Here’s another paper who got fooled by the Associated Press story about Jack Franks claim that he was dropping out of the State Rep. contest.
The Daily Journal has its office in Franklin, Indiana.
Sunday, May 15th, the only reporter at the Democratic Party slating caucus, Pete Gonigam, wrote,
“Franks qualified that saying he’d give up the Rep. race if the Committee can pick another candidate who’s both ‘electable’ and holds a political outlook consistent with his own.”
Check whether Franks has filed the form yet, by clicking here.
Jack Franks is officially seeking re-election as McHenry County State Representative, 63rd District.
Has anyone been able to name one much less five “electable” Democrat candidates who “hold a political outlook consistent with Jack Franks”, other than Jack Franks himself, for the 63rd State House District election to be held on November 8, 2016 election, which is in 5 months.
To date the only electable Democrat candidate who holds the same political outlook consistent with Jack Franks, as reflected by the fact he has not officially withdrawn from the race, is Jack Franks.
Jack Franks is officially running for Democrat State Representative 63rd District, and Democrat McHenry County Board Chair, and if elected to both on November 8, 2016, can hold both positions.
Or someone can be appointed to one of the positions, apparently.
The Republican candidates for those positions are Steve Reick and Mike Walkup, respectively.
As of right now both are campaigning against Jack Franks.
Two Republican campaigns, against one Democrat candidate, have more resources to focus on defeating Jack Franks, than one Republican campaigns against Jack Franks.
++++++++++++
Jack Franks just voted for a future Chicago tax hike by voting to kick the can on Chicago Police Fire pension funding with Senate Bill 777, a bill which states that Chicago casino revenue would go to Chicago Police and Fire pensions, and adds a funding guarantee making Chicago Police and Fire pensions more like the IMRF pension fund.
The legislative funding guarantee is now sought by unions and those contributing to the public sector pensions, because the pension sentence added to the state constitution has no funding guarantee, rather states pensions are contractual and cannot be diminished or impaired (but they don’t have to be funded).
Previously, only IMRF had a funding guarantee to force employers to fund pensions at the amount dictated by state law.
With SB 777, the list has grown to IMRF, Chicago Police, and Chicago Fire.
Which of the remaining 17 public sector pension sytems is next?