* I wrote this weekly syndicated newspaper column to illuminate the drumbeat of propaganda about how Illinois is almost completely alone in how it regulates campaign contributions. It’s not. You can see all the state regulations by clicking here. And now, the column…

Editorial writers, crusading columnists and reformers say it all the time: Illinois is one of only a small handful of states that does not regulate campaign contributions.

That’s technically true, but you might be surprised at how little some other states actually regulate those contributions.

Gov. Pat Quinn’s independent reform commission has recommended that Illinois adopt the same basic contribution limits for individuals and political action committees as the federal government. But if contribution limits are supposed to get the influence of money out of politics, they’ve failed miserably in Washington, D.C., where money has become an obsession, and that obsession rules all.

According to a March analysis by the National Conference of State Legislatures, some states have few campaign contribution restrictions at all. Still others have much more stringent caps than proposed by the governor’s reform commission.

Neighboring Iowa, for instance, has no limit on individual contributions to candidates and doesn’t cap state party contributions, political action committee contributions or labor union contributions to candidates. However, Iowa does prohibit direct contributions by corporations. Here is a rundown of some other states:

• Texas, Pennsylvania and North Dakota prohibit direct corporate and union contributions to candidates, but have zero limits on any other contributions.

• Indiana restricts contributions by corporations and unions to $5,000 per year for statewide candidates and $2,000 per year for all other candidates. Individual, political action committee and state party contributions are not limited. Mississippi and Alabama have similar restrictions.

• Ohio limits individual and PAC contributions to a somewhat odd $11,395.56 per candidate, per election, while capping state party contributions to $642,709.58 for statewide candidates, $128,200.05 for state Senate candidates and $63,815.14 for state House candidates. Corporate and labor union contributions are prohibited.

• According to the NCSL report, a total of 13 states have no caps on individual contributions. Even more have no limits on state party contributions, although some states, like Kentucky, require that candidates other than gubernatorial candidates accept no more than half of their money from the state parties. Kansas is one of a small number of states that severely restricts state party contributions during primaries but imposes no limit on general election spending.

• California’s contribution limits are much higher than the proposed federal-style limits in Illinois, perhaps reflecting its large numbers of big media markets and the fact that limits are indexed to inflation. California caps individual, union and corporate contributions at $25,900 for gubernatorial candidates, $6,500 for other statewide candidates and $3,900 for legislative candidates. PAC contributions are roughly double those limits. But last month, the California’s Fair Political Practices Commission reported that candidates still have managed to raise almost $1.1 billion since the caps took effect in January of 2001. That total did not include independent expenditures, which would be a lot more money.

• Florida, another large state with multiple TV markets, has a $500 across-the-board limit on campaign contributions from all sources. But recent local reporting has shown how easy it is for special interests to get around those caps via “electioneering communications organizations.” One example was an alleged scheme by Anheuser Busch to bankroll favored candidates via a police union fund.

• The state of New York uses a mathematical formula to limit individual, PAC and union gubernatorial campaign contributions. The formula is based on the number of party members. New York also has a $100,000 limit on family member contributions to legislative candidates. State party contributions to candidates are prohibited in primaries and unlimited in general elections. Corporations are limited to $5,000 per year in aggregate.

• Michigan prohibits all corporate and union campaign contributions and has very low caps for all other contributions. Statewide candidate contributions are limited to $3,400 for individuals and many PACs per election cycle. Senate candidate contributions are capped at $1,000 and House contributions are limited to just $500. “Independent” campaign committees have much higher caps.

As you can plainly see, the range of limits is far broader than we ever are told. This issue is not as black and white as it’s usually portrayed. I actually favor contribution caps, but they should either be extremely low with lots of safeguards (unlike Florida) to really stamp out the money, or high enough that every check doesn’t become an obsession. Illinois Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno has proposed a $10,000 cap on individuals and PACs. That seems reasonable to me.

Another option I’d consider is public funding, which appears to be working in Connecticut…

In 2004, former Gov. John Rowland admitted he traded political favors for more than $100,000 in private flights to Las Vegas, Vermont vacations and repairs to his cottage from state businesses. He spent 10 months in prison. The year before, Connecticut Treasurer Paul Silvester was sentenced to four years in prison for taking bribes and kickbacks.

The state tried to change its colors by revamping the way elections are run. Lawmakers now can avoid soliciting donations from influential lobbyists, unions and businesses by using government funds to run their campaign.

Roughly three out of four of candidates for legislative office opted for the public funds, reducing the amount money they collected from powerful special interests that managed to dictate public policy. […]

One example that reformers offered is the new Connecticut lawmakers’ decision to approve a measure the previous General Assembly had rejected because of its ties to a powerful bottle industry. The move, which took back $20 million in unclaimed bottle deposits, only happened because legislators no longer relied on money from special interests, ethics watchdogs say.

* And I still believe the “fumigation” proposal will be changed, but maybe not in the House…

Capitol Fax, the insider Statehouse newsletter, reported Friday that the fumigation may only apply to “double exempt” employees, hires who are not even protected by the state personnel code.

But Madigan’s spokesman, Steve Brown, said no amendments are expected. That’s too bad because such an amendment would make the bill more palatable. If you went to work for Blagojevich as a double exempt employee after 2006, you had to know your career might not last long. That being said, Quinn ought to have the “testicular virility,” as Blagojevich once put it, to take care of business himself.

If they don’t change this bill, it’ll be irresponsible and way too disruptive to government. The governor’s office is expecting a change, however, so be patient.

* Related…

* Speak up on reform: Do it for 6 dead kids

* As campaign reform looms, Illinois candidates look to load up

* Political perks: Illinois state legislators’ raises, benefits under review

* Fed up with graft? You’re obligated to weigh in

* How to contact your lawmakers

* Statehouse Insider: OK of Madigan’s plan no sure thing

* In leadership controversy, Chicago State University needed Quinn’s help, didn’t get it

* UIC graduation: Gov. Pat Quinn urges graduates to commit to social causes, people

* Meeting planned to discuss Pontiac prison job openings

* Gov: Bring eyes,brain, heart to Howe

* Illinois after Rod Blagojevich: Pat Quinn’s first 100 days

* Governor looks ahead after 100 days in office

* Blago evidence would take 51 years to read: lawyers

* Blago lawyers agree to $110-an-hour limit

* Madigan going too far with guilt by association

* Britt: Madigan fumigates state government (Cartoon)

* Mike Lawrence: Mike Madigan must rise to the challenge

* Tom vs. Mike