Question of the day
Thursday, Jun 7, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Bill Knight, the deputy director of the journalism program at Western Illinois University, has a new column about a bill that passed both chambers which would remove campaign contribution caps when independent expenditures reach $250,000 in a statewide election or $100,000 in other races…
“Citizens throughout Illinois were angered by Rod Blagojevich’s corrupt actions and the state’s history of corrupt agreements involving political contributions, and voters demanded reform of Illinois’ loose campaign finance regulations, which allowed unlimited contributions to all candidates,” [Brian Gladstein, the executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform] said. “This bill would be a step backwards and open the door to more corruption in the future.”
Democrats argued that they need limits lifted to make campaigns “fairer,” by leveling the playing field against SuperPACs. They’re concerned after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” decision and an Illinois court ruling in March that the federal case applies to Illinois, too, that they need to respond if a SuperPAC spends a lot of money against them. […]
Various opponents of the bill note that Illinois’ first campaign-finance reform restricting political action committees to $50,000 hasn’t had a chance to work yet.
“This is an inappropriate and hasty response to recent court decisions which have enabled the creation of so-called SuperPACs,” Gladstein said. “The proposal’s adoption by the General Assembly comes less than two years after Illinois’ corruption-fighting campaign contribution limits system went into effect. SB 3722 would allow a return to the environment that allowed corruption to flourish in our too-recent past, if the governor signs it.
“There are other ways to address the issue of independent expenditure committees, such as better and stronger definitions to what it means to be coordinating with a candidate,” Gladstein continued. [Emphasis added.]
* From the current state law banning coordination…
Each quarterly report shall include the following information regarding any independent expenditures made during the reporting period: (1) the full name and mailing address of each person to whom an expenditure in excess of $150 has been made in connection with an independent expenditure; (2) the amount, date, and purpose of such expenditure; (3) a statement whether the independent expenditure was in support of or in opposition to a particular candidate; (4) the name of the candidate; (5) the office and, when applicable, district, sought by the candidate; and (6) a certification, under penalty of perjury, that such expenditure was not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or any authorized committee or agent of such committee. [Emphasis added.]
* The Question: Should Gov. Pat Quinn sign the bill lifting contribution caps when bigtime independent money is spent? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- Capitol View - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 11:48 am:
yes - with an automatic repealer whenever the Citizens United case is superceded by federal law or overturned by the US Supreme Court.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 11:54 am:
Not just a no– a HELL NO.
Blago is very, very far from the only corrupt politico here. There is a reason for the money restrictions. If the Dems are worried about big conservative money, then they can keep going back to labor dollars and foot soldiers– oh, wait, they do that anyway. :/
- Willie Stark - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 12:00 pm:
Forgive the harshness, but the goo-goos are useful idiots for the billionaires trying to buy our democracy. The whole situation stinks, but the answer isn’t unilateral disarmament or forcing some candidates to use peashooters while Super PACs use bazookas, just so the “reformers” can feel good about themselves for being among the righteous in this wicked world. Even with caps listed, the entity whose expenditures blew the cap is still probably going to outspend the party whose cap has been lifted.
Also, agree with Capitol View’s comment.
- CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 12:16 pm:
Dear Anon 11:54 :
Wake up. The courts have already shredded the campaign limits so why leave candidates defenseless?
Everything Blagoof did was already illegal.
The newest move is that of MegaGiver Ann Diaz Griffin and ReBoot IL. Just think of the cash they can hide there in the name of creating a “platform” for indy issue discussion.
Hand wringing about campaign limits is really suff for a bygone era.
- J - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 12:26 pm:
My candidates have a right to defend themselves from attacks.
It’s not fair to let the people doing the attacking raise unlimited money, and then limit my ability to respond.
If you’re against this bill, you’re increasing the power of Super PACs, and giving people an incentive to use them.
The big money guys don’t need any more advantages than they already have, and opposing this bill preserves their dominance.
This bill is about allowing candidates to fight back, it doesn’t remove contribution caps outright, it let’s candidates try to respond to an onslaught of negative ads.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 12:32 pm:
Republicans always took a beating from Labor paid for mailings in Lake County, especially true in the down ballot races. The Citizen United case actually levels the playing field for the GOP in my county.
The whole idea about caps and campaign limits is really bordering on nonsense. More transparency and timelier disclosure of donors and amounts is the better way to go.
Then campaigns can point fingers and claim the opposition is being bought by ( fill in the blank ) and do some “oh my goodness gracious” attacks, candidate “x” is a mere puppet for ( fill in the blank ).
I spend far too much time with newer candidates and newer volunteers explaining “in kind donations,” transfers, thresholds” and other matters. Just list all the donations and amounts and force campaigns to report them every 2 weeks, and every 2 days for the month just prior to the election.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 12:43 pm:
I will refrain from voting in this poll until Reboot Illinois educates me on this issue first.
But seriously… any chance this law gets struck down like the millionaires amendment in mccain-feingold that helped obama raise extra money to defeat hull in 2004 but was struck down shortly thereafter?
I’m sort of a goo goo on campaign finance but as long as the supreme court stomps on the legislative branchs attempts to regulate pacs, corps and unions the limits on parties and candidates is just making our politics and our governance worse.
- the Other Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 1:00 pm:
Quinn should sign the bill — it’s the only defense against unlimited corporate expenditures.
The other reason to sign it is to get the issue to the Supreme Court again. Between Citizens United and the case overturning the millionaire’s amendment (i.e., you can raise more money if the opponent self-finances over a certain amount), there is a serious question of whether this is constitutional. And this bill provides a great vehicle for the Supreme Court to look at Citizens United in light of actual experience.
- mokenavince - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 1:01 pm:
No No No we all know the State is for sale, all this does is raise the anty. I’m sure both Dems and,Republicans want it raised to prove it has
buy- partisan support.
- anon sequitor - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 1:03 pm:
HELL YES!
As Atsaves posts, there are many different ways that SuperPACs can impact an election, and both parties are in play, depending on the district.
Remember this applies only when the SuperPACs make a choice to influence an election. Caps remain and are enforceable up until the SuperPACs attack.
- TwoFeetThick - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 1:33 pm:
Citizens United blew the door clear off the hines. Until that door can be closed, campaign finance limits don’t exist. I’d rather candidates receive unlimited contributions from donors who are named, than having a superPAC accepting and using unlimited and anonymous donations on a candidate’s behalf. So yes, Quinn should sign the bill. And I hope there’s a special corner of Hell reserved for the Roberts Court for unleashing this on the country.
- TwoFeetThick - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 1:35 pm:
“hinges” not “hines”
- ZC - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 1:58 pm:
Yes. Unfortunately.
Supreme Court has left reformers with no good options. Let’s not blame the goo-goos though, let’s blame Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts and the other Court members who have decided, in their wisdom, that multi-million independent spending campaigns can have no corrupting effects upon the candidates that benefit from them (the legal rationale behind Citizens United).
The naivete of some reformers is only surpassed by the naivete of the current Supreme Court…
- reformer - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 2:03 pm:
The arguments made in defense of this bill are persuasive, particularly these:
== the goo-goos are useful idiots for the billionaires trying to buy our democracy. The whole situation stinks, but the answer isn’t unilateral disarmament or forcing some candidates to use peashooters while Super PACs use bazookas ==
== Caps remain and are enforceable up until the SuperPACs attack. ==
== It’s not fair to let the people doing the attacking raise unlimited money, and then limit my ability to respond. ==
== If you’re against this bill, you’re increasing the power of Super PACs, and giving people an incentive to use them. ==
- titan - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 2:18 pm:
Wouldn’t it make as much sense (and be far simpler) to repeal the caps entirely, and require semi-immediate reporting of all contributions?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 2:42 pm:
Unless you’re going to grant police powers to the State Board of Elections, there’s no one and no way to police coordinated activities, no matter how well it is defined.
As Colbert pointed out time and again, to the point of winning an Emmy, the notion that SuperPACs aren’t coordinated is a joke. Its a fig leaf solution.
Moreover, as the Griffins have proven, we don’t have to worry about going back to the Wild West days of Illinois campaign finance. We never left them.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 3:01 pm:
@titan -
“Full transparency” doesn’t work. The media doesn’t have time to analyze or report on campaign finance, the voters don’t read newspapers anyway — let alone perform the analysis themselves, and candidates don’t have the resources to get the story out about their opponents themselves.
The only solution to this mess is public financing.
- ZC - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 3:13 pm:
Plus the politics, I’m beginning to realize, are awful … as soon as the Deep Pockets That Be manage to undermine contribution / independent spending provisions, they stop talking about the need for “Transparency is the only reform we need” … and start gunning to take out transparency as well.
That said, I disagree slightly with YDD in that I do think transparency / disclosure has some merits. At least some of the Wall Street hedge fund billionaires currently pouring millions into Karl Rove’s secret 501c4s might refrain from doing so, if it was an open secret how much Wall Street money was being funneled to Romney.
- titan - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 3:17 pm:
Yellow Dog - if the information is there and no one cares to look, then that tells us what we need to know about how important it is to everyone.
With the poor showing of government in financing everything else they finance, why would anyone every even consider letting the public finance additional things?
- ZC - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 3:43 pm:
We should make a distinction between lower-tier races (state races, House races, even many Senate races) and the Big White House Kahuna.
Presidential donors attract far more attention and publicity than in other races, in part because the presidential campaigns have the staff to do the digging themselves and then leak damaging contributions to the press.
- mark walker - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 3:56 pm:
The reason the most “political reform” and “better government” groups in Illinois so despise this bill, is because it brings into clear focus that their favorite approach to reform, caps on campaign contributions, is naive and unworkable.
Money will find its way to power. We best not just drive it underground, which is what McCain-Feingold and similar campaign contribution caps have done.
Make them open, and immediately clear to the public, including personal accountability for those who hide behind organizations.
Real reform comes from limiting power, redefining roles, changing processes, and checking compliance, so that there is less ability to unfairly purchase from any specific officeholder. If he or she simply cannot get you a contract, scholarship, job, or grant, for example, then you have no incentive to try to buy it.
Influence on policy decisions, is admittedly much tougher to control, and harder to judge, but easier to report with rules on lobbyists and their giving.
- redrum - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 4:14 pm:
I know, let’s hold an election on Bill Knight keeping his cushy overpaid teaching gig and not let him raise any money to defend himself while his opponent enjoys unlimited access to say and spend whatever he or she wants to defeat him - then he would better understand how poor his idea is to defund political discourse. While we are at it maybe someone could launch a negative third party campaign against this clueless Gladstein fella!
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 5:13 pm:
Current law should be strictly enforced,let the state be sued if Rove et al. don’t like it and Illinois should join Montana as an amicus in attacking Citizen’s United in the USSupreme Court.