Deerfield Residents Blast Cubs’ Owner’s Plan to Defeat Obama
Shoppers at Deerfield Square sound off on $10 million soft money advertising plan.
Photos
Shoppers at Deerfield Square were not ready to abandon their loyalty to the Chicago Cubs over owner Joe Ricketts’ plans to spend $10 million to finance an effort to produce negative advertising criticizing President Barack Obama.
The same people expressed anger that one person, in this case Ricketts, would spend so much money to affect the outcome of the Presidential election by purchasing advertising at the time of the Democratic Convention in September attacking the President.
The controversy broke Thursday morning when the New York Times published a story disclosing the plan hatched between Ricketts and Republican political professionals. Later Thursday, Rickets backed off some of the more controversial parts of the proposal.
Lou Zale of Deerfield was not happy with the idea. "It’s a shame Mr. Ricketts feels he can affect the outcome of the election with his money,” Zale said. He was quick to let his political leanings be known. “I would like to see the bottom third doing better than they are now.”
When it comes to his loyalty to the Cubs, that will not change for a person who remembers taking the El from his home on the west side of Chicago to Wrigley Field as a boy.
“I have fond memories of ditching school to go to Wrigley Field when there were 7,000 people in the stands and there were only 16 teams,” he said.
Jacob Deleon of Northbrook found himself in more of a dilemma after learning about Rickets’ idea. “I’m conflicted,” he said. “I’m a Cubs fan but I support President Obama.”
Scott Rush of Deerfield had little problem with feelings for the Cubs but did not like the idea of one person having so much influence on the election.
“I grew up in Cleveland. I’m an Indians fan,” Rush said. “I do not like the idea Ricketts can affect the outcome of the election. It should be done by all Americans.”
Leslie Gordon put a more intellectual spin on Ricketts plan to let his money control the outcome of the election. He blames the Citizens United case decided by the United States Supreme Court which loosened rules on political donations.
“This all started with Citizens United where people and corporations can give unlimited contributions,” Gordon said. “It lets corporate dollars buy an election.”
Anne Boguslavsky of Deerfield had some strong words for Ricketts. “It’s sacrilegious,” she said. “It’s an abomination.”
To better keep up with Deerfield news, follow Patch on Twitter and Facebook.
Louis G. Atsaves
6:24 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
According to the MSM, the Rickett's family rejected funding this proposal by the people who put it together. So they are being tarred and feathered for saying no to it?
John Russillo
6:26 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Joe Ricketts isn't the first businessman to use his power and money to support a candidate and he won't be the last. He also (supposedly) has no input in running the Cubs. Not sure I believe that, but he is creating some problems for his kids who are trying to get public money from Obama's former chief of staff Emanuel. So public relations nightmare for the Cubs? Yes. But that's about it.
RB
6:58 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
You're right about Joe turning it down, after some thought. Personally, I had never considered that the family wealth built from TD Ameritrade would possibly be used in such a way. Now, I know that Joe Ricketts is a Right Winger and was capable of funding the Super PAC with $millions. The fac that they brought the proposal to him means that his capability extends beyond fiscal aspects and means he has the desire to fund such deals. As a Cubs fan ( I actually switched from the Cardinals upon moving to Deerfield over 20 years ago), I no longer support State or City funding for any improvements to Wrigley Field. Why should we line Joe Ricketts pockets so he can give the money to Right Wing PAC's? I am really upset to know this about the family and am disappointed. The Super PAC's for both parties are going to impact this election in ways that we can't imagine. The Conservative wing of the Supreme Court made a huge mistake.
RonnieTheLimoDriver
8:13 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
This shows exactly why any government (city, state, local) should stay out of the sports business. I never get why taxpayers are asked to fund these improvements when most sports teams are either owned by billionaires or huge corporations. The Ricketts are certainly in better financial shape than both the State and the City, so if they want to expand / renovate Wrigley, let them pay. After all, they just bought the team so its not like they did not know Wrigley needed work when they made the purchase. Maybe they should apply the same principles that work for TD Ameritrade.
Daniel Krudop
8:15 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Laura M. Ricketts is co-owner of the Chicago Cubs and CEO of Ecotravel.com. Ricketts is also a board member of Lambda Legal[1] and the Housing Opportunities for Women organization.[2] Ricketts' ownership stake in the Cubs is uniquely noteworthy because it makes her the first openly gay owner of a major-league sports franchise.
Don't know your take on LGBT issues but I imagine there are a lot of individuals who are happy this Ricketts family member has the benefit of wealth to be involved in issues important to her.
Is anyone upset that Bill Maher wants to contribute one million dollars to President Barack Obama's reelection efforts? He can certainly press issues I disagree with but don't have the money or stage he has.
RB
2:30 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Daniel, I understand the point about Bill Mahr. The big difference is that Bill Mahr is not asking for Government funding to help build his studio and then turning around and using his profits to advertise against the opposing party. We're going to see many more examples of the lack of parity created by the Supreme Court decision regarding campaign finance.
As far as the Cubs. It's Daddy's money whether it was trust money or not, those kids that own the Cubs got the money from Dad and Dad is throwing it back in the face of Rahm and the Governor so don't expect any State or Local money to line the pockets of the Ricketts anytime soon.
barry
8:23 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
RICKETS is an idiot!
Louis G. Atsaves
8:29 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
The problem from the Cubs perspective is every ticket sold includes a tax that supports Solder Field, U.S. Cellular Field and The United Center. So the other major league clubs benefit from government largess from tickets sold at Wrigley Field, and Wrigley Field gets nothing. And the others demanded new stadiums be built on the public dime. The Ricketts are asking that a portion of each ticket sold that is taxed also benefit Wrigley Field.
Says volumes about how our government behaves sometimes.
Funny how the facts get in the way of a good argument. The owners of the White Sox, Bulls, Bears and Blackhawks are multimillionaires who need no tag days. Yet they get public subsidies and the privately owned stadium, that is taxed to fund the others, doesn't?
John Russillo
8:50 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Things were moving long very nicely until Daddy opened his big mouth. Good luck getting Rahm's backing now. That's fine. I like sitting next to rats and seagulls in the bleachers.
RB
10:13 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
I suppose one (perhaps the only ) benefit of concealed carry would be fewer sea gulls at games. Louis raises some food points. Timing is everything and Daddy screwed things up for any chance of public support.
Joe Nelson
10:43 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Do people think this is new or something? This happens all the time in sports and most of the time they are actually donations to Liberals and the information doesn't get out because the media doesn't care. But when the media finds out that an owner is donating for a Republican, that crosses the line. I just don't get it. Also, as many people previously have mentioned, I don't get either why the government provides money to sports teams to build stadiums and all that. There is a difference between private-sector businesses and public-sector businesses and they should be seperated. Also, to the people who are saying that the Supreme Court was wrong, and I personally think that if somebody wants to donate money, let them donate the money no matter how much it is. Obama has raised so much money and I don't see anybody complaining about that. Many large businesses and Universities have donates hundreds of thousands and dollars, and millions of dollars to Obama. Some of those including: JP Morgan Chase, Citi, Time Warner, University of California, Harvard, Stanford, Colombia University, IBM, General Electric, and Morgan Stanley. That all shows that this is not uncommon! Just because people have a different political view than you and they can afford to make a difference does not make them bad people or anything. A few years ago I remember Derrick Rose going to support Obama. I didn't see anybody complaining about that. As long as it's legal it's fine.
Daniel Krudop
7:01 am on Saturday, May 19, 2012
Things you find accidentally. I thought I'd see what other teams give to one party or the other and found: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/candidate-sports-team-support/story?id=16298070#1
"From 2009 through 2011, individuals associated with the Celtics have leaned heavily Democratic with 96 percent of the $212,150 they donated to political campaigns during that time going to Democrats.
Romney has multiple ties to the Celtics. Besides being the former governor of their home state, Romney used to preside over Bain Capital, the company where Celtic's co-owner Stephen Pagliuca now serves as managing director.
Pagliuca's $168,000 in political donations in the past three years made up the bulk of the Celtics partisan contributions. The co-owner has given the maximum not only to President Obama's re-election campaign ($5,000), but also to the Democratic National Committee ($30,800) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($30,800)."
Hmmm, imagine that, the current managing director of Bain Capital giving maximum support to President Obama, the DCCC, and the DNC. Makes one wonder if he might have done some bundling also. I haven't heard any of that in democratic campaign commercials smearing Bain Capital. I guess they cleaned up their act.
RB
6:39 am on Saturday, May 19, 2012
It's legal, and I guess hypocrisy is too. That's the issue here. The Ricketts ask for public money to finance Wrigley rehab, while owning a Super PAC that supposedly preaches fiscal responsibility (that's what they are saying when they claim they would never run the Wright ads because they are all about fiscal responsibility). You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Daniel Krudop
7:39 am on Saturday, May 19, 2012
Guess I was wrong about Bain Capital cleaning up their act. Found this on their website:
"Stephen Pagliuca, Managing Director
Experience:
Mr. Pagliuca joined Bain Capital in 1989 as a Managing Director. Prior to joining Bain Capital, Mr. Pagliuca was a Vice President at Bain & Company where he managed client relationships in the information services and healthcare industries. Mr. Pagliuca was also involved in developing Bain & Company's turnaround practice. Previously, Mr. Pagliuca worked as a senior accountant and international tax specialist at Peat Marwick Mitchell & Company in the Netherlands."
Note, "Mr. Pagliuca was also involved in developing Bain & Company's turnaround practice."
This is the practice that the Democratic campaign ads are so upset about. I guess they could give Mr. Pagliuca credit for the tens of thousands of jobs Bain Capital "created or saved" as at Staples, Guitar Center (including jobs in Highland Park), and many other companies; while blaming Mr. Romney for the hundreds of jobs that were lost in Bain Capitals' turnaround strategy.
Rusty Shackleford
12:18 am on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
I have a newfound respect for the Cubs owner.
ANYONE BUT OBAMA in 2012!