Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quinn staffer resigns amid probe - Candidates attack each other over new ad
Next Post: Always bet on “nothing” and you’ll win almost every time
Posted in:
* Carol Marin brings up a criticism about the new campaign finance reform bill that I’ve seen elsewhere, including among House Republicans…
The “holes” she doesn’t like include a Clintonesque bit of legislative language that defines the “receipt” of a campaign donation as the day it becomes a “deposit” in the bank. Thus a candidate can hang on to a check and skirt new requirements for timely reporting of contributions until, say, after an election.
True. But what good is a contribution if a campaign doesn’t spend it during the election?
Yes, some campaign expenses are paid after the election, but money is almost always raised to be spent, not to be hoarded.
* This is an important political aspect that’s been mostly ignored…
Republican lawmakers are still stinging over the surprise move by government reform groups to strike a deal with Democrats on the campaign restrictions, a deal that doesn’t limit legislative leader and political party giving in the high-priced fall general elections.
The coalition of government groups called Change Illinois! had held out for such general election limits for weeks, and Republicans had become closely aligned with the group, going so far as to rely on its members to keep them appraised of what was happening in closed-door talks with the Democrats who control state government. […]
But on Thursday the reform group gave up on limiting leadership giving in general elections and endorsed the plan put forth by Democrats that imposes those restrictions only in the primary. The group’s representatives said they’ll keep fighting in future sessions to expand the limits but called the current deal a significant step forward.
Republicans accused the group of selling out while Democrats, now brandishing the reformers’ endorsement, approved the first campaign limits in Illinois and chided Republicans for waffling.
And it’s something I took up in my weekly syndicated newspaper column…
A few weeks ago, I asked a top Republican what his party’s plan was in the ongoing war over campaign finance reform.
“We are not for some sham ethics bill,” the official said, then added with tongue slightly in cheek, “We stand with the reformers, until they capitulate, then I’m not sure where we stand, but I’ll let you know.”
The Republicans are badly outnumbered in both the Illinois House and Senate, they don’t raise as much money as the Democrats, their party has been on the outs with voters since Gov. George Ryan went down in flames and President George W. Bush alienated most of the state.
So the Republicans did the politically smart thing and eagerly professed their undying love for reform and pledged their never-ending loyalty to those plucky reformers - all the while using the reform issue and the reform groups as a partisan sledgehammer against the Democrats. It was a smart political play.
The assault started when Gov. Pat Quinn’s reform commission issued its report. Several of the commission’s recommendations were unworkable, and even some commissioners admitted that there were flaws in their report, but the Republicans demanded a vote on that document as it was, without changes. They were denied by the Democrats and the media immediately picked up their howls of outrage. Coverage always follows conflict and the Republicans used that hard rule of the universe to their advantage at every opportunity.
After the governor’s commission disbanded, the Republicans latched on to a coalition of reformers called Change Illinois.
“Any proposal not fully endorsed by Change Illinois will not have my support,” House Republican Leader Tom Cross defiantly declared last week.
Well, “capitulation” came just a few days after Cross’ declaration of alliance, and he and the rest of the Republican Party were left in the dust.
Change Illinois agreed to a provision that allowed legislative leaders and party committees to contribute money to candidates without any limitations during general elections, but capped those contributions in primaries. The proposal had been almost universally slammed by the state’s major newspaper editorial pages as worse than no reform at all and had been flatly rejected by the Republicans for potentially concentrating even more power into the hands of legislative leaders.
After praising the reformers and vowing to stand with them for most of the year, the Republicans resorted to attacking the reformers when they cut the deal. Rep. Suzie Bassi (R-Palatine), for instance, suggested that the reform coalition may have been “bought out.”
But the legitimacy conferred on the reform groups by people such as Leader Cross for the past several months made the Republicans’ angry reaction look more than a little hollow. Any suggestion that the reformers had been somehow bought off just isn’t believable.
The Republicans and the other critics are probably right about the bill’s merits. Not capping the contributions made by the caucus committees and the party organizations while capping everybody else’s contributions isn’t exactly fair and certainly does nothing to address the massive spending by those entities during general elections.
Ironically, or perhaps intentionally, the House Republicans may suffer the most from this contribution cap during primaries. History has shown that it’s a rarity for a Democratic legislative primary to drastically impact the outcome of a general election (although there may be one next year in Chicago, of all places). But the House Republicans have fought off organized primary assaults from their own party’s right wing for decades. They spent a fortune because if those ultra-conservative candidates prevailed in the primary, then the Democrats would have a good shot at picking up those seats in the general election.
There are a few curious aspects to the bill. For instance, the language that bans political parties from making campaign contributions in primaries expires right before the petition process begins for the 2014 campaign. So, if Attorney General Lisa Madigan decides to run for governor in that election, and her father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, is still the state Democratic Party chairman, the cap could disappear for her just in time for the campaign.
That may sound like a convenient gift, but it will probably cause some real headaches for Ms. Madigan. Another high-profile fight like this one over Speaker Madigan’s resistance to reform just before the campaign season starts could be a disaster for the daughter.
* Finke…
But you’ve got to figure that if the toxic atmosphere brought on by the Blagojevich situation earlier this year wasn’t enough to get definitive campaign finance reform, then Illinois has probably seen as much “reform” as it ever will.
This is another talking point used by the Republicans last week and I really doubt that it’s valid. As I pointed out above, parts of the law sunset at various dates, requiring new legislation, which will mean more editorials, screaming and debates. Also, you gotta figure that whomever is elected governor next year will have his own reform package to unveil early in his first term. That’s been the pattern in the past, and it will most certainly be so again if, as expected, “reform” becomes a major issue in the 2010 campaign.
* Related…
* Quinn says he’s OK with campaign finance deal
* Pantagraph: Cullerton looks more and more like Emil Jones: If one person knows what’s best for all of us, why are we spending money on all the other lawmakers in Springfield?
* Cullerton: Campaign reform critics ludicrous
* Kurt Erickson: State passing costs down to employees and retirees
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 10:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quinn staffer resigns amid probe - Candidates attack each other over new ad
Next Post: Always bet on “nothing” and you’ll win almost every time
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
What I found most interesting about Carol Marin’s column is how Cindi Canary describe Governor Quinn’s engagement, or lackthereof, in the recent reform effort.
Canary’s statement on Quinn really does portray Quinn as a beaten man. It is as if he was beaten into submission by more powerful political forces involved. Just observin.’
Comment by Will County Woman Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 11:03 am
I thought HB7 was worse than nothing. This is marginally better. But still pretty swiss cheese like.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 11:04 am
Good column Rich. Marin was far too nice and there must be a story on why the reformers caved only who will write it? Canary is quick to lay the blame at Quinn’s feet but she can’t justify supporting piecemeal reform full of loopholes and she could have withheld her group’s support.
Comment by MKK Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 11:15 am
–But the House Republicans have fought off organized primary assaults from their own party’s right wing for decades. They spent a fortune because if those ultra-conservative candidates prevailed in the primary, then the Democrats would have a good shot at picking up those seats in the general election.–
Very insightful and interesting point. After this weekend’s results in the nationalized GOP civil war in the NY 23, you can expect more challenges from the hard right to GOP incumbents in the future.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 11:15 am
Also keep in mind on the definition of receipt point that campaigns frequently vet their contributions before depositing them to make sure they do not take money from bad people or entities. And now since it is a no-no to take money from state contractors the vetting process is more important.
Comment by Cosmic Charlie Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 11:39 am
I think the problem with being allowed to hold checks back is that a candidate can loan the campaign money with absolute assurance that donations will be coming in to cover it, but not have to disclose who was kind enough to provide that assurance.
Really, the whole system of delayed reporting is nuts and allows the same exploitation, if you just shift donations to the most convenient scheduled report. Using the Internet, candidates should just be required to report all donations within 48 hours of receipt. The Board of Elections upload system is about 20 years behind the times, and the software they hold it in would have been good technology in 1982. Probably was.
Immediate reporting via the internet and downloadable Excel reports are the transparent way to go.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 11:40 am
==== But you’ve got to figure that if the toxic atmosphere brought on by the Blagojevich situation earlier this year wasn’t enough to get definitive campaign finance reform,====
Problem is Finke is assuming that what Blago did was legal, and there exists some substantive type of reform that would have stopped blago.
The best reform for a blag like situation is to prohibit the consitutional officers from taking contributions from any any person or business that has a contract with an agency under that officer. or go to public financing. Everything else is just feel good talking points.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 11:52 am
CaptFax:
I think the focus on the “deposit/receipt” issue really exposes how little some folks know about running campaigns. It best defines the question of why let the inexperienced write the rules?
The deposit was designed to eliminate a trap, not create a loophole. Most campaigns take time to vet checks before cashing them. Using the “receipt” trigger makes that harder and relies on the check receiver checking with the candidate.
Anyone who has worked a campaign knows:
1. there usually is not cash around to hide checks until after elections to avoid deposits.
2. all candidates are advised to not spend their own cash under any circumstances so asking them to borrow or put expenses on credit cards makes no sense.
I know it will hard for some to accept, but nearly all in politics and govt are honest, do a days work for a days pay, don’t cut corners and don’t want favors.
The Simpson Study had to span three decades and look at a pool of over a million workers, officials and vendors to find 1,000 offenders and still needed include pols convicted of gambling charges and folks found innocent to get their number.
I don’t think you would hire someone who has only passed a Red Cross Life Saver Program to do a heart transplant, why let make non-contributors, non-campaigners become the best source for new rules….especially when none of the four legislative leaders have ever been accursed of any campaign finance irregularities.
Hate to impose facts and logic into this debate, but it is what it is.
Comment by Reddbyrd Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 12:09 pm
The point is regardless of how ‘foolproof’ your anti-corruption bill is, the snakes will always find a way to slither around it. It is the nature of bad guys. Should attempts be made to shore it up? Yes. Should you expect improvement - No.
Comment by You Go Boy Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 12:25 pm
===Should you expect improvement - No. ===
Actually, if you look at the arc of the past decade or more you will see steady statutory improvement.
Plus, once a government initiates things like caps, it usually just expands them.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 12:30 pm
I really like Kurt Erickson’s take on things. It is ashame that Illinoisans seeking answers get nothing but the run around due to the state’s fiscal mess. Some people in state government ought to be ashamed that their office isn’t helping constituents. But, when you’re running for election who cares about people, right?
For the record, I don’t blame the Comptroller’s Office for sending the calls to where they belong.
Comment by Will County Woman Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 1:16 pm
Odd? No comment from the Chair of Gov’s Reform Commission. Has he become shy?
Comment by Pat Got His Tongue Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 2:46 pm
Folks, read Redd’s post. He’s spot on, though it pains AA to write that.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Nov 2, 09 @ 8:35 pm
The “holes” she doesn’t like include a Clintonesque bit of legislative language that defines the “receipt” of a campaign donation as the day it becomes a “deposit” in the bank. Thus a candidate can hang on to a check and skirt new requirements for timely reporting of contributions until, say, after an election.
The problem I see with this, Rich, holding on to donations from donors who might be considered “controversial” (i.e., criminal conviction, etc.) and then depositing checks after election has taken place. Gives less ammo to your present opponent, and puts the day of reckoning for donation off for 2-4 years.
admittedly, I have only been involved in school board campaigns, but I do remember when Hillary Clinton ceased her presidential run she had something in the neighborhood of $6-12 million in unpaid campaign bills. She had to fundraise further to pay these off, and some folks (Mark Penn springs to mind) wound up writing off a portion of what she owed them.
Comment by Lynn S Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 1:24 am