illustrate the constitutional importance of several of the matters in the police i hope to do that quickly and reserve a couple of minutes for a bottle in case there is further matters developed  they seek to represent to exercise rights illinois law has preserved from the common law and breaks we've released a lengthy number of cases in the legacy of that history quite simply i'm here representing commission under the liquor control the acar quest distributors to be licensed by the commission the act historically has imposed a tax measured by the gallon on the occupation of distribut new fund created at that time the capital projects one intended to finance a wide array of new projects the numbers for the new tax is five cents a gallon and beer distributors and first dollars adjust for the amount of alcohol in the two pro i'd like to bring the court's attention to the deficiencies in the pas are to be reviewed on appeal is the one of those reasonable payoffs is the fact that there was a well planned constitutional violation i will present constitutional violations that deserve that we get the benefit legislature called an eccentric ref no what the attorney general has called several other things that bill created all of the funds for these race purposes that bill created all the fun they're dealing with not just at the hip there's really no limit more than they're doing limb by limb this linkage makes a mockery of the whole concept a single subject in appropriations language because it one of the legislature to consider the singhs separately and what they've done here is to try to get around that constitutional restriction the legislature if i might proceed to the question of single that's very different than  spending money how do you get a regular report from the university of illinois without spending money obviously you can't that's the expenditure of money public funds so i feel if any journalist shifted his description of the same  is that it concerned revenue does not matter see page twenty of the provisions of public debt ninety six thirty four relate to capital projects that's what they are doing page twenty nine of the book but him and services and that money when it goes for human services is no longer capital money it is not money for capital crasher the attorney general has simply failed in trying to find a single subject for this it's not a revenue case because on its face it does not establish any viable constitutional claim for challenging the various capital acts or any of them that are the subject of this proposed taxpayer standing suit i was principally to focus on the two issues the uniformity clause challenge to the various rates in the in the for the wholesale alcohol taxes and the single subject rule but i see that additional attention was paid to the substantive legislation claim that the appropriations bill includes absence of legislation so i intend to cover that as well but if the court has any questions about any of the other arguments that are made in the briefs on any of the other claims i certainly do want to cover though i would suggest keeping the uniformity argument very short and very long on the single something let me go way up than that i just want to vent on the uniform applause i want to say that there's been a mischaracterization of the relevant tax rates the reply brief for the first time comes up with some strange contention that the tax rate on wine applies only to wines of less than seven percent i think a reading of the statute makes it clear that that's directly contrary to the relevant language that the tax rates per drink are two point two sets for beer five point four cents for wine and ten cents for spirits and hard liquor is consistent with the notion that higher taxes on stronger alcoholic beverages promotes the ultimate goal of temperance because stronger beverages have a history history of being more conducive to excessive consumption and the social ills associated with that so let me then turn to the single subject rule arguments if i may i believe that the the thrust of the petitioner's claims in this case is to seek some single provision in one of the bills examine it in isolation out of context from the rest of the relevant statute and then argue that it must therefore violate the single subject will because it's so disparate it's so distant it's foreign to the purpose of relevant bill or statute and it in fact a closer examination shows that that sort of myopic focus is misconceived the vested case which filing in gold many projects i suppose you could say but all of the budget all well a bit then i suppose do we attach cus to full significance to the the label that annually they're allowed to pass one budget but that in total they do so they're not allowed to do something on a separate initiative basis the context of this of this set of laws all of which were signed together was that it was the depths of the recent great recession and whether the court may agree or disagree with the wisdom of the legislature the legislatures determination was that it was important to do something to create the type of initiative that comprise the various projects that were authorized in this bill and to do so without busting the budget but raising sufficient revenues in redirecting existing sources of revenue was to that purpose so that these projects could be implemented and go forward so and so that anybody who would be against this type of bill would be accused of being  chance that's a clearly that's a political calculation that the legislature is entitled to engage in and they are to sponsor separate oh well i guess i have to ask this then if the legislature passes a bill authorizing hospital construction does that have to be separate from a bill authorizing reconstruction of facilities in public parks does it have to be separate from a bill that authorizes projects in and in schools to upgrade their technology if projects and revenue raising devices and specific spending initiatives there isn't a defensible constitutional boundary that prevents the legislature from doing rests on a one time initiative especially in the context of the circumstances where this initiative was passed that day the roads and infrastructure the attention to including the bridges the the the serious needs of the schools and hospitals were all encompassed in this bill and it was we submit within the constitutional progressives of the legislature to treat that as a premise of the single subject it is not so remote in general ness that it defeats the entire purpose of the single subject require it  i don't know that in the in the history of the illinois legislature there's been a similar statute i do know that the under a virtually identical provision in the florida constitution legally of any instance in illinois where this occurred or going to hell or struck down this that specific issue no i can tell you that the notion that an appropriation bill can be a suit that a bill can be made conditional upon future events has been upheld that principle is well established and it is in i suggest you in what research i did in this area when there's a lack of money for an appropriate for eight expenditure he would be put there right in the bill and they say for example on the highway bill quoting now this is from state bill  bill six eight one one from march twelfth of this year excluding expenditure shall not exceed funds to be made available by the federal government and that takes care of the larger problem that you point out in your memo that if there's no money well you certainly couldn't spend and there's a way to pass a tax this h s that you can spend more money and eat but they don't say if you strike down this bill to judge if the house if the legislature fails to pass this bill then the other bil fails and they can't they don't say if the governor vetoes this bill this other legislation fails you can't cite a case for that and no i can't but i but i but i will say that the logic is consistent with the relevant constitutional principles i mean here you have interrelationship between the various pieces of legislation where it made no sense to pass a bill creating new revenues and redirecting former sources of revenues to these projects and less the projects were passed you know what's the point of raising the liquor taxes and the candy taxes and the other taxes and imposing that cost openly a pundit of the taxpayers of the state of illinois if the projects to which those revenue sources are going to be devoted unacceptably past likewise what's the point of passing an appropriation bill where the appropriations are for now existing revenues and then existing projects what i would say is that there's a difference between saying the a palatable bill the single subject rule facilitates the next one of bills through an orderly and informed legislative process by limiting a bill to a single subject legislators can better understand and more intelligently debate the issues single subject rule and it's a valid purpose supported by that i mean we see sometimes what happens in washington where there isn't that type of player and log rolling runamuck results in these christmas tree bills attacked two appropriation measures that ha resulted in much of the dismay about that legislative process here in illinois or whatever if any with the budget bill can include all of these things a single subject and budget bills are subject to the same requirement and i don't see a the the government in this case although i will concede that there have been different subjects presented as the permissible subject of these acts that the both clear case by the supreme court says what the legislature describes of the  subject or the various descriptions of the subject given by the advocates are not controlling we look to the substance of the bill and if the substance of the bill and all of its components relate to it permissible single subject then that  also meet this additional element which is that there are only one new n one project the case law doesn't say that it's not incumbent upon this court to change prior war that's clearly a step and  say now here's a new government you can only have one project to satisfy the single subject bill or you can only have one do it that's not part of the test they have you haven't established that there's any difference under single subject analysis between a budget bill which is an interim budget and the bills that comprise or each individually and all collectively they comprise the capital projects initiative in this case that we didn't know case the other way we don't have a case either way but we're saying the law is established there is no additional no multiple projects or no multiple agree i would say that's necessarily true respect of all your claims that they brought and those they make the argument that they're entitled to a trial you know we're going to call a witness to tell you you're a whisky and see if there's a real and substantial differ and i don't think that's really that th because the purpose is to prevent log rolling and i like to hearken back to a comment that the court made earlier which is that log rolling doesn't mean that you were eliminated any given take in the negotiation process in the legislature so that if somebody is interested in a bill but they say listen i can't support that you know because i think it really should look this way and somebody says well i think that provision should be modified in this that's part of the normal legislative process and the single subject rule wasn't intended to eliminate that type of legislative process what it was  tended to eliminate was taking hopelessly unrelated provisions that are far more into a single subject throwing them all together because that's the only way they can get passed and we would submit that to the extent there is a permissible single subject and we advocate the rule that the capital projects initiative is a permissible single subject under established long the two parties and then a little bit well in the provisions relate to it now they have minute and i really haven't addressed much at oral argument here but this provision doesn't relate that provision doesn't relate and i would like if the court believes that there is any potential merit to any of those provisions or you know those arguments to be are unrelated to the bill in which that is located and again this is a classic example of taking something totally out of context and looking it in isolation and then saying well it can't possibly relate to the well the subject of the bill supervision of the lottery system and it specifically because it expanded beginning with responsibility after rise them to higher investigators in the past the gaming world relied upon investigators from the state police now the state should specifically gives them the power to hire these investigators well investigators the state employees are going to be subject to the pension benefit provisions of the pension code and so there is a change in the relevant language to add illinois gaming board investigators as one of the classes of persons that are eligible for in this case i believe is the alternate retirement annuity calculation for people that are members of that retirement system it relates it's perfectly consistent and i would get to the extent that the  provides a role with analysis i think it's helpful there there the accusation was made that that the requirement of disclosing your status as a seller of new or used tires was inconsistent with the purposes of that law and the court said no we've increased the fees on the sales of tires new when used and it's and there's a responsibility for the state e t a to regulate that and to oversee the implementation of that program and the requirement that these possibly be a part of the capital projects initiative but it back again is sort of a myopic isolated focus what the bill did was it prevented a sweeps out of the last fund every year of the governor's office rise by statute to take sweeps out of monies out us funds it stops state and to build the same time increases the authorized dispersed months for the remediation programs at a loss on to the extent that they need to protect that last fund  money for which additional dispersants are made they're stopping the sweeps this is intergroup really related and connected in a logical or natural fashion the same applies to all of the other provisions that they've tried to focus on in isolation and except for the ones that are really articulated or fleshed out for the first time in their reply brief with it which i think are for that reason for fred i believe they're satisfactorily addressed he embraced with respect to the claim that you know they're disparate they have no relationship i state test is is it through into the rest of the bill you can't force them to put it into a different bill under some contrived single subject analysis if in fact it is logically and naturally related to the bills other provisions that all connect to the same single purpose so i would say that that is the test m m d m e m the appropriation bill containing substantive long i think the battle line is drawn we have said that appropriation law can contain conditions and the question then becomes is it a permissible condition to say that the appropriation law doesn't become a fact of us other bills for which those creations are related also become a factor it's not incorporating those laws simply saying the appropriation does not become effective in less those laws are passed if the court has no for the question so i wrote it's to affirm the circuit court's are two different taxes playing at the same time differential ratios now given that the state has argued that the to try to meet their bur expenditures in the program did not exceed appropriations for that specific fiscal year that's what we're dealing with here this is not an attempt to reduce substantive law required much you know to the measure there's no