Question of the day
Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* A new lawsuit has been filed over Illinois’ campaign contribution caps…
The legal arm of the conservative Illinois Policy Institute has filed a federal lawsuit asking that Rod Blagojevich-inspired campaign contribution limits be declared unconstitutional because donations from political leaders are not regulated in general elections.
The Liberty Justice Center suit alleges that limits of $5,000 on individuals, $10,000 on corporations and unions, and $50,000 on political action committees violate the equal protection and free speech rights of the Illinois Liberty PAC.
* More…
In an action filed in U.S. District Court here this morning, Liberty Justice Center, a conservative/libertarian legal group that counts former gubernatorial hopeful Dan Proft as a director, asks the court to throw out limits on its ability to donate as much as it wants to whomever it wants.
Under the law, political party committees can spend without limit in general elections, but individuals, political action committees and companies are limited to $5,000, $50,000 and $10,000, respectively. […]
With political committees headed by state Democratic Party Chairman and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan alone spending $15 million in the last election cycle, the law is “a scheme to further consolidate power in the hands of party bosses,” said Mr. Proft, who is chairman of Illinois Liberty PAC, the plaintiff in the case. He’s also a talk-show host on WLS-AM/890.
He added, “Party bosses should have to live under the same laws they impose on the rest of us.” […]
The new law already has been watered down twice
The first came when Personal PAC, a pro-abortion-rights group, successfully challenged limits on independent political expenditures. Then the Legislature voted to allow unlimited donations in which an outside independent expenditure of at least $250,000 has been made.
The lawsuit is here.
* React via press release from the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform…
Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are correct that the campaign contributions of parties to candidates should be treated the same way as private interest contributions, but ICPR believes both should be regulated. Plaintiffs are sorely mistaken in suggesting that Illinois should return to the bad old days of Blagojevich-style shake downs and pay-offs, which were disguised as campaign contributions under Illinois’ earlier, unrestricted campaign finance system. […]
We urge the plaintiffs to consider the serious damage its suit may do to public trust in government if successful, and ICPR will continue to defend limits on private giving to candidates.
* The Question: Should political action committees operate under the same contribution limits (both giving and receiving) as party and legislative caucus committees? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- Just Observing - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 2:09 pm:
Good for LJC! I just recently learned of the LJC but hopefully this is the beginning of a long series of lawsuits against Illinois governments.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 2:20 pm:
Illinois Liberty PAC essentially serves as a money-laundering operation. They report nearly $185,000 in contributions from barely a dozen donors.
Of the $42K raised in the most recent period, $32K was simply passing through and transferred out to other PACs.
- OneMan - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 2:25 pm:
YDD –
And besides the number of donors how is that really much different than the leadership PACs as well as the committees of some candidates?
If you are going to set contribution rules for entities, set them for all entities. No, “Some giving entities are more equal than others”
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 2:26 pm:
No.
Speech my…. foot.
Blago used dirty money to vilify JBT on TV for months before she could raise a dime to answer.
Political parties and legislators eventually have to answer to voters, if voters care enough to engage.
These secret PACS answer to no one and can drag your name through the mud all over town without letting you know what their game is.
If you don’t think money and advertising can influence public opinion, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s have a lousy business model.
Good to see that Proft, the six-figure mouthpiece for the Vrodlyak/Maltese/Outfit GOP in Cicero, has found some work.
Just don’t let him dress it up in goo-goo Constitutional principles.
- OneMan - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 2:39 pm:
I guess the question remains, why should the limits be different…
I can see the logic of limits, but why should Madigan or Cross be able to use their campaign fund to give a state rep candidate $100,000 when I can’t?
Why if it is poltical party committee vs a committee of whatever should it have no limits (besides to protect the status quo more or less)…
That is the basic question here IMHO.
- walkinfool - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 2:57 pm:
No.
Why different? because everyone pretty much knows who and what the Democratic and Republican (and other) parties are, and who leads them, while these PACs are almost all opaque to the voting public, and technically unattributable to given candidates. They can smear, mislead, and skew elections without us knowing whom to blame.
A political party’s function is to organize resources and support their candidates, and are more easily held accountable by the voters for what they do.
- common sense voter - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 3:07 pm:
PACs in general and entirety should be outlawed. These legislators are elected to to a job at a very handsome stipend and phenomenal benefits. Politics is no longer about the person and their capabilities or dedication to their constituents, it is all about who can generate the biggest bankroll. I get very tired with and annoyed at the political advertising game. All politicians need to advertise their positive points and forget about the mud slinging. If their bankrolls were not so huge, they would have to limit the advertising to their finer qualities and not the shortcomings of their opponent(s).
- OneMan - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 3:12 pm:
because everyone pretty much knows who and what the Democratic and Republican (and other) parties are, and who leads them, while these PACs are almost all opaque to the voting public, and technically unattributable to given candidates. They can smear, mislead, and skew elections without us knowing whom to blame.
Because there is fine print on a political mailing, that’s the difference? Seriously? How many regular people look at the fine print and/or who has the bulk mailing permit?
Knows who leads them?
What percentage of Illinois voters can name at least two party heads? My guess 3% if you are lucky. How about even one party leader? Perhaps 10% to 15%
If a staffer paid for by the party comes to my door they don’t announce ‘I am paid for by the Illinois Green party’….
Also fairly sure PACs in the state still have to disclose who their donors are…
Finally
They can smear, mislead, and skew elections without us knowing whom to blame.
So the key for you in terms of limits vs NO LIMITS is the fact that you know who to blame? You know when blame comes, don’t you, after someone happens. No one blames the storm that has not come yet for the power being out…
Really you want to use that as a standard? So in your logic it would be OK for me to spend 1,000,000 as long as I identify myself. Candidate XYZ is an idiot who will not address the allegations they have ‘known sheep’ my name is OneMan? That would be ok, because I identified myself? Really?
Come on, give me a logical argument at least…
- OneMan - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 3:13 pm:
So common sense voter, are you saying limits for everyone, including the parties?
- common sense voter - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 3:15 pm:
Absolutely!!
- OneMan - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 3:25 pm:
Now I can see the logic of that in some ways.
- Colossus - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 3:31 pm:
I agree with Proft’s reasoning here*, but we’re diametrically opposed on the remedy. I think he’s absolutely right, but that the parties should be reigned in as well.
- If you don’t think money and advertising can influence public opinion, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s have a lousy business model.-
Word - I’m stealing this. I may be a thief, but I’m honest about it!
*If anyone feels deja vu today, it’s probably just me getting whacked upside the head by the me from 2008 that is absolutely appalled I just said this.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 4:04 pm:
Why does a corporate person get to donate more than I get to donate as an individual? That seems like an equal protection violation much more than PACs having to deal with limits at all.
Furthermore, why does a person who has access to making corporate or union donation decisions get to donate twice (as an individual and under the umbrella of the corporate/union framework) while us regular folks are capped at just the $5,000?
As for Illinois Liberty PAC having equal protection rights, is Dan Proft claiming that political action committees are PERSONS now? It’s bad enough that we have to recognize corporations and unions as persons with speech rights equivalent to human beings, but now they’re pushing for extending that to political action committees too?
Good grief.
The Supreme Court needs to stop with the foolishness of corporations or unions or political action committees having any sort of guaranteed First Amendment right to donate and leave it up to the state legislatures and Congress to regulate this stuff under the time, place and manner clause the way they decide district boundaries and operate and set times for elections and all that. If I, as a goo goo campaign finance reform supporter, have to give up any limits on individuals making direct contributions to candidates and parties to get back direct contribution and expenditure limits on corps, unions and political action committees then I will sign up for that any day of the week.
- Cheryl - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 4:41 pm:
I agree with OneMan. The limits should be the same across the board. Say five dollars each.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 5:49 pm:
As a practical matter, party and legislative committees are fixtures which are much more easily monitored by the press and the public.
Also, there’s a limit of one per.
But an individual can create and give to an unlimited number of PACs. So, by raising the limits for “independent” PACs, we’re actually creating an unlevel playing field.
In fact, Proft and IPI head Tillman were whacked for having three different PACs. If the limit were raised to $90K for them, they’d be able to give $270K.
And once again, I’ll give my two cents and argue that the ICPR or anyone else who is serious about systemic reform needs to back public financing.
- reformer - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 5:50 pm:
I think we should heed that noted good-government advocate who gave us the Dominick administration in Cicero.
- common sense voter - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 5:53 pm:
By totally doing away with PACs, all of the above problems are solved. Let them fend for themselves…we have to.
- JBFR - Thursday, Jul 26, 12 @ 9:13 pm:
This suit proves that reformers never should have agreed on the Madigan/Party compromise. Never half a loaf when it comes to campaign finance reform. It’s all or nothing.
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Jul 27, 12 @ 8:30 am:
Yes. No limits with instant disclosure.