Tag: Wrigley Field renovations

Why I Don’t Support the Wrigleyville Rooftop Owners

Yesterday, I posted on my FB page and on Twitter my first gut reaction to the latest twist in the Cubs v. Rooftops saga that began a long time ago in a galaxy, far, far away (or it just seems that way):

If you go to a rooftop across from Wrigley, or buy a drink in any of the bars they own, we're not friends anymore.

Is that childish and pouty? Absolutely. Do I take it back? Not really.

I'm not really going to disown anyone for going to a rooftop because there are bigger issues in the world to get that bothered about, but I'm not going to pay a nickel to anybody who owns those places and I don't think Cubs fans should either because they are now hurting the teams' ability to survive at Wrigley Field.

But let's take a step back. First, why in the hell do the neighbors even have a say in this?

This is one of the first questions I always get when this topic comes up from people who are baseball fans but not Cubs fans, or from people who like the Cubs, but don't fritter all their time away in the hive of scum and villainy that is Cubs blog world. Most people plain don't understand how this is even a thing.

So let's travel back in time to the early 80s, when the Cubs sucked, the Wrigleys finally sold a team they hadn't given a damn about in decades, Wrigleyville was Latin King territory, and you could tie an onion to your belt (which was the style at the time) and head to Wrigley to sit in the bleachers on the day of the game for a nickel or whatever. It was a time of innocence. A time when only day baseball was played, and hardly any of the players were millionaires. There were also no rooftop seats across the street.

Oh sure, people went up there from time to time, but they were people who lived in the buildings or had friends who lived in the buildings. It was a perk of living there. You had friends over, dragged a grill up top and hung out in the sun, drinking your own beer, and watching the Cubs from a distance. It was pretty cool and hardly anybody was aware of it.

Then the Cubs, under Dallas Green, managed to put together a team that actually made the playoffs. It was 1984. Harry Caray was in the booth, Ryne Sandberg was breaking Cardinals fans hearts, and the Cubs won the division for the first time in almost 40 years. It was a fucking party. The park was jammed full of partying people. This is when the national spotlight hit the rooftops, that were also more jammed than usual because everybody wanted to see the magic at Wrigley. So the TV cameras found the rooftop folks and their friends partying and Cubs fans at home began to think, "Wow, that looks AWESOME. I wish I could do that."

I don't know who did it first and it really doesn't matter, but someone over there got the idea to start selling access to the rooftops. And they had a lot of demand. A lot. So they put up junior high school style bleachers and installed bigger grills. And the TV cameras kept finding them and the demand kept growing.

Meanwhile, the Cubs viewed it as an opportunity to sell themselves. "Look!" They'd say through constant mentions by Harry or camera shots by Arne Harris, "The Cubs are so popular people are jamming onto the rooftops to see us play!"

The rooftops had plenty of business, and this was the first real opportunity the owners of the buildings had to really cash in on the Cubs being right next door since a local ordinance restricted the signage outside the ballpark.  The old Budweiser sign in left field and the old Torco sign in right field were grandfathered in and if those signs ever come down, they can't go back up again.

But rooftop seating wasn't restricted and as it became bigger business, they needed all sorts of licensing from the city to operate. The rooftops claim the Cubs never objected. I don't know if they did or not, but they sure seemed happy to build the rooftops into the sun, ivy, baseball-the-way-it-was-meant-to-be mythology that they marketed in the absence of much winning baseball.

Since nobody was telling them otherwise, the rooftops then started heavily investing in their business. Wrigley's high-end amenities were non-existent. Sure, they had skyboxes, but they were tucked back in under the upper deck, and were pretty cramped. The food service sucked throughout the ballpark. So the rooftops started providing real food options and having actual good restaurants cater. They served top-shelf liquor. They had premium beer options and now serve real craft beer. They suddenly became a better option for the wealthy corporate customers that were becoming increasingly important to a baseball team's economics. They started putting additions on the buildings and building multi-level stadium-quality bleachers, with separate access stairs and elevators. They renovated apartments into full-service sports bars. Hell, a couple of those buildings were build for the express purpose of making them into stadium clubs.

All of these mega-complexes were built around a view of games that they did not own.

This was the crux of a lawsuit that the Cubs finally brought against the rooftops in 2002. We'll get back to that.

Meanwhile, the city had started moving on placing landmark status on Wrigley Field, meaning any change to the ballpark would have to go through a landmarks committee. 

Mayor Daley always had a contentious relationship with the Chicago Tribune's editorial board, but you can't just take revenge on a newspaper that is mean to you if you're a politician. Freedom of speech and all that. But what you CAN do, especially in the seedy world of Chicago politics, is squeeze the baseball team owned by the newspaper, and that was the Cubs. People used to think that Daley only fucked with the Cubs because he was a Sox fan, but after the 1994 strike, he was pretty disillusioned with baseball altogether and really didn't give much of a damn anymore. The fact that it was the Cubs was more icing on the cake than a main motivator. He meant to make the Tribune squirm any way he could and landmarking Wrigley was just the next thing (see also, the Battle of Night Games).

I can't find when it was officially declared for review, but it definitely was under review in the early 2000s when the Cubs and rooftops started really clashing. The Cubs were in a hurry to make changes that wouldn't need to go through 8 billion steps (like we've seen for the current renovations now that the landmark status is officially official), but the changes required building out over the Waveland and Sheffield sidewalks and that got the neighborhood involved. The plans would also obscure the sightlines from the rooftops and so they began fighting the Cubs on the changes.

So there wasn't much, if any, political support for the Cubs against a neighborhood that loves having their property values shoot up because of the stadium, but hates every other part of living near a stadium: people, traffic, noise, etc.  Cubs fans, as they are prone to do, were also going apeshit that the Tribune was going to ruin Wrigley Field by making the changes. 

Things deteriorated between the rooftops and the Cubs and came to a head when the Cubs sued the rooftops at the end of 2002:

According to the Cubs’ complaint and to Andy MacPhail, President and CEO, as quoted above, the Chicago Cubs have a property right in the performance of the Major League baseball games played at Wrigley Field, and the rooftop owners infringe the Cubs’ copyrights by rebroadcasting the Cubs’ telecasts.

According to the rooftop owners’ answer to the complaint, the Cubs’ allegations are made solely to harass the owners and pressure the community and the City of Chicago to permit the Cubs to fundamentally alter Wrigley Field and the character of the Wrigleyville neighborhood.

So the Cubs were saying, "You don't have a right to sell a view of our product" and the rooftops countered with, "You are just saying that to bully us."

But it ultimately came down to who owned the rights to the view, and it isn't as simple as you might think if you read the article I linked to. Eventually a judge ordered a compromise be made, and the Cubs, who were hellbent on getting their Bleacher expansion before the landmark status was finalized, agreed to a deal where they got the expansion rights over the sidewalks and 17% of the revenues from the rooftops in exchange for a 20 year moratorium on blocking the rooftop views.

Essentially, the Cubs screwed themselves in the long run by being stupidly narrow-minded in their scope of what was a "win" for them. Someone with a longer view might have balked at committing to 20 years of status quo in a ballpark that was already 90 years old at the time. Maybe they could keep challenging and make the rooftops win their argument that they had a right to the view. Maybe they could have just said to hell with the 17%, just give us the rights to the sidewalk space and we'll stay as is for 5 years (or something a hell of a lot shorter than 20 years). I don't know, I wasn't there and I'm not a legal expert. But this agreement is now why the current Cubs have their hands tied when trying to renovate the ballpark.

They've cleared all the landmark hurdles, but the revenue-driving signage and jumbotron that will help pay for the non-revenue driving (but essential) changes are in potential violation of that agreement that doesn't expire until 2024.

So this is the Cubs' own damn fault, right? Well, yeah, pretty much, with a helping hand from Daley who helped put them in a position of angst where that deal seemed like a good idea.

But here is the thing, and I've said it before and I will keep saying it until I am blue in the face: The Cubs have a FINITE amount of time where playing at Wrigley Field is viable, from both an economic and safety perspective.

SOMETHING has to change. The Cubs can not compete like a large market team without the revenues that every other baseball team in the world has access to. The Cubs can not compete while asking their players to use equipment that is inferior to many NCAA  Division III (non-scholarship) athletic facilties. THERE IS STILL SAFETY NETTING BECAUSE OF CONCRETE THAT STARTED CRUMBLING AND FALLING A DECADE AGO.

It. Can. Not. Continue. Like. This.

So, do the rooftops have a very serious case that their agreement is being violated? Yeah, they might (as GBTS has stated in the comments in earlier posts, this is also not crystal clear because it depends on the language of a contract we don't have access to, and depends on how a judge interprets that language). But the thing is, their end game makes the Cubs staying at Wrigley unviable. Their obstruction of the plans means that the Cubs will have NO OTHER CHOICE but to find someplace else to play. It can't continue like this until 2024, and if they somehow win and block the Cubs from making the changes, then they'll be signing their own businesses' death certificates.

It doesn't matter that Cubs fans will be pissed. There will be no other choice.

It doesn't matter that their brand will be damaged by moving away from the iconic Wrigley. There will be no other choice.

It doesn't matter that there has yet to be a real location floated as an option. There will be no other choice.

I don't understand why Cubs fans don't see this and I certainly don't understand why the rooftops don't see this. They seem to be operating under the impression that all they have to do is beat the Cubs in this battle and they can go back to raking in money like always. This isn't the Braves moving out of a 15 year old stadium. Wrigley is 100 years old and can't function in the modern era anymore.

The renovations won't destroy the rooftop businesses. They'll have less of a view than before, but they'll still have a view, and that means they'll still have a business. And if I'm the Cubs, I tell the rooftops that in exchange for dropping all this bullshit and letting the plans go, they can reduce the 17% payments or extend the contract so that further changes won't be permitted. Maybe both.

But for any settlement to actually take hold that doesn't end in more litigation that holds up the changes, the rooftops have to come to their senses and realize that they have no business at all if they force the Cubs to move. Perhaps a boycott of the rooftops and their bars would give them a taste of what life without the Cubs would be like and might prompt some movement. Because I honestly don't think that will ever happen without someone forcing the issue, and the city doesn't seem inclined to do so (Surprise!).

In my opinion, supporting the rooftops is giving financial approval of their methods to hold the Cubs back from becoming a real major market team and that is all I care about. The rooftop owners (legally or not) are willfully pushing the Cubs to a scenario where they will have to vacate Wrigley Field in order to grow as a franchise, and believe it or not, by the time a move would be made, the Cubs will probably be pretty good and people would go to watch them in a dome if it came to it. The Cubs are about 3 years away from serious contention, and if they started on finding an alternate location right now, they could probably move in right around that time frame.

New team, new stadium, new tradition. It brands itself.

The rooftops are destroying the chances of seeing our potential best seasons ever as Cubs fans in the venue we all (mostly) want them to be in when it happens.

So while it may not be "fair" since the Cubs (and Crane Kenney) are major culprits in coming to this point, my choice is to not support the rooftop owners because their end game is the least desirable to me as a Cubs fan.

Things can not continue like this.

Cubs and Chicago Come to Agreement to Allow Wrigley to Be Less Shitty, More Expensive

When the Ricketts family first took over the Cubs, some of the first words out of their mouths were expressions of unbridled love of Wrigley Field. They were going to win and they were going to win in Wrigley Field. That was their story. Tom went around telling anybody who would listen that he once lived across the street from Wrigley. He skipped classes at University of Chicago to attend games, ultimately ending up taking five years to graduate as a result. He met his wife in the Wrigley bleachers.

The love Tom Ricketts felt for Wrigley was almost unnatural. I think part of the reason Joe and Pete so vehemently oppose gay marriage is that they fear the slippery slope that would eventually allow Tom to divorce his wife and marry Wrigley Field. 

Around these parts, we criticized this because it essentially removed all leverage the family had in negotiating with the city. They would ask for public funds. The city said no. They asked again and almost had a deal, then Joe fucked everything up with his Super PAC and hate of the President, who was coincidentally the Mayor's buddy.

Then the Cubs came out and said they'd pay for the whole thing themselves on the condition that they be allowed some wiggle room on the restrictions placed on it by city ordinances and landmark designations that turn every remodel of a urinal trough into a six month ordeal of community meetings and posturing in the media. Shockingly, the idea was met with scorn by Wrigley's neighbors and Tom Tunney, who tore himself away from counting the money in his pockets from the rooftop owners long enough to tell the Cubs to just replace the manual scoreboard with a videoboard if they want one that badly.

It was a Sisyphean ordeal all because there was never really an alternative for the Cubs. Rosemont offered them a crappy piece of land that nobody wants because it's practically on an O'Hare runway, so that wasn't ever really an option. So the Cubs were negotiating with people who basically kept poking them in the chest, kicking sand in their face, and asking, "What are you gonna do about it?"

So the agreement announced late last night that the Cubs and the City of Chicago have come to an agreement to allow the Cubs to spend $500 million of their own money on the crumbling ballpark is something of a minor miracle. Somewhere along the line, the city moved a bit, the Cubs moved a bit and they all ended up shaking hands with each other. And it only took three and a half years to add a couple of signs and a few more night games. Progress!

The agreement allows a number of changes that will help the Cubs separate us from even more of our money in the near future, per Carrie Muskat:

  • A 6,000 square foot video board will be placed in left field pretty much where the Toyota sign is now. They may place it further back over Waveland to decrease the impact on rooftop sightlines.
  • An additional sign will be added to right field that will be in the same kind of semi-see-through style as the current Toyota sign.
  • Those will be the only two additional outfield signs place instead of the original proposed seven signs.
  • They can play 10 more night games, bringing the total to 40.
  • There can be up to five more night games if national broadcasts dictate changes to the original schedule.
  • They can start Friday games at 3:05pm now.
  • They can close off Sheffield Ave. from 2 hours prior to the game until the 2nd inning.
  • The Captain Morgan Club will be rebuilt to be two stories to allow the visitor clubhouse to be expanded into that space plus additional space for a souvenir shop.
  • The corners of the park will be renovated to be more fan-friendly (translation: more places to sell stuff) along with upgrades to the existing crappy restaurant, The Sheffield Grill.

This is good news for the organization. It will allow them to sell their TV rights for more money when they get to that point because night games are more valuable. They'll hopefully have more space within the park to add some decent food and beverage options. As of right now, the closest thing to craft beer that they carry is Bud Light Lime-a-Ritas and Labatt's Blue (it's Canadian!). At least they aren't trying to call those "craft" beer like some teams. *cough* Yankees! *cough*

So while we will eventually be forking over larger amounts of our money to the Cubs, this allows them to sink the millions they need to into renovating the player facilities to bring them at least into the 20th century of modernization. It also provides them with the revenue capable of sustaining a larger payroll in the event they ever have players that actually require larger salaries.

So though I may be snarky about it because it is the Cubs and they have always shown an amazing capacity to fuck things up for themselves, this is a good day to be a Cubs fan. Finally.

***UPDATE***

The full approved proposal can be found here.

Tom Ricketts will hold a press conference today at 11:00am. Live streaming here.

Joe Didn't Help Anything, But Tom Ricketts Has Screwed Himself

Joe Ricketts has had next to nothing to do with the Cubs since the Ricketts won the right to become the sole bidders on the team way back in 2009.  He's the money guy.  That's it.  He has said as much publicly.  He doesn't give a damn about the Cubs or baseball.  He funded the purchase of the team because his son, Tom, sold him on the fact that the Cubs were a money-machine that sold every ticket "win or lose." 

Since the sale was completed, Joe has sat in Nebraska (or wherever) and not done a damn thing with the Cubs. He leaves it all to Tom, Laura, and Todd (mostly Tom).

It is Tom that has been trying to figure out how to wrestle away a couple hundred million dollars from the city and/or state to fund his Wrigley renovations project. All the while, Joe has lurked back in the shadows doing what he does, which is, apparently, supporting Tea Party candidates and policies. He started his Taxpayers Against Earmarks PAC in 2010.  It became the Ending Spending Super PAC in 2011.  None of this was secret, but nobody cared other than a few people who linked or tweeted to links showing the hilarious irony  that Joe Ricketts despised government earmarks while his son would seemingly cut off his own arm to get one.  We laughed. It was funny. And nobody gave two shits.

So none of this is news. What IS news, and what has Rahm Emanuel so pissed off that he reportedly was not taking the Rickett's telephone calls is that part of the Super PAC's actions involved the proposal for an advertisement that makes the negative campaigning in the Republican Primaries look like Romper Room. It has everything. It basically wants to highlight every racially bigoted thing that they feel they can exploit to make people fear that Jeremiah Wright has programmed Obama to somehow declare war on all white people and we'll all be huddled around in caves feeding on each other's flesh by 2014, or something.

In the words of the plan itself:

Show the world how Barack Obama's opinions of America and the world were formed. And, why the influence of that misguided mentor and our president's formative years among left wing intellectuals has brought our country to its knees.

High-minded political debate it is not.

Now everybody is in damage control mode.  Joe said he doesn't approve of the plan, he didn't write the plan, the plan is only one of many, many, many plans and how the hell is he supposed to keep track of every one of a billion plans to defeat the President that get slipped under his back door without his knowing about it in the middle of the night? Huh? How? Is that the Pope over there behind you? *runs away*

Tom went into Forrest Gump mode as he basically repeated his father's statement about not approving of divisive politics and then, essentially, "That's all I have to say about that."  But then he did have more to say about that to the Sun-Times:

“I’m not really involved in what my father does on the political side, and he’s not involved in anything we do as a team. We talked. I didn’t yell. He was already in the process of putting out a statement that made it clear he rejected the proposal,” he said.

“He knows it’s very important for us to maintain the image of the Cubs at the highest level. He understands that would complicate some of our efforts on the funding side. But we didn’t spend time talking about it. It was more like, `These are the cards we’ve been dealt. Let’s address the issue.’”

Laura, a noted Obama supporter, mentioned how her whole family loves America and they love each other even though they all have different political beliefs. Then they shoved her out in front of the cameras during the Kerry Wood Extravaganza over the weekend, which I'm sure was not a coincidence.

But the story isn't going away anytime soon and it seems most people who look at the story can't seem to separate Tom from Joe.  

This is the Cubs' biggest problem at the moment. The sweeping at the hands of the White Sox and Koyie Hill suddenly becoming the starting catcher again are infinitesimally small glitches when compared to the PR hits the Cubs are taking thanks to Joe Ricketts' Super PAC.  And maybe they shouldn't be completely separated.  After all, it is Joe's money.  He will profit from the Cubs getting the renovation done through the use of tax breaks, there is no getting around it.  But he is not the one making the plans and scheming to get the tax money.  That is Tom, and it has been difficult to know where Tom is on the political spectrum since he doesn't talk much about politics. So what can we learn from his history of political donations?

As of January 2012, Tom has donated just under $80,000 and all of it has gone to the Republicans or Republicanish organizations.  $50,000 of it went to John McCain in the last Presidential election.  Here's where the rest went:

  • James Dold (R) – U.S. Congressman – Moderate, pro-choice, anti-gay marriage (but pro-gay civil unions) – $2,400 in 2010
  • Joel Barry Pollak (R) – 2010 Republican nominee for U.S. House of Representatives – Endorsed by Tea Party – $500 in 2010
  • Michael O. Johanns (R) – U.S. Senator – Promotes "fiscally responsible policies," wants to reform earmark process, against legislation based on "personal sexual preference" – $5,000 in 2007
  • Norm Coleman (R) – Former U.S. Senator – Fiscal centrist, pro-life, opposes gay marriage – $2,100 in 2006
  • Mark Kennedy (R) – Former U.S. Congressman – Pro-life, regularly co-sponsored bills with Democrats – $4,200 in 2005
  • Teresa Hall Bartels (R) – Dropped out of 2006 Republican Primary for U.S. Congress 8th District – Moderate – $1,000 in 2005
  • Pete Ricketts (R) – His brother and U.S. Senate candidate – fiscally conservative, anti-gay marriage, pro-life – $4,200 in 2005
  • Jack Ryan (R) – 2004 Republican nominee for Senate – pro tax cuts, tort reform, and sex clubs (apparently) – $250 in 2004
  • John Kasich (R) – Former U.S. Congressman  and current Ohio Governor – Unsuccessful campaign for President in 2000, fiscal conservative – $250 in 1999

So, Tom is apparently a Republican. Their views range from centrist to the far right. Also, it would seem a common theme amongst the candidates he has supported over the years included support of fiscal responsibility, which one would think would include opposition to tax breaks for billionaire families who own baseball teams. It also shows someone who can't be THAT involved in politics.  The amount of money he has donated in the thirteen years since being one of John Kasich's only donors is pitifully small for a man of his wealth. Hell, one could argue that the only reason he gave to any of these people is because they pinned him against a wall at a party or something and he got out his checkbook to make them go away, much as we do when we flip a quarter or two into a homeless person's cup when they stop us on the street. "Here you go Jack, try not to spend that whole $250 in one sex club, OK?"

So is Tom a hypocrite because he's donated money to people who mostly oppose the very thing he is looking for? Is he a hypocrite for being related to the man that is spending millions to stop wasteful spending? Is that inherently hypocritical? Is he a hypocrite for spending money on candidates that oppose his sister's lifestyle? I really don't know. Politics is weird and complicated and if we only supported those who agreed with us on every single issue, politicians wouldn't be nearly as rich as they are. We don't know what Tom's hot button issues are, so it's impossible to say for sure that he's a hypocrite. Not that it will stop the media looking for the biggest bang for the buck on this story. I'm looking at you, Steve Rosenbloom.

Tom's biggest mistake seems to be that he doesn't spread the wealth amongst  the folks in the Democratic party that can help him in his quest.  Check out Jerry Reinsdorf's contributions over the years. He's donated to both President Bushes, President Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, Rick Santorum, and Joe Liebermann, among others on the national level. That's quite a spectrum.  Locally, he's donated to Bobby Rush, Carol Mosely Braun, and Jesse Jackson Jr. on one side and Mark Kirk, Peter Fitzgerald, and Dennis Hastert on the other. It is clear that Jerry Reinsdorf has one core belief: know where to grease the wheels if you want to get anything done.  Does that make Jerry Reinsdorf a hypocrite? It would if he cared about anything other than making his own life as a baseball owner easier.  That is probably all Tom should care about if he wants to get anything done.

I've half-jokingly stated from the start that the Cubs need to start greasing the palms of local politicians, but I had assumed that they probably already were to some degree.  Where's the donations to Rahm Emanuel?  Where are the donations to Tom Tunney?  What about Pat Quinn? Michael Madigan? Why should these people help the Cubs and Tom Ricketts if he's not going to help them?  You know how this Joe Ricketts thing could have gone away almost instantly? If Tom could have pointed to a few donations to Democrats that shows he is, indeed, separate from his father.  Who is giving Tom advice over there, anyway?  Julian Green is either terrible at his new job, or they don't listen to him.

I think it was MB who said in the comments that a few donations to Rahm will clear all of this up and upon looking at it, I have to say I agree.  I don't know what amount will do it, but the gesture will help and soon Rahm will forget all about how angry he is and start working to keep the Cubs in Chicago and making a boatload of cash for the city (and the Ricketts).  As long as Tom is spreading the wealth around, nobody who matters will care what Joe does with his money. So if you do have a political agenda, Tom, put it on hold until you get what you want.  Otherwise, you're going to have to move the team to Nebraska or somewhere where your dad has bought all the local politicians already.

We Are Shocked…SHOCKED!… To Learn Tom Tunney is in the Rooftop Owners' Pockets

In today's edition of Obviously Obvious Item of the Day, the Sun-Times has come right out and quantified what everybody familiar with the Cubs' relationship with Chicago's 44th Ward has known all along: Alderman Tom Tunney gets a tremendous amount of financial backing from the good people who own the rooftops across from Wrigley. It is also no secret that those rooftop owners vehemently oppose just about any and all changes to Wrigley Field, since their entire livelihood depends on it. So it follows naturally that Tom Tunney also vehemently opposes anything the Cubs try to do to actually, you know, be competitive and make Wrigley Field a viable location to play baseball in the modern era.

Nothing about this is surprising. We've known it all along.  But now we have some numbers:

That makes at least $171,356.50 in all that Tunney has received from owners of the clubs, which offer fans a rooftop vantage to see Cubs games.

That’s nearly 10 percent of all the campaign money the North Side alderman has raised since he ran successfully for his first Chicago City Council term in 2003, according to a Chicago Sun-Times analysis of campaign-finance records.

Rooftop club owners have given another $15,675 to Tunney’s Democratic organization in the 44th Ward, which includes Wrigley.

The Cubs have also contributed to Tunney:

The team and its executives also have contributed to Citizens for Tunney — a total of $16,750 — though they haven’t opened their checkbooks to him lately. The last time was in October 2010, when the team sent a $1,500 check.

So the Cubs are being outspent in the political clout arena by more than 10-1 margin and they wonder why they have to jump nine million bureaucratic hoops every time they want to replace a trough.

“I’ve been trying to be as fair and balanced as I can be,” Tunney says. “It’s my job to manage the relationship between Wrigley and the community.”

Uh huh. Let me get out my bullshit translator and see what we have here: "I'm more than willing to be fair and balanced, but since the cash is pretty lop-sided, it makes it pretty darn difficult to not be lop-sided in my positions towards the views of those who give me more money."

Tommy needs to take a lesson from his father, who clearly has no qualms at all about trying to rig elections or sway support in his favor by paying for it.

Already fueled by two high-profile endorsements, Republican Senate candidate Deb Fischer headed into the home stretch Saturday empowered by a weekend TV ad blitz engineered by mega-wealthy businessman Joe Ricketts.

Two new ads began airing in the critical Omaha and Lincoln markets, one attacking Attorney General Jon Bruning's ethics and the other boosting Fischer as "one of us."

The $180,000-plus buy immediately prompted the Bruning campaign to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging "a clear violation of federal election law," which forbids campaigns and outside groups to coordinate their communications.

Joe has gone so far that he's going to have the FEC on him for having his Super PAC coordinate with a campaign.  Joe Ricketts has clearly embraced Super PACs and their political power. He's donated lot's of money to existing Super PACs to get try to get what he wants:

J. Joe Ricketts, an online-brokerage billionaire, gave $500,000 to the Campaign for Primary Accountability, which seeks to find fresh blood for politics.

He's also started his own Super PAC in 2010:

…called the Ending Spending Fund, which just put nearly $600,000 into the Nevada Senate race against Majority Leader Harry Reid (D). The "taxpayers" against earmarks is actually just one man named Joe Ricketts, founder of Ameritrade and owner of the Chicago Cubs, who is also the sole financier of the Ending Spending Fund.

I spent about 5 minutes on the Google machine and already have Joe Ricketts down for almost $1.3 million in campaign contributions to support his interests and I didn't even find the article I thought I remembered from a year or so ago that involved him flexing his wallet in a political race.  He needs to school Tom on the finer points of getting shit done when the only real obstacle in the way is money.  Tunney has said about as clearly as a politician can say without saying it that his support can be bought. He might as well have said he was waiting for his friend, Mr. Bribe McKickback, to show up at his door.

Tunney's loyaties lie where the money is. He has a terrible poker face. Everybody at the table knows when he's holding a full house. Lest we forget his big opposition to the Toyota sign as “not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood or the spirit of the landmarks designation," but he had no problem with this classy sign outside the ballpark:

The difference now is we know exactly how much it costs to buy Tunney's support.