Reformers furious at governor
Monday, Jul 9, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Gov. Pat Quinn signed a bill into law Friday that repeals campaign contribution caps when outside groups and individuals start dumping big money into their races…
A spokeswoman for the Democratic governor conceded it’s a short-term fix to ensure campaign fairness since the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal ruling in Illinois put a crimp on enforcing limits on such outside groups, giving rise to super PACs with deep pockets.
“This new law is necessary to keep the playing field as level as possible,” Quinn spokeswoman Annie Thompson said. “This issue absolutely requires more analysis and more study to figure out what the best long-term reforms might be.”
Just three years ago, Quinn signed into law campaign-cash limits in Illinois after his two predecessors, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich, landed in federal prison for political crimes. But the law just took effect this year.
Generally, it restricts contributions to a candidate to $10,000 for individuals, $20,000 for corporations, labor groups or political parties, and $50,000 from political action committees or the candidate’s committee.
The caps disappear if independent expenditures reach $250,000 in a statewide race or $100,000 in other races.
* Reaction from the goo-goos was harsh and a bit over the top. From a press release…
The co-chairs of the CHANGE Illinois! coalition on Friday said Gov. Quinn’s signing of Senate Bill 3722 has damaged the state’s campaign contribution limits system and opened the door to unlimited contributions in election contests where independent expenditure groups spend significant amounts of money.
Under the new law, there will be no limits on campaign contributions in any election where spending by an independent committee (or super PAC) exceeds $250,000 in support of a candidate in a statewide race or $100,000 in an election for state legislator, mayor, judge and all other non-statewide contests.
“This new law could open the floodgates to a torrent of special interest money surging into the campaigns of candidates seeking some of the most important offices in our state,” said CHANGE Illinois! Co-Chair Peter Bensinger. “Those unlimited contributions will carry more opportunities for the kind of corruption that has denied Illinoisans a fair and honest representation in their governments.”
So, what happens to that “fair and honest representation” if outsiders can dump uncapped millions into campaigns here? The reformers have yet to answer that question.
* More from the reformers…
The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform ripped the governor, saying he’s opened a huge loophole in the state’s campaign finance laws,
“He has made it easier for large campaign contributors to buy political favors, and he has moved Illinois back toward the same kind of system that produced two corrupt governors now serving prison sentences,” said Brian Gladstein, the organization’s executive director. “He has opened the door to a return of Blagojevich-proportion contributions in the 2014 gubernatorial election.”
More…
On Friday, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform contended the law provides a road map for any candidate who wishes to evade the limits. He or she could urge a group to pour in major donations on behalf of either side, and both sides would see the limits removed, said David Morrison, the group’s deputy director.
“With this law, I’m confident there will not be limits in a governor’s race,” Morrison said.
Except the reformers never admit that state law already forbids candidates from urging any group to make independent expenditures, under penalty of perjury…
Each quarterly report shall include the following information regarding any independent expenditures made during the reporting period… 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.
Perjury is a Class 3 felony in this state.
So, if you’re arguing that people will break the law to game the law, then what’s the point of making laws in the first place?
- too obvious - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 11:48 am:
Just use straw donors like Pat Brady and Rodney Davis did for the State Republican Party.
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 11:51 am:
“On Friday, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform contended the law provides a road map for any candidate who wishes to evade the limits. He or she could urge a group to pour in major donations on behalf of either side, and both sides would see the limits removed, said David Morrison, the group’s deputy ”
The above remark reveals just how dumb nearly all reformers are. anyone who thinks a candidate, campaign, sorcerer, etc can cause donors to pour anything anywhere is a true dreamer.
Perhaps the reformers can move on to other pursuits? Let’s chat about that
- ZC - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 12:00 pm:
I’m not sure that’s right: “Except the reformers never admit that state law already forbids candidates from urging any group to make independent expenditures”
Why can’t the candidates urge, again? The groups can make the expenditures and then just say, “We were gonna do it already, it wasn’t due to our consulting with the candidate; he was off in his own corner just spouting words. And his request had no impact on our decision to independently spend.”
It might look politically bad. But I think these coordination laws are close to unenforceable. You almost need a tape recording from a mole, “Q: Will you spend this amount here? A: Yes.”
In (partial) defense of the goo-goos, it is a lot harder to give over 10/20K to a candidate and then explain, legally, that you didn’t actually give over 10/20K to a candidate.
- too obvious - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 12:09 pm:
On the GOP side not only will you not get spanked for circumventing campaign finance law, the party will reward you with a fast track to Congress. Quinn is the least of this state’s problems.
- J - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 12:11 pm:
This is one of those moments when the reality comes to the ivory tower.
I’m all in favor of trying to get the money out of politics but reformers are being altogether moronic in this instance. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: refusing to lift the contribution caps when IEs get involved in a race makes IEs more likely. The way to beat a massive negative ad campaign is to respond in kind, and if reformers insist on tying campaigns hands they’re only giving more power to the rich guys who can write 6 or 7 figure checks to IE committees.
There aren’t too many people who are happy about the Citizens United decision, but at the end of the day people have to deal with reality that is unlimited money not with an ideal world that simply doesn’t exist.
If you want to stop big money from getting involved in politics, push for transparency and make it clear that should an individual choose to make a major campaign contribution, they should be prepared to get the Rickets treatment.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 12:22 pm:
Wealthy sponsors will surely discover this loophole even without campaign “coordination”.
After all, donors quickly discovered SuperPACs at the federal level without any campaign “coordination”.
History indicates this massive new loophole in Illinois will quickly be exploited, without need to break the law or “coordinate” with campaigns.
- Dirt Digger - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 1:02 pm:
As a political professional I hear “get money out of politics” as similar to hypothetical claims to “get money out of insurance” or “get money out of agriculture.” Every other human activity involves money; that some people claim we should make an exception just for the process by which we conduct representative democracy is baffling.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 1:03 pm:
So unlimited spending by secretly funded SuperPacs combined with limited funding by fully disclosed contributors somehow equals good government reform?
You’ll throw your back out with those kind of gymnastics.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 1:38 pm:
===The groups can make the expenditures and then just say, “We were gonna do it already, it wasn’t due to our consulting with the candidate; he was off in his own corner just spouting words. And his request had no impact on our decision to independently spend.”===
That probably won’t work. Read the statute again…
===such expenditure was not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of===
- RNUG - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 3:09 pm:
Money always finds a way. There have been fund raisers and bundlers going back the forty plus years I’ve been paying attention … and I’m sure it happened before then.
In the old days, it was the unions getting all their members to pony up individually. Or it was the wealthy businessman who got his wife, kid’s, dogs, cats, servants and management level employees to all write checks in the maximum amount that year … you can be sure there were bonus cash or checks given out to cover whatever got sent in.
So I don’t really see all that much difference resulting from the Citizens United decision. Just that you can skip some of the manipulations and be more direct now …
And public financing of campaigns is not a viable option. Where there has been checkoff boxes on the tax returns, you’ll find that, as time goes by, less and less people have been checking those boxes.
Personally, I say open the floodgates all the way but require every donation over a very small amount be identified. That way the public might end up knowing who is buying the politicans …
- mark walker - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 3:16 pm:
J at 12:11 is firing on all cylinders.
I find it tragic that otherwise smart, honest, well-meaning reformers can be so mistaken in this strategy. We cannot get money out of politics, since the Supreme Court has said it is protected free speech, (even by companies who are seen as having individual personal rights), but we can shine the light on those responsible much better than today. We can then give some the “Ricketts” treatment, criticize them by name, or boycott their interests.
The more we limit openly identified donations to campaign committees, or parties, the more unattributed attack ads will dominate the political landscape. I’m all for political reform, but this isn’t the magic bullet it’s assumed to be. The situation became obviously worse, not better, after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
We need to focus more on other ways to prevent and punish the corrupt practices, that this money is seen as incenting.
- capncrunch - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 4:25 pm:
-J-, -RNUG-, and –Mark Walker- are right. There would be no need for PACs, Super PACs, 501c, or any other secret funding people establish if unlimited donations were permitted. Candidates should be required to report within 24 hours any donations over $500 to on their web site. Very severe penalties should be imposed for failing to do so. Knowing who is trying to influence an election provides us with all the information we need to vote accordingly.
- titan - Monday, Jul 9, 12 @ 4:59 pm:
“Get money out of politics”?
I think you’d have to achieve a world where money wasn’t affected by politics first.
- justbabs - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 10:32 am:
Mark Walker, you should have read the article about the fact that the people who brought us the Citizens United act are now fighting to end the disclosure requirement - and winning - in lots of states. LA Times did a great story on what has been unfolding.