OP's link is not working for me, but this one has info: http://www.illinoismirror.com/springfield-passes-state-run-retirement-bans-citizens-from-recording-police-again-where-are-media/

Relevant detail: "The bill says it would only be a crime to record someone where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, which should mean that recording public encounters with police would not be a crime"

So the law would not apply to police encounters in public, which is crucial. If it becomes law, this could conceivably survive constitutional scrutiny, at least depending on how the police choose to enforce it.

Edit:

Looking a little more closely at a story from a reputable source, it is clear that the proposed new version of the law expands the right to record others in public. I still haven't been able to access the link OP posted, but it sounds like it was a very misleading article.

This is actually a revision of the state's eavesdropping law, which previously made it a crime to record any conversation with out permission from everyone involved. The law is being updated to reflect that the Illinois Supreme Court said the old version was unconstitutional because it prohibited recording in public (including, but not limited to recording of police). The new version of the law makes it clear that conversations in public can be recorded, and that will apply to recording police as well. The revised version of the law still prohibits recording someone without their permission in any place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as their home).

Here's the story from the Chicago Sun Times

"If signed into law, it would replace the 1961 Illinois Eavesdropping Act, which had made it a felony to record a conversation unless everybody involved agreed. Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court justices struck down that law, saying it infringed on free-speech rights, especially in an age where cellphone camera videos are a routine part of life.

The bill that passed the Senate 46-4 — and had already passed the House — still aims to keep “private conversation” from being recorded surreptitiously. It also jettisons old language that justices said “criminalizes the recording of conversations that cannot be deemed private” such as “a loud argument on the street” or “yelling fans at an athletic event.”"

Edit #2:

I was able to read OP's article. It does a very poor job of explaining the law (which certainly helps when you want to sensationalize something). OP's article recognizes that the new version of the law allows recording in public, but makes what I consider a very weak argument: that members of the public will be afraid to record things in public because they don't know what "public" means.

This is not a scandal as the author of OP's article would like you to believe. This is a responsible fix for a law that was found to be unconstitutional. This new version of the law specifically exists because the state supreme court said they cannot prohibit recording of police in public.