OK, so where’s your plan?
Friday, May 18, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* A reform group reacts to a proposal that would lift campaign contributions for all candidates in a race when unlimited independent expenditures reach at least $250,000 in statewide races or $100,000 in other races…
Rey López-Calderón, executive director of the Chicago-based political reform group Common Cause, called the current bill “disgusting”.
“It’s an evisceration of the original bill,” López-Calderón said.
“This allows rich people and billionaires to game the system. There are so many ways you can get around it [campaign spending laws] now,” he added. “We’re trying to take the money out of politics.”
You wanna take money out of politics? OK, then go to government financing. Otherwise, campaign caps won’t do it. And, as I’ve said before, candidates ought to have the right to defend themselves when Big Money starts spending tons of cash against them.
* From a Daily Herald editorial…
That Currie’s plan is moving forward so easily is a troubling indication of lawmakers’ commitment to protections that went into effect only a little more than a year ago. Those protections emerged after years of study and debate, including hearings by the state House and Senate and a report by a wide-ranging task force set up by then-Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn. What could possibly be the hurry in dismantling them so quickly?
True, one might argue that removing caps now would help protect a candidate gearing up for the November election. But one could just as easily wonder about the degree to which PACs will emerge in Illinois legislative or municipal races over the next five months and whether they will actually have an impact so quickly in a given race.
And the degree to which they do or do not can be one factor in the longer-term, expansive study that needs to be undertaken on this issue. In a letter to the state House Wednesday, the CHANGE Illinois! coalition noted that the legislation establishing Illinois’ campaign funding limits created a task force specifically “to evaluate this kind of proposal.” That panel, the coalition said and we agree, “is the logical place to begin a discussion of how court decisions impact the limits system and how best to respond,”
The simple fact is that the reformers don’t have an alternative plan, so they’re trying to delay this one.
- irony of caps - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 11:11 am:
The irony of those who favor the current law, is that it actually INCREASES the power of big money. PACS, especially corporate and labor PACS, are now the dominant player in the market. Since John Q can only give $5k every cycle, he’s not that big of a player in a competitive races. What incentive does a politician have to do what they say? But since X Labor group or X Corp PAC can give $50k, all the politicians care about is catering to their needs, promising them the world, etc.
Also, the current law gives a ridiculous advantage to legislators (who wrote the law, again?) and penalizes constitutional officers. Let’s take this real-world example:
Kirk Dillard, Lisa Madigan, and Pat Quinn run for Governor in 2014. In the 4 years prior to the election, Kirk Dillard can raise $20k from individuals ($5k before 2012 primary, $5k before 2012 general, $5k before 2014 primary, $5k before 2014 general), and $200k from PACS (same breakdown but 10x). In that same period, the two constitutional officers are limited to half that much in donations from supporters, simply because they didn’t have an election in 2012. Now, some may say that legislators have to run campaigns in these gubernatorial off-years, but many don’t have competitive races (among them a number of gubernatorial hopefuls).
This system is as flawed as the legislature that passed it.
- Freeman - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 11:30 am:
If independent expenditures on behalf of your opponent increase, direct your big money donors to support independent expenditures on your behalf.
That seems like a much simpler solution than eliminating the caps, creating new legislation, etc.
- Irish - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 11:32 am:
It seems as though now matter what laws are passed it doesn’t take long for the PACs and major party candidates to find a way around it.
One of the things I would like to see and would help me in deciphering who is sending the message
being sent is to require that the names of the individuals and/or corporations or groups behind the PAC be shown in a mandated size and time period to make it plain to anyone viewing the ad who is behind it.
For example simply saying it is from Crossroads of America would not suffice, the names of those who make up Crossroads would have to be disclosed.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 11:32 am:
===direct your big money donors===
Candidates can’t legally do that.
- CircularFiringSquad - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 11:36 am:
Clearly the courts have shredded most of “reforms” enacted at any level. Reformers ought to go stand in the court house door way and whine and then they might want to wander over to Wrigley and review the impact of Super Pacs and campaign limits.
- Freeman - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 11:47 am:
This change also appears to benefit candidates with limited appeal but wealthy benefactors (friends, unions, business groups, etc.) by creating a simple loophole.
Right now, the caps are in place. If you have wealthy benefactors, they must go the independent expenditure route after a certain point. They simply can’t give you more than a specific amount.
If I understand the Currie legislation correctly, one simply needs to make sure those independent expenditures exceed the caps (likely via donations from your allies) and then all bets are off. It seems like a very clear path to circumvent the caps on direct donations.
Ultimately, Rich makes a great point. This muddling through with campaign caps but unlimited independent expenditures simply isn’t cutting it. Candidates need and deserve a way to defend themselves, but the current system is like a dam with more leaks than you can plug. We continue patching ineffectively.
- Robert - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 12:01 pm:
While I agree the reformers have no alternate plan, I believe their stance is simply to protest against anything that allows for any type of bigger money donation. What’s really going on with these caps vs. SuperPACs is that the millionaires who can afford to make $10k contributions, but don’t want to hassle with setting up a SuperPAC, are being shut out by the laws that allow for billionaires that can afford to give $10 million.
- Freeman - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 12:23 pm:
I wrote a bit loosely, broadly and recklessly above. There are, of course, important limitations and restrictions on campaign coordination, etc.. One cannot “direct” or even “suggest” such a thing to their supporters, and they should not.
My intent and perspective was that I would think and hope major supporters would be wise enough to realize this on their own. Or that perhaps someone not working with the campaign would care enough to step up in an uncoordinated fashion and direct the team of benefactors towards some sort of action. Essentially, “Our candidate is getting killed, we need to do something.”
Unfortunately, even if the supporters didn’t figure it out on their own, there are plenty of other people, partisans and consultants who would likely point it out for them once such loopholes went into effect. Even Joe Ricketts knows about independent expenditures, at least on the federal level.
Don’t know if that makes any sense or not, but won’t post again on this and clutter the board. Thanks for catching that and pointing it out, Rich. It’s vital to follow the rules in any race, otherwise you defeat the point of running.
- sangamo better blues - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 1:14 pm:
Caps are pointless. Money is going to flow no matter what. The focus should be on rigorous, near real-time disclosure requirements.
- goo goos go boo hoo - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 1:19 pm:
The reformers solution is what it always is: cry more.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 1:43 pm:
=== “This allows rich people and billionaires to game the system.” ===
Dear Common Cause,
Yeah, the billionaires are already doing that. Heard of “Citizens United”? Have you read how the Griffins are making a joke of your “landmark reforms”?
Rich is right. I’m right. Either get behind public financing (which pays for itself, since you guys claim corruption is costing us $500 million a year), or get into another line of work. Because pretending you can end the influence of money on politics without actually getting the money out of politics is only delaying real reform.
Unless, of course, your goal really is to delay real reform.
I love ya, but you’re clueless.
YDD
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 1:46 pm:
@sangamo -
“Disclosure” does not work.
Half the voters in Illinois can’t even tell you what Illinois’ largest source of tax revenue or single largest appropriation is.
You expect them to absorb the information they need to make an informed decision between candidates based on who is funding them?
I’ll bet you can’t even say, offhand, who the Top Ten contributors were to the person you voted for for Governor. Who can?
- titan - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 2:34 pm:
“You wanna take money out of politics? OK, then go to government financing.”
No. Not really.
If you want to get the money out of politics, you’d have to create a world where politics does not affect money (particularly, who gets and who loses money).
As long as politics affects money, money will flow into politics (just like it has all the way back to Roman times).
- sangamo better blues - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 2:38 pm:
@YDD - I have never found a realistic scenario where monetary influence can be removed from politics, even with publicly financed elections. Citizens United further drove that point home. All we are doing is creating more shadowy groups run by political insiders that know the loopholes of how to game the system. These groups have even less oversight and are further distanced from the eyes of watchdog groups and the media.
I really think accurate disclosure is the best we can hope for. The more caps and other limits we put in place, the more convoluted it becomes to try to track who is giving what. If a group wants to give $1 million to Candidate X, nothing is going to stop them from doing it.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 2:58 pm:
@Sangamo -
Under the public finance model, every penny of SuperPAC “Independent” expenditure money is matched dollar-for-dollar by the public so that candidates can’t be swift boated.
You stop guys like Rod Blagojevich from drowning candidates like Topinka simply by outspending their opponents five-to-one, regardless of where the money is coming from or what the message is.
Public financing is working from Maine to Arizona, there’s no reason it wouldn’t work here.
- sangamo better blues - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 3:36 pm:
@YDD -
I thought the US Supreme Court knocked down AZ’s public matching of IE spending last year.
- hisgirlfriday - Friday, May 18, 12 @ 3:55 pm:
As long as the Supreme Court refuses to defer to Congress and state legislatures when it comes to campaign finance regulations, the campaign finance reformers are tilting at windmills by attacking politicians on this.
Besides, direct contribution limits take money out of the disclosure framework and make it harder to establish quid pro quo support because the money doesn’t just evaporate, it just gets laundered through Super PACs running independent expenditures.