* Sun-Times…

Elected officials in the crosshairs of federal investigators shouldn’t be able to dip into their campaign funds to pay defense attorneys, a freshman alderman says — but a lawyer for his maligned predecessor’s ward organization says there’d have to be a change in state law to cut off politicians’ legal piggy banks.

Illinois’ highest court is now deliberating that contentious issue — or most of the court, that is. Two jurists have recused themselves from the case, including [Justice Mary Jane Theis and] Chief Justice Anne Burke, whose indicted husband Ald. Ed Burke (14th) has shelled out about $2 million in campaign cash to lawyers involved in his public corruption case.

The five remaining state Supreme Court justices heard arguments Wednesday hinging on whether the high-priced criminal defenses that so many Illinois officials have had to pony up for amount to “personal” expenses prohibited by campaign finance law.

* Center Square…

The case was brought to the court by Chicago Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez in an effort to stop elected officials from using campaign funds to pay lawyers for personal matters. He’s seeking to overturn an earlier State Board of Elections decision to reject the Sigcho-Lopez case.

Sigcho-Lopez is represented by Adolfo Mondragon. Mondragon told the justices the case is to stop elected officials from using donor money to pay for their legal problems.

“The purpose of the Campaign Disclosure Act of the Illinois Election Code is to deter and mitigate public corruption,” Mondragon said.

The case comes after Sigcho-Lopez filed a complaint against former 25th Ward Alderman Danny Solis and his decision to use $220,000 of campaign funds to pay his lawyers to defend himself from accusations of wrongdoing.

Mondragon argued that what Solis did is exactly what they are trying to prevent from happening again.

“Let’s be clear here, the $220,000 Danny Solis owed the law firm of Foley and Lardner is what is normally considered a personal debt,” Mondragon said. “It was not a campaign debt because he was not running for office.”

* WTTW…

“What a slap in the face” it is to allow politicians accused of political corruption to use funds contributed by supporters of their campaigns to defend themselves from accusations of wrongdoing while in office, Mondragon told the justices. […]

Michael Dorf, the attorney for the 25th Ward Regular Democratic Organization, urged the court to defer to the Illinois State Board of Elections, which voted 8-0 to reject Sigcho-Lopez’s complaint. Allowing politicians to use campaign funds to pay legal fees associated with corruption probes has been “policy for a very long time” and should not be changed.

State law allows campaign funds to be used to pay for expenses incurred by elected officials that are “customary and reasonable” — but not for purely personal expenses, such as clothes, haircuts and club memberships.

Justice Michael Burke asked Dorf how it is not the “antithesis” of laws designed to prevent corruption and encourage good government policy to allow campaign funds to cover legal fees associated with legal probes.

In response, Dorf acknowledged that Solis had been contacted by federal prosecutors, and had cooperated with their probe.

* WCIA…

The State Board of Elections said if the General Assembly wanted to enact a specific prohibition on the use of campaign funds for legal fees, they could write that into the law.

Justice Michael Burke referred to a similar case that came before the Supreme Court in New Jersey.

The court in New Jersey “looked at this exact issue,” Burke said. “It said this: ‘We have yet to reach the point where it can be said that defending against federal or state criminal indictment alleging corrupt practices is an ordinary expense of holding public office.’”

Burke asked, “Are we at that point in Illinois where we’re going to say that that’s an ordinary expense of holding public office?”

“The legislature knows how to deal with that,” election attorney Michael Dorf replied. “That’s a legislative solution, and Illinois knows how to do that if they wanted to do it. And the Illinois legislature hasn’t.”

* More from Dorf’s presentation…

The appellant lives in a world where everybody is guilty. And everybody is not guilty. People are investigated and they are not charged. People are charged and they are not convicted. It’s not just the individual who may be under suspicion who is at risk here. People who are public officials who have no connection with a person may be under investigation, may have had an email from that person. And suddenly they are the subject of a subpoena for thousands of records or perhaps hours of deposition testimony. And the legal fees in those situations are oppressive and unfair for someone who just happened to be the the recipient of an email, email or a phone call. […]

Would this expenditure have occurred irrespective of the person’s status as a candidate or a public office holder? And it is absolutely clear that the FBI would not have come to Ald. Soliz and said, ‘We want you to cooperate and wear a wire on members of the city council and members of state legislatures’ if this person had not been a public official able to be in those those types of dealings. So the irrespective test sets a good standard for that. And the courts have acknowledged this. It’s an interesting logic, but how can you be accused of, or involved in public corruption if you’re not a public official somehow?

* Meanwhile, former House Speaker Michael Madigan’s latest D-2 filing shows he paid the Baltimore law firm of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP just $18K for legal work during the fourth quarter. He paid the firm, which bills itself as having “World-class regulatory, litigation and transactional solutions for your most complex challenges,” $12K in the third quarter, along with $50K to DC law firm O’Melveny & Myers, which does white collar defense and corporate investigations. His 13th Ward organization had no legal fees in the fourth quarter.

However, he gave Katten Muchin Rosenman $2 million almost a year ago, which looked like a prepayment.