Podcast appearances and mentions of lisa madigan

Illinois' political world was rocked on March 2, when U.S. Attorney John Lausch announced a 22-count federal racketeering indictment against former House Speaker Michael J. Madigan. The charges allege Madigan oversaw a criminal enterprise to preserve and enhance his political power and finances, reward allies for their loyalty, and generate income for members and associates through illegal activities. Based on other indictments and reporting, it was clear Madigan had been in the feds' crosshairs for some time, but it was never clear when they might strike… or even if they could. For so long, Madigan had been seen as un-topple-able, or too savvy to say or do anything that could get himself in trouble. Madigan, meanwhile, has maintained his innocence. Here to discuss all things Madigan is Chicago Tribune reporter Ray Long, author of a new book: The House that Madigan Built: The Record Run of Illinois' Velvet Hammer. Long is a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist who has covered the state Capitol, City Hall, the courts and the county, two governors who went to prison and a state senator who went to the White House. Long has covered Springfield for 40 years. The book offers a play-by-play of how Madigan accumulated power over his decades-long career: how he helped keep the Chicago White Sox from moving to Florida, a sneak-attack tax hike under the name Operation Cobra, and the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich. It also explores how Madigan pushed job recommendations at Metra, how his position impacted the political aspirations of his daughter, Lisa Madigan, and the beginning of the end of his tenure atop the House. Long talks about all of that, as well as if he believes the Chicago Machine is now, effectively, dead; the difficult task the feds have in proving the difference between routine politics and a criminal offense; and what really motivated the Velvet Hammer.

This November, voters in 30 states and the District of Columbia will be casting ballots for state attorney general. These elected officials work on many issues that impact our everyday lives, and yet, many people do not know exactly what they do or who is running for the office. Valerie Nannery speaks this week with Lisa Madigan, former state Attorney General for Illinois, about what it means to run for and serve as a state attorney general, and how voters can learn more about this important position before voting this fall. ----------------- Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Valerie Nannery, ACS Senior Director for Network Advancement Guest: Lisa Madigan, Partner at Kirkland & Ellis and Former Illinois Attorney General Link: ACS's State Attorneys General Project Link: ACS's Run.Vote.Work. Initiative Link: "Get to Know Your State Attorney General; Their Work Matters More than You Know." Link: Chicago Police Consent Decree Link: National Association of Attorneys General Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2022.

Many bigwigs, including an alderman and Lisa Madigan, are trying to prevent a shared kitchen from opening up on the north side. Deidra Suder of Cloud Kitchens who would like to open, joined Big John to talk about the situation.

Motivational quote: "It is never too late to correct our mistakes. And if we do not, we risk repeating them." - Lisa Madigan.Hello beautiful people and welcome to the seventh mid-week motivational Recharge on Power Beyond! Never give up! Keep climbing! Keep pushing, let's Aspire to Inspire! Hope everyone has a beautiful week and please send me feedback on my instagram: itshaassann. Stay blessed all! #AspireToInspire

Dr. Melissa K. Miller, 2019 ICS Faculty Fellow and Associate Professor of Political Science at BGSU, discusses her research on women in politics. Dr. Miller shares her findings from her analysis of media coverage of the unprecedented number of women running for office during the 2018 election cycle. Dr. Miller explores how media coverage influences voter perception of mothers running for office. Transcript: Introduction: From Bowling Green State University and the Institute for the Study of Culture and Society. This is BG Ideas. Musical Intro: I'm going to show you this with a wonderful experiment. Jolie S.: To the BG Ideas podcast. A collaboration between the Institute for the Study of Culture and Society and the School of Media and Communication at Bowling Green State University. I'm Jolie Sheffer, an associate professor of English and American culture studies and the director of ICS. Today I'm joined by one of ICS' faculty fellows, Dr. Melissa K. Miller. She's an associate professor of political science and affiliated faculty in the department of women's gender and sexuality studies here at BGSU. Her current research is focused on women who are mothers who ran congressional campaigns in the 2018 midterm elections. This is the first extensive bi-partisan study of mother candidates and we're thrilled to be here to discuss her research. Thanks for joining me, Melissa. Melissa M.: Thanks for having me. Jolie S.: The 2018 midterm elections really put the spotlight on women running for political office. Can you talk to us about what initially drew you to focus on candidates who were also mothers? Melissa M.: I really have always been interested in the intersection of women, media, voters, campaigning. Gender and politics is a study of my research and I'm an expert on American politics. What happened? I go all the way back to 2008. A friend and colleague of mine, Dr. Jeff Peak, he's a presidency scholar. I'm a gender scholar within the political science department and we decided to do a collaborative project where we content coded press coverage of the presidential candidates back in 2008 and we thought what a great slew of candidates to look at. I of course was most interested in looking at how Hillary Clinton was covered by the press in her 2008 attempt to get the democratic nomination. Melissa M.: He was interested in all the candidates as a presidency scholar and so we did a press coverage study of Hillary Clinton and it was amazing to do. We published our results in the journal called Politics and Gender and there were some real gendered aspects of her coverage that really jumped out. In the midst of that campaign, from my perspective as a gender scholar, I was so pleased to be able to study Hillary Clinton's press coverage. We content coded 6,000 news articles about the democratic race specifically to look at her coverage and then come around August, John McCain, the Republican nominee named Sarah Palin, the Alaska governor as his running mate. And so suddenly our study is underway and it was like we'd won the lottery. Melissa M.: At least it felt that way for me. Holy cow, now I can study a Republican woman also competing not for president but as a vice presidential running mate. So we also, Jeff Peak and I, did a study of how Sarah Palin was covered and in both Clinton's coverage and Palin's coverage back in 2008 there were real gendered coverage markers. Their gender was mentioned at a disproportionate rate. Their marital status was mentioned at a disproportionate rate. In Hillary Clinton's case, her press coverage was much more negative than her male rivals and the content of that negative coverage was highly personal. Really personal descriptives that were very negative about her. Melissa M.: For Sarah Palin, her coverage was very distinguished by the fact that she was objectified. Her appearance and clothing was mentioned off the charts relative to Joe Biden who was the democratic counterpart on the democratic ticket. So fast forward, we published these two studies, one about Clinton, one about Palin and a couple of years go by and I get an email from a couple of scholars who are interested in publishing a book on the intersection of motherhood and politics. And they reached out to me knowing my work on the 2008 campaign and the two Clinton and Palin studies I'd published. And they said, "Would you be willing to write our chapter on mothers running for political office and their media coverage?" Melissa M.: I said, "Absolutely." So I did a deep dive back into that 2008 data and I wrote a book chapter really dissecting going back into all the articles and looking about how their motherhood status was portrayed in 2008 and it was fascinating and it suggested to me right away that motherhood can be both an asset and a liability on the campaign trail. So for Hillary Clinton in 2008 her daughter Chelsea was an adult. Chelsea was out on the campaign trail. Chelsea was viewed positively. The coverage in the media was that she was sort of an asset to her mother, really effective on the stump. For Palin, it was scandal, scandal, scandal with her kids and it was a different, she had young children. The youngest was a special need infant. She had five kids. There were three separate scandals that the press really sort of harped on. Melissa M.: One was the pregnancy of her teenage daughter. One was the use of state funds as governor of Alaska to take her kids with her to official events. And the third was the use of Republican campaign funds to pay for clothing for her kids. It was a real negative in her coverage. Over the course of that research too, of course, I'm soaking up and reading everything. There's very little scholarly work on mothers and how they're treated on the campaign trail, so what I'm finding is more press coverage accounts and what I find is that for instance, Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general was badgered by the Chicago Sun Times when she was considering running for governor. Already elected to statewide office by the way but badgered by the press for how could she raise young kids while being governor. Jane Swift, this is going back to 2001 so a little bit further back, was Lieutenant governor ascended. Melissa M.: She was next in line. The governor leaves office mid term. She ascends. She's vilified in the press because she's eight months pregnant with two twins. One set of twins. I said that wrong. You go back a little further. Patty Murray was derided as just a mom in tennis shoes by a Washington state legislator when she was not yet running for office but she was lobbying her state legislature to save an important preschool program in the state of Washington. While she went on and took that derisive comment by a male state legislator and made it a campaign slogan and ended up running for office and eventually won a seat in the US Senate. So as I'm reading all of this for this motherhood chapter in the book that was published recently, it's called Mothers and Others, I just thought, oh my goodness, more work has to be done. Melissa M.: There've been so many strides that have been made frankly in terms of women's press coverage but it seemed to me that it's still problematic. I think the media and possibly voters have not yet grappled with, is it okay for a mom to run for high office if she has young kids and questions would be raised about the appropriateness of this. In a way that in my own view and studying press coverage, those kinds of questions are not typically raised about men with young children. So I wanted to do a project. Jolie S.: And with that project, what are the kinds of women you're talking about when you are following candidates on the campaign trail? Do they share similar demographics, political affiliations or other characteristics? Melissa M.: I'm actively trying to interview both Republicans and Democrats. It's a little bit harder to find Republicans because there were not as many women who ran in 2018. The big surge of women's candidacies were among Democrats but I still nevertheless have already interviewed two Republican women. Melissa M.: They tend to be in their late 30s, early to mid 40s. There are women of color. I've interviewed one already in my sample so far and it is important to me to try to get as many different types of women amongst this group that I get their stories from. I mean I'm looking for where I think the challenge is greatest. So I'm really looking for mothers who have kids that are anywhere from infant stage till around 12, 13 years old. So I have women who've raised as little as $40,000 for their campaign to as much as $8 million. So there's also a range in how viable their candidacies were. The mother who only raised $40,000, I will tell you was the nominee of the Republican party. She did not raise a lot of money. She was running in what we call a blue district and she was very candid about saying that she felt she didn't get a lot of hostile questions about the raising of her kids. She said, "I don't think anyone thought I could win so it wasn't an issue." Melissa M.: I've heard that from a couple of women. At the other end of the spectrum, I have candidates who raised hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars all the way up to around $8 million, women who came very, very close to winning. And so I think so far I've got a good mix. It's not the kind of large end statistical study where I'm trying to get a representative sample but I am purposely trying to get a variety of mothers who come from different backgrounds and experiences and also from different parts of the country. So already I have women candidates from the South, the Northeast, the Midwest, and the West. So it is nationwide. And what I'm finding so far is what appear to be some regional differences and what appear to be some generational differences in terms of whose concerned about their ability to serve as mothers. Jolie S.: On that question of the generational differences, I mean one of the things that seems really striking about the 2018 midterms and what's been happening since then, is that a wave of younger candidates won and so the face of the woman in politics has now a generation younger than maybe what most voters were thinking of. And do you have a sense either through your teaching or through some of your other outreach activities of what effect that is having on young voters? Maybe folks who this is their first time able to vote that they're in their late teens or early 20s. Melissa M.: So in 2018 there was a surge of women candidates who ran and a lot of them were younger. This was a huge exception to the rule. So what we know from the gender and politics literature is that women tend to wait longer to launch their first campaign. Why? Precisely because they're having families. They're having their kids and it's not until the kids are raised, grown up, much older that they start to entertain the idea of running for elective office. Men don't do it that way. So there are plenty of examples for generations of men with young little children, babies who nevertheless run for public office and get elected. Melissa M.: So the fact that sort of the face of people running changed is part because of gender, part because of age and at the intersection of that is motherhood. So suddenly you have women who were socialized. If they're in their 30s and 40s I mean, these are women who were raised at a time their mothers were working perhaps full time. Also, perhaps involved in civic activities and other things so they are noticing. And I think the 2016 election, particularly for the democratic women that I've interviewed, it was an eyeopener. Melissa M.: And one of the things I ask every one of my interviewees, and in part it's sort of an icebreaker to start the interview at the general level, what motivated you to run? A lot of these women, particularly the Democrats, it was the 2016 election. It was the big disappointment they felt and it was the sense that I need to do something. They were so disappointed and concerned about the outcome of the election. They felt I need to do something and what will I tell my kids when they're older if I didn't step up. So motherhood I'm learning is really an impetus for a number of these women. It's because I'm a mother that I felt I needed to do something to better my country. Going back to your question, I think I've gone astray Jolie, so remind me if I haven't. Jolie S.: How do you see young people today who are in their late teens or early 20s sort of responding to that 2018 surge? Melissa M.: First of all, I think young people are beginning to much more readily envision politics as an important sphere in which they can be involved almost without question. The women that I've interviewed, those who were able, who ran campaigns that were quite competitive, they raised hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars. They had staff. Well guess what? Political staff, whether you're male or female running your campaign tends to be staffed by younger people. I'll never forget what one of these democratic women told me. She was a mother candidate and I ask as I do each of them, did you decide to sort of broadcast that you were a mother? Did you decide to showcase that in your advertising, on your website, in your speeches and so forth? And this particular mother had. She ran, as several of them had as a "working mom." Working mom is the phrase that's in the advertising at the website and so forth. Melissa M.: And I said, "What did your staff think about that?" And she just laughed. She said, "I'm not sure I quite understand why." She said, "Because I've got all these 20 something millennials, they're single, they don't have kids. They totally wanted me to run as a mom." she said. So they felt that broadcasting their motherhood softened them a little bit. Look, I'm a mom. Look at my happy family. I think they found it helpful and certainly their millennials staffers encouraged them to broadcast their motherhood. Jolie S.: Part of this research study involved you being on the trail and sort of having close interaction with some of the campaigns. So can you talk about sort of what that experience was like and how that has shaped this research maybe differently than some of those more macro level studies you've done in the past? Melissa M.: Absolutely. So I ended up only doing one campaign observation. It was phenomenal. It was fascinating. In brief, I was embedded for three days on a campaign, a congressional campaign on the West coast. I was with the candidate. This candidate had raised several hundred thousand dollars at that point, went on to raise several hundred thousand dollars more and I had set up the observation weeks ahead. It involved airfare of course so you do this kind of thing. And listeners, maybe as dismayed as I was when I arrived, the campaign was out of the home at that point and that's common by the way. In the interviews I've done subsequently, that's very common that the campaign is the office is at home. I arrived at the door on the appointed morning. The candidate was very gracious and meeting me at the door, but apologetic. Apologetic because they had canceled all of the scheduled activities, events with voters for the next couple of days. Melissa M.: Why? Because, she was considering dropping out. Why? Because, she was facing intense pressure from the party. She happened to be a Democrat. The party had held its endorsement meeting and she had not gotten the endorsement of the democratic party and she was getting intense pressure to drop out and she apologized. "I know we set this up in advance. I didn't want to cancel. You're not going to get to see me with voters as much." So of course as the scholar, my heart sinks initially. In a way Jolie, how valuable was that for me to be still invited in. I observed, listened in on every meeting with campaign manager, spouse, outside paid consultants over speaker phone. We did go to a couple of meetings with local elected democratic politicians as she was trying to decide whether to stay in or not. Melissa M.: Do you know what's interesting? She is one of two candidates that I have interviewed, and this happened to be an observation for whom her motherhood status as a mother of three young kids was a huge problem. She faced so many thinly veiled critical questions about who will raise your kids and the candidate that the party endorsed was a single woman with no children. Now I know having studied politics for so long that the reason a party chooses to endorse one candidate over the other those reasons are complex. But it is interesting that she told me that her opponent... She was literally being told by Democrats that your opponent, Republican voters, if one of you is going to become the nominee and we're worried if it's you with your little kids, Republican voters will never vote for you because of their traditional values and so forth. Melissa M.: So it's hard to pinpoint exactly how much that entered into the party's endorsement decision. She ended up not being endorsed. It was a grueling scene to watch the decision. She ultimately decided to stay in the race. She ultimately did not win the nomination so she did not go on to the general election. But that campaign observation was absolutely eyeopening for me. First of all, to see what it's like to run a campaign out of a private home when you have three little kids. I'll never forget they had devoted a room on the second floor, obviously a bedroom rather oversized so that was nice, into an office with kind of office Ikea office furniture. But you could hear the comings and goings of the part time nanny that they had. You could hear dad who had fortunately a flexible work schedule changing the diaper, possibly a pull up for those of you who know the difference amongst our listeners, singing old McDonald. Melissa M.: There we are sitting in the war room, not me, I'm just listening, but the candidate's having difficult conversations about whether to stay in the race and all of this is going on. One of the factors that entered in her decision to stay in the race was, I'll stay in, but we have to get an office outside of the home. This is too much conflict to have inside the home. So in addition to the observation, I interviewed her at the end of the observation as sort of a separate matter and I asked her about that. I said, "You mentioned conflict in the home. What do you mean by that?" That could be shouting matches. She said, "No, just people involved on campaigns are type A personalities. It's hard driving. Quick decisions have to be made. We have to hash out strategy. Staffers can disagree over what neighborhood we ought to canvas in and the like." So it was more it was important for her who had three small children under the age of five to get an office and about a week after the observation they did get an office. Jolie S.: Can you elaborate a little bit more on how this research then can be put into the hands of potential candidates and campaign workers to maybe help them think differently about what some of those options are? Melissa M.: Yes. It's a great question because I've always been about doing research that has public implications and trying to get the important findings of this kind of research out to the public. And first I think is just to publicize mothers of young children are now running. They are running. This may be new in many districts in many places but it's happening. It will eventually begin to normalize. The more women with young children run the more it will become normal. So, that's one thing. I'll also say, I alluded to this earlier that the stereotypes about a woman's proper place when her children are young is at home with maybe a regular job but certainly not Congress. What I'm finding in my interviews is that those kinds of stereotypes being raised by voters tend to be projected by older voters so not younger voters. Cultural change is slow unfortunately. We like to speed it along and I think my research can speed it along. Melissa M.: So part of the plan is of course it's not journalism. I mean I'm not on a 24 hour deadline. As I continue to do my interviews and then begin to write and publish in academic outlets, I'm definitely planning to do outreach. There's a group that I have discovered called Vote Mama. This is a fascinating group. It has just been established, I believe early 2019 by a mother of young children who ran in the state of New York. She ran out on Long Island. Her name's Luba Shirley and she actually asked the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission to approve her use of campaign funds to pay for childcare for her children so that she could run. Melissa M.: Nobody had done this before and in fact, when I was observing my candidate on the West coast in that three day embedded experience I had, she lamented that the understanding was the FEC won't allow you to use your campaign donations to pay for childcare, which she thought was outrageous because she said, "Running is a full time job and I had to take a leave of absence from my job." she said, "So that I could run and now I can't possibly run effectively without childcare." And she was advised by her male campaign manager not to make a request to the FEC because if word got out in her district that she was asking the FEC to use the campaign funds, it would come back to bite her. Melissa M.: Little did she know that on the other coast out on Long Island, there was a similar mother in a similar position who for whatever reason did decide to ask the FEC and she got permission. And so I think about a dozen candidates in 2018 both women and men, interestingly enough, using the new FEC ruling began to use their campaign funds to pay for childcare. That is a huge breakthrough. That the woman who filed the case with the FEC and won that case has since founded this Vote Mama organization. It is specifically designed for democratic women mind you, so it's not bi-partisan, but it's to elect democratic women who are mothers of young children up and down the ballot. Melissa M.: She believes this founder of Vote Mama as well as the women I've talked to, they say we need government to represent us. This is true for Democrats and Republicans. Why can't mothers of young children. They have a unique perspective. They should be at the table. It's been absolutely fascinating to hear about their lived experiences and learn from them. And I absolutely hope and plan for my moms on the run study to be educational and informative to campaign professionals, to politicians and party members. I do think 2018 with the record number of women elected, I think that women now have the attention of the parties. So I do think both parties will realize that putting women on the ballot can be a win. Putting women with young children on the ballot can also be a win as we've seen from the 10, 12 women who are mothers of young children who were elected to the US House of Representatives in 2018. Jolie S.: Thanks so much, Melissa. We're going to take a quick break now. Thank you for listening to the BG Ideas podcast. Introduction: If, you are passionate about big ideas consider sponsoring this program. To have your name or organization mentioned here please contact us at ics@bgsu.edu. Jolie S.: Today I'm talking with Dr. Melissa K. Miller about her research on mothers who ran for Congress in the 2018 midterms. We have a student who has a couple of questions. Would you say your name first and then your first question? Christina: Yes. Hello. My name is Christina and I am an MPA student at BGSU. My first question for you, Dr. Miller is, have you talked to the spouses of these women to see how they have supported them? Melissa M.: That is a great question. I talked to the spouse of one woman. The woman that I embedded in her campaign for three days. So I literally met the spouse on day one. I saw the spouse every day. I mentioned earlier in the podcast, this was a campaign where this particular mom candidate was being kind of pushed out. There were activists trying to push her out, so I got to observe the brain trust trying to make a final decision. Was she going to stay in the race or not? Her spouse participated in that. At the end of the observation period, I asked him, having met him, "Can I interview you?" Melissa M.: And he had me do that. He let me do that. I was so pleased. His interview as well was about 60 to 90 minutes long. I did it a few days after returning to campus and his insights were amazing in part because you heard from his perspective what the discussions he had with his wife were like when they were trying to decide how would they make this work. I mean they had real decisions to make about their jobs, their schedules, if either of them could go part time, whether they could afford a nanny and the like. It was because I had the opportunity to talk to him that in every subsequent interview I've done, I am only interviewing the mom candidates, but I always ask, "What is the role of your spouse on this campaign?" And I've seen a real variety of roles, Christina. Everywhere from full blown partner advising me at every turn. Melissa M.: My husband's taken over everything in terms of household and childcare and all that. This by the way, was from a mom who, what she described prior to the campaign was they really had a partnership thing going. It wasn't she was fulfilling a traditional role of doing the majority of housework. They were partnering. And at the other end I had a mom in a very traditional marriage who her husband was very supportive and he would do additional school pickups and that kind of thing but she literally complained to me. Did not do any extra dishes. Didn't do any meal preparation and you could tell, I mean, she told me in a discouraging sort of disappointed tone, she said, "I doubt there are a lot of men out there who are running for Congress who get home at the end of a very busy day to a sink stacked full of dirty dishes and laundry all over the place. Melissa M.: So I found that fascinating because her husband fully supported her running, but she was in a household where she still had to do all of the regular chores, those gendered domestic chores that traditionally women have done. So we saw a real difference. And I do think in every case though, it was a negotiation between mom, candidate and spouse. How were they going to make it work? And several of these women also indicated to me that they perceived at least that dad candidates out there didn't have to have these same kinds of negotiations. So, that's been very illuminating. Speaker 6: How have the narrative surrounding children on the presidential campaign for say, Clinton, Bush and the Obama's compared? Melissa M.: It's a great question because really if we just as individual voters, listeners we think to ourselves, what do we know about campaigns? Well, what your average American knows about campaigns is what they see every four years in the most high profile campaign in the country. So your average voter, that's what they know of campaigns is what they see. And unfortunately, for reasons that I gave at the outset, what they see may discourage women of young children from running. For instance, Sarah Palin and the treatment of her children and how she was really put under the microscope and her parenting was really subjected to just, oh, tons of criticism. And we can debate some of that, the scandals. Some of that press coverage may have been warranted and important. Melissa M.: But what's interesting to me is in that very same election, Barack Obama, just a candidate back then a US Senator from Illinois, had young children. I think they were aged maybe seven and six, six and nine or something along those lines. And because I studied his press coverage alongside Hillary Clinton's, I can tell you there was very little mention of his kids in his press coverage far more for Clinton, way more for Palin. The fact that he had young kids and was running for president was not an issue for him in the way it was for Palin or frankly in the way I've learned it was for women who ran for Congress in 2018 simply because society has different expectations about women's role in the household when there are young children versus men's. Another thing you mentioned the Bushes. I might also bring in President Trump and his young son Barron. Occasionally and fortunately it doesn't happen very often, but occasionally the children of these high profile politicians, elected officials will really be attacked. Melissa M.: I think this happened in a couple isolated cases for the Bush girls when George W. was in the White House. It's happened a few times for Barron, President Trump's son. That's most recent. Also, perhaps most visible because now we're in the Twitterverse so all over social media and one nice thing I see is that there's always a big backlash when the children of a politician get attacked or criticized. Another example that comes to mind toward the end of the Obama administration, his daughters now teenagers appearing at some public events with their father, the way they dressed was criticized. And the good news is, at least in the mainstream media, there's a real backlash where you have reporters saying... Jolie S.: That's off limits. Melissa M.: Absolutely off limits. What worries me though is when there are these high profile examples of presidents' kids who get dragged into the media or made fun of or victimized somehow online. There are mothers out there and fathers as well, I would imagine, who don't want to get into it. They don't want to subject their kids to that kind of scrutiny. So I do hope that the project that moms on the run will at least elevate awareness that women with young children can run. They do run, they are running, they're winning. And again, as I said earlier, women running with small kids for office, whether it's US House of Representatives or lower level office, it's just what women do just like men with young children do. Again, however, cultural change is slow, which is why I think it's an important study. It's an important time to be studying this, to push cultural change along a little bit, I guess would be my broad goal. Jolie S.: Thank you so much for being here with us today. I really enjoyed talking with you about your research. If you're interested in learning more about the issues that Dr. Miller's work raises, you can visit our website at www.bgsu.edu/ics. Our producers for this podcast are Chris Covera and Marco Mendoza. Research support for this podcast was provided by the following, ICS undergraduate interns, Olivia Davis, Melanie Miller, Strati Mustikus and Sarah Schaller.  

Former Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan discusses opportunities for women before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our audience takes control of the programming in this fast-paced, random episode. The live-stream is available in two parts on our Facebook page. See timestamps and show notes below: 00:42 – Intro 01:27 – Nate on multi-track recording 01:52 – Did you know? #1 “There will be no impeachment” theory, and explanation 04:35 – Did you know? #2 “No one was called ‘Guy’ before November 5th, 1605” - Verified 07:06 – Facebook Live ‘Rules’ and Sheldon’s ‘Running Question’ 08:14 – Sheldon: Life without Twitter 09:30 – Kanye West: Jesus Is King, Sunday Service, and Being Born Again 16:58 – On Show Notes (sorry Kayla) 17:22 – Wardrobe Choices 17:58 – Speeding Tickets 19:10 – Live Video stops and Nate and Sheldon struggle to resolve minor tech issues 21:00 – Uncle Karl’s Foot Ointment 21:45 – Being pulled over by Police 24:25 – Beards 24:54 – Counterfeit foods 27:07 – Binge-worthy television 27:50 – “Are the Cleveland Cavaliers still trash?” 30:56 – Lisa Madigan wants to talk about Christmas 32:34 – Nate has strong opinions about whip cream 32:50 – Nate is wrong about how to eat a slice of pie 33:40 – Sheldon is right about how to eat a burger 34:30 – Best parenting moments of the week 37:08 – Christians with tattoos and piercings? 39:26 – Hot Button topics for the upcoming election 39:52 – Pie 2: Electric Boogaloo 40:28 – Skipping Breakfast 42:34 – Return of the Pumpkin Pie 43:39 – Eating in Japan 45:09 – “We're back to politics” 48:14 – Beating bad habits 49:22 – Politics Redux 52:04 – BethAnne has a potty mouth and Matt paints his nails 54:25 – Sheldon talks about his bad habit 55:30 – Substitute Swearing 60:38 – No Troll November 61:41 – Ethics Standards at Seminary 62:20 – “What are we reading?” -Discipleship by AW Tozer -Victoriocity -We’re Alive -Unobscured 65:40 – Enneagram, DiSC and Spiritual Gifts tests 71:15 – Government Intervention in Social Media 75:55 – Is Disney Dying? 77:47 – Worst-ship Song Tournament 78:18 – Protecting our Youth 81:15 – Worst-ship Song Tournament 2: Back in the Habit 82:38 – Anti-Vax 86:35 – Wrapping Up Thethingswesay@gmail.com Facebook.com/thethingswesaypodcast Twitter & Instagram @ttwspodcast

Lisa Madigan is the former State Attorney General for Illinois. She joins the show to talk about teaching in South Africa during the rise of the anti-apartheid movement, the Jason Van Dyke case in Chicago, her investigation into abuse in the Catholic Church, why she didn't run for governor, and more.

What should the EPA do to ease the minds of Dupage County residents who have unanswered questions and don’t know if the air they’re breathing is safe? Are the suits being filed by Dupage County and Lisa Madigan’s office against Sterigenics have any merit? Is the typical backyard grill more dangerous than the chemicals being used at Sterigenics? Environmental adviser to the Heartland Institute, Rich Trzupek joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Illinois has been spewing its smog over Lake Michigan for years, and southeastern Wisconsin has been paying the price. The Trump EPA realized the folly of this and reversed course recently, but that isn't stopping the smog dumpers in Illinois like the state's AG, Lisa Madigan, from throwing a fit and filing a lawsuit over the commonsense decision. Catch the MacIver News Minute on News/Talk 1130 WISN every Tuesday and Thursday at 8, 11, and 2. Listen to News/Talk 1130 WISN live: www.iheart.com/live/1130-wisn-4245/

This is the very first episode of IlliNoise! Moving forward this show is going to be built entirely around your questions about our state government. But this week and this week only, I’m digging into a question of my own: What exactly does the Illinois Attorney General do? I’ve been wondering about this for a little while, because back in September our current attorney general Lisa Madigan announced that she wouldn’t be seeking reelection this year. Our state’s primaries coming up in March. So that means Illinois voters need to decide who they want to be our next attorney general really soon. But I don’t think I can decide who is most qualified for the job until I know what the job is. So I asked Law360 reporter Hannah Meisel to help me out.

Ken Davis is joined by the Tribune’s City Hall reporter Hal Dardick and the BGA’s Madeleine Doubek, who’s their Director of Civic Engagement. It’s a conversation about the current status of politics and policy as 2018 comes on-line. The panel discusses Chris Kennedy’s claim that Rahm Emanuel has a “strategic gentrification plan” to empty Chicago of minorities and ramp up gentrification across the city, along with the likelihood of Rahm Emanuel’s and Bruce Rauner’s re-election, the retirement of Lisa Madigan and the prospects for the candidates attempting to win her seat, and the ascension of Janice Jackson to CEO of the Chicago Public Schools. This program was produced by Chicago Access Network Television (CAN TV).

Amy Dillard, a professor of law at the University of Baltimore, and Christy Lopez, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and former Deputy Chief in the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, discuss why Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan has sued the city of Chicago to overhaul police training practices, after investigations found systemic issues with the Chicago police force. They speak with Michael Best and June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Amy Dillard, a professor of law at the University of Baltimore, and Christy Lopez, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and former Deputy Chief in the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, discuss why Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan has sued the city of Chicago to overhaul police training practices, after investigations found systemic issues with the Chicago police force. They speak with Michael Best and June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

The best moments of the the September 2014 Dinner Party! Famed talk show host and politician Jerry Springer sits down to dinner with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Celebrity Columnist Bill Zwecker over a dinner by chef Bruce Sherman of North Pond, who joins the conversation hosted by Elysabeth Alfano. Be prepared to laugh!

Famed talk show host and politician Jerry Springer sits down to dinner with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Celebrity Columnist Bill Zwecker over a dinner by chef Bruce Sherman of North Pond, who joins the conversation hosted by Elysabeth Alfano. Be prepared to laugh!

Famed talk show host and politician Jerry Springer sits down to dinner with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Celebrity Columnist Bill Zwecker over a dinner by chef Bruce Sherman of North Pond, who joins the conversation hosted by Elysabeth Alfano. Be prepared to laugh!