* The leadership contribution cap idea is taken as a given by editorial writers and pundits who believe that the reform would vastly improve the Springfield climate. I’m not so sure…

For a political system that is supposed to operate with checks and balances, Illinois has too many big money checks and not enough balance.

We’re referring to a loophole in campaign finance reform enacted last year that limits private donations and primary-election spending, but that lets state parties and legislative leaders dole out all the money they want to favored candidates in general elections. […]

Ideally, support for candidates in a state legislative race should come from people living in the district. But as the law now stands, only the state parties and legislative leaders —through their political action committees —may donate unlimited amounts. Everyone else is relegated to the sidelines in what amounts to proxy wars between the state’s top politicians.

That’s why the Legislature should advance two bills supported by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform — one in the Senate and one in the House — that would cap donations from political parties and legislative leaders in general elections. The limits would be set at $300,000 for a statewide race and $85,000 for individual House and Senate candidates. House Minority Leader Tom Cross is backing a separate bill that would set even lower limits.

Less money from leaders to candidates would necessarily mean less influence by leaders, right? Well, yeah, but this won’t accomplish that at all.

Instead of focusing on pie in the sky fantasies about how things maybe should be run, let’s look at how things actually do run.

Most of the money spent in these races is on direct mail and TV. Almost all the direct mail sent out by House and Senate Democratic candidates is funneled through the Democratic Party of Illinois account in order to obtain a substantial postage discount. The Republicans do the same thing through the Illinois Republican Party. The caucus leaders also spend a lot of TV dollars on behalf of candidates.

Take, for instance, Sen. John Mulroe (D-Chicago). Mulroe “raised” $364K in cash and received another $385K in in-kind contributions during the last six months of 2010. Most of those in-kinds were from DPI and the Senate Democratic Victory Fund. The mailers said “Paid for by the Democratic Party of Illinois” and the cable TV ads said they were “Paid for by the Senate Democratic Victory Fund.”

You could legally cap the in-kind cash spent by parties and caucus leaders. But you cannot legally cap the cash they can spend on behalf of their candidates via what are known as “independent expenditures.”

Look at what happens in federal races. The big dogs swoop down and spend loads of cash on TV, radio and mail via independent expenditures. Candidates are prohibited by law from even knowing about that spending. Candidates cannot, by law, control the message. On one hand, it gives them an easy way out if the DC types go way over the top. But on the other hand, they have literally no say in how money is being spent on their behalf.

Do you see what I’m getting at here?

If Illinois caps leader and party contributions, then rank and file candidates will - by force of law - have even less input on their races than they do now (and they don’t have a whole lot of input now). The leaders won’t stop spending money. The DC model already proves that. They’ll just spend money without consulting the candidates whatsoever, because they’ll be barred by law from doing so. In-kind expenditures with messages like “Paid for by DPI,” will simply be replaced by independent expenditures with messages like “Paid for by DPI,” and few in the voting public will ever notice the difference.

I’m figuring that Leader Cross is well aware of this reality. Kudos to him for recognizing a very easy press pop. But his idea won’t reform a thing. If anything, leadership power will only become more concentrated.

Everybody wants an easy solution. There are none. Remember the Cutback Amendment? It was supposed to be an easy way of breaking up the Statehouse power institutions. Instead, it built the career of the longest-serving House Speaker in US history.

Money and power will always find a way.

* Speaking of independent expenditures, I told subscribers about this weeks ago…

On Jan. 31, three co-chairmen of Ms. Braun’s campaign finance committee — Elzie Higginbottom, Cecil Butler and Leon Finney Jr. — formed a political group called United Communities of Chicago Inc. The group soon reported accepting checks from donors who already had given the maximum amount permitted under the new law to the Carol for Chicago fund, Ms. Braun’s campaign committee, according to state records.

Mr. Finney and another prominent Braun supporter, John W. Rogers Jr., head of Ariel Investments, had contributed $5,000 each to Carol for Chicago on Jan. 19. Mr. Rogers gave another $5,000 to United Communities of Chicago on Feb. 8, and Mr. Finney donated a total of $8,500 to the group before the election.

The Braun campaign isn’t required to report this to the state because it’s an independent expenditure, so, legally, she can have no role in it. How three members of Carol Moseley Braun’s campaign finance committee could do this “independently” is another question, however. But even the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform wasn’t sure whether it was a violation or not when I checked with them last month.

* Also, contribution bundling is done all the time at the federal level, so it’s no big surprise that it’s now happening under our new DC-modeled campaign reform law…

The Puigs, longtime masonry contractors, pooled $30,000 for Mr. Chico’s ultimately unsuccessful campaign in one day in early February, writing $5,000 checks in the names of six separately incorporated, family-owned businesses, state and city records show. […]

Another situation that arose in the mayoral race involved 10 people affiliated with the Jimmy John’s restaurant chain, each of whom contributed $5,000 to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign less than two weeks before Mr. Emanuel won the election. When Crain’s Chicago Business asked Mr. Emanuel’s aides about those donations, a spokesman for the campaign said the $50,000 from those donors had been returned “out of an abundance of caution and to avoid even the suggestion of impropriety.”

Direct corporate contributions are prohibited under federal law, so that first item about the Puig family wouldn’t happen at the DC level, probably for that very reason. But banning corporate contributions wouldn’t be easy here. And, frankly, they could just write checks from individual family members to get around a ban if it was ever enacted.

Also, I’m betting that the Jimmy John’s contributions were more likely returned because of the owner’s threat to move his corporate headquarters out of Illinois than any worry over a legal violation. As long as it was their own cash, that bundling was perfectly legal under our new law.

* And speaking of good intentions, while this has nothing to do with campaign reform, it’s a reform that appears to be backfiring. The Chicago Public Schools is feeding more breakfasts to more children, but they’re now doing it during classroom hours, instead of before school…

So chew on this: children are losing, perhaps, 20 minutes each day. That’s 57 hours over 170 school days, or more than 10 days — of instructional time.

* Related…

* Legislative Leaders and Parties Pay for 63% of Spending in Hot Races

* Chart: 2010 Targeted Legislative Races Total Expenditures and Leader/Party Support

* Appointments lag to State Board of Elections

* Let the sun shine in