Group’s donors can remain a secret
Monday, Mar 21, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Illinois State Board of Elections has ruled that a 501(c)4 “social welfare organization” does not have to disclose its donors when it participates in state campaigns…
The Illinois State Board of Elections decided Monday that a deep-pocketed new political action committee does not have to disclose the original donors that provided the bulk of its funding.
In a 7-1 decision, the board agreed with a hearing officer’s reccomendation issued Friday that For A Better Chicago is not in violation of state by law by refusing to make public the source of $855,000 in contributions, which were used to help the PAC’s endorsed candidates for the City Council. […]
Greg Goldner, the chairman of For A Better Chicago, created a corporation in October called For A Better Chicago, which raised almost $1 million from undisclosed donors. The corporation transferred much of that amount into an eponymous, newly formed state political action committee in late December. […]
David Morrison, the deputy director for the ICPR, told the CNC it makes little sense that the For A Better Chicago corporation and political action committee are separate entities when both share the same office space and officers. He urged state lawmakers to address this opening in election law.
Donors to 501(c)4 groups are allowed to be kept secret under federal law, so I don’t see how the state is supposed to force it to open its books.
* In other legal news…
Rod Blagojevich’s judge scoffed at the ex-governor’s request to “cancel” his trial, essentially calling it a publicity stunt.
U.S. District Judge James Zagel said he had no legal authority to dismiss charges, that’s something only prosecutors can do. Blagojevich had asked Zagel to cancel his second trial and sentence him immediately.
Zagel said he believed the request was “intended for an audience different than the court.”
More…
At a status hearing today in the case, Zagel suggested there was nothing to rule on, in part because Blagojevich’s lawyers did not properly present the motion to the court. With that, he suggested the idea would “vanish into thin air.”
But Blagojevich’s team persisted, asking for ruling. Zagel granted them time to properly file the motion – but not without making it clear how he felt about the idea, saying the team had not raised a legal question for a judge to consider.
- David @ ICPR - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 4:02 pm:
Our argument in favor of disclosure by For a Better Chicago is posted on our blog:
http://blog.ilcampaign.org/2011/03/sbe-votes-against-icpr-complaint.html
Our position is that, regardless of their status with the IRS, For a Better Chicago is a political committee under the terms of the election code.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 4:03 pm:
===Zagel said he believed the request was “intended for an audience different than the court.”===
I guess that would be Don Wade and Roma’s audience on WLS.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 4:05 pm:
Thanks, David. But I still don’t see how a state law can override federal law.
- wordslinger - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 4:11 pm:
Emanuel said these guys should reveal their contributors, and they should, no matter the U.S. Supremes tortured logic on the subject.
“Transparency” is, or should be, the concept of the day. If you won’t reveal, the obvious question is who’s hiding what?
- David @ ICPR - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 4:20 pm:
@Rich - Federal law doesn’t say that C4s can never be made to disclose their funders, only that the IRS doesn’t require it. FWIW, differences between federal and state law did not come up in any of the hearings on this complaint. Under state law, if you’re a political committee, you have to disclose. We maintained that they were a committee; a majority of the Board did not agree.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 4:35 pm:
===Federal law doesn’t say that C4s can never be made to disclose their funders, only that the IRS doesn’t require it. ===
The only way you’re gonna get disclosure is through a new federal law or a lawsuit. I just don’t see how this works.
And, of course it’s not a committee. That’s pretty well-established stuff. How many PACs have the same name as the union/company/etc. that fund ‘em? Lots.
- lake county democrat - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 4:58 pm:
Rich, I don’t get your reasoning that a state law CAN’T require disclosure (leaving aside whether Illinois’ does). Federal law (the Constitution), for example, bars term limits for members of Congress. Not true for state offices. Federal law caps on contributions aren’t state law caps on contribution. Didn’t California have different disclosure rules for individual contributors to state refererendum ($50 threshold) than the Feds for presidential races? There’s no pre-emption here.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 5:00 pm:
===Federal law (the Constitution), for example, bars term limits for members of Congress. Not true for state offices. ===
Apples and organges.
501(c)4 is a federal designation with federal rules. A state can’t simply trump those.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 5:15 pm:
======Federal law (the Constitution), for example, bars term limits for members of Congress. Not true for state offices. ======
And state law cannot impose term limits on congressmen. Do you see what I mean now?
- irisheyesrsmilin' - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 6:13 pm:
Rich is correct. There is no way to MAKE them do it. I think the original filing with the SBOE was more a show of distaste for a trick that has been used over and over by both Dems and Reps. But in filing that complaint with the SBOE, it resulted in many investigative article (including mine) and influenced one brave alderman to not accept money from a hidden source, such as the FBC PAC. A small victory in the transparency game but still…
- MrJM - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 6:31 pm:
“Setec Astronomy”
– MrJM
- chi - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 6:51 pm:
-And, of course it’s not a committee. That’s pretty well-established stuff.-
The campaign finance law included a new definition of what a PAC is, and that definition is very broad. For a Better Chicago definitely fits the criteria. The Supremacy clause is another question, however.
- lake county democrat - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 7:41 pm:
Rich, I think “trumping” would be if the state said “if you’re an Illinois entity and you participate in a federal election, you have to reveal your donors.” It still seems different if the entity participates in a -state- election (and all local governments derive their power from the state) and the law is limited to those races. Maybe I’m missing something, and again, I’m not saying the Illinois law actually intended to apply to the state races (from the comments about the decision I’m gathering it didn’t).
- Concerned Voter - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:17 pm:
The more I hear from him, the more I like Judge Zagel.
- wordslinger - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:35 pm:
–The more I hear from him, the more I like Judge Zagel.–
It’s good to be the federal judge.
Zagel is interesting, though, as well, in that he was a GOP political player in Chicago and Springfield from the 60s to the 80s.
He must have known Cellini, Doc Adams and a lot of the usual suspects pretty well back in the day. So did a lot of Thompson Kiddie Corp players who became federales.
- zatoichi - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:40 pm:
Where is the Rod of old? Mr. T-Fortitude? Sentence me today and drop the second trial? This wimpy, scratching at any straw version is just boring. Must be what happens when the ego is huge and the money/support/power just drifts away.
- CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Mar 22, 11 @ 6:57 am:
Still waiting for the “reformers” to start asking IL corporations how much they poor into RGA and other unregulated groups to fund NoTaxBill, etc.
It is hard to believe these groups refuse to engage in this issue.