* My weekly syndicated newspaper column takes a look at the campaign finance reform bill, which was passed by both chambers and is on its way to the governor…
While reform groups, newspaper editorial boards, Republicans and others blasted a campaign finance reform bill passed by the Illinois Senate last week, there were a couple of big surprises which went almost unnoticed.
For instance, powerful leaders of Statehouse special interest groups said they would be hobbled by the bill.
The legislation not only caps the amount of money that political action commitees can give to candidates, it also caps the cash that PACs can raise from its own members - an almost unheard of limit on political activity.
PACs are limited from accepting any contributions over $10,000 a year from “natural persons” and can’t take more than $20,000 per year from corporations, labor unions and associations.
The new rule would slam corporate PACs like the Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois, according to ABDI President Bill Olson, who testified against the legislation during the Senate Executive Committee last week. Olson’s PAC is one of the most influential and wealthy in the state, but its success relies on a relatively small number of large contributions from its members. Several other business groups are in the same situation.
PACs would also be severely limited on what are called “in-kind” donations. Quite a few groups, particularly labor unions, don’t just give money to candidates. They also assign paid staff to campaigns, run phone banks, do mailers to their own members and even air TV ads. But the bill is written in a way which would include in-kind donations in a PAC’s $10,000 annual campaign contribution cap to candidates. So, most of that will apparently end.
The legislation allows only a “natural person” to make independent expenditures on behalf of candidates, so that option - which is used extensively under the federal campaign system - would not be available to PACs and other groups in Illinois.
By severely limiting spending activities, the hugely powerful legislative leaders will be able to more thoroughly control the message they want delivered to voters and prevent outside interference in campaigns.
Groups like the pro-choice Personal PAC spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on direct mail and other advertising during election cycles to define candidates as pro-choice or anti-abortion. That independent spending has made Personal PAC one of the most feared political forces in the state. But much of the group’s spending would likely be banned by this new legislation, unless it, and others, can find a way around the law.
Republicans blasted the bill because they said it was designed to strengthen the already powerful legislative leaders. They have a point. Besides the PAC limitations, the bill allows leaders like the House Speaker and the Senate President to make unlimited in-kind contributions. Their cash donations would be limited to $90,000 a year, but that means a Senate incumbent with a four-year term could still receive as much as $360,000 in cash from his or her leader.
The use of annual limits in the bill also came under fire by reformers.
Campaign contribution caps are often criticized as unfair to challengers because they limit how much money they can raise against incumbents who often have far more ties to the monied interests. On the federal level, though, contributions are capped per election cycle. For instance, PACs can only give $5,000 to a federal candidate for a primary race, even if that primary is for a US Senator who won’t run again until five years from now.
But under this state legislation, the caps are annual. That means a sitting governor can raise $10,000 every year for four years from a single PAC. Since his or her challenger wouldn’t likely gear up to run until the year before an election, a challenger would only get two, at most, bites from the same PAC apple, putting that person at a distinct disadvantage.
Some of the bill is quite good. But these annual caps are a horrible abuse of power by incumbents.
* And I never got around to posting anything about this topic last night…
A plan to fire 750 state workers and appointees brought on the payroll under two former governors hit a snag in the final hours of the legislative session Sunday.
The proposal, Senate Bill 1333, was put together by top Democratic leaders to help Gov. Pat Quinn get rid of people in jobs considered the most politically connected in state government.
Senators began debating the measure late Sunday, but some asked whether it went too far. […]
But before the debate was finished, Senate President John Cullerton delayed action so senators could turn to other pressing matters, including a new state budget, and the bill did not come up for consideration again before the legislature’s midnight deadline to wrap up work.
* Related…
* Ill. Senate OKs change in lawmakers’ pay process
* Illinois lawmakers vote to freeze cost-of-living increases
* Senate sends governor lawmaker furloughs
* Senator defends pay, GOP has fun
* Governor Go-along
* Lawmakers unload on reform panel …
* … But FOIA rewrite done right
* Crooked pols like fish in a barrel
* Ill. lawmakers OK first-ever campaign contribution limits
* Partisan support helps send reform bill to governor’s desk
* House passes plan to cap contributions
* Ill. passes first-ever campaign limits; critics call bill weak
* Campaign finance reform headed to the gov
- Ghost - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 10:12 am:
its a good thing we are pushing to “reform”, otherwise we would not have this: “By severely limiting spending activities, the hugely powerful legislative leaders will be able to more thoroughly control the message they want delivered to voters and prevent outside interference in campaigns.”
Progress is not always measured by change, it is possible to move backwards. ANd none of this would have kept Ryan or Blao from being corrupt, it would have just changed how they operate.
Consider this; we decide to require a bill to be present for three days before ti can be passed as an old safeguard or refomr of the system. All that happened is we developed the process for shell bills to get around this requirmenet. Most reform just spursdifferent workarounds. In the end, we create a complex system that is difficult to impossible for those new to politics to naviagte and in the end, our reforms just helpt to entrench established politicos and deter outsiders from entering the race.
- steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 10:38 am:
One of the hard things I learned in my time working for the State is that the sincere efforts of talented, well intentioned people can make things worse. I was guilty of it several times before I began to fully appreciate this. Never say, “well, it couldn’t get worse.” Yes it could.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 10:45 am:
–The legislation not only caps the amount of money that political action commitees can give to candidates, it also caps the cash that PACs can raise from its own members - an almost unheard of limit on political activity.–
This couldn’t possibly pass 1st Amendment muster,
- steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 10:51 am:
WS-could that possibly have been the intent?
- hmmm - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 10:58 am:
When you find out who actually wrote the bill you will find your answer.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 10:59 am:
Steve, the thought crossed my mind.
- Will - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 11:06 am:
Won’t this give an advantage to union PACs that raise most of their fund in small donations from their members as opposed to corporate PACs that are often funded by large donations from fewer individuals or companies?
The main impact of this bill will probably be the creation of many new PACs to get around the limits.
- hmmm - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 11:26 am:
Will - each “entity” may establish one political action committee. Just a thought, but I can see each “entity” splintering off into several separate entities which will allow additional pacs.
- Ghost - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 12:39 pm:
I think I understand now the real symbolism behind the game PAC man….
- the Other Anonymous - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 1:37 pm:
Rich, you write in your column:
The legislation not only caps the amount of money that political action commitees can give to candidates, it also caps the cash that PACs can raise from its own members - an almost unheard of limit on political activity.
Maybe I misunderstood, but federal PACS have a $5,000 contribution limit — and have had a contribution limit, I believe, since they were first recognized by federal law in 1972.
Am I missing something? This doesn’t seem unprecedented.
- the Other Anonymous - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 1:42 pm:
To clarify my earlier post: corporations are prohibited from contributing to a PAC, and individuals are limited to $5,000 contributions to a PAC.
Then the PAC also faces limits on the amount of its contributions to candidates. So the federal law limits contributions to PACs, as well as contributions from PACs.
- JonShibleyFan - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 2:54 pm:
Others have questioned the constitutionality of the PAC limits, so I’ll let that thread go, though it is on my mind.
What I want to know is, what is stopping the PACs from simply splitting up into a number of regional or issue-specific PACs?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 3:05 pm:
Someone help me out here?
Isn’t it the goal of “reform” to limit the influence of special interest groups on political campaigns and thus public policy making?
- Ghost - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 3:47 pm:
YDD ahh there in lies the semnatical rub. if you describe the special interest groups as pushing their agendas to influence outcomes, then it sounds like somethign to stop. But if you describe the special interests as watchdogs over select issues that impact small groups who might otherwise be rough shod over; and that they focus on getting the word out so that governemtn can not operate in secrecy; then quieting their voices seems more orwellian then reformish.
Reality of course is that grey area that lies in between one position and the other. Special interests operate to provide influence on behalf of small groups. The watchdog effect of these groups is good, although the concern that some well funded ones have too much influence at the expense of the rest of us is also valid.
I am concenced anytime we limit the ability to get the word out on what the governemnt is doing, even if the group reporting the information has an agenda. After all, the governemnt has its own agenda as well.
With the reduction in newspaper reporters we are probably more dependent on special interests, ironically enough, for “information”, tainted as it may be. Overal transparency seems more cirtical then silencing voices.
- Dem observer - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 3:47 pm:
= That independent spending has made Personal PAC one of the most feared political forces in the state. But much of the group’s spending would likely be banned by this new legislation, unless it, and others, can find a way around the law.=
I thought the Supreme Court has already established the unconstitutionality of limits on independent expenditures. At the federal level, independent spending is widespread and outside the federal individual limits.
- ZC - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 5:47 pm:
What the Supreme Court will or will not allow now in terms of independent expenditures and funding is totally up in the air with the Roberts court. Sandra Day O Connor was the key 5th vote for a pro-campaign finance reform agenda and now that she is replaced by Alito, this Court is much more deregulatory. Any provision on restricting independent expenditures by third parties in IL is very susceptible to a federal constitutional challenge in a way that wasn’t true just a few years before.
But, it’s very well established in precedent that you CAN limit the amount individuals can contribute to PACs. That goes way back. In federal laws there are max caps on how much a person can give to a labor or corporate PAC, and additional restrictions on corporations and labor unions in terms of how they can solicit donations for their PACs. No Constitutional fouls there, even under (probably) a Roberts court.
- ZC - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 5:50 pm:
Dem Observer,
There are no limits on the total amount of independent expenditures but McCain-Feingold put some limits on how corporations and labor unions and political parties are allowed to collect money to pay for those expenditures. But under the Roberts court, those kinds of caps may eventually be out the window.
- DaveM - Monday, Jun 1, 09 @ 8:36 pm:
I’m still disappointed that HB 2234/SB 1716 didn’t make it to a vote.