Media needs to get in the game
Monday, Oct 22, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* By far, the most unreported story of this campaign season is how various interests are getting around the state’s campaign contribution caps. I’ve written about it several times this year, but nobody else really has.
Why? I don’t know. Maybe the media is so invested in its support of the reformers that editors and reporters can’t bring themselves to cover the myriad ways that money has found a way around the caps. Maybe they just don’t care. Here’s a press release that just arrived in my e-mail in-box of another example of this stuff…
Arie Friedman’s Shadow PAC
Maximum contributors to Republican state Senate candidate Dr. Arie Friedman are beginning to shuffle money into a Friedman allied PAC to circumvent campaign contribution limits. Democratic candidate for state Senate, Julie Morrison, is calling on Friedman to close his Doctors-Patients Alliance PAC.
“Dr. Friedman should close his shadow PAC now,” Morrison said. “This is not the type of closed door, dishonest politics that the voters of the 29th District want.”
According to the State Board of Elections, The Doctors-Patients Alliance PAC was opened in May 2011 and listed Dr. Friedman as its chairman. In January, the PAC amended its filing to list Friedman campaign manager, Paul Miller, as its chairman. In just a few days, the Doctors-Patients Alliance PAC received maximum contributions from major Friedman supporters, including the self described “First and Oldest member of the Tea Party” Jack Roeser’s Otto Engineering.
In a July, 2011 web posting, Dr. Friedman even suggested that the PAC could be used to bolster his campaign. According to Dr. Friedman, “As an Illinois state political committee, DPAI will directly support state legislative candidates – maybe even me…”
The Doctors-Patients Alliance website still lists Dr. Friedman as the organization’s chairman.
* Right now, this maneuvering is only happening with legislative campaigns, but you can bet this will be a big issue in 2014, when Gov. Pat Quinn stands for reelection and the stakes are higher and the media’s attention is more focused.
Legislative races get short-shrift in the media, which is why I’ve been able to create my lovely little niche. But that doesn’t mean I like this sorry state of affairs.
Either way, it’s high time that the media started covering this issue.
- in the know - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 10:50 am:
Two answers to why not. 1) newsrooms are so short staffed (and increasingly inexperienced) who would do the (minimal) research necessary to tell that story; 2) many media outlets make their yearly profits off of the campaigns
- Will Caskey - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:04 am:
Why? Sure, the caps are dumb and easily circumvented. With the new interest in IEs, they SHOULD be circumvented. Caps are ridiculous.
Plus at least now there’s quarterly filings.
- Oh Yeah - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:05 am:
They’re probably not writing about it because the subject takes more work to delve into and because they don’t think it has the sex appeal of some other stories (or non-stories).
- train111 - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:07 am:
There’s the “Common Sense PAC” and the “Free Market State PAC” in the 56th Senate race–all getting conservative $$$–Roeser, Uihlein etal.
Also there’s the “Citizen’s for a Better Quincy” funelling Roeser $$ into adds against John Sullivan in the 47th as well.
train111
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:11 am:
I don’t understand your post, Rich.
I see no mention of the all-powerful, all-controlling machinations of Mike Madigan and public employee unions.
How could the media cover a story related to state government or politics that doesn’t include those sinister forces?
Doesn’t compute. What would Ty Fahner say? Or John Kass?
And where’s The Combine?
Just the other day, I got a tip from some farmer friends of mine that Combines are out all over the state harvesting all of the corn and soybeans.
How come no one is covering that story?
- Sunshine - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:25 am:
With few exceptions the ‘news’ media has taken sides and those sides appear to have a gentleman’s agreement not to contaminate a strong source of income, their respective political parties.
Money talks more so than ever these days when investigative reporting is now a time of the past. That is why this forum is vital to us all.
- David Ormsby - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:27 am:
– 1) newsrooms are so short staffed (and increasingly inexperienced) who would do the (minimal) research necessary to tell that story–
Bingo.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:29 am:
===newsrooms are so short staffed===
Um, I have a staff of one. Me.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:45 am:
Perhaps the reason this isn’t being covered much because these PACs and other machinations are all legal. The individual caps on funding have clearly been legally circumvented. Although I favored caps a few years back and have been a proponent of campaign finance reform, I have come around full circle to a more open donation approach that would be more transparent with donations and expenses reported even weekly if necessary. Forget caps, just report everything weekly. Report the check when it is issued by the donor, and report it when it is cashed.
- ZC - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:47 am:
This is in a way a very old story.
It goes back to the 1920s when Congress passed ineffectual _spending limits_ (so not contribution caps) on political committees. Such overall limits were later ruled out by Buckley v. Valeo, but even before then they were largely worthless, because candidates then were allowed to create multiple committees. Senator Albert Gore of TN (the first one, Al’s dad) once reflected, “I know in my own campaigns I have had barbers for Gore, farmers for Gore, teachers for Gore, businessmen for Gore, and as we approached a limit … why, we just established another committee. This is clearly within the law, which means we really have no law.”
The solution to that was to authorize each candidate only to control one committee, which the IL law duplicated. But now in a sense what we’re seeing is a multitude of outside “non-affiliated” PACs springing up, all claiming not to be directly controlled by the candidate.
Still, I’ll side with Will Caskey in that at least in Illinois, we -know- this is going on. At the federal level, we have no idea now who is donating to multiple 501c4s popping up (and just as suddenly to soon vanish) like mushrooms…
- Anonymous - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:53 am:
Perhaps the coverage scarcity is because, as you have mentioned, “getting around” the caps is not illegal in the mannner the caps are circumvented. No amount of coverage will change the way in which caps are circumvented in this election cycle. Some candidate ads seem to be calling out their opposition on campaign support from groups that make the opposition look like it would be influenced by Chicago, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-tax, etc. interests. When contributions are made or accepted illegally, or a contribution from a certain group may cause a candidate real embarrassment, the coverage seems to be there.
- Anonymous - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 12:15 pm:
Rich,
What happened to your interns?
- AC - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 12:38 pm:
The only increasing revenue for traditional media outlets is political money, and especially from super PACs. I suspect it would be difficult to go after this type of spending if that was the money that kept the lights on.
- Cincinnatus - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 12:48 pm:
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:29 am:
===newsrooms are so short staffed===
Um, I have a staff of one. Me.
===========================
Yeah, Rich. But your overhead is clean (sometimes) underwear.
- wishbone - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 12:50 pm:
Until Citizens United is overturned, and ALL elections are taxpayer funded and limited, big money will continue to buy elections. This means ever growing income inequality which will ultimately threaten our economy and our freedom. That the Republicans who support the current trend don’t see this predictable outcome is understandable. They can’t see climate change either.
- Newsclown - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 1:38 pm:
It is in media companies’ own self-interest to maintain the status quo, making huge profits selling air time to any campaigns that will pay. You want them to muck-rake over their own money-making machine? Wishbone has it right: Citizens United was one of the worst USSC decisions in history and it is warping our democracy in frightening ways. The only cure is public financing of all campaigns on an equal basis. Take the money off the table and make room for actual ideas.
- Confused - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 4:30 pm:
Interestingly, if you go through this PAC’s disclosures you’ll see that it’s never actually contributed to Friedman’s campaign. Friedman’s disclosures also do not show any contributions from this PAC. So if I understand the timeline, Friedman sets up a PAC and hands it over to a trusted employee when he runs for office. The PAC never spends a penny on Friedman’s campaign (but did contribute $250 to Jonathan Greenberg) and this is a story why?
- William Maggos - Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 7:48 pm:
The coverage is obviously lax because this is how they get paid. Maybe you could report on what percentage of their income comes from political advertising, since nobody else would. Do your advertisers affect your coverage?