Question of the day
Monday, Jan 4, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Fox Illinois…
A published report says campaign funds controlled by House Speaker Michael Madigan collected over $7 million in 2015. Including nearly $3 million in December alone.
The Chicago Tribune reports it’s roughly $2.3 million more than Madigan took in during the same pre-election time frame two years ago.
Experts say the increase comes in response to Gov. Bruce Rauner’s fundraising, who had nearly $20 million in his campaign fund at October’s start.
* From the Trib…
A Tribune review showed more than 53 percent of the speaker’s yearly total has come from organized labor and 15 percent has come from law firms and lawyers.
Kent Redfield, a negotiator on the campaign reform legislation, said the ability of political leaders to control multiple funds was a “weakness” in the law. Redfield said Democrats argued that campaign donation limits were to offset the appearance of corruption, but political parties should be exempt because they couldn’t be corrupted.
“This was the first time we got limits (on campaign donations in Illinois), and so there was a sense in which this (law) was viewed as the first step. Then it turned out to be the last step. But clearly, that was all we could get,” said Redfield, a campaign finance expert and professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
Still, even with the fundraising blitz, Madigan trails Rauner. The governor had more than $19.6 million in his campaign fund at the start of October. Turnaround Illinois, which supports Rauner’s agenda, had another $2.6 million available. Additionally, a group aimed at pushing Rauner’s issues among Democrats, Illinois Growth and Opportunity, had nearly $9 million.
* The Question: Should Illinois eliminate its campaign contribution caps? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
surveys
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 11:27 am:
Absolutely, 1,000%.
Simple rules;
Every single dollar, from $0.01 to Millions are reported exactly the same.
Must report in 24 hours.
No 3rd Party “Dark Money” PACs in Illinois races
Even “In-Kind” must be reported within 24 hours, zero exceptions.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 11:30 am:
Yes.
Just ensure that every buck is viewable.
Stop the ridiculous IllinoisGO games and other third party clubs.
- downstate commissioner - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 11:33 am:
I’ll go with Willy. Bu add this is hairbrained idea, that will never happen: Put a cap on the TOTAL amount spent on a specific office by the politician and ANY contributors. Any amount spent over that has to pay a matching amount to the state general fund.
- NixonHead - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 11:33 am:
The campaign caps are generally meaningless. Issue advocacy groups can still raise and spend money without caps and have generally the same impact as the traditional PACs.
If you remove the caps on traditional PACs, you might actually have more transparency because it could result in less money going to issue advocacy groups that aren’t required to publish data on their contributors.
- @MisterJayEm - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 11:35 am:
“Should Illinois eliminate its campaign contribution caps?”
After much hesitation, I voted “yes”.
I am unaware of any problems actually solved by Illinois’ contribution caps.
– MrJM
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 11:40 am:
===…you might actually have more transparency because it could result in less money going to issue advocacy groups that aren’t required to publish data on their contributors.===
This very specific point is why I’m “All In” with complete transparency.
Everyone reported every dollar from everyone.
No hiding, no “Dark Money”.
You give, it’s reported. Period.
- Nope, Nope, Nope - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 11:40 am:
Something needs to be done to limit self-funding candidates’ ability to buy elections. Either completely prohibit self-funding (which the Supreme Court will strike down), remove the caps so non-wealthy candidates can compete, or create a system of strict financial penalties on self-funders (e.g. Every dollar donated to your own campaign over a certain threshhold must be matched by a personal donation to your opponent’s campaign).
- NixonHead - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 11:45 am:
Post McCutcheon case, most if it not all State caps are on borrowed time anyways.
- Austin Blvd - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 11:46 am:
Should cap amount of money individuals, businesses and private entities can contribute, including to themselves. Make the caps mean something.
- Anon - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 11:50 am:
Some of those other suggestions may not comply with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of speech.
But, if we’re posting our ideal fantasies of election financing law in Illinois, I suggest that the State of Illinois implement public financing for legislative and constitutional offices. Provide a fixed amount for each house district and each constitutional office, peg it to inflation, and that’s it. There are a lot of details to iron out, but given the tendency for legislative staff to be expected to volunteer their time, public financing of elections isn’t something we’re unfamiliar with.
- JS Mill - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 12:04 pm:
Voted “yes”. We need to end “dark money”.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 12:05 pm:
The “spending caps” hurt candidates who cannot dip into family fortunes, may be running against a party favorite, and who otherwise cannot bust spending caps.
The whole thing has turned into one expensive, time consuming joke.
Take the caps off and you will get a far more level playing field than what we have now.
- Huh? - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 12:06 pm:
What OW said +1000.
- Cook County Commoner - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 12:54 pm:
I’m with OW. If we’re going to live in a “pay to play” world, I want to see who pays and how much to whom to play.
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 12:55 pm:
I voted no. Is the fund juggling a great thing? No, it is not, but it is all transparent and open. Instead of going after caps we should be going towards full public financing.
- titan - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 12:57 pm:
As long as politics affects money, money will flow into politics.
- Anonin' - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 12:59 pm:
We voted “no” even though the caps are already inside out …it was good to see the Tribbies ignore Uline givin’ PRoft his allowance.
- Will Caskey - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 1:12 pm:
Yes definitely. William freaking Kelly managed to bust the caps in the Chicago mayoral, without even showing he actually had the $100,000 in the bank. The two reform laws are jokes and literally none of their reforms work as intended.
- illini - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 1:16 pm:
Citizens United opened the doors - now we have to contend with the state-wide and local consequences!
If there is going to be transparency it has to be across the board, and all contributions should be easily identifiable and the Dark Money from the PACS and other anonymous groups should have to identify the sources of their funds ( wishful thinking, I know ).
- Century Club - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 1:37 pm:
I voted yes. They simply don’t work.
On the transparency front, it’s too easy to game the system by reporting in-kinds late, or holding on to checks to deposit. There could be some improvements there that help.
- Losing My Edge - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 1:51 pm:
I voted no, although I agree with many of the comments supporting “yes.” I’m guessing I’m simply ignorant to a court decision that would disallow this, but I would be in favor of a hard cap on the level to which either an individual is able to fund themselves and the amount PACs can give. We’re not going to fund elections with public money and in my opinion there will always be some form of dark money, so we might as well look at an egalitarian approach that limits the latter.
Of course, this could simply mean the number of PACs increases yet again, I suppose…but there’s my two cents.
- lake county democrat - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 1:55 pm:
Yes but not because of disclosure (This was George W. Bush’s favored “reform” prior to Citizen’s United. How many votes are moved by the knowledge that the US Chamber is directly contributing to a campaign vs. running tv ads on their own?) The whole system needs to be reformed with particular emphasis on the primaries, not the general election.
- Almost the Weekend - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 2:45 pm:
The irony of the 2011 campaign law. How a loophole was meant to keep the current leadership in charge backfired. Really shows Rauner wasn’t on anybody’s radar until Jan. 2014.
- The Muse - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 3:28 pm:
No. Until we can get money out of politics completely or find a reasonable way to publicly finance elections, leave it alone…. Maybe it has to get worse before it can get better.
- Sam Weinberg - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 3:40 pm:
Funny, don’t remember any Trib article about how Rauner relied on a “quirk” to raise a ton — what was it $10 million — on the last two days of 2014, because the caps had been blown on an election that was held two months prior.
- Sam Weinberg - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 3:44 pm:
“The Muse” is on target.
Like baseball and PEDs, the Chicago Police Department, and everything else in the world, the only way things ever seem to get solved for good is due to some scandal so large that everyone will have no choice but to be shocked at information that was widely known forever.
As Churchill said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they’ve tried everything else.”
- Elo Kiddies - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 7:31 pm:
The Democrats raise money within limits into different committees and the Tribune headline calls that a “quirk.” The Republicans raise money in seven-figure checks from just three men, and the Tribune doesn’t say anything.
- Southern Illinois Hoopdee - Monday, Jan 4, 16 @ 8:22 pm:
No. We already have a good idea of where corruption lies. We want Rauner to write checks directly? At least indirectly there isn’t as much direct control.
What is really needed is for Citizens United to be overturned.
- Blue dog dem - Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 3:47 am:
I voted no. The election booth is how we can make this a non- issue.