Group vows appeal to strike caps law
Thursday, Sep 15, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* WUIS…
A conservative-backed organization says it will continue efforts to topple the Illinois law limiting campaign contributions, after a judge ruled the law constitutional.
The law caps how much individuals, corporations, and political action committees can give.
Committees controlled by the legislative leaders are subject to caps too, but only in the primary. There’s no limit on what they can give to candidates during the general election.
Liberty Justice Center attorney Jacob Huebert says the law is set up to help the leaders maintain power.
“When you have that power, you really can make or break a candidate. You can say: Well, I have can give unlimited money to you, or I can give unlimited money to your opponent,” he said. “It’s very easy for the leader to be in a position to effectively buy off people, or threaten people, who would challenge his leadership. And so this ability to give all this money helps them stay in that position. They can use it to maintain their own power.”
* Here’s what the Illinois Policy Institute’s organization really wants to do, however. From Liberty Justice Center attorney Jacob Huebert…
We have only asked the court to strike down all contribution limits, not to impose new limits on anyone. If the courts ultimately strike the limits down, it will be up to the General Assembly to enact a new scheme of fair limits if it chooses.
And striking down all contribution limits for everyone would make life easier for… ?
- Mongo - Thursday, Sep 15, 16 @ 10:29 am:
BVR to invest in elections even more heavily, getting the ROI he wants.
- James Knell - Thursday, Sep 15, 16 @ 10:31 am:
… the already most privileged members of society?
- Archiesmom - Thursday, Sep 15, 16 @ 10:34 am:
Rich guys.
- Anon221 - Thursday, Sep 15, 16 @ 10:37 am:
“When you have that power, you really can make or break a candidate. You can say: Well, I have can give unlimited money to you, or I can give unlimited money to your opponent,” he said. “It’s very easy for the leader to be in a position to effectively buy off people, or threaten people, who would challenge his leadership. And so this ability to give all this money helps them stay in that position. They can use it to maintain their own power.”
****
When I first heard this quote reported a couple of days ago, the first word that came to mind was HYPOCRISY!
- Downstate Dem - Thursday, Sep 15, 16 @ 10:40 am:
Great. Let’s continue to send our democracy into the dark money abyss with a system that increasingly favors the wealthy one percent. The next movie the Illinois Policy Institute needs to do is one that focuses on the new era of dark money and the fight for no limits — a case study in how a group that calls itself the Liberty Justice Center is working for a new system that takes the voices and liberties away from the average voter and donor in Illinois.
- The Captain - Thursday, Sep 15, 16 @ 10:40 am:
Believe it or not it would actually make things easier for the biggest original proponents of contribution limits, reform groups. After Citizens United you really can’t keep money out of the process, limits just are not functional. I mean, look at this year: what money hasn’t found its way in? 2016 in Illinois has been a theater of the campaign finance absurd.
But it’s far harder to “follow the money” than it used to be. Money used to come in through a few big channels, now it comes from all over the place and gets endlessly transferred around, it’s very hard to track. If it wasn’t for significant advances it IT options in the past year or two you wouldn’t see all of these campaign finance articles like you do this cycle, it would be too fractured and distributed to make any sense.
If Citizens United gets overturned by a subsequent Supreme Court then go ahead and put limits back in place but until then just get rid of this overly complex and confusing funding process we have in place that doesn’t limit any money but makes it much, much harder to follow.
- RetiredStateEmployee - Thursday, Sep 15, 16 @ 10:59 am:
“There you have it: The winners bought off the gatekeepers, then gamed the system. And when the fix was in they turned our economy into a feast for the predators, “saddling Americans with greater debt, tearing new holes in the safety net and imposing broad financial risks on Americans as workers, investors and taxpayers.” The end result, Hacker and Pierson conclude, is that the United States is looking more and more like the capitalist oligarchies of Brazil, Mexico, and Russia, where most of the wealth is concentrated at the top while the bottom grows larger and larger with everyone in between just barely getting by.”
“A plethora of studies conclude that America’s political system has already been transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy (the rule of a wealthy elite).”
from: http://billmoyers.com/story/plutocrats-vs-people/
Very long article but well worth the time to read it.
The only thing I think was missed was when instead of buying off the gatekeepers, they would get one of their own elected and eliminate the middleman.
- Jeff Trigg - Thursday, Sep 15, 16 @ 11:45 am:
… independent candidates and “new” parties so that they can meet ballot access requirements that are often 100 times harder than for “established” parties. Although I bet IPI wasn’t smart enough to make that argument, which would have a decent shot of winning on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds.
- thechampaignlife - Thursday, Sep 15, 16 @ 12:46 pm:
Can we just cap everyone to the same max contribution across all sources to all candidates?
You get $5k. You can contribute it all to 1 candidate, $100/candidate to 50 candidates, or some other mix. You can contribute it directly or through another organization (corporation as a customer, union as a member, etc). All unspent funds at the end of the cycle forfeited to GRF. Maybe the Treasurer could even manage the funds.
Lots of logistics to work through but this seems to be a more even playing field.