* The plaintiffs in this case were represented by Liberty Justice Center, an arm of the Illinois Policy Institute that filed a recent lawsuit to halt in-precinct election day voter registration…

Illinois lawmakers did not trample on the U.S. Constitution when they gave the go-ahead for committees dedicated to electing state legislative candidates to make bigger contributions than many other donors, a federal judge held today.

In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman rejected the argument that lawmakers were improperly playing favorites when they set higher contribution limits for legislative caucus committees than for such donors as individuals, corporations and political action committees.

Imposing lower contribution limits on those other donors does not violate the First Amendment or the equal protection clause, Feinerman held. […]

One sufficiently important interest, he wrote, citing cases that included Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), “is the state’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.”

Placing limits on the amount of money donors can give to a candidate is a way to serve that interest, Feinerman wrote.

And, he continued, lawmakers could legitimately believe the possibility that a large contribution is part of a pay-to-play transaction is greater when the donor is an outsider.

“Illinois reasonably concluded that corruption (or the appearance thereof) by private individuals and non-legislative entities poses a far more serious risk to the democratic process than does a legislative leader contributing to another legislator or electoral candidate in that leader’s own caucus,” Feinerman wrote.

The Tribune editorial board might disagree with that particular sentiment. Plaintiffs plan to appeal.

Spending by the leadership committees is capped during the primary, but not the general.