Steve Reick, the Republican candidate for State Representative against incumbent Democrat Jack Franks is not taking the hit piece against him lying down.
When I ran the story on it, I may have incorrectly said it was from Jack Franks.
Actually, I did say it was from Jack Franks.
Now I have a hard copy and see in teeny, tiny letters written perpendicular to the text that the mailing came from Republicans for Fiscal Responsibility.
Just as with the hit piece featuring Jack Schaffer, there is no address or name accompanying the pop-up committee’s name.
Pardon me if I still think it came from Jack Franks.
See copy of the hit piece, complete with a photo (used without permission) that I took of Reick here.
Below you can see Reick’s reply:
“Republicans for Fiscal Responsibility”
Who are these people?
Senate Bill 27 (SB 27) became Public Act 94-0004 (PA 94-0004) signed by Rod Blagojevich on June 1, 2005.
In the name of pension reform, it was loaded with pension goodies for special interest groups receiving public sector pensions, and kicked the can on pension funding.
PA 94-0004 amongst other things modified the 50 year Edgar pension ramp, Public Act 88-0593 signed by Jim Edgar on August 22, 1994.
PA 94-0004 reduced the fiscal year 2005 (FY 2006) and FY2007 required state pension contributions.
PA 94-0004 was one year after Public Act 93-0002 (PA 93-0002), signed by Rod Blagojevich April 7, 2003.
In the name of pension reform, it kicked real pension reform down the road.
There is a consistent pattern by the Illinois General Assembly and Governors over the last 40+ years.
Hiking pension benefits, then claiming reform in the same or other legislation.
Jack, Jack, Jack, everyone knows you have a pail full of……
Whatsa matter Jack, why are you not answering?
You must be busy with Jill…
VOTE STEVE REICK
November 4, 2014
Downright Lies is what Jack is all about.
Here’s a question for Reick?
Did he or did he not violate election law as the complaint stated?
And did he or did he not take appropriate actions thereafter remedying what the complaints alleged?
I know he’ll read this and his silence will be deafening if he chooses to not respond.
Observer: I certainly don’t want to deafen you with my silence, but complaints alleged and then dismissed do not need to be remedied.
Observer got silent?
Way to dodge the question.