As of now, the Sun-Times reports he is still unsure whether he should stay in Congress or run to replace longtime Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. If he runs, it could be a loss for national immigration reform advocates: Gutierrez backs a number of immigration-related measures, such as the DREAM Act for undocumented students and military service members and the Uniting American Families Act to allow gay and lesbian citizens to petition for legal status for their foreign-born partners.

Here are the poll results (emphasis mine):

In a horse-race matchup, the front-runner in the Gutierrez poll is former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel at 27 percent to Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, 19 percent; former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill.), 9 percent; Gutierrez, 8 percent; Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.), 6 percent, state Sen. James Meeks, 5 percent; City Clerk Miguel del Valle, 3 percent; Ald. Bob Fioretti, 2 percent and Chicago City Colleges Board chief Gery Chico, 2 percent.

The election is expected to take place in two parts: One general election, then a runoff with the two leading candidates.

Gutierrez has made immigration reform one of his central issues, and it will likely play a role whether or not he runs for the office. Supporters of immigration reform, particularly those in Washington, have said his candidacy could hurt the prospects for immigration reform in Congress. On the other hand, Latino and pro-immigration reform groups in Chicago have said they would favor Gutierrez over Emanuel, who failed to deliver comprehensive immigration reform during his time in the White House.

“The immigrant communities do not want Rahm Emanuel to come home without immigration reform,” Joshua Hoyt, executive director, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said in September. “The Latino communities will be behind [Rep. Luis] Gutierrez.”

Gutierrez and Honda were already co-sponsors of the bill — they signed on in February 2009 — but it never made it to the House floor. Politico reports that the congressmen are trying to push for the bill again, this time as part of comprehensive immigration reform. The idea is to tie gay and lesbian rights to immigration to increase support for both. Republicans have their doubts about this strategy:

More than 100 House Democrats, including many Hispanics, have signed on to the comprehensive immigration bill Gutierrez introduced last December. But Joanna Burgos, a National Republican Campaign Committee spokeswoman, said the gay-rights provision—opposed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and National Association of Evangelicals—could scare away some of those supporters.

“If they’re trying to appeal to the Hispanic vote, gay marriage is not the right issue for their socially conservative values,” Burgos said. “I think it puts Democrats in Hispanic districts in an awkward position because they are very socially conservative.” …

Republican leaders, who are pressing the federal government to secure the border before fixing its broken immigration system, said they won’t support the immigration reform so long as it includes a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

“They’re trying to sweeten the package, but the fact is it’s got a poison pill inside it. They’re asking us to swallow amnesty,” said Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), chairman of the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus. “This is a special package that rewards illegal behavior instead of enforcing the law.”

Gutierrez, chairman of Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, thinks a quicker timetable is possible — we  just need to get past the Arizona Republican primary. At a House hearing this morning, Gutierrez alluded to the harm Sen. John McCain’s move rightward, prodded by his primary opponent J.D. Hayworth, has done to the debate over immigration:

Even House Republicans say we can get a bill passed in the House this year. Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart each stated on a conference call with reporters last week, sponsored by Conservatives for Comprehensive Reform that a bill could pass tomorrow. I think once we get past the Arizona GOP primary that sparked the recent anti-immigration reform eruption, we will have a chance of getting some of the Republicans in the Senate to also come forward and work with Democrats to get a bill passed.

Until this move by Gutierrez, whose top contributor to his 2008 campaign was a payday lender, consumer advocates fighting the industry were on a roll. They were regularly convincing state legislators that had once bent over backward for the industry  to change course, limiting the interest rates payday lenders could charge and banning some of the industry’s more abusive practices. The change of heart came about as states like Ohio found themselves inundated with payday lending stores on every block, and as the economic downturn put a focus on the plight of borrowers with payday loans. During a hotly contested battle in Ohio to limit payday lending, it even turned out that some lawmakers from hard-hit rural areas had themselves resorted to payday loans, experiencing the industry’s abusive practices first hand. Not surprisingly, the payday lenders lost that battle.

It’s hard to argue in favor of any industry that charges almost 400 percent interest and traps consumers with additional fees and repeated loans. But you can always count on the payday lending industry to offer outrages even beyond that, which makes the dishonesty of sudden apologists like Gutierrez even more breathtaking.

For example, The Wall Street Journal reported last year on how payday lenders specifically seek out customers among society’s most vulnerable: the elderly and disabled.

(Payday) lenders are increasingly targeting recipients of Social Security and other government benefits, including disability and veteran’s benefits. “These people always get paid, rain or shine,” says William Harrod, a former manager of payday loan stores in suburban Virginia and Washington, D.C. Government beneficiaries “will always have money, every 30 days.”

The law bars the government from sending a recipient’s benefits directly to lenders. But many of these lenders are forging relationships with banks and arranging for prospective borrowers to have their benefits checks deposited directly into bank accounts. The banks immediately transfer government funds to the lenders. The lender then subtracts debt repayments, plus fees and interest, before giving the recipients a dime.

As a result, these lenders, which pitch loans with effective annual interest as high as 400% or more, can gain almost total control over Social Security recipients’ finances.

Despite this, the industry lives to fight another day, as the Gutierrez about-face attests. It really is about the money, after all, and payday lenders always have been extremely generous with their largess. Watch the clip Mike refers to in his story, showing Gutierrez posturing in front of Jean Ann Fox, a longtime and well-respected consumer advocate who closely follows the payday lending industry. Gutierrez tries to put on a show of “reforming” the industry with his bill — but don’t believe a word of it. That’s an old tactic payday lenders use in the states as well, proposing measures they tout as “reforms” that are so filled with loopholes as to be meaningless. Their reforms are intended to draw support away from measures to limit them to charging 36 percent interest, which payday lenders contend would put them out of business.

Gutierrez should of course be ashamed of himself, but this isn’t just about him. If an industry that sinks as low as some payday lenders regularly have can gain enough respect in Congress to have Gutierrez spout such nonsense, imagine the fate of other reforms of the financial services world. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner talks a tough game when he envisions a sweeping expansion of the regulatory system. But as the Gutierrez debacle shows, even the bottom feeders of the financial industry still have enough sway to sometimes get lawmakers on their side. The disappointing comeback of payday lenders only proves that when it comes to cleaning up abusive and predatory lending, it’s far too early to get your hopes up for something real.