Connect with us

Illinois

Pro-Israel Illinois Democrat Cancels Two Debates Against Challenger Who Backs Gaza Ceasefire

Published

on

Pro-Israel Illinois Democrat Cancels Two Debates Against Challenger Who Backs Gaza Ceasefire


Rep. Bill Foster, an Illinois Democrat, agreed to three debates in his primary election race against Qasim Rashid, an insurgent progressive. Foster later dropped out of the other two debates, citing conflicting events. The first and only time Foster appeared alongside Rashid, the decadelong incumbent left halfway through the candidate forum, claiming he had another obligation.

Rashid said Foster is reluctant to defend his own record. Among other issues, the incumbent had criticized Israel’s war against Palestinians in Gaza but stopped short of calling for a ceasefire. Protesters were at the forum to express their displeasure with Foster and Rep. Sean Casten, a Democrat from a neighboring district, who also attended, for refusing to call for a ceasefire.

“Fundamentally, they realize that he wants them to vote for a record that even he isn’t willing to defend.”

Advertisement

“Voters are upset,” Rashid told The Intercept, said of Foster’s refusal to debate. “Fundamentally, they realize that he wants them to vote for a record that even he isn’t willing to defend.”

The March 19 Democratic primary in the suburbs and rural towns northwest of Chicago could become another congressional race where Israel plays an outsized role. Rashid is running on a broader progressive platform — hitting Foster for being out of touch with Democrats in the district and his acceptance of money from corporate PACs, fossil fuel companies, and the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries — but the ceasefire debate looms large.

Observers anticipate that Israel issues will attract outside money from lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that are preparing to spend record amounts to defend Democrats that toe their line. And Foster had already amassed support from pro-Israel donors: One of his top contributors this cycle is the private equality group Apollo Global Management, whose CEO Marc Rowan helped orchestrate the ousting of the president and board chair at the University of Pennsylvania over Israel’s war on Gaza. (Foster’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

Advertisement

Pro-Israel groups have worked to oust other Democrats in Illinois who opposed unconditional U.S. military support for Israel, including Rep. Delia Ramirez and former Rep. Marie Newman. AIPAC joined conservative Democrats to defeat Newman’s 2018 congressional campaign. Newman won election in 2020 but become a target of pro-Israel groups again last cycle and lost her reelection campaign.

Newman, who is supporting Rashid’s campaign, told The Intercept that the threat of spending from groups like AIPAC and its ally, Democratic Majority for Israel, is scaring incumbents into submission and deepening schisms within the Democratic Party.

“In the last 3 months I’ve talked to several MOCs” — members of Congress — “who live in absolute fear of AIPAC and DMFI working against them or primarying them,” Newman said by text. More than anything else I’m deeply concerned about how AIPAC, Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) and their 20 affiliate PACs are putting a huge wedge in the Democratic Party, particularly in the House.”

AIPAC Waiting in the Wings

For decades, AIPAC played an influential role in Middle Eastern policy by sending its legions to lobby members of Congress in their offices and only organizing campaign donations informally among members. In recent years, however, the group transformed its spending on congressional elections with the launch of a new super PAC in the last election cycle.

The direct influence on money in politics has exacerbated partisan rifts that have emerged around Israel and AIPAC. Democratic voters, for their part, are shifting away from AIPAC’s uncompromising positions on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict — especially as a majority of Americans came to support the ceasefire that AIPAC opposes.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Amid the current flare-up of violence, even some more centrist Democrats have found themselves unable to stay in lockstep with AIPAC, which frowns on virtually all criticism of Israel. In Illinois’s 11th Congressional District, for instance, Rashid acknowledged that Foster has also been a vocal critic of Israel. With the death toll in Gaza mounting, Foster has expressed concern about Benjamin Netanyahu’s military strategy and said there was a “special place in hell” for the prime minister, but stopped short of calling for a ceasefire.

Foster’s record, Rashid said, is more notable for the things he has not done. He voted for two measures expressing support for Israel, but neither of them mentioned Palestinians killed by Israeli forces. Foster is not a co-sponsor of the ceasefire resolution introduced in October nor a resolution introduced by another Illinois Democrat, Ramirez, that honored a 6-year-old boy, Wadee Alfayoumi, who was killed in Plainfield in an alleged hate crime during the first week of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Foster criticizes Israel’s actions, Rashid said, but won’t take the steps necessary to end the bloodshed in Gaza — namely supporting a ceasefire.

“The big difference between he and I is not on a question of whether international law is being violated. We both agree with that,” Rashid said. “The difference is that I have the integrity to say it and demand action.”

Advertisement

Foster has long had support from J Street, a pro-Israel advocacy group that positions itself as a liberal alternative to AIPAC. Until this week, J Street had resisted pressure, both internal and external, to call for a ceasefire, even threatening to pull endorsements from members who did so. The group announced support for a “negotiated stop” to violence in Gaza on Monday.

J Street said in a statement to The Intercept that it’s proud to endorse Foster again this year. Foster has “been a champion for pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy values on Capitol Hill since his election in 2008,” J Street spokesperson Tali DeGroot told The Intercept, pointing to his support for the now-defunct 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which was supported by J Street but opposed by AIPAC, the Israeli government, and a clutch of hawkish Democrats.

“We’ve seen the polling. Eighty percent of Democrats want a ceasefire.”

Advertisement

Rashid’s campaign has been careful to tread lightly on the Israel question while pushing unequivocally for a ceasefire. His approach has been to focus on ending the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and tap into majority support for a ceasefire among Democratic voters. “We’ve seen the polling. Eighty percent of Democrats want a ceasefire,” Rashid said. “Even a majority of Republicans and Independents want a ceasefire. For us, this is basic integrity.”

Foster has been in office for a decade and faced few challengers in recent years. Foster’s last opponent in the 2020 Democratic primary, Rachel Ventura, received 41 percent of the vote.

Rashid works at a Chicago law firm and grew up in the area, which he recently returned to. In 2020, he ran as the Democratic candidate in the general election for Virginia’s 1st Congressional District and lost to Republican Rep. Robert Wittman.

Advertisement

Rashid raised $305,000 in the third quarter of 2023 — $10,000 more than Foster — and had $114,000 cash on hand. Foster has $1.3 million cash on hand and $1 million in debts, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. Rashid said his campaign had received more than 10,000 individual contributions. In the Democratic primary, a large cash intervention by AIPAC or one of its allies could play a major part.

Rashid, for his part, said he was ready for the challenges: “I have immense confidence in voters that they’re sick and tired of the mudslinging and the negativity and these outside lobbyist organizations meddling in our races.”





Source link

Advertisement

Illinois

Weather service assessing damage across Iowa, Illinois and Missouri

Published

on

Weather service assessing damage across Iowa, Illinois and Missouri


The National Weather Service has teams of storm surveryors in the field April 18 investigating several reports of severe storms and tornado touch downs across eastern Iowa, northwest Illinois and northeast Missouri.

According to the weather service’s website, windgusts of up to 60 to 70 mph along with teacup-sized hail and several tornadoes were reported April 17.

Many homes and outbuildings were damaged, trees were uprooted and power lines were downed in Lena, Illinois, where the most significant damage occurred, the site pointed out.

Advertisement

Very strong winds also were reported near Washington, Iowa, and Colmar, Illinois, where several outbuildings and grain bins were destroyed.

The weather service received reports of confirmed and possible tornadoes in the areas of Lena, Pecatonica, Shirland, Rockton, Roscoe and Capron.

The teams will be assessing damage this weekend into next week along with county emergency management teams to determine what types of storms occurred and their paths.

Dozens of power outages were reported, as well.

Advertisement

As of the afternoon of April 18, ComEd was reporting 85 active power outages across northern Illinois, down from 241 on April 17, and 6,751 customers affected, down from more than 18,000.

The bulk of those outages and the most customers impacted are concentrated in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties.



Source link

Continue Reading

Illinois

5 tornadoes confirmed in Illinois from Friday’s storms

Published

on

5 tornadoes confirmed in Illinois from Friday’s storms


Freeze Watch

from MON 12:00 AM CDT until MON 9:00 AM CDT, Lake County, Kankakee County, La Salle County, DuPage County, Northern Will County, DeKalb County, Southern Will County, Kendall County, Southern Cook County, Northern Cook County, Grundy County, Eastern Will County, Kane County, McHenry County, Lake County, Newton County, Jasper County, Porter County



Source link

Continue Reading

Illinois

‘Credit card chaos’? Financial institutions bet big on repeal of first-of-its-kind Illinois law

Published

on

‘Credit card chaos’? Financial institutions bet big on repeal of first-of-its-kind Illinois law


“Credit cards may not work for sales tax or tips starting July 1.”

By now, you’ve heard that claim, but whether it’s true depends on who you ask.

Advertisement

The ads — funded by the Electronic Payments Coalition of banks, credit unions and card companies — argue that Illinois lawmakers must repeal the state’s first-in-the-nation Interchange Fee Prohibition Act, slated to take effect July 1. That law prohibits financial institutions from charging “swipe,” or interchange, fees on the tax and tip portions of consumer bills and bans them from making up the fees elsewhere.

If it’s not repealed? “Credit card chaos” may ensue, the ads warn.

While the financial institutions are quick to cite a list of things that could hypothetically happen if the law isn’t repealed, it’s harder to pin down what’s being done and by who to comply with the law two years after it was signed.

Advertisement

“The global payment system is not set up to where any one party to a transaction can make this happen on their own,” Ashley Sharp, of the Illinois Credit Union Association said at a Capitol news conference Wednesday. “There are multiple parties to every electronic transaction.”

The financial institutions are adamant that the global payment system as it exists today can’t discern the difference between tax, tips and total, and it would need to be retooled at a heavy cost to banks, card companies, merchants, point-of-sale companies and more.

Advertisement

Instead of complying, they say, the card companies could decide to stop serving Illinois or drastically alter the way the consumer interacts with merchants at the point of sale.

An alternate reality

But as with all matters in Springfield, there’s another big-monied and powerful group on the other side of the issue. The Illinois Retail Merchants Association says the credit card companies already track all the information they need, and it’s a “complete fabrication” to say that it would take more than a mere coding change to implement the state law.

Advertisement

Take your restaurant receipt, for example.

“You have the subtotal, the sales tax, the tip, if it’s applicable, and then the grand total, right? All they have to do is move their fee from the grand total to the subtotal,” Rob Karr, president of IRMA, said.

While card networks operate in over 200 countries with as many different laws, they say the only information the card processors ask for in any of them is the grand total. The receipt example, they say, erroneously conflates the point of sale with the actual processing of payments.

Advertisement

In short, the two sides present starkly different realities — a muddying of the water that’s not uncommon at the Capitol.

But there is one concrete truth: The financial institutions have a lot to lose, and not just in Illinois.

Advertisement

The tax and tip prohibition would shave approximately 10% off the revenue that banks and credit unions receive from retailers via interchange fees — a transfer of wealth likely to number in the hundreds of millions. It would also create massive noncompliance fines.

And then there’s the issue of precedent. The banks challenged the law but lost in court. Absent a successful appeal, the remaining battlefields would be other state legislatures.

If the card companies implement Illinois’ law, they’d be providing a blueprint for states across the nation to emulate — driving potential revenue loss into the billions.

Advertisement

Thus far, Ben Jackson of the Illinois Bankers Association said, it hasn’t opened the floodgates, although some 30 states are considering similar action.

Still, it’s no wonder then, that the Electronic Payments Coalition has pulled out all the stops in its seven-figure ad campaign to repeal the law.

Advertisement

How we got here

To fully understand the ongoing slugfest between banks and retailers, you have to go back to May 2024.

But first, an explanation of interchange fees. Each time a shopper swipes their credit or debit card, it sets off a complicated string of payments between banks. The retailer’s bank pays an “interchange fee,” typically around 1% to 2% of the transaction cost, to the consumer’s bank. The fees include both a set amount and a percentage of the transaction, but the credit card companies, namely Visa and Mastercard, control how they’re calculated.

Advertisement

The financial institutions say interchange fees help fund credit card reward programs and security upgrades and provide compensation for bearing the risk of fraud. The hit to interchange revenue, Jackson said, would inevitably lessen reward program offerings. Sharp said credit unions, as not-for-profit cooperatives, use the revenue to offer lower rates to customers.

But the fees have long drawn the ire of retailers and small businesses, which sometimes pass the costs directly to consumers via a surcharge on bills.

It comes down to this: The retailers don’t think they should have to pay a fee on the tax and tip portion of a transaction that they don’t keep. And the financial institutions say if they’re handling those funds, they should be compensated for doing so via interchange fees.

Advertisement

As for the Illinois law’s passage, it was, as the ads claim, tucked into the budget two years ago, giving little time for the bankers et al to mount an opposition campaign.

Gov. JB Pritzker and lawmakers agreed to raise about $101 million in revenue to plug a budget hole by putting a $1,000 monthly cap on the “retailer’s exemption,” a tax break retailers claim for being the state’s de facto sales tax collectors.

Advertisement

But the retailers weren’t going to take that lying down, and IRMA successfully lobbied for the long-sought tax and tip exemption.

After the law passed, the financial institutions quickly sued.

To avoid uncertainty as the case played out, lawmakers delayed the measure’s effective date from July 1 last year to the same date this year.

Advertisement

U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall ultimately determined in February that Illinois is within its right to regulate the fees. She partially rejected a portion of the law that prohibited banks from sharing certain data, which the credit unions say creates different rules for different institutions and further uncertainty.

The case is now pending appeal, and the legislative process is starting anew.

Advertisement

This time, the financial institutions have mounted a dual front in the court of public opinion.

The cost of compliance

Karr estimated the prohibition would bring in “north of $200 million” for retailers — essentially letting them pocket that sum instead of transferring it to the banks. A study by the Electronic Payments Coalition pegged the number at $118 million, estimating that about 40% of the interchange windfall would go to the 40 largest retailers.

Advertisement

Even so, Karr said, the largest retailers are subject to the $1,000 monthly retailer exemption cap that accompanied the swipe fee ban, while smaller retailers don’t reach that mark. Add in their cut on reimbursed swipe fees, and it amounts to what Karr calls “the largest small business relief that Illinois has ever passed.”

But Jackson argued the cost of retailers complying could eat up any benefits for smaller retailers.

As for compliance, Kendall wrote in her February opinion that “It is an open question whether the transaction process could adapt to the impact of the IFPA in time.”

Advertisement

“The Interchange Fee Provision is indisputably disruptive, requiring additional investments, hires, and new procedures to replace the current process for authorizing and settling debit and credit card transactions,” she wrote.

The financial institutions argue it can’t all be done by July 1. Kendall said the parties involved know what’s required of them.

Advertisement

“But those procedural changes are the product of an ecosystem built by Payment Card Networks and financial institutions to facilitate consumer transactions,” she wrote. “And these entities understand the onus of IFPA compliance is on them.”

Per the coalition, compliance “would require coordination across the industry and regulators worldwide,” including with the International Organization for Standardization. It would also require more data collection, creating privacy concerns, they say.

Those global changes would require testing and certification of new equipment. Depending on their card companies or point-of-sale vendors, retailers may need to invest in new equipment, software and training.

Advertisement

Banks and credit unions may also have to add staff to process rebates under the law. It allows retailers or their processing companies to petition their financial institutions for reimbursement on fees charged on tax and tips within 180 days of a transaction.

If financial institutions don’t comply within 30 days, the law provides for civil penalties of $1,000 per each transaction — and hundreds of millions of these transactions happen annually.

Advertisement

So will that chaos come to fruition?

Instead of complying, according to the coalition’s literature, the card companies could just stop processing cards altogether in Illinois. They could also stop processing tax and tip portions or require two separate swipes for the subtotal and the tax and tip portion of bills.

Such claims aren’t uncommon in the legislature’s annual adjournment push.

Advertisement

Sports betting companies, for example, threatened to leave Illinois when the state raised its gambling taxes in the same budget cycle that yielded the interchange fee prohibition two years ago. Instead, they adapted, because Illinois has a lot of bettors — and there’s even more card users.

Karr accused the coalition of ulterior motives in their use of hypothetical language.

“There is no need for chaos,” he said. “The only chaos is if the credit card companies impose it themselves on their consumers.”

Advertisement

Ultimately, lawmakers will have to weigh how compelling the arguments are, if the courts don’t intervene first.

It’s possible that the 7th Circuit appellate court — or even the U.S. Supreme Court — gives the banks a win. But oral arguments are slated for May 13, meaning the appellate court might not rule by the time the law is slated to take effect.

Advertisement

Adding a new wrinkle on Wednesday, the federal office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a subset of the U.S. Treasury Department, appeared poised to issue an order preempting Illinois’ law. It hadn’t been published as of late Wednesday, making its impact unclear.

“While the office has failed to explain their reasoning or allow public review, it’s clear the goal is an end-run around the legal process after a judge recently upheld the law,” Karr said.

As for the legislative prospects, state Rep. Margaret Croke, D-Chicago, says she’s seen enough to be concerned. The Democratic nominee for comptroller is sponsoring a bill to fully repeal Illinois’ interchange fee prohibition.

Advertisement

But as of last week, she said she wasn’t planning to move it. Instead, she finds it more likely that lawmakers once again delay the law’s implementation.

“If this is a policy that the state of Illinois decides they’re going to want to have, then we need to make sure we’re doing it properly,” she said.

Advertisement

___

This story was originally published by Capitol News Illinois and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

IllinoisMoneyIllinois PoliticsBusiness
Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending