* Sen. Bill Brady, who had real trouble raising money in his last gubernatorial campaign and has some personal wealth, is now in favor of campaign contribution caps…
Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bill Brady is backing campaign contribution limits like those proposed by a government reform commission set up by Gov. Pat Quinn.
* The Bloomington Pantagraph asks why Illinois is waiting…
Illinois is among only five states that currently have no limits on campaign contributions. One of those states, New Mexico, recently enacted legislation that will impose limits after the 2010 elections.
What is Illinois waiting for?
* The Tribune answers…
The problem with contribution limits is that people who want to buy influence find ways around the limits.
Political action committees, which solicit donations and then give to favored candidates, proliferated because of the limits imposed on individuals in the 1974 post-Watergate federal reforms. Wealthy individuals who once might have given large sums to politicians who share their views could no longer do so—leading some of them to use their wealth to run themselves. […]
Donation caps won’t stop corrupt donors and politicians from finding mutually agreeable arrangements. A candidate who can be bought with a generous campaign contribution can also be bought with a generous independent expenditure on his behalf.
Such limits also have a destructive effect: making it harder for candidates to raise money and forcing them to spend more time doing it. Perpetual fundraising is now an inescapable fact of life for members of Congress. It deters some very good people from even trying to run.
The Trib, like myself, says if there has to be a contribution cap then it ought to be the $10,000 cap proposed by Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno. Tribune: “That would make it easier for candidates to come up with the cash they need to compete (particularly against incumbents) without appreciably increasing the risk of corruption. Even the cheapest politician isn’t likely to be for sale at that low price.” I mostly agree with that, except I’m not sure you can ever find a “magic” level at which graft disappears. Some people can be bought for lunch.
* The Pantagraph displays its cluelessness…
But [campaign contribution] limits will make it harder to buy influence and easier to mount challenges against well-financed incumbents.
Let me make this clear one more time: Congressional incumbents don’t lose in this state unless they’ve been involved in some sort of scandal. Caps have not helped congressional challengers defeat incumbents in this state. Period.
* But this isn’t a bad cap idea…
A campaign reform bill that has passed the Illinois House takes aim at contributions that are “all in the family.” The bill applies to donors who one of the state’s constitutional officers appoints to a board or commission. The $2,400 limit for those donors would expand to the donor’s entire household.
Targeted caps might be the way to go. I’m not sure. You?
* This Ohio idea looks interesting…
The goal of the Ohio Redistricting Competition is to demonstrate that an open process based on objective criteria can produce fair legislative districts in Ohio. During the competition, it is our belief that a robust public conversation about the process can occur, leading to the development of the best possible redistricting recommendations for consideration by the Ohio General Assembly.
Ethical, fair redistricting would go a long way towards truly leveling the playing field here.
* Mike Lawrence looks at the allegations against Rod Blagojevich that he schemed to pad his own personal bank account and concludes…
The Blagojevich scandal has prompted calls for such reforms as protecting whistleblowers, diminishing the influence of money in politics and purifying the state purchasing process.
But structural change cannot fully address the creeping corruption that can exploit character fault lines. No individual is perfect, nor is any administration. Honorable politicians are particularly vulnerable to the arrogance of incorruptibility.
The right kind of elected official will recognize the potential for corrosion. He or she will recruit, respect and heed aides and other associates who speak truth and integrity to power. We have had — and still have — such public officials, aides and associates. But we need more.
We also need citizens who value honest government more than a plowed street — citizens who resist the cynicism that permits them to tag all politicians as corrupt and avoid the homework that helps distinguish between the fakers and the true public servants.
I wrote about that willfully blind voter phenomenon in the Sun-Times many weeks ago and named it TII…
Illinois has almost always valued “getting things done” over partisanship, or ideology, or regionalism or whatever. Corruption was part of that “whatever.”
* Related…
* Area lawmakers back contribution caps
* Campaign finance reform a challenge
* SJ-R: We hope for a new era of government transparency
* This can happen
LIVE session coverage...
- Don't Worry, Be Happy - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 6:39 am:
The Ohio redistricting effort is very interesting, and it’s being pushed by the Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, who is now running for the open US Senate seat there. It will be even more interesting to see if she can get some traction in that race around this issue.
- The Fox - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 8:30 am:
Looks like Rich has joined the quiche eating, white wine fat cats at the Trib etal insisting only the wealthy should be in politics as for the chumps who punch bells, walk the precincts, lick the envelopes, and make the calls telephone Fitzgerald, Kass and Marin if they get a job on a garbage truck and put their sponsors in federal prison. Great place America.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 9:14 am:
The Fox, America IS a great place, so what’s your beef? Nowhere in the Constitution will you find a right to make a corrupt buck off of public office.
And who are these people punching bells, and why are they doing it? I’ve heard of punching clocks and answering bells, but you must be in a unique line of work.
Tranparency is essential and some limits are fine, but not every candidate is a crook like Blago. He was a neighborhood hustler who got elevated beyond his competence and morals his first election with the help of Mell and others who thought they could make a buck off him. The money he raised selling his office allowed him to destroy Topinka with negative advertising. She never had a chance.
Full disclosure, in the first election I voted for Vallas in the primary and Blago in the general. Mea culpa. As a citizen, I didn’t do my job.
- Anon - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:08 am:
Campaign contribution limits are nothing but pro-incumbent and pro-established party scams. Full disclosure is more important and all that is really needed. If you need limits of some sort, ban institutional gifts and gifts from people with state contracts. I don’t mind an individual “buying” a candidate with campaign contributions as long as it’s not pay-to-play, because the individual is using his or her own money. With an institution, it’s whoever is in charge of the institution spending other people’s money for something he or she wants, which may not match what is wanted by the people whose money is being spent. The obvious exception is a PAC, but PACs are just ways for people to make additional contributions beyond what they can make directly. Allow only fully-disclosed individual contributions, with pay-to-play prohibitions, and you’ll bet as good a system as is possible in the real world.
- Crystal Clear - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:19 am:
I have not seen the “wealthy”, who run themselves be too successful. Hofield, Hull, Jack Ryan, and of course Oberweiss. On a national level, Forbes and Romney.
$10,000 with some targeted limits, along with immediate disclosure, computer generated legislative districts and a ten, sixteen or twenty year lifetime limit in the General Assembly, seems reasonable. I like the concept of ‘citizen legislator’.
- The Fox - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 10:36 am:
Wordwhatever - I rest my case. With unlimited funds, personal bankrolls, a coterie of white collar crooks, fat cats and early supporters like yourself Blago was able to mount (ok you mount horses) to spend huge amounts trashing Topinka. Capping funds and cutting election times sound sensible to me.
- Cosmic Charlie - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 11:49 am:
I can’t believe the Tribsters actually put out a well-reasoned editorial with an unconventional conclusion. I’ve grown udes to their reactionary defensive posturing on these issues over the last couple years. Bravo Tribune.
- jAXON - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 11:56 am:
Look at the creative influnece buying we’ve seen recently — real estate deals ala Rezko (from direct payments for no work to Patti to deals on condos to flip ala Gutierrez, or helping out by buying the lot next to Obama’s house). I’ve heard that buying chips in Vegas and handing them off for cashing in is another way to get around campaign finance laws — there will always be a way.
- Marcus Agrippa - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:01 pm:
Is there anything in this reform about “loans”. I’m always intrigued by the large loan to a candidate by a family member in the A1 reports. This seems to be an easy way to get money to the campaign without disclosing the real sources of the “loan”. The committee should have to sign an sworn affidavit about the source and terms of the “loan”.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 1:04 pm:
Marcus, how about some requirement that the loans have to be repaid in a certain amount of time? Burris still owes that Blago supporter big bucks for running in the primary in 2002.
- Truthful James - Monday, Apr 13, 09 @ 3:37 pm:
It is not the money per se, it is the length of the campaigns that requires huge amounts of additional money. Shorten the campaigns, eliminate the advantage the franking privilege gives to incumbents and you have a lower level of the necessary.
And, oh by the way, stop with the gerrymandering. Require all Districts to be as close to square as possible,