|
Making a bad situation worse
Thursday, May 28, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller * I didn’t think it was possible to makecontribution caps even more harmful to challengers than they have proved to be in federal elections, but the Democratic agreement on campaign finance “reform” does just that. What a piece of work it is. They’re capping contributions by year, instead of by election cycle. What that means is, if you’re the governor, you can take a $10,000 PAC check every year for all four years of your term. Your challenger, however, won’t usually be gearing up for four years. The challenger will get maybe two bites of the apple, to your four. In federal elections, which are based on primary and general election cycles, the challenger and the incumbent get equal numbers of bites at that apple. The bill doesn’t cap in-kind contributions (goods, services, etc.) from caucus committees and state parties. Cash is capped at $90,000 a year, but in-kinds are not, so there really aren’t any caps at all. The House GOP does most of its spending via in-kinds already, for instance, so this will have zero impact on their standard operating procedure. I have more, but I’m saving it for subscribers. There are good points, too. A few that will be despised by some powerful Statehouse interests. Take a look through it yourself. …Adding… Reform commission chairman Pat Collins talks about the campaign caps bill… …Additionally… President Cullerton responds to some of Collins’ criticisms of campaign caps bill… * 9:00 pm - The Senate just passed HB 7 (Sen. Harmon’s campaign caps bill) 36-22-1
|
 |
|
|
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, May 28, 09 @ 6:20 pm:
Do they cap in-kinds from individuals or corporations?
- Old Elephant - Thursday, May 28, 09 @ 6:21 pm:
The new district office slush fund category is beyond belief. A very convenient way to launder campaign funds and co-mingle state resources with political funds.
No oversight by the state. No auditing. Just “trust me” I’m using all this money to support my district office.
- Boxing Cross - Thursday, May 28, 09 @ 7:25 pm:
And how will the SGOPs vote on the floor? Will the Circular Firing Squad say a “no” vote is really a vote for reform — yeah, right.
It certainly was nice for Professor Collins not to hand out grades — yet. Most assume he already has Ds and Fs marked in….anything higher would require him to head back to the ugly world of billable hours.
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, May 28, 09 @ 7:53 pm:
I give this bill a D-. It provides some progress, but not nearly enough.
The biggest loophole in this bill is for self-funders. It’s just a joke as it makes the rich even richer. Basically it makes the rich richer. If you put in 250,000, all limits are cancelled including for the self-funder. Since the self-funder is more likely to have rich friends anyway, this just improves their competitive advantage. Why not a high limit for the self-funded exception?
- SangamoGOP - Thursday, May 28, 09 @ 10:10 pm:
This is why caps and campaign fundraising done by the legislators makes no sense. It isn’t about reform. It is about incumbency protection.
- BGA Dave - Thursday, May 28, 09 @ 10:20 pm:
Didn’t the Senate also pass FOIA reform 58-1. At least a good day on FOIA.
- lake county democrat - Friday, May 29, 09 @ 6:29 am:
BGA — no, the FOIA bill, according to the Tribune, leaves the loopholes which the state frequently uses NOW to deny FOIA requests. It’s like taking a bad baseball team and replacing all the bench players but leaving the starters and the pitching rotation unchanged.
At what point will people realize that Mike Madigan is just as much of an enemy to democracy as Blago was? Blago had some good legislation, Madigan throws a bone on pay-to-play but can afford to: with pro-incumbant fundraising, gerrymandering and leadership longevity, who needs pay-to-play to keep their seat?
- Anonymous - Friday, May 29, 09 @ 8:00 am:
Amen, sagmogop. Like letting the foxes guard the chicken coop