56 Comments - GOP - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:27 am: Will she make those reforms apply to her multi million fund and give back donations she has already received? That would be true reform! If the limit does not apply to Leaders’ Funds then it is pointless. - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:28 am: Answer the question, please. - Pat collins - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:28 am: If she is really serious (and I am quite sure she is not) then she would also include a ban on any TRANSFERS from one fund to another. The only exception would be state party funds to candidates. - Pat collins - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:29 am: Oppose. Such limits at the Federal level are routinely by passed. If we can not have effective reform, I prefer NO reform, so it’s obvious what the situation is. - Leroy - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:32 am: This is exactly what I would be advocating if I were her. This will limit her challengers ability to raise money, and make her look pure as the wind driven snow. The Illinois voters will eat.it.up. I am really digging Populist Madigan. - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:36 am: Again. Answer the question. - VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:38 am: You start with HB 24 - but then continue. There will be no solutions to government corruption until voters stop electing from political parties interested only in campaigning for offices, not governing effectively in office. - Third Generation Chicago Native - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:40 am: I would be all for it if it weren’t for the fact that Lisa Madigan has a $3.5 million campaign chest already, this would certainly give her a big advantage over someone who is just stepping into a race she is running for, if it’s Governor, this is a double edge sword for Pat Quinn, who is supportive of the reform, but who we know will be running for Governor next election, most likely against Madigan. I would be all for it if all candidates would start with an empty piggy bank when it comes into play, so the playing field is all fair. Also the campaign chests could be donated to the state, or some other area that is need of funds (good charity etc) - fedup dem - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:41 am: I wouldn’t trust Harry Osterman or anoyone else from that 48th Ward cabal to correctly tell me what day of the week it is, much less set up campaign funding legislation. - Captain Flume - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:43 am: No, becuase this bull does not reform much at all. It is merely setting up the fractionalizing of contributions. Truer reform would cap what the candidate may receive from all sources in the aggregate or what a candidate may spend, or both. - ZC - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:43 am: The most relevant objection to campaign contribution limits, for me at least, is that they make it difficult for challengers to build any kind of “war chest” to challenge a well-funded incumbent. Small contribution limits are incumbent protection devices (or front-runner protection devices). This theory, however, is not always shown to be true. Hillary was undeniably the front-runner and yet Obama did very well playing by the rules in 2008. Still, a charismatic candidate running for President is different from someone running for IL House. So my preference would be some kind of sliding scale. Why not create a more creative rule with limits, but where candidates can collect larger individual contributions - $5000, $10000 - up to a certain point of “viability”, and then the smaller limits kick in? It would be up to the legislature to determine the financial point of viability, and of course all of a candidate’s “super-donors” would have to be disclosed online and early, for media and public inspection. Once a candidate, particularly a challenger, has been able to rely on larger donations to get him / her to a certain point, it should be easier to persuade others to kick in funds. The last point is: does the Osterman bill include any state limits on what corporations and unions can spend outside the contributions, as “independent expenditures” funded out of corporate or union treasuries? If it doesn’t, that’s a huge disparity in power between a candidate and a labor union / corporation, and I’d oppose that. We don’t want a system whereby the outside interest groups can spend much more readily and freely than the candidates. - Captain Flume - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:44 am: Yikes, not “becuase this bull,” but “because this bill” (the second typo may be accurate). - Ghost - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:52 am: Yes, but it needs more. Right now, for example, a union would be limited in the individual donation, but not in buying their own adds. I would like to see the contribution limit to include anything of value provided for a canidate. Including tv ads etc purchased to support a canidate. - Zora - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:54 am: When it comes to campaign reform, I’m an incrementalist. It is the only way we’ll get there. So I’m in favor of a bill like this one. It will need good implementation details and clear language aimed at preventing loopholes and other monkey business. - Truthful James - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:56 am: Yes, campaign funding should be limited, if only for the reason that all contributors would have an equal voice to whisper in the the winner’s ear. Greater funding is a function of longer campaigns. Let us limit the campaign season and the donation requirements drop. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:03 pm: Yes the bill should be supported. It is not enough, but it appears that the citizens will only get reform a small step at a time. Get it on the books and work toward the next step. - erstwhilesteve - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:09 pm: It’s fascinating to me that public financing of campaigns, which has been somewhat successful in smaller states like Maine, is not even being considered legislatively (or for that matter in previous comment posts here.) You’d think that the (recent and perennial) scandal of money in politics in Illinois would make such a proposal politically feasible. - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:10 pm: ===or for that matter in previous comment posts here=== Wrong. - Forward - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:12 pm: Yes, it gets us alot closer to the mark. By the way the blood lust some of you have for Lisa Madigan is sort of scary. Looks like sexism is alive and well among my fellow bloggers. I think if you take the time to look at her record you will find that she is committed to good government. - the Patriot - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:12 pm: No, then people who are rich get a huge edge in running for office. Jim Oberweis is probably governor. He would have spent 40 million to other less than 5. Ironic that she would now support a bill that would essentially keep any of her opposition from even getting close to her in the fund raising money for the Gov race in 2010. What a crook! - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:13 pm: ===Looks like sexism is alive and well among my fellow bloggers=== Please. Opposition to a female candidate cannot automatically be labeled as sexist. Move back to the 70s please. - Kakistrocracy Kid - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:15 pm: Public financing is the only solution; that way we’ll (i.e., taxpayers) know what we’re paying for! Of course, a recall measure would be necessary to remind politicians that they work for the citizens, not the corporate machine. - Enemy of the State - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:33 pm: The bill could be a good start. I want limitations on what can come from out of state or out of district. When I buy my local or state officials, I want to limit the competition. - vole - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:33 pm: I am for the limits. But unless some way is found to reduce the ridiculously high costs of campaigning, some means of skirting the intended outcome of this reform will be found. Like on the national level, bundling could effectively reduce the goal of limiting individual donations. Plus, if the cost of campaigns is not reduced, legislators and office holders will be spending more time grubbing for money instead of performing their duties. Perhaps more free air time on radio and television (our public air ways) is a potential solution. We are kind of beating around at the symptoms of a broken system in discussing these limits. - Boone Logan Square - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:34 pm: What other campaign contribution limit bills are currently being proposed? Absent feasible alternatives, I would back this bill. Individual and institutional limits will make it more difficult (not impossible, but more difficult) for another officeholder to auction off the state and its services in the future. Ideally, campaign finance reform would limit the amount of funds candidates could transfer from races for other offices, but this would be change of a scale that would have seemed unimaginable four years ago. How likely is it that HR 24 gets passed? Granted the state is reeling from Blogojevich, granted the state passed the ethics reforms that compelled Rod to go on his pre-January 1 feeding frenzy, but these kinds of caps are not what I would expect incumbent politicians to support. One last question. How quickly could HR 24 become law? What would be a realistic timetable if it actually has the votes? Would it come early enough to matter much for 2010, keeping in mind that primary day is now only months away? A reform that takes effect on New Year’s Eve would have less effect on the 2010 races than one that takes effect at the end of this April. - Perry Noya - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:35 pm: Re Captain Flume’s suggestion of limits on what candidates may spend–the US Supreme Court has ruled that spending limits would violate the First Amendment. Limits on contributions, though, are OK. I don’t understand the reasoning either, but that’s what Scotus said back in the ’70s. - Ghost - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:36 pm: Public financing is a horribl idea. it is a huge waste of tax payr money. Think about, a canidate is unable to persuade people to give them money, but the State should hand them cash to campaign on. the campaign fund raising process helps to remove non-viable canidates. tax payer funded elections means giving tax dollars to canidates who are so unelectable, they can not persuade enough people to give them funds. I am for reforming and placing limits that reduce the influece of a contributor, but I support the system of fund raising as helping pull the the non-viable canidates out of the way. - Will - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:41 pm: As far as I can tell the only effect of federal limits is to make politicians answer to an entire industry of special interests instead of a few specific special interest contributors. Congress certainly hasn’t gotten any cleaner since contribution limits were enacted. Effective reform will enable candidates to run for office without needing to have connections with a large number of wealthy individuals or corporate self interest groups. Make a certain amount of radio and TV advertising free to bring down the cost of running for office. - Taxman - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:43 pm: I agree that there should be campaign finance reform in Illinois. “Money People” have take over the process and have too much influence with elected officials in Illinois. Blago was the extreme case, but in my experience it negatively influences nearly all elected officials. However, Im not going to give Lisa Madigan credit or props for this. Its easy to ask for reform when there is $6 million in her campaign account and oodles of cash that her father, Speaker Madigan, can send her way easily. Of course she wants limits now because she has tons of money and doesnt want her opponents to be able to raise money. Am I being to pessimistic and negative??? - Free Speech For Me - Not For Thee - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:46 pm: Will ITLA donations be capped at $5000 or 2,500 trial lawyers x $2300? My answer would depend on how that question would be resolved. Generally, I am for the maximum disclosure and minimum limitations to the free political speech that, until McCain-Feingold, was a constitutional right to all Americans. However, now it’s just figuring out how to write the rules to favor one side over the other. - Perry Noya - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 12:47 pm: I remember something Jim Thompson once asked me: “Shouldn’t your ability to raise money to promote your ideas be a test of those ideas?” Of course, Big Jim was such a naive dreamer, he actually thought that political campaigns are a test of ideas. As for the substance of HB24, it doesn’t matter because the leadership has decided that this year they will handle “transparency” reforms; campaign finance will be put off till next year. Or so I hear in Chicago; are folks hearing differently in Springfield? - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 1:02 pm: I have read campaign disclosures that I considered to be completely fictitious based on the amount of direct mail and signage in the election. Until the reforms include more effective enforcement mechanisms I see them as hurting people who play by the rules and benefiting people who are willing to break the law, but are sufficiently connected that they know the State Board of Elections won’t rule against them. - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 1:08 pm: No. By itself, it’s a placebo, because it doesn’t address other issues already raised. I haven’t seen a lack of money in federal races. Perhaps Ms. Marin and her friends at NBC would back some real campaign finance reform and require broadcast outlets to give free advertising time to candidates. That would certainly cut down on the need to raise money. - Laborguy - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 1:20 pm: I think the Osterman bill is a good start, but I would argue for much more. I think the most effective campaign finance reform would eliminate corporate and union contributions and limit individual contributions to $1,000. This would empower those organizations that have the ability to mobilize and educate their members at the district level and diversify the fundraising base of the parties making them much more responsive to the grassroots. No system is perfect, but drastically limiting contributions goes a long way to solving our political problems here in Illinois. There is a reason why we have one political scandal after another in Illinois. It isn’t that politicians are anymore corrupt here than elsewhere in the country. It is that Illinois is one of only four states left in the country with no fundraising limits. If politicians have no legal limits they are going to be tempted to “push the legal envelope” and eventually break the law. The Osterman bill will not stop all the illegal activity but it will dramatically change the culture and provide some boundaries for politicians that have never had any before. - Cosmic Charlie - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 1:27 pm: No. Caps are un-democratic. Politicians and candidates spend too much time raising money as it is. Immediate disclosure of contributions as well as strictly enforced prohibitions of contributions by contractors and others who benefit financially from government are more meaningful reforms. Caps make bundlers the most important people in politics. How does the public benefit from a system that results in someone like Joe Cari (pre-guilty plea) being a powerbroker? - Lakefront Liberal - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 1:45 pm: Yes, I support this bill, but I would prefer the bill that has been authored by State Senator Heather Steans that bans union and corporate contributions (SEIU supports this), limits individual contributions to federal levels, restricts candidates to one campaign committee except legislative leaders who can have two, and restricts transfers between committees. However, hand in hand with this we MUST must have public financing. There are, I think, legitimate concerns by legislators who represent poor districts that they will not be able to raise money through only limited individual contributions. You will get greater support from them for campaign contribution limits if public financing is also an option. And in answer to the previous commenter who said that this would lead to unviable candidates getting public money — most public financing systems require candidates to prove they have a base of suport before they can get funding. For example sometimes they are required to get several hundred or even several thousand $5 donations to prove viability. Public financing has been very successful in other states — before you say it is a “horribl idea” you should take a look how it has worked elsewhere. - Laborguy - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 1:54 pm: Caps are undemocratic? Huh? What are you talking about? Caps force political leaders to diversify their fundraising base and it may actually get the grassroots of the party involved in state campaigns. Better disclosure is the Mitch McConnel/Rush Limbaugh plan, which is no plan at all. The Joe Caris of the world will always find a way to give. The question is how do you limit their influnece on the system and encourage more “ordinary citizens” to participate in the process. By taking corporate and union money out of the process all-together you will eliminate 80% to 90% of all large contributions. By limiting individual contributions to $1,000 you greatly reduce the influence any single person can have in an election. This will incentivize bundling, but that has been, and will always be, a very small part of the problem here in Illinois. - yorfriend - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 1:57 pm: Key questions: What drives the money chase and corrption? TV advertising. Two responses to the question: Caps on contributions are ok? But U.S. Supremes said caps on spending are off-limits. How about lowering the price? Cut TV advertising charges for political ads to 10% of the lowest rates. A $20 million Gov. campaign suddenly costs $2 million. Overall, the limits on cororate and unions are building unfairness into the syhsem. There are perhaps 500, maybe 1,000 union entities. There are 100,000 business entities. AT $5,000 a pop, you do the math. - Laborguy - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 2:14 pm: Yorfriend- Let me understand this. You think a ban on corporate and union contributions would be unfair to corporations, right? Let me explain to you how that is wrong. I used to have a congressional client in Western Illinois that the John Deere Corporation just hated. Under federal campaign finance law corporations cannot give to federal candidates while unions can give up to $5,000. On the surface that appears to be an advantage for the union, except it isn’t. What John Deere would do every election was to go to their top two hundred executives and “ask” them to write at least a $1,000 check to my client’s Republican opponent. The UAW, which represents John Deere employees, would give my client the maximum $5,000 contribution allowed by law. So, the company could give $200,000 to a candidate in a congressional race while the union representing 15,000 John Deere workers could only give $5,000 to a candidate in that same race. Without baning both corporate and union contributions you will create a system that hugely advantages big business, much like the system that curretly exists. I give you credit though. You are the first person here to argue that corporations need to be protected in any campaign fianance law. Good luck with that in today’s economic climate. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 2:33 pm: Only 100% publicly-financed elections will ever end the influence of campaign contributions on policymaking. While Osterman’s legislation is a step in the right direction, as ZC points out, its not a solution. ZC also points out the complexity of the issue, and that’s where I have a problem. IF HB 24 passes, I fear lawmakers from both parties, good government groups and editorial boards will trumpet it as a panacea for the state’s political corruption. And once you’ve told the public that the problem’s solved, its pretty tough to come back to them and explain why they really need to cough up the dough for public financing. HB 24 is better than nothing, but we ought to be able to do better than that. - SangamoGOP - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 3:03 pm: No. This is an infringement on First Amendment rights. Money equals speech. To mimic a federal system that hasn’t worked and continues to spawn corruption like Abrams, et. al. would not be a good system for IL. The best system is throw open the doors but mandate 24 hour notification of every contribution with real teeth for SBE-huge fines & criminal sanctions. - ZC - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 3:04 pm: I also support public financing, and it would be smart for Quinn to back it, if he wants to run vs. Lisa. Though practically, it will be a non-starter. No way Mike Madigan will allow it. And given the budget difficulties, a vote for public financing will be a political target. I can see the ad: “Legislator X voted to cut funding for this popular program, but voted to give himself Y money in taxpayer dollars …” blah, blah. It’s a great idea, public financing, but the time to pass it is in fiscally flush times. It’s not going to happen with the state facing deficits like the present. - Libertarian - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 3:18 pm: Ditto what SangamoGOP said. Limiting contributions limits free speech. If you want to get the corruption out of IL government stop giving it so much authority over people’s lives. - Ken - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 3:50 pm: Sounds like a good way to limit the opportunity for a good challenger to beat an incumbent. Great political PR by Madigan. Full, complete, and timely(one day) disclosure is a much better idea. - steve schnorf - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 4:31 pm: No, because it has worked so well at the federal level. And, the same “no” applies to public financing, for the same reason. I’m willing to wager that far more than half of the “yes” votes on here are from Obama voters. What hypocrites. - Been There - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 4:43 pm: I’m against. We don’t need elected officials spending more time raising money. The harder you make it for them to raise the more time they have to spend instead of their jobs. I say unlimited contributions but step up the disclosure. Monthy updates on D-2’s and daily the month before the election. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 6:02 pm: No, then people who are rich get a huge edge in running for office. Jim Oberweis is probably governor. He would have spent 40 million to other less than 5. If money were the only factor, Blair Hull would be our US Senator now (and possibly US President) and Jim Oberweis would either be governor or US Rep in the 14th. - some people call me "Maurice" - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 6:59 pm: Did she know that dear old dad is against limits? He is concerned about “self Funders” like Schmidt.She better check in with DAda - Anon - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 8:07 pm: “Maurice”. Rich doesn’t like for us to throw around the “sexist” charge, but yours is an overtly sexist statement. What is it with you people and the hatred of LMM? Get over it. She is a good public official. You can vote against her if you want, but drop the hatred. Geesh!!! - Laborguy - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 8:25 pm: It isn’t sexist to ask if AG Madigan and Speaker Madigan are coordinating their political agandas. These are important questions to ask and have nothing to do with gender. This discussion brings to the fore some very important questions such as: Does Lisa support campaign fundraising limits knowing full well that her father will not allow the legislation to leave the House? Will AG Madigan support an income tax increase or use the issue as a rationale for running against Pat Quinn? Will Lisa Madigan put any political capital on the table and lobby for this or other legislation? Will Speaker Madigan take stands on the income tax increase and campaign funding limits that will aid AG Madigan’s political aspirations? - Bobs yer - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 8:47 pm: Better than nothin’ good for Lisa. I don’t think that we’re going to get the George Soros-type hidden money here for awhile. Let’s wait until that happens, then improve the statute. Up to this point, all we’ve seen in the reform department is garbage about improving the ‘transparency’ of government. Citizen Blag already showed us how easy it is to ignore FOIA. Trying to sell a slight improvement as ‘reform’ is just eyewash to distract the suckers. - krome - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 9:16 pm: Oppose! As long as politics affects money, then money will flow into politics. The Federal elections set new records each cycle - despite campaign contribution limits. All they do is keep non-sphisticated donors capped while big money guys pay huge amounts in - in ways that are difficult to trace. A guy like George Soros channels millions in each time even with the alleged caps. - Quizzical - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:02 pm: I like the idea of limits. It’s not a perfect solution, but I think it can stop some of the more egregious happenings (like the Blago $25,000 club). As a cynic, I think most politicians can be bought, but the price is well above $2,300. Individual limits reduce the opportunities to make some of the deals that have been so problematic. - anon - Monday, Mar 16, 09 @ 11:47 pm: anon 8:07 pm:, I agree. I am not a big fan of the father but give me a break, I agree, LM has been a pretty good AG. It makes me wonder if the negativity of her father would cause her problems if she ran for Governor. It isn’t fair but it could be out there. Personally, I think she has done a great job. - Change Illinois - Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 1:00 am: It’s important to keep in mind that any limits on contributions must address “bundling” and giving money to party organizations that can indirectly provide money to specific candidates. - SangamoGOP - Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 8:51 am: I think it would be beneficial for ‘Change Illinois’ to let the rest of us know what their line is for First Amendment rights. Or, for that matter, what other infringement of Constitutional rights they’re good with in the name of ‘good government’. Reducing the amount of contributions at the Fed level coupled with the overly restrictive approach in McCain-Feingold has only succeeded in sending campaign money into the hands of 527s and other unregulated forms. The fed caps and other states with caps have not resulted in less money nor less corruption, it just moved it to different places. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.