* This forum was held on October 6th…
Responding to a moderator’s question at a recent political forum in Barrington, Democratic state representative candidate Mary Edly-Allen said campaigns should be limited to $100,000 in contributions and lamented her opponent’s spending on “very expensive” mailers and television commercials.
Edly-Allen is running against appointed Rep. Helene Miller Walsh (R-Mundelein).
* Up until that forum, Edly-Allen had reported raising just $38,845 since getting into the race on June 4th.
Perhaps unbeknownst to her, two days before the forum the House Democrats spent $14,000 on a poll in her district (the in-kind contribution wasn’t actually reported until October 15th).
The HDems must’ve liked what they saw in that poll. Since then, they’ve pumped in close to $270,000. Also since the forum, Personal PAC has spent about $52,000 both for Edly-Allen and against Miller Walsh.
* So, how does Edly-Allen explain this now?…
“We need to take a real closer look at finance reform,” Edly-Allen said. “When I spoke on Saturday, that (lack of cash) was the truth. I actually had a conversation with the (House) Speaker (Michael Madigan) on Sunday afternoon. And I was like, ‘I need help. She’s got mailers. I can’t afford them.’ I needed to counterpunch.”
Hilarious. “Money is BAD!!!” *Gets tons of money* “Money is NECESSARY!!!”
* Her opponent pounced…
“It’s one thing to accept $300,000 from Mike Madigan and his cronies, but it is completely hypocritical for Mary Edly-Allen to announce to the League of Women Voters that she wants to limit her campaign — and all others — to $100,000, then immediately cash every $50,000 check Madigan brings to her campaign coffers,” Miller Walsh said in a statement to the Daily Herald. “If Mary were honest, she would give Madigan his money back and tell him she won’t be bought off and vote for him for speaker of the House.”
Thoughts?
- Anon - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:06 pm:
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to advocate for campaign finance reform while running for office and following current financial limits.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:07 pm:
Money = Speech, this is the fallout from Citizens United, and it has totally warped an already bent political system in the sate and nation. Unless that ruling can be undone, this is the new normal: that the only viable candidates you get will be the candidates who can afford the most TV commercials. It’s the main reason Pritzger became Rauner’s opponent, and not some other candidates.
- Mastro - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:07 pm:
That is the game. If everyone wants to change the contribution law, then change it for everyone. Until then, it is legal, for better or worse.
- Not It - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:10 pm:
I always hated this issue. Candidates can run on campaign finance reform, but shouldn’t be limited to their ideas when the other side isn’t.
She is right, our state’s campaign finance laws are clearly broken. Just look at our two Governor candidates as prime examples.
- Saluki - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:14 pm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jz1TjCphXE
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:20 pm:
===our state’s campaign finance laws are clearly broken.===
That has absolutely nothing to do with our state laws. Federal courts have decreed that you can’t stop rich people from spending their own money on their own campaigns.
- The Captain - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:21 pm:
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
- wionderingbnb - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:24 pm:
Me thinks JB should change the k to a g as a public service, the spelling challenged vote too.
- low level - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:33 pm:
So Rich, as othets have stated, this is like arms control during the cold war. With good reason, few wanted unilateral disarmament. If one side got rid of weapons, the other should.
Same concept here. She’d like there to be limits, but since there arent, she’ll take assistance. She needs to be able to get her message out as long as her opponent is.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:35 pm:
“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Spooky…I was listening to a completely unrelated podcast just a few minutes ago that used that exact same quote.
- low level - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:35 pm:
*(as others have stated when addressing this I should have clarified).
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:38 pm:
===She’d like there to be limits, but since there arent, she’ll take assistance===
You’re being way too easy on her.
- Texas Red - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:41 pm:
The idea of corporate person-hood is not new Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), is the earliest example. Citizens simply put clear focus in regards campaign cash.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:42 pm:
Texas Red, nobody was talking about corporate personhood, but thanks so much for the mansplain.
- Ray del Camino - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 1:42 pm:
It’s OK to want reform, but you have to play by the current rules. You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
- TominChicago - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 2:01 pm:
Texas Red. The Court in Santa Clara County specifically declined to address the question of whether a corporation was entitled to personhood for the purposes of the 14th amendment.
- Bruce (no not him) - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 2:07 pm:
Money is the root of all evil. Or is it, the lack of money is the root of all evil?
I guess it depends on whether you have it or not.
- Publius - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 2:09 pm:
To: Anonymous. Please understand what you are talking about before commenting. Get the law right before blaming everything on the Citizens United decision. Please see Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. 1 (1976) on the issue of whether financial contributions constitute speech. They do, the court stated. There, the court held that limitations on expenditures by campaigns violated the First Amendment, although the Court upheld restrictions on individuals’ contributions as being a relatively minor restriction on First Amendment Freedoms. In both situations, the Court made clear that money constitutes speech.
Citizens United followed the rationale of the Buckley case and held that individuals not affiliated with the campaign retained their First Amendment rights to spend money on speech.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 2:31 pm:
Yeah, except that was a federal ruling and Illinois has fewer restrictions. It wasn’t until 2008 that Illinois had any limits or rules on who can give to speak of.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/illinois-enacts-campaign-contribution-limits.aspx
Citizens United was decided in 2010 the same year the Illinois rules came into play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
But thanks for the rant.
- LXB - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 2:34 pm:
Citizens United was not the case that ruled money was speech; it was Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.
- Publius - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 2:47 pm:
LXB is absolutely correct, as I said above. As to One Man’s comment, again, understand the law before arguing it.
Both Buckley and Citizens United are based on the US Constitution. That means that whatever law any state enacts cannot violate First Amendment rights. Illinios could have adopted campaign legislation modeled on the federal law as limited by Buckley any time after 1976. Illinios did not enact anything until recently. Citizens United had nothing to do with that decision.
- Springfieldish - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 3:11 pm:
“You’re being way too easy on her.”
Do you know who she’s running against?
- unspun - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 3:21 pm:
She realizes that the only thing worse than money in politics is losing in politics. She may have a future in politics.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 4:08 pm:
===Do you know who she’s running against? ===
Uh, yeah. Do you think that matters to me?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 4:47 pm:
===You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight===
Agreed, but you don’t argue during a debate that your opponent shouldn’t be allowed to spend all that horrible money beyond $100K and then expect not to get dinged when you take tons of horrible money yourself.
- low level - Wednesday, Oct 24, 18 @ 6:45 pm:
I cant see where it says she didn’t expect to get dinged. She explained what happened. Good she learned.
Maybe we’ll see state Representative Mary Edly-Allen in January than simply teacher Mary.
At any rate, she shouldnt take any lectures from her opponent while the oppo mailers from HGOP continue to come.
- Biff - Thursday, Oct 25, 18 @ 8:20 pm:
Look, if she wins, it’s about the wave and how dumb and extreme Lake County Republicans have become by appointing Joe Walsh’s wife. No reasonable person it will be because of Edly-Allen’s brilliance on the campaign trail.