40 Comments - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:26 pm: Oh, God no. Limitations on money are limitations on speech. Has not the Citizens United case taught any lesson? If you want real reform, remove campaign contribution limits (so our elected officials don’t have to spend almost every minute of their day pandering for money) along with INSTANT DISCLOSURE of all donations. Let sunlight in on the process, it is the only disinfectant. - just sayin' - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:27 pm: Oh god no. Think of being forced to pay for the campaigns of even more Scott Lee Cohen-type candidates. It would be a magnet for the worst of the worst and we’ve already got enough problems and lousy candidates in this state. - Levois - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:29 pm: No, I believe if citizens support a particular campaign they should be able to donate as much money as they would like in a campaign. Who’s to say that publicly financed campaigns won’t favor those candidates who’s played nice with the prevailing government? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:30 pm: ===If you want real reform, remove campaign contribution limits=== There are few now. They don’t kick in until the 2012 cycle. - Matt - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:37 pm: It’s a pretty tough issue, but I lean towards potentially supporting it. The other solutions presented are, as Rich pointed out empirically denied. More limits? Less Limits? Greater transparency? All have been tried in a variety of combinations and one have done anything but make a dent in the problem. Disclosure only goes so far. Would we have had a Blagojevich, a Ryan, or any other scandals with publicly funded elections? I haven’t really studied too much into the issue, but it seems like it would really pull the motivation for so much corruption that hurts average citizens. But then again… I definitely hear the arguments relating to freedom of speech, and then again, the thought of my taxpayer money going to a few certain candidates makes me cringe. - MKA1985 - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:39 pm: I would support it, if it truly did even the playing field and helped campaigns become more about policy ideas instead of who’s raised more money. - Draznnl (Rhymes with orange) - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:39 pm: Yes. There is no limitation on speech as long as the law is written to allow anyone who chooses to opt out of public financing. We will always have wackos in the political system - the lack of public financing has not kept them out so far. States with public financing (and US presidential campaigns) have not shown any significant increase in fringe candidates since their laws were adopted. Public financing will, however, free elected officials from the perpetual fundraising cycle and allow them to focus on their official duties without concern for how some official action will be perceived by someone with a large checkbook. - Pat collins - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:44 pm: And what do you cut when the state is hard pressed like it is now to pay for elections? . Public financing will, however, free elected officials from the perpetual fundraising cycle Oh? Does it work that way in Presidential elections? Especially in primaries? - Quinn T. Sential - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:45 pm: The task force appears to have 7 members; 4 appointed by Democrats, and three appointed by Republicans. While I haven’t looked at the legislation, I can only assume that it called for this structure. As a consequence the outcome of their service has already been pre-determined. Something more equitable may have called for 3 appointments each; with the 7th appointment serving as the Chair, to come from the IL Supreme Court, requiring a 2/3’s vote of all justices for confirmation. Both parties in the IL Supreme Court have had a sufficient test of the campaign finance issue to recognize the strengths and weaknesses in the current system, and they have also have a vested interest in the outcome of any campaign finance changes. As it stands; on the surface, this looks like another “Blue Ribbon” sham panel, with Dawn Clark Netsch playing the part of Abner Mikva in this latest performance. Looks good for public posturing; but beyond that a complete waste of time, energy and resources. - SerialCampaigner - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:46 pm: I want to point out one name on that - Sen. Don Harmon. That guy is going to be a star in this state so for those of you who don’t want contribution limits, start donating early and often haha - phocion - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:48 pm: As long as the State is only selecting some who may contribute, and how much they can contribute, then the system currently picks who can have first amendment rights and who may not. Accordingly, to clean up the mess, no one should be allowed to contribute and campaigns should rely solely upon public funding. - Conservative Veteran - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:50 pm: No, I don’t support it. I hope that none of my tax money will be given to the campaigns of Democrats, and this state probably has some Democrats who hope that none of their tax money will be given to the campaigns of Republicans. - Wumpus - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:54 pm: No, Scott Lee Cohen (who-a knifer) and the Wig guy deserve no public funding besides prison and mental institutions. Fundraising is a fgreat way to determine who the people/corporations/unions want to run. - Frtchy - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 12:58 pm: The US Supreme Court is making public financing harder, and with Harmon and Currie on this Task Force nobody should hold their breath waiting for it in Illinois. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 1:03 pm: Some common objections and my response: === Oh, God no. Limitations on money are limitations on speech. Has not the Citizens United case taught any lesson? === Only if you believe that the 1st Amendment includes the right to drown out any opposing voices. More importantly, corporations exist for one purpose: to make money. Ergo any “campaign” ads run by corporations are by definition commercial speech, not political speech, and therefore not entitled to the same protections as actual human citizens. === Oh god no. Think of being forced to pay for the campaigns of even more Scott Lee Cohen-type candidates. It would be a magnet for the worst of the worst and we’ve already got enough problems and lousy candidates in this state. === The only reason Cohen won, or was even a ’serious’ candidate, is that we do not have serious campaign finance limits or public financing. In a world where Art Turner, Tom Castillo and others can get matching funds for every dime that Cohen spends, his campaign has no chance. As someone who has seen the system work from both the inside and out, who has defended and defeated entrenched incumbents, I can assure you that public financing is the only long-term way to ensure a level playing field. - Obamarama - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 1:03 pm: No. It looks bad. The general public will look at it as the government paying politicians to be politicians. Even though that is a pretty stupid lens to look at public financing through, I don’t think we need to attract further misguided anger from the electorate. - Ahoy - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 1:06 pm: Yes, I would. It helps dilute the influence of special interests. I don’t think special interest is a bad thing, but they money some of them throw at lawmakers is legal bribery. Also, in the end it will be much cheaper to have state financed elections if lawmakers don’t owe anyone but voters. All of this being said, state financed elections need to be clean and not favor incumbents. We still need redistricting reform. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 1:07 pm: I know lots of political consultants who would love public financing of elections… it’s the consultant full-employment act. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 1:09 pm: So we have to convince incumbents to vote into law a system where their campaigns are paid by taxing citizens? Why would we need to convince them? If it was a great idea to them, then it would already be law. When it comes to running campaigns, incumbents know better than anyone else. So, I’m not the one to ask - Michael J. Madigan is. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 1:14 pm: You can also bet your bottom dollar that there will be eligibility requirements on candidates in order to receive public financing. Any bets on whether those requirements will favor the status quo, or at least party-favored candidates? Instant transparency on campaign donations is the only answer. The media and the citizenry (and the opposing candidate) will then act as the watchdogs. If a guy like Rezko donates, and the donation cannot be masked by playing games with the date of the disclosure, you can bet there would be a stink. Politicians will take more care on from whom they accept donations, and the voters will be able to make informed decisions if the watchdogs do their work. - Irish - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 1:31 pm: No. For every rule that is made or restriction that is placed on candidates the corrupt ones will find a way around it. Some will get caught others will not. Who would administrate this public fund? If the fund were in place today, in the current political situation, who do you see being in the position that would probably oversee the fund that would not be under control of the Chairman of the Democratic Party? So what has it changed? Nothing. The only thing that will clean up Illinois politics is honest, ethical, trustworthy, dedicated, politicians/office holders. Or a populace that becomes informed, stays informed, and is involved. Sadly I see see neither holding a majority in the future of the State. - Thoughts... - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 1:43 pm: I think publicly financed campaigns are excellent in theory, for many of the same reasons YDD stated above. I do see some issues in the practice, however. For instance, I think it’d be difficult to do at anything lower than a statewide level. Example: why should we spend taxpayer money on a Dem in Roger Eddy’s district when that Dem is unlikely to get more than 35% of the vote (or conversely, spend it on a R in a city district)? And yet, overall, I think the legislative level is where public financing would be most helpful, alleviating the need to raise money for the perpetual election cycles and taking special interest dollars out of the equation for people who actually vote on and sponsor legislation. In the end though, I tend to go back to complete openness. No limits, 24-hour reporting (with teeth - failure results in a fine equal to the contribution), weekly expenditure reporting, etc. I generally disagree with 99% of what Cincinattus says, but sunshine really is the best disinfectant. - downstate hack - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 1:52 pm: No to public finance. Yes to crystal clear and immediate disclosure. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 1:59 pm: Thoughts said, “… alleviating the need to raise money for the perpetual election cycles…” That is a result of current limits on campaign donations! These guys have to run around getting nickel and dime amounts when a single donor may be willing to finance the candidate, or several heavy hitters may want to do the job. The problem is that a candidate is prohibited from taking enough money from a few people to fund his campaign. If a few big donations were able to be received, and openly disclosed immediately, the candidates might be able to spend more time on the tasks we elected them to do, and less time pandering for dollars. And immediate disclosure would allow people like Rich to point out who is donating to candidates. With this information in hand, the voters can then decide for themselves whether or not to vote for a candidate. SUNSHINE! - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 2:27 pm: Mike Kasper on this “independent” panel? Are you kidding me? No disrespect to Mike, but this is a spectacular example of why reformers who view “independent panels” as a panacea are horribly misguided. Kasper won’t do anything without the blessing of the Speaker and everybody knows it. Sounds like a great recipe for real change. Oh, and lest I be accused of not answering the question, I would support public financing as a last resort. I’d much rather make free tv time for political candidates as a condition for FCC licensing, provided certain measures of political support are met. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 2:30 pm: ===While I haven’t looked at the legislation, I can only assume that it called for this structure. === That’s why you should at least glance at the legislation before popping off. The Republicans haven’t appointed everybody yet. - GetOverIt - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 2:40 pm: Mike Kasper aka Madigan’s hitman!!!! Really? Oh, this is gonna be some group and they will be good…for nothing. - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 2:52 pm: Cincinattus, Sunshine alone ain’t gonna cut it because too often there’s adequate disclosure but so much information that it’s like a tree falling in the forest. Let me give you a great example. February 2002. In the wake of 9/11, Rod Blagojevich was one of a handful of Dems who voted against federalizing airport security workers. He had no good explanation, though most folks assumed it was at the behest of SEIU which was close to Dick Mell. A few weeks later, campaign finance reports came out showing that shortly after his vote, Rod received a check for $265,000 from SEIU (the first of many huge SEIU checks). The vote was bought and paid for. The contribution was fully disclosed, but the only notice or press mention around it was in paragraph 22 of the Sun-Times campaign finance story. It was a tree falling in the forest. Real regulations are required. Sunshine is simply not enough. Rather than campaign finance, perhaps we could simply provide adequate resources for investigations and enforcement with some serious teeth to the elections commission. Now THAT would make a difference. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 3:39 pm: Chicago Cynic, Not only full disclosure, but INSTANT disclosure, as I pointed out in an earlier post. If the day after Rod’s SEIU contribution was made that a website (easily searchable) showed the contribution, watchdogs could have hounded the [Please, don’t swear in comments - Rich]. I may be naive, but I think that the single best change that can be made in campaign finance reform is instant disclosure. The second thing to change is lifting any cap on donation amounts. With this interweb thingy, and the number of people with a hair up their butts about most every candidate and politician, and with opposing candidates searching for things to differentiate themselves from their opponents, I think that influence would be lessened in that environment. Additional plus: It is a simple proposal that is easy to implement and monitor. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 4:32 pm: Rich, Henceforth, anytime I mention Rod in a sentence, you and your readers can assume I have a swearword modifier implied and I won’t need to type it. Won’t happen again (hopefully). - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 4:33 pm: lol In private converstations, there’s a word I almost always use right before “Rod.” To me, his initials are FRB. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 4:40 pm: If we’re going to have public financing, maybe they can put it in place before the special election for the US Senate race. If the courts are going to impose that freaking joke on us all, I want to be part of it. - Quinn T. Sential - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 5:06 pm: {That’s why you should at least glance at the legislation before popping off. The Republicans haven’t appointed everybody yet.} You’re right; now that I have looked at the legislation it simply reinforces my earlier opinion. While the numbers are different; (7 vs. 11) the outcome is actually worse in its inequity then previously presumed. 7 appointees by the Chicago Democratic machine, and 4 appointees by suburban Republican officials. This “Task Force” will also be racing ahead by “moving at the speed of government” with part of the final report due in 2015. With a 5 year time-line the actuarial tables suggest that some Task Force Members may not even see the Finish Line on this initiative, so it would probably be best to accentuate and highlight their contributions to the process early on, and then they can be honored in posthumously for their valuable contributions to this file shelf dust collecting future final report. - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 5:52 pm: FRB? I like that. Absolutely appropriate. Besides, if you change the first word from an adjective to a verb, you’re probably going to help prepare our esteemed former governor for his new life. - CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 5:59 pm: QTS aka Mr Magoo The task force was a brain storm from the reformers (Collins, Raney et al) study up - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 6:16 pm: I like the idea of publicly funded campaigns but still haven’t seen a detailed plan that works in practice. The simple fact is not all candidates are equal. They shouldn’t all get an equal amount of money. But once you start funding them unequally, the howls begin, and rightfully so. Also, as unsavory as it can be, raising donations is a demonstration of political support. Generally speaking, those who can raise a lot of money tend to have a lot of support (of course there are exceptions). Maybe this commission can come up with a plan that solves some of the problems, but I doubt it. (On another thread, Rich was up to his predictable Nebraska bashing. But NE has an odd system where a candidate who spends substantially more than an opponent pays a fee that goes back to his opponent(s) to level the financial playing field. Sort of like the luxury tax in pro-sports. Like I said, it sounds odd, but maybe it’s something to consider). - HatShopGirl - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 6:27 pm: I do not support Dawn Clark Netsch to represent Democrat interests. When she was a law professor, she referred to her then-student, James R. Thompson, as “HER TEACHER”. She was an enabler of James R. Thompson’s, allowing him to get a degree through his personal relationship with a law professor and without attending any classes. James R. Thompson never earned his law degree. That’s why he always was a lousy lawyer, lousey prosecutor, lousey legislator, lousey Governor, and a lousey choice on Bush I’s short-list of potential Veeps. Dawn Clark Netsch was and still is Jim Thompson’s student, supporter and enabler. Two-thumbs down on Dawn. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 8:47 pm: Bet he knows how to spell “lousy”. lol - Returning Dog - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 9:51 pm: @ Rich- FRB? The ‘F’ stands for Felon, right!? That’s gotta be it… - wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 22, 10 @ 10:56 pm: No. Everybody has a right to jump in lay down their line, but there are plenty I’d rather not pay to participate. There are plenty I’d pay to stay out. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.