* A deluge coming? Maybe…
Added campaign cash could be flowing into contested area congressional primaries in a matter of days, thanks to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Illinois political observers predicted.
“I would imagine, based on the ruling today, you may see some corporate play within a week and a half,” said state Rep. Jim Durkin, a Westchester Republican, and a former candidate for U.S. Senate. “Clearly this is going to have a major impact on midterm elections next November. I can’t even fathom how much money is going to go into these elections.”
I wrote “maybe” because, at least with the unions, they’re so committed right now to funding the Democratic governor’s race that they won’t have the cash to get too involved with federal races. As for corporations, well, that could be a different story, although many companies are having tough times these days. Things will change by the fall campaign, however.
But it doesn’t appear that there will be any impact on Illinois’ state races…
The court’s ruling is predicted to similarly end corporate and union restrictions in 24 states. However, Illinois has no existing restrictions. Limits on such spending also were not part of a campaign finance overhaul that legislative Democrats and Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn approved last year.
Those laws, which begin with the 2012 campaign season, for the first time here limit how much individuals and businesses can give to candidates, but don’t restrict how much a company or union can spend on its own to support candidates.
Alexi Giannoulias on the ruling via press release…
“I profoundly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling. The very corporate special interests that got us into this economic mess should be given less power to influence elections, not more. I am proud to be the first U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois history to refuse money from corporate PACs and federal lobbyists because I believe that to get our economy back on track and create the next generation of good-paying jobs, we have to break the grip of corporate interests in Washington.
“My likely Republican opponent Mark Kirk doesn’t believe there is a problem. In his decade in Washington, he has taken more corporate PAC money than just about any other politician. He then voted their way on one reckless Bush economic policy after another. That is why he refused to disclose how he would have voted on the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor and that’s why he still won’t speak about it even today. He cannot be trusted to be an advocate for working families or the middle class.”
Mark Kirk responds to Giannoulias…
“According to state and federal records, Alexi Giannoulias took $504,700 from corporate and union Political Action Committeesas state treasurer and already accepted another $63,500 from special interest, business and union PACs in his bid for Senate,” Kirk spokesman Eric Elk said. “In the wake of Rod Blagojevich and Roland Burris, Illinois voters deserve better.”
* Related…
* Illinois Dems on Supreme Court Corporate Spending Decision
* Kirk, Giannoulias trade barbs over fundraising ruling
* Illinois Dem. Senate Debate Shaped by Massachusetts
* Scott Brown makes rounds in Senate: Moments before Brown walked into McCain’s second floor Russell office, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — the GOP front-runner for President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat — came through the crowd of reporters booming, “Illinois is next!” and entered the Arizona senator’s reception room.
* Congressman Mark Kirk Joins Senator John McCain in Washington to Welcome Senator-Elect Scott Brown
* Poll: Blunt leading Carnahan as Demo candidates sink: In Illinois, Sabato said, Democrats would have had a better chance in November had state Attorney General Lisa Madigan chosen to run. As for the GOP’s likely candidate, Rep. Mark Kirk, “He’s the perfect profile of a Republican who can win in a good year,” Sabato said.
* GOP victory in Massachusetts: Will it matter here?
* Phil Krone Says Wins by David Hoffman, Dan Hynes and Toni Preckwinkle Can Blunt “Scott Brown Affect” in Illinois
* 3 Dems debate on who’s the best ‘outsider’ to beat Kirk
* Democrat Senate hopefuls visit southern Illinois
* Gay Senate candidate denied participation in WTTW debate
- Greg B. - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 9:56 am:
I’m curious as how the ideas industry will be effected by the Supreme’s ruling because a lot of 527’s, some c4’s, think tanks and the such were funded at the national level by corporate gifts. They are by no means the biggest donors, but even 5%, 10% hit on a budget for a major organization can significantly impact outreach.
Having worked at a major corp in the telecom industry, I can also say there was no joy in paying lobbyists or in giving politicians money individually or via PAC. You go into business to make a profit, not pay off pols. A lot of companies probably won’t want to play. Others will fear retribution. It will take time for things to shake out.
- Brennan - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 9:57 am:
Does Giannoulias’ line about refusing to accept corporate and federal PAC money actually work?
It just invites the obvious. What about Springfield lobbyist cash?
- Team Sleep - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 9:57 am:
Rich, you are correct. Because of Illinois’ super-early primary date, we will see little impact. But with one of the most anticipated Senate races in the country, I’m sure we will see a large influx of corporate AND union dollars.
I don’t understand the Democrats’ universal opposition to this. Perhaps someone can prove me wrong, but how is this ruling to Democrats only a referendum on corporations? Labor unions, who are almost always staunch supports of Democrats, can also pour unlimited resources into attack ads.
- Team Sleep - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 10:06 am:
Greg, the proposed “banking taxes” will put your theory to a test.
- Chicago Cynic - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 10:06 am:
There are far more corporations with far deeper pockets than unions. This is the Supreme Court taking it’s big middle finger and placing it firmly on the scales in the Republicans direction. But afterall, most of these guys are the people who brought you Bush v Gore so is there really a surprise.
Oh, and regardless of partisan implications, it’s a DISASTER for our democracy. Good luck getting anything done corporations don’t want. Health Care? Buh bye. Financial reform? Buh bye. Ugh.
- Brennan - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 10:10 am:
Lobbying is an all-pay auction. You pay every step of the way for an outcome you don’t know. The only winners are lobbyists and elected officials.
- E Pluribus - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 10:15 am:
It’s like Alexi never thinks things through before he says them.
They guy who’s funding his political career with his personal fortune from his shady and failing family bank is going to stick with his obviously hypocritical line about PAC money AND double down with the Kirk-Bush line that fell flat BOTH times Dan Seals used it.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 10:18 am:
I, too, wonder how much corporate money is out there right now. Cash still seems pretty tight. Probably good for Kirk.
- Responsa - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 10:39 am:
I watched the WTTW forum with the 3 Dem Senate candidates. It was absolutely bizarre how little time they spent answering and convincing voters what each of them would be able to do for the state’s citizens in Washington. It was embarrassing how, on almost every question, they circled back to who could best beat Mark Kirk. That may be foremost in their own self-focused minds right now, but certainly is not foremost in the minds of Illinoisans. It was obvious several times by the look on her face that Carol Marin was amused by their ham-handedness but she did not curtail them as well as she might have. I would prefer one of them over the other two in a race against Kirk but the relative immaturity and lack of political chops and instincts came across on all three of them. The Demicratic party can not be too happy about the team they are fielding for this important race.
- well - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 10:49 am:
Giannoulias defines hypocrisy on this. Take a look at his D2s and see how much money he took in from corporations and unions for his state campaign fund.
- Greg B. - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 11:13 am:
Team Sleep, we’ll see. It’s hard to go up against the party in power. But I think you are correct that could be a good empirical test.
The idea that corporations will be monolithic in their opposition to doing things or getting things done is a fallacy. Health care is a great example. Big companies have long championed health care reforms along the lines of more govt. involvement. The legacy American auto industry chief among them. They were supporters of health care in the Clinton years. Insurance industry and pharmaceuticals put big bucks into the Coakley campaign in attempt to save health care reform. Remember that DC fundraiser at the wine bar.
Google, Microsoft and other content providers want the government to regulate the Internet at the expense of telecom and cable companies who are asserting private property rights over their networks.
Big defense contractors and industrial companies like Caterpillar have competing interests on the right and left within their own firms.
Big business will always seek to rig the game w/government to make it harder for competition to emerge from small companies.
I think it a fallacy that this is harmful to our democratic-republic.
- Segatari - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 11:27 am:
This is a great ruling. The government has no right to tell anyone or any organization what, when, where and how they buy ads to crititize the government. The ruling years ago on McCain Feingold saying it was okay to throw people in jail for buying ads 60 days for an election was an absolute travesty that this ruling overturns.
- 22skidoo - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 12:31 pm:
Hmmm…does Alex Giannoulias really think that handicapping corporate interests will end in creating good paying jobs for the next generation? The issue is a lot more complicated than that.
- anon - Friday, Jan 22, 10 @ 2:52 pm:
77% of investors (job creators) see Obama as anti-business in Bloomberg poll - looks like Alexi is following in his mentor’s footsteps.