Question of the day
Wednesday, May 24, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the Tribune’s story on a bill to ban campaign contributions from red-light and speed cam companies…
The legislation faces potential legal hurdles. Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Springfield and an expert on state campaign finance law, questioned whether the proposed restrictions on campaign contributions would be effective — or constitutional.
“The broad constitutional framework is that contributing or spending money to influence politics is protected political speech under the First Amendment, and so, if you’re going to restrict it, then it has to be narrow,” Redfield said.
Although there’s a record of political corruption in the industry, it is by no means unique, he said, raising the issue of why red-light camera companies would be subjected to restrictions that don’t apply to other state-regulated industries.
* The Question: Do you support the idea of banning certain industries/entities from contributing to campaigns? If so, which would those be? Make sure to explain. Thanks.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:27 am:
As a lobbyist, I would welcome a ban on lobbyists making campaign contributions. I’d save some money that I could use for better purposes.
- DuPage Saint - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:30 am:
Currently unconstitutional but I would ban contributions from anyone except registered voters. No pacs No Corporations no Unions. If you can’t vote you can’t contribute
- phocion - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:32 am:
Any union that negotiates with a public sector entity should not be allowed to contribute to any elected officials who represent that unit of government.
- Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:34 am:
As much as I like the idea I cannot support it for the reasons professor Redfield lays out. Every contribution, whether it be from an individual or entity, has the potential to invite corruption. I don’t see how it would be constitutional to pick and choose which contributors are ‘more’ likely to benefit. That’s too Big Brother-ish for me.
- Perrid - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:34 am:
In general I don’t like people buying politicians -oh, excuse me, I mean donating large sums to a campaign or super PAC. I’d ban most of it if I could, certainly ban anonymous donations or anything that isn’t completely transparent, “dark money” etc.
But, as the prof mentions, I don’t think this idea plays nice with the way SCOTUS has decided to interpret the 1A. Money is speech, no matter what silly logical conclusions that forces us to draw.
- Steve - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:36 am:
I do. Anyone employed by the state of Illinois, county, or cities( because their salaries come from the Illinois taxpayers) However , I realize it’s probably unconstitutional to ban industries from contributing money to candidates. So, I don’t see banning people as viable.
- Streator Curmudgeon - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:37 am:
I would ban contributions from the insurance industry. Between favorable legislation and armies of lawyers, the insurance industry holds too heavy an advantage over the average consumer.
- Luddite - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:40 am:
I support the idea of banning all campaign contributions. This is the only way to get money out of politics.
- Donnie Elgin - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:41 am:
Against limiting contributions, even from sleazy red-light camera companies. The professor clearly is correct, since “Citizens United” campaign contributions equal speech, and are thus protected by 1st Amendment.
- Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:41 am:
No because such a ban would be illegal and unconstitutional.
The First Amendment is among the bedrocks on which our nation is built. Any restrictions on the First Amendment should not be taken lightly.
- Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:42 am:
=== I support the idea of banning all campaign contributions ===
Then how are candidates going to obtain resources to communicate with voters?
- Friendly Bob Adams - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:46 am:
This seems a waste of time since it won’t be upheld in court.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:46 am:
I do not.
As I see it, there’s basically two justifications for the ban on red light camera companies. 1) They did bad; 2) They have a conflict of interest.
As for 1, well, some of them did bad, and should be punished. But we shouldn’t punish everyone in that industry.
As for 2, well, the legislature can always raise or lower taxes, so I have a conflict of interest, too. So do you. The whole point of democracy is that we’re supposed to be able to advocate for our own well-being.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:47 am:
===The First Amendment is among the bedrocks on which our nation is built.===
Agreed 100%, but the ruling in Citizens United perverts the free speech clause by granting greater influence to some on the basis of money. No one should have more “rights” than others when it comes to free speech. That’s un-American and runs counter to the ideals this country was founded on. Moreover, it undermines those ideals.
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:48 am:
All laws are constitutional until a court rules otherwise. A red-light donation ban would be in place unless and until someone sued to block it.
Can’t wait to see who would come forward to file that lawsuit. Redfield?
- Norseman - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:50 am:
I understand the genesis of the proposal, but I believe it to be unconstitutional to pick certain industries.
- Downstate Dem - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:51 am:
I believe that citizens should have the ability to contribute to any cause they wish, up to campaign limitations.
However, having corporations, unions, associations and other organizations deliver the vast amount of dollars to various campaigns and political groups should not be allowed.
The US Supreme Court in the “Citizens United” case says I dead wrong. So it is, what it is, and attempts to buy influence and its’ possible corrupt intent, will always be with us.
- duck duck goose - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:52 am:
Even setting aside the constitutional problems (and that’s a big set-aside), how would this not devolve into a political tomfoolery, where there would be constant efforts to prohibit one’s political opponents from receiving or making contributions? The plaintiffs’ bar would argue that contributions from insurance companies should be blocked–and vice versa. One party could target frequent contributors to their opponent’s party.
- Southside Biker Guy - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:53 am:
Yes we should, especially if the federal government is going to sit on their hands. The Supreme Court’s decision regarding Citizens United was a disastrous decision for Democracy. This is a good first step in limiting corporations ability to buy and influence elections with their money.
It was interesting listening to GOP Senators talk about how “the bill doesn’t go far enough”…when their Party is who orchestrated the Citizens United decision. Maybe they will be willing to work with the IL GOP Congressional delegation to convince them to support reversing the decision…..
- Gruntled University Employee - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:55 am:
I agree 100% with DuPage Saint, only registered voters should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. Elected officials should be beholden to their voters, not the “entities” that fund their campaigns.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:55 am:
People, Citizens United was about independent expenditures, not direct candidate contributions.
- Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 10:59 am:
A lot of people are talking about taking the money out of politics, but I don’t know how candidates would get their messages out if there were significant restrictions on who can contribute to campaigns. For the most part, candidates cannot raise enough money from individuals to be able to adequately get their message out. Campaigns are expensive.
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:06 am:
If we can’t ban it then have a requirement that the candidates have to be transparent (I would love a nascar style suit for them) showing how much they took from whom and what percent that is of their campaign money. In an easy to access place and mailed once a year to all residents of their district.
- a revelator - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:06 am:
They wouldn’t be the first. 10 ILCS 5/9-45. Scroll all the way down to the bottom. Med Mar Cultivation centers are banned from direct contributions.
- Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:10 am:
=== If we can’t ban it then have a requirement that the candidates have to be transparent (I would love a nascar style suit for them) showing how much they took from whom and what percent that is of their campaign money. In an easy to access place and mailed once a year to all residents of their district. ===
There are already reporting requirements that require public reporting of contributions and expenditures. This is pretty basic stuff.
To your second point, all of these reports are easily accessible online - not sure why we would require a mailing. Also, who would pay for the mailing?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:11 am:
===Also, who would pay for the mailing? ===
Magic.
- Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:15 am:
=== Med Mar Cultivation centers are banned from direct contributions ===
Probably illegal. Just never have been challenged.
- RequiredName2 - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:16 am:
I would rather see the banning of red light cameras. What’s with this song and dance when the conclusion is forgone?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:19 am:
===Probably illegal===
Again, Citizens United was about independent expenditures.
- Ugh - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:24 am:
A US District Court has already ruled it’s unconstitutional to deny an industry the ability to make political contributions in Ball v. Madigan.
https://www.lp.org/illinois-libertarian-candidates-win-federal-lawsuit-against-law-making-it-illegal-for-medical-marijuana-groups-to-contribute-to-candidates/
- Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:24 am:
=== Again, Citizens United was about independent expenditures. ===
I wasn’t citing Citizens United. I did some research and found that the law prohibiting med-mar cultivation centers from directly contributing to candidates. It was found unconstitutional in federal court:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2015cv10441/318379/37/
- Bruce( no not him) - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:25 am:
Ban contributions from anyone who disagrees with me.
Seems reasonable.
- Lurker - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:25 am:
No, the companies need to become uncorrupt. That is, simply cancel these contracts. This red-light money grab nonsense is inane anyway. No benefit accept to the corrupters.
- Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:31 am:
===Also, who would pay for the mailing? ===
===Magic.===
I doubt he wants to get involved in Illinois politics.
- Bad Attitude - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:32 am:
How about the coal industry?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 11:34 am:
===it was found unconstitutional in federal court===
Read it: “The Supreme Court has recognized only one government interest that is sufficiently important to justify restrictions on campaign contributions: the interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.”
- Give Us Barabbas - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 12:23 pm:
As long as money is officially speech, our democracy is broken.
As far as the cameras, the solution is to not contract with outside companies but handle it with a government office open to oversight.
- New Day - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 1:11 pm:
Citizen’s United. “Corporations are people too my friend” - Mitt Romney. That said, if we could I would ban public utilities.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 1:14 pm:
Sorry, did not make the independent expenditure distinction. As far as candidates, answer is the same. There should be no restrictions, only transparency and reporting so that voters can make informed choices.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 1:18 pm:
In support of ZERO bans.
I’d rather that each and every dime, nickel, and penny is accounted for, and those monies not only facing sunshine, and the donor giving full disclosure… no curtailing or bypassing, just plum “A to B”
Sunshine is more of a disinfectant than limiting or ending any donations.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 1:35 pm:
==Can’t wait to see who would come forward to file that lawsuit.==
Pretty sure the companies themselves?
- Chicagonk - Wednesday, May 24, 23 @ 1:48 pm:
I’m honestly surprised with the restraint Illinois has when it comes to these cameras. Especially when compared to Iowa.