ballot-access-laws-snare-a-major-party-candidate/

Despite the legal and general definitions of “reside” and despite the impossibility of being in two places at once, the Illinois Supreme Court has decided to make a circumstantial exception to the law and allow Rahm Emanuel’s name to remain on the ballot for Chicago’s mayoral election. In other words, they are telling us that the law is a matter of convenience, and that it can and should be bent whenever it becomes politically inexpedient. Our political class is once again demonstrating that there are two categories of people in our state – those with clout, and those without.

I have often said that a good law is one which can be applied in every instance, without exception. With a wink and a nod, the Illinois Supreme Court has offered proof that Illinois’s ballot access laws are flawed. But rather than serving as an opportunity to highlight and change a bad law, this debacle will only serve as a reminder of our politicians’ ability to bend their own laws to serve their own needs.

I know first-hand how hard it is to get on the ballot in Illinois. I really did sympathize with Rahm’s plight and, frankly, the plight of Chicago voters. Citizens, not legislators, should be the ones driving the electoral process. This was a wonderful opportunity for all of us to see what is generally hidden, and to make a change. Instead, we are being told to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

Choice is good, and I am very glad to see Rahm’s name back on the ballot. It is just a shame that the highest court in Illinois had to bend the law to get it there.

By Ed Rutledge

2010 Libertarian Candidate for Lieutenant Governor

01/25/2011

So ballot access laws were used to push Rahm Emanuel out of the race to become Chicago’s next mayor, and people are either jubilant or angry. Frankly, having gone through something similar just a few months ago, I see this as a great opportunity to finally shine a public light on the issue of ballot access in Illinois. It is not widely known, but Illinois has some of the most onerous ballot access laws in the country. Unless you are running under a major party flag (and the mayoral race is non-partisan), you will find very high hurdles placed in your way. While I am disheartened whenever a candidate is pushed off of the ballot (choice is good), I was glad to see the court enforce the law in such a high profile case – it is the only way to get such a bad law noticed, which is the only way we can get such a law fixed.

I understand that there are many people who believe that the law was not properly enforced, who are trying to talk their way into proving that Rahm was a resident of Chicago during his stay in Washington. Frankly, in my mind, the question of residency was never really in question. While I lived in Holland, despite the fact that I remained a citizen of the United States and of Illinois, and even though I was still registered to vote in Illinois, I was, during that period, a resident of Amsterdam. I was not of them, but I was among them. I lived there. I resided there. I had my residence there. I was a resident there. Not here.

The “serving one’s country” argument does not hold water, either. Elected officials are sent by voters to serve their country, and military personnel are constantly on the move and are told where they will go in their service to our country. Explicit compensations are made in such cases. Employees of the Federal Government, on the other hand, are in no such position. Other than pay grade, there is no difference between a person taking a high level job in the White House or a low level job in the State Department. While elected officials and military personnel serve their country, Rahm served his boss. The fact that he worked for the President (just like everyone else in the Executive branch) is not relevant as it relates to election law.

But all of this misses the bigger picture, which is ballot access and the right to have real choice in the polling booth. If this law were being applied to a lesser known candidate, this would not even have made the news. People would not be trying to craft new definitions of “residency” to bend the law in their favor. The law would have been applied, and that would be that. Having successfully gone through a similar process less than a year ago, I know how stringent Illinois’s ballot access laws are. Like Rahm, I have seen them in action. It is ironic, but Rahm found himself caught in legislation enacted to smooth the way for candidates like him while squeezing out candidates like those he was running against.

Again, though, I firmly believe that choice is good, and I believe that only voters should have the right to choose their elected officials. If it were up to me, Rahm would be on the ballot – not because Rahm is Rahm, but because Illinois election law were changed to make real ballot access possible. So while this situation is unfortunate for Rahm, it has given ballot access the public exposure that it deserves and we, Illinois citizens, should use this opportunity to consider what we want out of election law.

For example, do we really want our legislators to choose our candidates for us? Do we want to make it hard for some candidates and easy for others, or should requirements be the same for all candidates? Do we want to encourage ordinary citizens to run for office, or make it so difficult that only professional politicians can play?

Let’s use this opportunity to set things right. It is time for voters to demand a restoration of our right to freely choose our representation in government. It is time to dismantle the roadblocks that our legislators have placed in the way of potential candidates. It is time to level the electoral playing field and enact sensible, uniform ballot access laws. It is time for voters to reclaim our right to really vote.

By Ed Rutledge

Libertarian Candidate for Lieutenant Governor

10/28/10

Imagine a product with two venerable brands, brands which, over decades, have built strong customer loyalty. Now imagine both of these brands, for whatever reason, gradually cutting back on the quality of their products. But imagine that this decline in product quality is relatively slow, with both of the brands declining in quality at roughly the same rate.

With this in mind, you likely can imagine that, as product quality declines, both of these brands are forced to dedicate more and more resources to marketing, towards convincing customers to buy from their brand and not the other brand. But despite all of the advertising hype, the fact remains that customers continue to buy less and less as the quality of both brands continues to slip.

Now imagine a new brand coming onto the scene, a brand which uses its resources to produce the highest quality product, leaving scant resources for promotion. Do you think that the other two brands will improve their quality to compete against this upstart? Of course not. They will they use their marketing resources to do all they can to squeeze out this new and very real competition.

But as the customer, which product would you want to buy? The low quality product from one of the two well-known but tarnished brands, or the high quality product from the new and relatively unknown brand? The product with lots of expensive advertising, or the product that you know to be better?

Of course, the product in this case is Politicians. We have two large Politician producing brands that lost their bearings long ago. They no longer offer voters a decent product, but instead rely on brand name awareness and marketing campaigns to make the sale. And the new brand is the Libertarian Party. The Libertarians may not have the marketing budget of their opposition, but they do have the ideas, the principles, and the integrity that the other brands have come to lack.

If at this point, as a life-long customer of one of the two old brands, you are shaking your head in denial, then ask yourself – are you happy with the recent performance of your brand? Are you happy with the choices that your brand has been offering you? Do you see the quality of your brand getting better over time? Do you believe that your brand has made your life better?

It is time to step back and really consider what the major brands have been offering us. It is time to admit that the two venerable brands are just shells of what they once were. It is time to see that the major brands are more focused on marketing well than on governing well. It is time to re-think our source of Politicians. It is time to give the Libertarians a look.