New Education Money - Stand for Children Discloses Fundraising

Cross posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

Stand for Children shocked political observers last fall when they started giving five-figure donations to candidates for the General Assembly. Total giving from the group reached $600K through election day. Observers were left wondering, what did they want? And would they last?

Stand for Children filed their D2 for the last half of 2010 today and it makes a definitive statement. They report raising a whopping $3,486,000.00 between their September creation and the end of the year, including several six-figure donation in December from a who's who of wealthy Chicagoans.

It's worth noting that those donations came in right before contribution limits took effect, so it will be difficult for a group like Stand for Children to replenish their funds once these are spent without a significant re-tooling of their fundraising methods. But whatever they choose to do, they have more than enough in the near-term to match any donations from the teachers' unions. Neither the IEA nor the IFT has filed yet for the last half of last year, but given past trends, it appears Stand for Children will be a financial equal to their efforts.

To comment, please visit ICPR's blog.

Read more...

Update on Campaign Finance

Cross posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

Some numbers from the filings:

* In the 49th Senate district, incumbent Deanna Demuzio reported another $230K in receipts, mostly from the Senate Dems. Her opponent, Sam McCann, lags in cash but has been getting regular infusions from Republican leadership. This race will likely be the first to cross the $1 Million mark.

* In the 40th Senate District, appointed incumbent Toi Hutchinson holds a fundraising lead over challenger Todd Baumgartner, who reported $20K in receipts since yesterday, mostly from Republican leadership. This race holds a tenuous hold on second place for most fundraising in a Senate contest; the 43rd, between AJ WIlhelmi and Cedra Crenshaw, is close behind.

* House races are hard to rank because Jay Hoffman is sitting on such a huge pile; the disclosure reports do not say how much of that he plans to spend. Challenger Dwight Kay has been bringing in money at a rapid clip; he may never catch Hoffman dollar-for-dollar, but it appears he'll have enough to get his message out. His latest reports show another $16K, mostly from Tom Cross and affiliates.

* Charles Landers, the Democrat seeking to replace retiring Betsy Hannig (and, before her, Gary Hannig) reports a whopping $270K in receipts this month alone, largely from the Democratic Party of Illinois. Republican Wayne Rosenthal has about half as much cash; he's relying on Tom Cross and the HRO for the bulk of his money. These candidates are more likely to spend what they raise; if they do, this is poised to be the most expensive House contest.

* In the 35th open House race, Republican Barbara Bellar filed a paper A1 showing a $15,000 donation from Kenneth Griffin of Citadel Investment Group. As we noted earlier, Griffin's been giving to many candidates, but this donation may have slipped under the radar since it was filed on paper. With this donation, Bellar will need to start filing all reports electronically. Appointed Democrat Bill Cunningham holds a slight cash advantage in this low-dollar race.

* The pro- and con- Kilbride committees have been fairly silent. No on Kilbride shows no receipts; the two pro-Kilbride committees (Vote Yes Tom Kilbride Supreme Court and the Kilbride Campaign Committee) show a total of $86K (One pro-Kilbride committee has filed a Pre-Election; none of the others have). The Illinois Civil Justice League today reported $100K from American Justice Partnership, which one might assume is headed toward that 3rd District retention race.

* Cook County Assessor candidate Joe Berrios has been sitting on a lot of money for years. He's also raised a fair bit this month, and we find he has reported $517K for the General Election, not counting some investments. Independent candidate Forest Claypool has reported raising more in recent weeks, and the combined total is now over $1 Million.

To comment, please visit ICPR's blog.

Read more...

D2 Day Update

Cross posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

Today is D2 Day, when campaign finance reports are due to be filed at the State Board of Elections. Some candidates filed earlier this month, and some leaked data to reporters, but experience shows that about half of all donations that will be reported will be reported today. To follow the donations, go here.

A few tidbits jumped at us :

* Citizens for Emil Jones, the political committee of the former Senate President, reported $257K in loans to others. Most of that went to Pat Quinn ($150K) and Todd Stroger ($100K) but it's the rest that's interesting -- the political committee loaned $7,500 to Emil Jones himself. All of the loans (15 of them) were in $500 increments. Sen. Jones, Jr. (his son, Sen. Emil Jones, III, does not report such loans) has a history of taking loans from the campaign fund, and currently owes his fund in excess of $30,000. Candidates are generally barred from taking campaign funds for personal use, but a grandfather clause exempts funds raised before June 30, 1998. Whether this becomes part of his "personal use" exemption, whether he pays interest on these loans, what the full implications are, all remain to be seen.

* Citizens for Arthur L. Turner reported raising $72K over the first half of 2010. That's the fund for current state Rep. Art Turner, who came in second in the Democratic primary for Lt. Governor. He donors include the beer distributors and the IL Chamber (tied for the biggest donations, at $2,500) and some smaller checks from the usual legislative donors -- AT&T, Com Ed, Dent-IL PAC, the bankers, ITLA, etc.. His son, Art Turner II, is seeking the house seat. His fund reported raising $25K over the six-month period. What's striking is that the father raised far more after the primary than the son did. Citizens for Arthur L. Turner raised $25K after the primary, while Citizens for Arthur Turner II raised just $2K. Yet, Citizens for Arthur Turner II has an election in the fall, while Citizens for Arthur L. Turner does not.

* State officials seeking federal office often mothball their campaign funds while running for federal office. State Rep. Beth Coulson, for instance, reported raising no money in her state fund while seeking the Republican nomination for congress in the 10th CD this year. State Sen. Randy Hultgren, though, did continue to raise money in his state committee while seeking his party's nomination in the 14th CD. Most of the $5K he reported raising appears to have come from donors who could not have given to his federal committee.

* Gov. Pat Quinn closed out his federal campaign fund in May. The fund was created for a long-ago US Senate race In his final report, he claimed $3K in receipts and $9K in expenditures, taking the balance to -0-. Those expenditures included $9K in credit card bills, but he did not itemize where that money went. The committee is finaled out, but we hope that he will itemize those expenditures in an amended report.

A bunch of new committees have been formed since the start of the year, and not just in support of particular candidates. These span the political spectrum, though these appears to be more activity on one end than on the other. Here's a very quick run down of recently formed committees; most had not filed as of the last time we looked:

* The Civil Rights Agenda Fund - formed by a former Democratic Party of Illinois staffer, this committee supports "LGTBQQIA Advocacy."

* VotingWomen.org - formed by Karen Boehning, a frequent donor to Democrats at the federal level.

* Citizens for a Fair Judiciary - a Metro East committee set up by Democratic supporters of one sitting judge facing retention(Andy Matoesian) and one candidate for the bench (William Mudge).

* Republican 2010 Victory Committee - Despite the grandiose name, the committee is focused on a portion of southwest suburban Cook County, where Chairman Brian Sloan is running for Cook County Board.

* RGA Illinois 2010 PAC - Based in DC, this group was formed in January, before the primary, "to support the election of a Republican governor in Illinois."

* Free Our Streets PAC - founded by jazz vocalist and trumpet player Ian Bayne, who also supported Mitt Romney for president and gave to the Illinois Mortgage Bankers PAC.

* Freedom of Opportunity PAC - Andy McKenna lost the Republican primary, but he's still active in politics. He's chairing this fund, which reported raising $62K from the likes of John Buck (of The John Buck Company); John A. Canning, Jr. (of Madison Deerborn Partners); and Michael Ferro, Jr. (of Merrick Ventures). No word yet on whether Mary McKenna will be giving.

* For the Good of Illinois PAC - Adam Andrzejewski lost the Republican primary, but he's still active in politics, too. He's chairing this fund, which had $5,000 on the day it was formed (no word yet on where it came from).

* Transparent Illinois was set up by a staffer at Resolute Consulting and funded (so far) by a donation from Central Strategies, "a sister company" of Resolute, according to the website.

* Welcome Wal-Mart was created by staffers at Grainger Terry, a political consulting and government relations firm. It reported no receipts in the first half of the year.

* The Practical Party was formed as a state committee to support Carl Officer's bid for US Senate.

* Illinois Values First appears to have been formed by a Serbian actor named Dusan Fager.

We welcome your comments or e-mails, particularly if you see any details that you think deserve further illumination. To comment, please visit ICPR's blog.

Read more...

One more step in campaign finance reform

By Bethany Jaeger
The Illinois General Assembly has been here before. Lawmakers are on the verge of making history by approving legislation aimed at limiting the amount of money flowing into political campaigns and reducing outside influence on the lawmaking process.

They approved a previous version of so-called campaign finance limits in House Bill 7, but in a rare event, the governor and all four legislative leaders agreed to veto the measure and start over.

The difference this time around is that reform advocates are on board. Unfortunately for Republicans, that leaves them without leverage in demanding stricter limits on the amount legislative leaders and statewide political parties can give to their chosen candidates.


Change Illinois, a broad coalition of 50 organizations of all stripes, believes Senate Bill 1466 represents “a significant step forward on the long road to reform,” said George Ranney, co-chair of Change Illinois and president and chief executive officer of Chicago Metropolis 2020.

Negotiations, particularly in the past week, have been “hard-fought, frank and full,” according to Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and Change Illinois negotiator. The group wanted more. “I don’t think it is any secret that we had hoped to apply [limits on legislative leaders] in both the general and in the primary,” she said. “However, that was not the result of our negotiations.” She later added: “We tried as hard as we possibly could. We have been through some very thorough, very loud, very long negotiations. We could not bring them to this point.”

Capping contributions from political parties and legislative leaders in primary elections would still represent meaningful reform, according to Canary, because that’s where the election cycle starts, where independent newcomers have a chance to enter the process. And candidates would have to report more frequently the amount of money raised and spent. That could allow the public to better “follow the money,” or detect quid pro quo if large campaign donations flowed to politicians just as they were about to act on major legislation. The State Board of Elections also would gain new power to track, audit and penalize campaign finance violations.

Canary said the reform group intends to continue in the next legislative session to try to push for further reforms that include limits on political parties and legislative leaders in general elections.

Republicans disagreed that limiting the amounts legislative leaders and political parties in the primaries would be enough.

“Nothing changes — nothing — when it comes to money, except one thing: Everybody that’s not a leader is limited,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross. “The power, the money and control stays vested in four people,” he added, citing the top four legislative leaders of each political party.

The GOP Caucus cited numbers to suggest the limits on party leaders during primary elections are largely symbolic, given that parties tend to spend much less in primaries than they do in general elections. In the 2008 election cycle, for instance, the GOP said the State Republican Party gave $410,000 to candidates in the primary but $2.7 million in the general election. Democrats contributed $108,000 in the primary and $4.1 million in the general.

“Sadly, Change Illinois was either worn down or bought out, but their acceptance of the bill that gives even more power to the most powerful man in Illinois politics today is at the very least unfortunate,” Rep. Suzanne Bassi, a Palatine Republican, said during floor debate.

“There’s one person that can stop this now,” Cross said, citing Gov. Pat Quinn.

During the debate on SB 1466, the governor’s office said this in an e-mail: “We think it’s moving in a good direction.”

Approved by the House 66-49 late Thursday night, the bill is slated for Senate debate Friday, the last day of the legislature’s fall veto session. Lawmakers aren’t scheduled to return to Springfield until January.

If approved by the Senate and enacted by the governor, the new rules would:

• Require candidates to report contributions and expenditures four times a year, as opposed to the current twice a year. Donations of $1,000 or more would have to be reported within two business days throughout the entire year.
• Allow the Illinois State Board of Elections to conduct random audits, to investigate alleged violations of contribution limits or reporting requirements and to waive fees if the mistakes were found to be inadvertent.
• Form a task force to study the effectiveness of the implementation of the new law, as well as the public funding of political campaigns.

Per election cycle limits
Individuals can give up to:

• $5,000 to any candidate
• $10,000 to any political party or legislative caucus committee
• $10,000 to any political action committee

Businesses, unions and associations can give up to:

• $10,000 to any candidate
• $20,000 to any political party or legislative caucus committee
• $20,000 to any political action committee

Candidates can give up to:

• $50,000 to any candidate
• $50,000 to any political action committee
• Unlimited contributions to any political party or legislative caucus committee, except a $50,000 limit to a committee participating in primary elections

Political party and legislative caucus committees during primary elections:
The aggregate amount between state, county, township and city political committees cannot exceed:

• $200,000 to statewide candidates
• $125,000 to any state Senate candidate
• $75,000 to any state House candidate
• Between $50,000 - $125,000 to candidates for local and judicial offices
• $20,000 to political action committees
• Unlimited contributions to candidates during general elections

Read more...

Citizens United, and Citizens' Elections

Cross posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

The US Supreme Court today hears oral arguments in Citizens United v FEC. It's an unusual time for the US Supreme Court to hear arguments (their term doesn't start until next month), but Citizens United is not a typical case. The Court heard arguments last Spring in the case and then took the unusual step of asking for additional arguments on issues not raised by the parties. This could be the case where the US Supreme Court takes off on a new activist agenda in the area of campaign finance.

Many have weighed in on the possible outcome, and ICPR signed onto an amicus brief (PDF) urging the Court to consider the impact of their decision on judicial elections. Much of the commentary has focused on the possibility that the Court will strike down a century of jurisprudence that forbids corporations to make campaign donations. But there are a lot of other ways the Court could rule, which also would have a dramatic impact on how campaigns are conducted, and how the public perceives the honesty of the electoral process.

At issue is whether an organization can promote a commercial enterprise during the weeks right before an election, when that commercial enterprise is focused squarely on a candidate in the election. Citizens United produced "Hillary: The Movie," a documentary critical of then-US Sen. and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and sought to promote the movie through TV commercials. The movie itself was available on a pay-per-view basis. The FEC objected, finding that the ads to promote the movie violated the electioneering communications provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act.

How far the Court uses this case to strike down portions of McCain-Feingold will indicate how activist the Court has become. The Court could find merely that the FEC was mistaken that the electioneering communications provision covered the ads. (The electioneering communications provision deals with some ads that mention candidates in the 60 days before a General Election) The Court could find that the electioneering communications provision is unconstitutional in some circumstances, or perhaps in all circumstances. At an extreme, the Court could find, as some have predicted, that corporations have a constitutional right to participate in elections by making campaign contributions.

How the Court rules will clearly have a significant impact on how states can ensure the integrity of elections by regulating campaign finances. While striking the prohibition on corporate contributions is indeed the worst case scenario, it would have little impact in Illinois, where corporations can and do already make large (indeed, unlimited) contributions. But Illinois also has an electioneering communications provision and so a ruling in that area will affect Illinois. No matter how the Court rules, states around the nation, including Illinois, will have to take stock of their laws and make changes to assure the public that elections are fair and honest.

To comment, please visit ICPR's blog.

Read more...

HB 7 in Detail: Defining when a committee "receives" a contribution

Cross-posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

Today, ICPR continues its series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Previous posts are here.

In revisions to the Election Code, HB 7 changes the definition of when a committee "receives" a contribution. The date of receipt determines when a committee must report a contribution, and is especially important during the A-1 reporting period: the final 30 days before an election, when committees are required to report contributions over $500 within two working days of receipt. The date of receipt also becomes a factor around the end of the regular reporting period, in determining when the public is told of a contribution.

Current law uses the word "receipt" but does not define it in statute, relying instead on the common sense of the word. The State Board of Elections has defined the word in regulation, relying again on the common sense meaning of the term.

HB 7 changes the definition to when the "candidate or campaign treasurer" has "actual personal physical possession of the contribution." This greatly narrows the definition in ways that are deeply problematic. When, for instance, would the candidate or treasurer have "actual personal physical possession" of an electronic funds transfer? An on-line contribution? An inter-bank exchange?

But there are deeper problems, and an example will illustrate: In 2006, Todd Stroger, then a candidate for Cook County Board President, missed statutory deadlines to make public reports of more than $250,000 in contributions received in the final weeks before the election. He later claimed that the contributions had been “received” by the committee but were being vetted, and so were not “received” by the officers of the committee. After much haggling, the State Board of Elections disagreed with Stroger's interpretation. Under current law, he was found to have violated the Election Code and was fined just over $25,000. This provision in HB 7 would validate his failure to disclose.

With this change, a committee could receive a contribution without triggering reporting requirements. Until the candidate or treasurer of the committee directed a staff person to hand the contribution to the treasurer or candidate, creating the necessary “actual personal physical possession,” there might be no obligation to report a contribution. There is nothing to require a committee to disclose once a staff person has told the candidate or treasurer of the receipt, so long as the staffer does not deliver "actual personal physical possession" of the contribution. The chair of the committee or other staff could have "actual personal physical possession" of a contribution indefinitely without ever triggering disclosure. Contributions received by the committee before Election Day could, under this proposal, be held until after the voting is over, then delivered to the treasurer, deposited, and used to pay debts incurred before Election Day. This could postpone disclosure for months, completely defeating the purpose of A1 reports.

This is a huge step backward, and one of several reasons why ICPR believes that HB 7 is worse than nothing.

To comment, please visit ICPR's blog.

Read more...

HB 7 in Detail: Ballot Questions

Cross-posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

HB 7, the campaign finance measure, has garnered a lot of media attention, none of it positive. (see, for instance, today's editorial in the Daily Herald). The bill was sent to Gov. Quinn on June 30, and he has until later this month to decide whether to sign it, veto it, recommend changes with an amendatory veto, or allow it to become law without his signature.

Our opposition to HB 7 is well known. Yes, we object to the provisions that would allow for astronomically high contributions. Where federal law allows contributions of $2,400 for people and $5,000 from political committees each election, HB 7 allows contributions of up to $10,000 from people and $90,000 from committees each calendar year. But that is far from the only flawed section of the bill. Over the next few days, we intend to outline our concerns with the non-limit parts of the bill. Some of these reflect ambiguous drafting. Some reflect intentional changes to the statute that will have adverse consequences. In the next few days, we'll focus on different parts of HB 7, other than the astronomical dollar amounts, in order to explain our concerns.

Start with how HB 7 treats ballot questions. HB 7 defines “single candidate committee” (on page 39 of the bill) as:

4 "Single-candidate committee" means a political
5 committee organized to support or oppose the election of a
6 single, specific candidate or public official or to support
7 or oppose one or more questions of public policy. (emphasis added)

The term "single candidate committee" is a misnomer, as the definition also encompasses committees formed to support or oppose ballot questions. It has been long established that governments can require financial disclosure as it relates to these questions of public policy, but cannot impose limits. At least since Buckley v Valeo, the US Supreme Court's landmark ruling on campaign finance, courts have held that there is no public interest in limiting giving to ballot question committees.

That's because the purpose of contribution limits is to address the fact or appearance of corruption and ballot questions are not "corruptible," or even sentient. Ballot questions do not exercise judgment or discretion. They pass or fail, and then it is up to other officials to implement them. Including ballot questions in the definition of a "single candidate committee" may be sloppy drafting or careless thinking but it is also certainly an invitation to a legal challenge.

In the next few days, we'll post concerns with other portions of the bill.

To comment, please visit ICPR's blog.

Read more...

Campaign finance limits one step closer

By Jamey Dunn, with Bethany Jaeger contributing

A bill intended to reform campaign finance in Illinois that passed through the Senate yesterday is expected to come up for a vote in the House today.

It appears to be a compromised version that could get enough votes to pass both chambers. However, Gov. Pat Quinn’s support of the bill went against the recommendations of the Illinois Reform Commission, which he created.




None of the major reform groups in the state support the bill. Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, described HB 7 as “phony reform” filled with loopholes.

Canary’s organization partnered with a large coalition called Change Illinois to advocate for reforms that mirror the federal system of campaign contribution limits: $2,400 limit on individuals, $5,000 limit on political committees, business and unions and a $30,000 limit on legislative leadership. The Illinois Reform Commission recommended the same limits.

Quinn said that enacting contribution caps for the first time in the state would be a historic change, even if they were more lenient than recommended by his commission. “This is a new world for Illinois,” he said shortly after he and House Speaker Michael Madigan testified in favor of the bill before a House committee this morning.

Madigan said that federal limits were too low and forced candidates to spend too much time trying to find multiple donors to contribute small amounts of money. He also said that they benefit incumbents who have an established list of donors that they could ask for cash.

Some aspects of the bill that Madigan outlined before the committee include:

• Limited in-kind donations of advertisements, yard signs and people to knock on doors from businesses and labor unions supporting candidates.
• Unlimited in-kind contributions for legislative leadership or statewide political parties.
• Fines for violations of election rules would be increased. The Illinois State Board of Elections would be able to audit candidates and committees only if they missed two consecutive reporting deadlines.

Most of the new provisions would not take effect until January 2011, after the next general election. Madigan said that it was designed to keep the next election fair because candidates that started fundraising under the old rules would have an advantage over those who started under the new ones.

The Illinois Democratic Party also would be prohibited from offering support to a candidate in the primary immediately after the bill became law. Yesterday, Senate President John Cullerton said the Democratic Party voluntarily would abide by the new provisions before the law were enacted.

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said she would like to see the same restriction applied to the Republican Party, but it was not included in the bill because Republicans were cut out of negotiations.

The provision actually could help Quinn because it would keep Madigan, chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois, from using the party to support his daughter, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is considering challenging Quinn in the Democratic primary for governor in 2010. When asked if he had compromised by accepting a less lenient cap on contributions in exchange for a ban on the Democratic Party's involvement in the primary, Quinn said, “Slate-making by the Democratic Party and using party resources in a primary has been a stock and trade for many decades.” He added: “I think this is a good step for reform and openness. It empowers everyday people who want to run for office. They don't have to run in machine politics. I think this is a very good reform.”

Speaker Madigan echoed supporters by calling it an imperfect bill but the result of compromise. “We don’t represent in this bill that there will be a complete shut down of money being spent for campaigns,” he said, “and we don’t represent that this bill is perfect. We don’t represent that it satisfies everybody. We do represent that it is a significant step forward for the state of Illinois.”

Rep. Ed Sullivan, a Mundelein Republican, responded, “Some of us have a disagreement on how big of a step it is.”

Shortly after HB 7 advanced through committee, House Republicans tried to push a measure, HB 24,which would mirror federal limits. It’s similar to recommendations from the Illinois Reform Commission. However, the GOP was unable to get the support needed to have the bill called on the floor for a vote.

“We will have an ethics bill presented in this House later today that fails the people of the state of Illinois miserably,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross. Check back for updates on the bill.

Read more...

Legislative Leaders Clothesline Citizens

by Cal Skinner

Don't see clothes lines much anymore.

Guess most people have clothes dryers now.

I think my bit-too-uppity Village of Lakewood has even banned this “green” way of drying clothes.

I found this clothes line in the blessedly unincorporated early McHenry County settlement of Ridgefield. It's northwest of McHenry County College in Crystal Lake on, would you believe, Ridgefield Road, not to mention Hillside Road and a bit of Country Club Road.

In any event as I drove by, I knew I didn't have a photo of a clothes line, so I took it.

When I arrived home and read how the legislative leaders had put no meaningful restrictions on their ability to gather all the money and decide which of their subservient members or to-be subservient members would get how much, I knew it had to be my “Message of the Day.”

Illinois voters have been “clotheslined.”

Or as some folks think “closelined.”

Do you think those who use the incorrect spelling are just too young to know what a clothesline is”

If Pat Quinn wants to go out in a blaze of glory and pass a petition seeking a constitutional amendment on Term Limits for Legislative Leaders, count me in.

Posted first on McHenry County Blog.

Read more...

As good as it gets?

By Jamey Dunn

A measure that would limit campaign contributions advanced through the Senate today. Supporters tout it as a historic first step towards reform, while opponents say it’s filled with loopholes that would preserve the status quo.


“I see holes in this that you could drive a Mack truck through,” said Sen. John Jones, a Mount Vernon Republican.

Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, said HB 7 is not perfect because it is the result of long and difficult negotiations. “It does an awful lot more than I thought we would be able to do when I started this process a few months ago,” he said.

The bill includes:
$5,000 limits on contributions from individuals.
$10,000 limits on contributions from corporations or labor unions.
$90,000 limits on transfers from statewide political parties.

The measure did not win support from numerous government reform groups, including the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and a conglomeration of powerful groups called the Change Illinois. It also was opposed by Gov. Pat Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission on principle, said Commissioner Patrick Collins. The commission wanted a lower limit on donations and real-time disclosure of campaign contributions year-round. House Bill 7, on the other hand, would only require real-time disclosure during May, the height of the legislative action and budget negotiations. Otherwise, candidates would file campaign contribution reports four times a year.

Many Republicans stood in opposition, as well, and identified one “hole” in the legislation as creating a new category of committees, called constituent services committees. Under the measure, legislators would have a separate fund to pay for maintaining their offices and assisting people in their legislative districts. Contributions to the fund would be capped at $5,000. The money could not be used for campaigns.

However, Kent Redfield, a political scientist who runs the Sunshine Database to track campaign contributions, said money from the new special “constituent services” fund could be used to hold events for constituents that would actually be thinly veiled campaign efforts.

Good government advocates also didn’t like how often people could donate to each candidate. For instance, Harmon’s bill would allow individuals to donate up to the $5,000 limit every calendar year, as opposed to every election cycle. Opponents said the annual cycle would favor incumbents. Redfield said the annual cycle would benefit politicians who could start fundraising in office well before their next races. Yet, he said challengers would probably not be as successful starting early without an office and name recognition backing their efforts.

The most hotly contested aspect of the bill was the lack of limits on in-kind contributions from statewide political parties to candidates. For instance, the Democratic Party of Illinois could only donate $90,000 in cash, but it would still be able to give unlimited amounts of airtime for advertisements, yard signs, mailers and manpower to knock on doors to its candidates.

“That’s the big loophole,” Redfield said, adding, “it’s codifying the status quo.”

Redfield also said that limiting campaign contributions from lobbying groups might force legislators to seek contributions elsewhere, particularly their statewide political party leaders.

Gov. Pat Quinn, who testified in favor of the bill before a Senate committee Thursday, said it was good enough to move the public interest forward, but it was not perfect. He called it the “best we can do at this time.”

Harmon said HB 7 was the only version that could pass both chambers.

Collins, former assistant U.S. prosecutor, said legislators told him that the measures couldn’t be changed because they were tightly negotiated between the legislative caucuses, and any changes could kill the bills. Commissioner David Hoffman, inspector general for the City of Chicago, added that it was a convenient way of saying that no one really knows what would happen if changes were made, but they won’t take the chance to find out.

Sen. Minority Leader Christine Radogno also criticized the process and said that Republicans had been shut out of negotiations.

Harmon said that the issue could be revisited outside of “the pressure cooker” of a looming deadline and budget negotiations.

Read more...

If not today, Thursday?

By Bethany Jaeger and Jamey Dunn
The day that was supposed to be “Ethics Day” in the General Assembly came and went with confusing and dramatic developments that sent lawmakers and reformers back to the drawing table, with less than nine days left in the legislature’s regularly scheduled spring session.

And the legislature took Memorial Day weekend off, returning to Springfield Tuesday. And they still hope to adjourn May 29, although the actual deadline isn’t until the 31st.



Gov. Pat Quinn started the day by saying he doesn’t intend to sign a $26 billion infrastructure program until the legislature sends him an operating budget and a series of government reform measures. But movement on a significant portion of the reform measures is delayed until the day before Senate President John Cullerton hoped to adjourn.

Campaign contribution limits, for instance, were supposed to be debated today in the Senate. But a string of misunderstandings and tension-ridden conversations resulted in no action.

The Senate did agree with the House and approved two of House Speaker Michael Madigan’s measures. If signed by the governor, they would revamp the way the state buys products and services and shine more light on investigations into corruption within state government. Senate Bill 51 addresses procurement, while Senate Bill 54 addresses state employee ethics laws and lobbyist registration. The Senate did not, however, approve Madigan’s “fumigation” bill to terminate up to 750 employees appointed by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan.

Enforcement
The governor’s Illinois Reform Commission did present the first of its major proposals, which also happened to be a rather complex and controversial topic of state-level prosecution of public corruption cases. Only one of nine provisions won Senate approval today.

A visibly frustrated Collins held an impromptu news conference after a Senate hearing. “That’s not the process that we were promised,” he said after the votes. “We did not get enforcement reform today.”

According to Collins, the package was designed to give state prosecutors more ‘tools” to investigate corruption. The commission also sought greater penalties for such crimes. The amendment that met the most opposition would have expanded state’s attorneys’ authority to record conversations, including giving them power to wiretap telephones, with a judge’s approval.

Collins also advocated for making it harder for someone convicted of public corruption to get off with just probation, unless he or she cooperated with the investigation.

One attorney opposed the idea because he said it would take sentencing powers away from judges. Attorney Robert Loeb joined the Illinois Bar Association in opposing all of the commission’s the ideas because he said they would create extreme penalties for some minor offenses. He added that many aspects of the proposals already are covered by existing law.

Sen. Bill Haine, an Alton Democrat who voted “present” on all of the proposals, said that he was hesitant to greatly expand the powers of state’s attorneys because they are elected rather than appointed and might use political power to target opponents.

Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, said he worried about giving greater eavesdropping powers to state’s attorneys because there are 102 of them throughout the state, challenging consistency in training and enforcement.

The only provision that won approval was crafted by Sen. Dan Kotowski, a Park Ridge Democrat. It had no opposition.

Collins said while the legislators complained about not having enough time to consider the commission’s proposals, they approved Kotowski’s provision the same day it was filed.

Kotowski designed the measure to strike at the heart of Blagojevich’s alleged wrongdoings: his political campaign fund. The measure, which won Senate approval this afternoon and now heads to the House, would punish an individual who was convicted of public corruption the same as if he or she were a convicted drug dealer. The person would be subject to forfeiting property, assets or political funds.

“If you commit the act of corruption and graft, you’re going to lose your property, you’re going to lose your campaign fund, you’re going to lose anything that you acquired as a result of that,” Kotowski said.

Kotowski added that the commission’s enforcement provisions include rather far-reaching reforms that could take time to educate legislators and the public. “I’m not giving up on this stuff,” he said, adding that the ideas could be negotiated and brought up during the legislature’s annual fall session. “It’s not everything that we want to accomplish, not by any stretch. But it’s a really good first step, and I am excited about that.”

Campaign finance
The debate about campaign contribution limits has been bumped back to May 28 at the request of Collins, who said he needed time to negotiate an agreement between competing bills. “We’re at different places,” he said during his second Statehouse news conference of the day.

The commission proposes limiting individual donations at $2,400, while other proposals would limit them to $5,000 or $10,000. The commission also wants to limit large transfers of money from statewide political parties to their candidates. A Democratic proposal would not limit such transfers.

“Hopefully we can close that gap in the next few days,” Collins said. “And if we don’t, we’ve been assured many different ways with a lot of witnesses that we will get an up-or-down vote on the [commission’s] bill.”

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno has sponsored two different versions (a $10,000 limit and a $2,400 limit on behalf of the commission), none of which have been called for debate. She said it sounded as if Democratic leaders were trying to “run out the clock” on campaign finance limits. “I think there are people who want the status quo to continue, and those would be the people who have the majorities in this institution right now, the Democrats. They don’t want to change it.”

Senate President John Cullerton disagreed and said leadership was trying to five the commission’ time to negotiate bills. “These issues are not simple black and white issues. They require a lot of nuance.”

FOIA
Efforts to strengthen the understanding and enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act are still in the works, although the Illinois Press Association and attorney general’s office expressed dissatisfaction with some water-downed versions. The Illinois Reform Commission is still trying to negotiate and could try to advance a revised measure Thursday, as well.

FYI: Here's the Illinois Reform Commission's full report.

Read more...

Haven't crossed the finish line, yet

By Bethany Jaeger

Gov. Pat Quinn confirmed that he could wait to sign a major capital construction package that recently passed both chambers until the General Assembly sends him an operating budget and ethics reforms.

"I don't plan to sign anything until we finish our work," Quinn said at a Statehouse news conference this morning, later adding, "I don't want to stop until we reach the finish line."



The major infrastructure program, which won House approval last night, has not yet been sent to the governor's desk. And it still has $1.5 billion left to earmark for projects.

The operating budget has not yet been negotiated. However, the House has approved basic portions of the budget that must be funded regardless of whether lawmakers approve a state income tax increase. The spending would include money to keep the lights on, as well as funding for education and Medicaid, which have to meet federal requirements to capture economic stimulus funds. The Senate is expected to take up those basic portions of the budget soon, but some lawmakers fear that such a temporary spending plan would take pressure off to approve a full-year budget by the end of the month.

Quinn said, "I don't think that would be the best way to go."

Meanwhile, the effort to advance government reforms recommended by the governor's Illinois Reform Commission appear stalled. While committees were scheduled for this afternoon to hear testimony from commission Chairman Patrick Collins, Senate Republicans say that some of the legislation never got assigned to be heard in committee.

According to GOP Spokeswoman Patty Schuh, Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno is now sponsoring a measure to establish campaign contribution limits that mirror the commission's recommendations ($2,400 for individuals and $5,000 for corporations). Schuh said it was not assigned to committee for debate this afternoon. Senate Bill 350 also includes a provision that would set a $10,000 limit for donations from a candidate's political party organization.

"Collins is in the building," Schuh said. He and other commissioners "came here today at the request of the Senate president to go over their report."

Rikeesha Phelon, spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton, said committees are scheduled to hear at least a pair of House Speaker Michael Madigan's reform measures that were approved yesterday.

Read more...

End-of-session preview 2009

The legislature is preparing for a two-week push to accomplish three major issues — the state operating budget, a major construction program and a government reform initiative — for a potential May 29 adjournment. That’s the goal, according to Senate President John Cullerton.

All four legislative leaders met behind closed doors this afternoon to talk about a major capital construction program, which is expected to roll out next week. Earlier in the day, House Republicans held an unprecedented open-door meeting (caucuses usually meet behind closed doors and don’t invite the media) to talk about government reforms with Patrick Collins, chairman of the Reform Commission.



The Senate will come back Sunday evening, while the House is scheduled to return to the Capitol Monday evening. Here's where things stand, as of Friday evening:

Budget
Preparation to negotiate details of an operating budget, which is projected to have a deficit between $9 billion and $12 billion, is expected to start in earnest early next week. The process could be a little different than previous years in an attempt to increase transparency, but we’ll have more on that later.

Capital plan
By Jamey Dunn
The four legislative leaders seem to be nearing an agreement on revenue sources for a major infrastructure program. A vote could come next week.

Cullerton said that the money for the plan would come from several proposals and that no one source would dominate. “It’s a combination — it’s a potpourri — of funding sources for the capital bill.”

We wrote about some revenue ideas earlier this week. Cullerton said some of the details could change. He said that beer and not just wine and spirits, as previously mentioned, could be included in a liquor tax increase. He added that a proposal to sell lottery tickets online would have to be cleared with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said that legalizing video gaming and taxing it as a revenue source could actually reduce the number of video poker consoles in the state. She said the legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability estimated about 65,000 machines could be operating throughout the state, while one proposal would reduce that to about 45,000. However, the actual number of existing machines is unknown, according to the commission.

“I think the idea is to limit them, not to have them on every street corner,” Radogno said. “I mean, they’re already out there, and we want to make sure that the state’s getting the revenue that we could get from the activity that’s already going on.”

Rep. Frank Mautino, a Spring Valley Democrat, already has a video poker measure advancing through the legislature.

That’s the revenue side. The spending side invites a whole new set of complications. “We want to be sure that everyone’s comfortable with the spending before we vote for the revenue side of it,” Radogno said. “So, there’s a lot of detail that has to be worked out there. There’s not gong to be any hidden allocations. No lump sums.”

She said that the leaders have been talking about funneling a large potion of the money through existing programs with established criteria in an attempt to take some of the bickering out of the highly political process.

Ethics
By Bethany Jaeger
Legislation drafted by Gov. Pat Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission is expected to be ready for debate later next week, and campaign finance limits likely are in the mix.

Sen. Don Harmon, an assistant majority leader from Oak Park, has been working with Patrick Collins, chairman of the commission and former assistant U.S. attorney. While some items such as Freedom of Information Act reforms are expected to sail through the legislative process, more controversial items likely would be introduced in competing bills and debated.

Campaign contribution limits are one example. Lawmakers would debate various proposals and take up-or-down votes on each, according to Harmon.

The Reform Commission recommended capping individual donations at $2,400 and corporate or political organizations’ donations at $5,000. But Harmon said the controversy is “not whether there should be campaign contribution limits — but the size.” Some legislators think that a $2,400 cap is too low and that it would require them to spend too much time raising campaign cash in smaller increments.

A $10,000 limit per calendar year, on the other hand, may be a more comfortable level for many legislators, Harmon said. Some Senate Democrats don’t like basing the limit on a calendar year, but, Harmon said, “We need limits that are meaningful, and the calendar year seems to be an understandable measurement and could enhance the likelihood of enforcement.”

Here are some of the contribution limit bills waiting for action:

• Radogno has proposed SB 1548, a $10,000 limit for individuals, corporations, unions and clubs or political organizations.
• Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, however, would limit individual donations to $7,500 and corporate donations to $20,000, under SB 2257.
• Democratic Rep. Harry Osterman of Chicago introduced HB 24, which resembles the Illinois Reform Commission’s recommendations to mirror federal limits: $2,400 for individuals and $5,000 for political organizations.
• Sen. Heather Steans, a Chicago Democrat, is behind SB 1768, which would establish limits for individuals and political action committees, but it also would cap the amount statewide political campaigns could transfer to candidates at $30,000.

A longer-term proposal, on the other hand, is changing the way the legislature redraws congressional districts. Redistricting is being discussed but not lumped in as part of the end-of-session rush. Reform ideas, which include using a computerized process similar to Iowa’s, are likely to be debated in public hearings throughout this summer or, potentially, a special legislative session in September.

Another controversial issue that could be pushed back is the commission’s recommendation to grant state’s attorneys authority to wiretap conversations as part of public corruption investigations. Federal prosecutors have that power, while state’s attorneys do not (although they can wiretap for other kind of investigations).

A former state’s attorney, Democratic Sen. Bill Haine of Alton, sees red flags in the proposal. State’s attorneys are elected on a partisan basis, while federal attorneys are appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Federal prosecutors also answer to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney general, which Haine said provides a checks-and-balances system. “So before we vest local politically elected prosecutors with the vast powers of the United States government, we should have a clear idea of where we are going to draw the line and what the checks and balances are. Just giving wiretapping authority, warrentless wiretapping authority or additional wiretapping authority without looking at how we’re going to have checks and balances on that authority, I think, is a mistake.”

Read more...

Forty days and 40 nights

That cliché of the day indicates the number of days state legislators have to negotiate major spending and revenue proposals before they’re scheduled to adjourn their spring session May 31. With ethics reforms, health care negotiations and construction projects in the mix today, alone, lawmakers have a ton of work to do in the next five and a half weeks.




Government reforms
By Bethany Jaeger
Today marked the first time that Gov. Pat Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission directly interacted with the joint legislative committee on government reform, both of which are working separately on some of the very same topics.

Today, however, the commission was asked to narrow its testimony to state procurement and contracting practices. The focus conveniently skipped over one of the commission’s most controversial proposals: limiting campaign contributions. So-called contribution limits topped the commission’s first set of recommendations late last month.

It’s hard to avoid the link between campaign contributions and state procurement decisions, said Commissioner David Hoffman, inspector general for the City of Chicago, particularly when repeated investigations reveal that public funds flow through contracts to the same companies that shovel large amounts of money into candidates' political campaigns. “You’ve got to get to both sides of the equation, the pay side and the play side,” he said.

But the commission abided by the committee’s request and focused on ideas for state procurement reforms. The commission’s recommendations are intended to improve transparency and insulate the process from political influence, preventing such alleged scandals as requiring state contractors to go through political fundraiser Bill Cellini. Commissioner Patrick Collins, a former assistant U.S. attorney, said Cellini was not a state employee, but prosecutors allege that he exercised significant influence over which firms received state business.

“We are entering a critical period in the next 40 days,” Collins said. “The state will learn much about itself. This is a gut-check time. … The nation is watching.”

The Illinois Reform Commission suggests creating a new department to house all state procurement officers, making them independent from the state agencies and from the governor’s office. A new procurement monitor also would oversee and review contracts.

The state already has a Procurement Policy Board to oversee contracts; yet, Hoffman said because members are appointed by the governor and the legislative leaders, they’re powerless to resist political pressure. Hoffman said the goal is not to change the procurement rules but to change whom the procurement officials report to.

Legislators and some state officials aren’t fully on board with the commission’s idea to consolidate procurement officers into a new department because needs are so different when hiring companies for road construction, power supply or higher education material.

Auditor General Bill Holland added that consolidation efforts under Blagojevich resulted in members of the governor’s inner circle playing key roles in selecting the companies that received state contracts. In one instance, a state contract was granted to an agency that did not yet exist. (See Holland’s 2005 audit for background.)

The commission plans to release its second set of recommendations next week, marking 100 days since the panel started holding public hearings throughout the state.

Senate President John Cullerton said the committee will consider all of the commission’s recommendations, but he also intends to speak with Quinn to find out what he wants to pursue. House Speaker Michael Madigan indicated the legislative committee and the governor’s commission would work closely together to draft legislation.

Read more...

Search for a common ground

By Bethany Jaeger, with Jamey Dunn contributing
House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton advanced their first joint measure to reform state government, focusing on the management of the public employee pension systems and targeting board members appointed by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. At the same time, the independent reform commission created by Gov. Pat Quinn issued its first set of recommendations for beefing up state ethics laws and improving transparency of government operations.



How the legislative reform committee and the governor’s reform commission will work together, however, is yet to be seen. So far, they’ve operated in similar hemispheres but in separate quarters. They’ve heard hours of testimony from a lot of the same witnesses, they’ve debated some of the same proposals and they’ve used the same language to define their missions. To date, they have not yet testified to each other's public hearings. And the governor’s reform commission is different in that it “has a voice but not a vote,” to borrow the words of Patrick Collins, former federal prosecutor and chair of the governor’s commission. What is realistic by the end of the spring legislative session depends on the level of support the proposals can gain from the legislative leaders and their members, although Quinn has indicated he's willing to use his executive powers to institute some of changes.

One item to note is that the House speaker and the Senate president have been meeting about once a week for breakfast with Quinn to talk about a broad range of issues facing the state, including everything from a potential $12.4 billion budget deficit to possible ethics reforms. Madigan told Illinois Issues this morning said he finds those meetings to be “very productive.” He added: “They’re not 100 percent harmonious. … There’s differences, but you’ve got people who are committed to working through differences and coming to a result.”

In terms of ethics, some of the proposals of the governor's reform commission already are being considered by the legislature. In addition to pension reforms advanced by Madigan and Cullerton, the governor’s reform commission offered two more starting points: The “pay” side (or campaign finance) and the “play” side (or state procurement), to borrow another Collins phrase. The governor’s Illinois Reform Commission will issue many more recommendations in its final report by the end of April.

Pension board reforms
Madigan and Cullerton started with pensions. Their measure, SB 364, would remove all members of the existing pension oversight boards, and Quinn would have 30 days to nominate new members. The governor would be able to nominate current members to stay, but they would have to get Senate approval. Board members currently are reimbursed for expenses but are not paid for their work, and that would remain.

While Madigan said he did not intend to accuse current members of corruption, he said it was important to start over with a “clean slate.” The measure also would require all board members to follow the same ethics standards currently applied to legislators and executive branch employees. The standards are meant to prevent conflicts of interest and so-called pay-to-play politics from influencing the investment decisions made by the pension boards, investment managers and consultants.

Similar pension reforms passed the House twice before but stalled in the Senate under then-President Emil Jones Jr.

Madigan said this morning that the pension reforms illustrate the good that can come out of cooperation between presiding officers. “The people of Illinois feel that they deserve better, and they’re right. And with myself and Sen. Cullerton working together — not trying to one-up anybody, not trying to play gotcha-politics — I think that we can accomplish a lot.”

Campaign contribution limits (The “pay” side of pay-to-play)
The Illinois Reform Commission recommends campaign contribution limits of $2,400 for individuals and $5,000 for political committees and would completely ban contributions from lobbyists and trusts. The legislature is split on the idea of campaign contributions, with opponents saying that there are too many loopholes and that it wouldn't reduce the cost of political campaigns. All four legislative leaders have said they could consider campaign finance reform, but contribution limits are not considered the priority. The legislature already is considering some measures that would limit contributions, including:

• HB 24: Rep. Harry Osterman’s bill resembles the commission’s recommendations. He’s a Chicago Democrat.
• SB 1768: Sen. Heather Steans’ bill would enforce similar limits for individuals and political committees that are not controlled by the candidates, but it also would cap the amount political committees for the Democratic and Republican caucuses could transfer to candidates at $30,000, among other things. She’s a Chicago Democrat.
• SB 1548: Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno’s bill would limit donations for all individuals, political parties, corporations, unions, etc., at $10,000. She’s a Lemont Republican.
• SB 2257: Sen. Kwame Raoul’s bill would, among other things, limit individual donations at $7,500 and corporate and labor group donations at $20,000. He’s another Chicago Democrat.

Two measures would establish a voluntary public financing system for judges and set various limits on the amount candidates could raise from individuals, political committees, corporations, labor groups, etc. They include:

• SB 2144, sponsored by Raoul.
• HB 1390, sponsored by freshman Rep. Will Burns, a Chicago Democrat.

Here are more highlights from the Illinois Reform Commission's recommendations for campaign finance, including extending last year’s pay-to-play ban to prevent state contractors from donating to legislators, as well as executive officers.

Procurement (The “play” side of pay-to-play)
The Illinois Reform Commission recommends the following:

• Make the procurement officials part of an independent arm of government to shield them from political pressure.
• Establish an independent contract monitor to review contracts and expose problematic deals.
• Scale back exemptions to the procurement code.
• Apply the procurement code to legislative, judicial and such quasi-governmental bodies as the Illinois Finance Authority.
• Subject no-bid and emergency contracts to tighter scrutiny and limitations.
• Disclose subcontractors, lobbyists and agents representing clients.
• Document any contact between vendors or their agents and procurement staff.
• Post all procurement information online.

Auditor General Bill Holland echoed some of the recommendations today during a special legislative hearing about state government reforms. But he added that the procurement code currently does not prevent agencies from accepting services before the terms of a contract are settled or before the contract is officially filed. He said that was “unacceptable” and said that all documents related to the contracting process, including losing proposals, should be made public.

Sen. Jeff Schoenberg, an Evanston Democrat, said the state also should tighten provisions on informal advisers, something noted during the corruption trial and conviction of former Blagojevich adviser Tony Rezko.

Read more...

New Mexico Sends Contribution Limits Measure to Governor

Cross posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

Bill Richardson Expected to Sign
Soon only 4 States will have Wide-Open Campaign Finance Systems

Late last Friday, the New Mexico House of Representative gave final approval to a bill to create a system of campaign contribution limits. The proposal would prohibit donations to statewide candidates in excess of $5,000 per election from individuals and $10,000 from political committees. Non—statewide candidates would be barred from receiving more than $2,300 per election from individuals and $5,000 from committees.

The measure was filed at the behest of Gov. Bill Richardson, who has indicated that he will sign it.

New Mexico is currently one of only 5 states with no limits at all on campaign donations; Illinois is another. Contribution limits proposal are pending in the Illinois General Assembly: HB 24, SB 1768 and SB 1604. Call your legislator to tell them you don’t want to have to move to New Mexico to find legislators willing to tackle this problem. Call 800-719-3020 today and call for change.

To comment, please visit ICPR's blog.

Read more...

ASK LEGISLATORS TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTONS

Cross posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

DIAL 1-800-719-3020

The CHANGE Illinois coalition on Monday opened a toll-free hotline for Illinoisans to call 1-800-719-3020 and tell their legislators to enact campaign contribution limits.

Callers to the CHANGE Illinois Hotline will be connected directly to their state legislators.

“Large campaign contributions in Illinois are muting the voice of the public and preventing real progress on the issues that matter,” said Bob Gallo, AARP Illinois Senior State Director. “Enough is enough – we need campaign contribution limits now. The people deserve to get their voice back.”

AARP is reaching out to its nearly 2 million members across Illinois asking them to call the hotline and urge their legislators to stop the flow of special interest money into Springfield. The number also will be featured in an upcoming article in the AARP Bulletin publication which is sent to all AARP members in the state.

Launched in late February, CHANGE Illinois is a coalition of civic, business, professional, non-profit and philanthropic organizations aligned to bring government integrity to Illinois. The coalition includes many civic leaders and organizations, including AARP, the Chicago Urban League, The Civic Federation, the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, and the Latino Policy Forum.

“Removing one person from office does not solve the problem,” said Cynthia Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “Unlimited campaign contributions have led to wasteful spending, altered the power structure and distorted the debate of issues in Springfield.”

Canary pointed out that the federal election system limits contributions to candidates and 45 other states have laws limiting contributions.

“Limiting contributions is not all that is needed to make our government fair and honest, but it is a very important step,” Canary said. “Contribution limits will help make state government more representative of Illinoisans and more responsive to all citizens.”

Read more...

What's your limit?

By Bethany Jaeger
One of the most controversial and politically challenging ethics reforms being discussed this session is limiting the amount people and private interests can donate to political candidates. It’s a fight against the establishment as much as it is an attempt to Rod Blagojevich-proof the state. His campaign collected numerous $25,000 checks from businesses that held significant state contracts. In fact, that’s the impetus for last year’s so-called pay-to-play ban.



Since that ban took effect, a new coalition of business, labor, civic, nonprofit and philanthropic groups has formed and thrown its support behind campaign contribution limits as the gateway to more drastic steps, eventually including public financing. The so-called CHANGE Illinois coalition is advocating for limits on the amount individuals, businesses and private interest groups could donate to candidates at the state and local levels. It would resemble a law already in place at the federal level: a $2,300 limit for individuals and a $5,000 limit for businesses, unions and interest groups per election cycle. In Illinois, the coalition is keeping tabs on two bills sponsored by Democrats, HB 24 and SB 1768. Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno also is sponsoring SB 1548, which would limit contributions to $10,000.

Yet, legislative leaders express concerns about the practicality of ensuring a level playing field for all candidates. For instance, House Speaker Michael Madigan cited the example of a statewide candidate running for office against a self-funded, or individually wealthy, candidate. He mentioned a 2002 race of his daughter's, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, as an example. If she had to abide by contribution limits, how could she compete against an individually wealthy candidate who funded his or her own campaign, he asked. Of note, however, is that Attorney General Madigan is supporting the campaign contribution limits measure proposed by Rep. Harry Osterman, HB 24, because it is the most comprehensive, according to the attorney general's spokeswoman, Robyn Ziegler, this evening.

Senate President John Cullerton said he is open to considering contribution limits, as long as they’re not set so low that candidates have to spend more energy and resources seeking many more contributions than they already do.

Ann Lousin, who helped write the 1970 state Constitution and who teaches law at John Marshall Law School in Chicago, spells out some of the opposition to campaign finance limits for individuals, businesses and political groups. “If I can figure out a way around it in five minutes, you shouldn’t put it into the statute,” she said. “You go back to sunshine, sunshine, sunshine. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

She said individuals could disguise their financial support through friends or relatives, while state contractors could hide their donations by funneling money though subcontractors, which aren’t part of the public record. “All you’re doing is putting it underground,” she said.

She also opposes prohibiting people from out of state or out of district from donating to candidates because she said she believes that would unfairly hinder minority groups and female candidates, who often raise money from outside of their home bases.

“If you keep on putting in these rules, you’re going to define the only candidate who can run is somebody [who appeals to] narrower and narrower groups, somebody who takes only $100 contributions from a variety of different people, none of whom do business with the sate,” she says. “You’re going to get such purity. ... Who can run after a while?”

Cynthia Canary, director of the Chicago-based Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said contribution limits would challenge all candidates to reach out to more voters. And the measures supported by CHANGE Illinois would help disclose “bundling,” or the gathering of a group of checks from different people so that each contribution remains under the limit. The group also seeks more authority and funding for the Illinois State Board of Elections to conduct random audits so the campaign contribution reports don’t just end up in a file, unmonitored and under the radar.

Canary also said in a previous phone conversation that the goal is to enact reasonable, practical steps that will help scale back the influence of money in politics. And sunshine alone won’t cut it. “We have had sunshine for over 30 years, and look at the situation we’re in.”

Read more...

Campaign Finance Reform -- Really

Cross posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

Not one, not two, but three different Chicago newspapers ran opinion pieces recently in favor of campaign finance reform, joining a growing chorus in support of fixing our broken political system.

Crain's took a look at "the corruption that has come to define Illinois" and concluded, "Illinois can reclaim its dignity by curbing the flow of campaign cash that pollutes our politics and government."

The Sun-Times wrote, "with our state in post-impeachment crisis, now is the time for Springfield lawmakers to enact meaningful campaign contribution limits." The Sun-Times also observed, "In theory, public disclosure … discourages dirty dealings. In practice, we've seen how well that has worked."

And in the Tribune, former First Chicago NBD CEO Richard Thomas noted, "illegal practices that are discouraged abroad are tolerated here in Illinois." And he argued "placing limits on campaign contributions would be a good place to start."

Support for campaign finance reform is growing outside of the Capitol. Former Executive Ethics Commission Chairman Scott Turow recently told the legislative Joint Committee on Government Reform, in a hearing on transparency, that he believes that campaign finance reform is "indispensable," even asserting, "our state will continue to be perceived as an ethical swamp, both in Illinois and outside of it, unless we prohibit unlimited campaign donations." A broad coalition of business, civic, and non-profit groups, including ICPR, recently formed, calling itself CHANGE Illinois.

To date, 20 House members have signed on as sponsors of HB 24, a measure to reform campaign finance. Similar legislation in the Senate, SB 1768, has a smaller but growing list of sponsors.

Legislators need to hear your voices. Contact your House and Senate members and tell them what you think of our current political crisis. Now is the time for people to speak up.

To comment, please visit ICPR's blog.

Read more...

Pay-to-play = unfunded mandate?

The Illinois State Board of Elections chair, Judge Albert Porter, told a state ethics reform commission Monday that the agency sought $465,000 to implement the acclaimed pay-to-play ban approved by lawmakers in September, but "initially, no funds were provided."


The law now prevents businesses that hold state contracts worth more than $50,000 from donating to the political campaigns of the officeholders who sign those contracts. The so-called pay-to-play ban is in direct response to fundraising practices by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose campaign collected numerous $25,000 contributions from state contractors.

Porter said the enactment of the law without the funding led to problems because the State Board of Elections lacked the adequate technology, staff and budget needed to carry out the part of the law that requires businesses to register with the agency before bidding for state contracts. That led to the enactment of a temporary system that used paper registration until an electronic program could be unveiled. The agency has until August 1 to fulfill the electronic requirement. To date, the agency has had 3,400 registrations, according to Porter.

He said the temporary measure is “getting the job done,” but his testimony to Gov. Pat Quinn's Illinois Reform Commission invited questions about how the State Board of Elections would be impacted by more reforms. The commission, which focused on campaign finance reform ideas Monday, particularly wondered about one idea to require politicians to immediately report donations online rather than report donations twice a year. Porter said a "real-time reporting" mandate would demand more manpower and upgraded technology, as well as state funding, but he said he’d have to get back to the commission about more specific effects.

More immediate reporting requirements are supported by such good government groups as the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and the Sunshine Database, run by Kent Redfield, retired political studies professor at the University of Illinois at Springfield. Both testified to the commission during today's hearing at UIS. Redfield said the current disclosure system creates a “document dump” every six months, challenging the public, the media and good government groups from following the money in a timely manner.

The commission also heard several takes on whether capping the amount individuals or businesses could donate to political candidates would be effective in Illinois, but we'll have more about so-called campaign contribution limits soon.

The lead commissioner, former assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Collins, said just because Blagojevich is "pushed off the stage," the state still has to deal with its structural problem. As the lead prosecutor for the Hired Truck scandal in the City of Chicago (more here) and the Operation Safe Road investigation at the state level, Collins said he was looking for substantive and smart reforms, not reforms that just sound good on paper. While he said his prosecutorial experience notably predates Rod Blagojevich’s pay-to-play allegations, he added: "This stuff is endemic, it’s in the water. Pay-to-play is something that, I think, crosses political parties, and it’s really the underbelly of campaign finance.”

The special legislative committee exploring ethics reforms will meet at 9 a.m. Tuesday in the state Capitol. Quinn's appointed reform commission will next meet at the Chicago Bar Association on March 5. Everyone is welcome, as these are public hearings.

Read more...