To get some idea of what we’re up against here in Chicago, cruise on over to Charles Lipson’s site for a story of a Chicago alderman at work:
The headline: “Chicago Alderman Who Told Businessman to ‘Come Back To Me On Your Knees’ Sued for Abuse of Power“ (Reason’s Hit and Run blog)
Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno wanted to help a business [Double Door Music Hall] that had contributed to his campaign coffers. So he told Brian Strauss, a firefighter and property owner, to rent his building to the business or suffer the consequences. When Strauss refused to comply, Moreno made good on his threats, downzoning Strauss’s building and scuttling multiple attempts to sell the property.
Strauss is now suing, arguing that Moreno’s abuses of his aldermanic powers violate Strauss’ rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. –Reason blog
Charles concludes by wondering why it’s only a civil suit:
My question: Why is this only a civil case? The actions alleged ought to be investigated as possible felonies by federal attorneys. (Expecting state attorneys to do such investigations of fellow pols is crazy talk.)
As he notes, the case had to go to the federal courts to get any traction whatever and in all likelihood no federal criminal laws have been broken. IMO this is a case in which the real scandal is what’s legal.
This case is obviously abuse of power and corrupt but proving a criminal abuse of power case is something else entirely.
So, what to do? Vote for the Republican candidate? Notionally, Chicago aldermanic elections are nonpartisan but in practice many are single party. In the 2015 aldermanic elections, for example, the ward from which Alderman Moreno was elected, all of the candidates are Democrats and materially in agreement on the issues. The biggest differences among the candidates are racial/ethnic identity. In the latest Chicago mayoral election, no Republicans ran for mayor.
There aren’t even any reform Democrats running in the 1st Ward.
The situation sounds like a violation of the equal protection clause under the “class of one” theory. The modern origin of the theory is in the SCOTUS decision Village of Willow v. Olech, which involved a property owner who wanted to connect to the Village water supply and the Village insisted on a 33-foot wide easement, when it only required 15-feet in all other circumstances; the reason suggested is the owner had been involved in past litigation with the Village and the requirement was in spite. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (in Chicago) held that this was a violation of the equal protection clause if “spite” is the reason, unrelated to any legitimate government function. The SCOTUS agreed, saying that it violates the equal protection clause if the plaintiff “has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.”
Since then there have been a lot of cases trying to figure out what this rule means since the SCOTUS seemed to reject the need for ill will or pesonal animus. The Seventh Circuit members have applied two or three tests IIRC.
Reforms can’t fix a system in which the incentives are perverse. The roots of our social organization are rotted out.