Back when the reformers demanded that state campaign contributions be capped, they said it would limit the dollars flowing into Illinois political funds.
But contributions have only barely decreased from four years ago, according to a search of the Illinois Board of Elections’ database. That may have as much to do with the economy these days compared with what it was in 2007, when Illinois’ unemployment rate was half what it is now.
The search shows that about $55.6 million was contributed to campaigns during the last six months of 2011, while the amount was about $57.3 million during the same period in 2007.
House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) raised $2.6 million for the three campaign funds he controls during the past three months. Madigan now has a total of $4 million in cash, which puts him far ahead of anybody else. Four years ago (at the same point in our national and state election cycles), Madigan had $1.3 million in cash. There were no contribution caps four years ago.
And a whole bunch of money is avoiding those caps by being spread around to newly formed political action committees and to some local committees that have never before seen much, if any, activity.
For a somewhat extreme example of what appears to be happening in our capped environment, let’s take a look at contributions made during the latest quarter by Ken and Anne Griffin, a wealthy Chicago couple who gave heavily to House Republicans in 2010.
Before I go further, though, I want to make it very clear that nothing the Griffins did was illegal or even unethical. It all appears to be well within the law. I only point this out to show how silly it is to think that we can cap all the money coming into the system. Money always finds a way around caps.
Individuals now are capped at $5,000 when donating directly to a candidate, but they can give up to $10,000 to PACs and political parties and PACs can contribute $50,000 to candidates. You probably can see where this is going.
The Griffins made $305,000 in contributions between Dec. 29 and Jan. 6, with the vast majority confined to the last three days of 2011. A bunch of that cash went to small, downstate Republican Party county committees.
For instance, the Griffins each contributed the maximum $10,000 to the Stark County Republican Central Committee on Dec. 29. The tiny county party reported raising just $5,700 in cash over the past three years until the Griffins came along.
Republican parties in Christian, Jefferson, Douglas, Logan and Richland counties all were showered with similar Griffin beneficence. Such political party committees can contribute unlimited amounts to candidates in a primary election.
But it wasn’t just a bunch of out-of-the-way county parties that benefited from the Griffins. A group called Empowering Children PAC was formed Dec. 6 and got $20,000 from the couple this month. The two officers of the committee are Andy McKenna (former state GOP chairman and gubernatorial candidate) and John Tillman (who runs the Illinois Policy Institute).
Mary Beth Weiss, of Hinsdale, also contributed $10,000 to Empowering Children PAC and gave another $10,000 to Illinois Liberty PAC, which previously was chaired by Tillman but now is chaired by former GOP gubernatorial candidate Dan Proft. The Griffins gave Illinois Liberty PAC their standard $10,000 each on Jan. 3.
The House Republican Leadership Committee was started Nov. 1 and raised $20,000 from, you guessed it, the Griffins. The fund is controlled by House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego). Another Cross-controlled group, Citizens to Change Illinois, took in $27,000 in the last quarter, with $20,000 coming from the Griffins.
Got all that? And there’s lots more, but my space is limited.
This stuff was a whole lot easier to track before Illinois was reformed. Nowadays, you need a rapidly updatable scorecard to keep track of all the moves.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 9:11 am:
On any level, I’d trade caps for instant and full disclosure.
- Lakefront Liberal - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 9:42 am:
Clearly the caps aren’t working but disclosure only works when someone takes time to actually look at and analyize what is being disclosed and then gets that information out to the voters in a meaningful way. I don’t see that happening much even with the information that we do have.
- Downstate - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 9:53 am:
Is there another loophole out there to be exploited?
A donation to a candidate is not tax deductible. But if, as a candidate, I set up a campaign fund (specific to an election year) and get friends to “loan” money to that fund, won’t my friends be able to write off the unpaid loans, when the fund is closed? As a result, they could take a deduction on their taxes.
Just asking…..
- MrJM - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 9:55 am:
True, but investing the time and effort in such analysis and dissemination would be very much in the interests of the other candidates/parties. If the funding information were available, that data would get crunched.
– MrJM
- reformer - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 10:30 am:
Transparency isn’t illuminating when there are hundreds or thousands of donations to wade through and analyze. Really, other than people who make their living doing so, how many citizens will take the considerable time to do it?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 10:34 am:
===Transparency isn’t illuminating when there are hundreds or thousands of donations to wade through and analyze.===
Electronic searches make that much easier.
However, under the new reform regime, you have to first know where to look. For instance, I’ve written about the Griffins several times, so I was curious what their latest moves were. That’s how I figured out what was going on. But the caps mean that money is gonna go all over the place, and without knowing what to look for, it’ll be impossible to completely track everything.
In other words, it’s look like transparency might be improved without caps.
- mark walker - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 10:44 am:
Every time we set new campaign contribution limits from known sources, we drive the money flow underground and out of sight to the public. Noone can argue that McCain-Feingold did anything but make money and influence of money in national politics worse.
Whenever we require more accountablility from candidates, and lack of “coordination” with PACs, we incent more negative and false campaigning from third parties, without the general public knowing who is responsible. At least when a political party gives money to a candidate, and that candidate’s campaign spends it, we know whom to try to hold accountable.
I am for quick and full disclosure at all levels. When we focus on actual limits, we should first target anything or anyone not a political party or candidate. That provides the best chance for transparency and accountability.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 10:49 am:
–Noone can argue that McCain-Feingold did anything but make money and influence of money in national politics worse.–
Worse than what’s happened since it got tossed by the Supremes? Unlimited, secret funding?
- mark walker - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 11:13 am:
@word: Agreed. Citizens United has made it much worse.
- just sayin' - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 12:09 pm:
A lot of people laughing at how gullible and politically clueless some of these rich people are. Amazing.
A lot of failed Republicans now laughing all the way to the bank.
- bored now - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 12:30 pm:
reformer: clearly, you’ve never seen a campaign that has a commitment to oppo. transparency is a gold mine, and the possibilities are literally limitless…
- ChiPolCon - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 3:37 pm:
Anyone that looked at this law closely understood that this would be the outcome. When all is said and done there will be no less money in the system.
- Cincinnatus - Monday, Jan 23, 12 @ 3:47 pm:
Rich,
when you are talking to the Elections people about their web site, suggest that A1s and D2s have links within them so you can go to a donor (or expenditure or whatever) and click the link to go straight to that person. .pdfs just don’t cut it in our searchable, online world.
Lakefront Liberal,
Sounds like a job for reporters and citizen action groups, no?
Wordslinger,
Amen. No caps and instant disclosure. Let a “sugar daddy” fund a campaign. Enough pandering for nickels and dimes, which wastes time and makes politician’s indebtedness even more of an issue.