Question of the day
Tuesday, Oct 17, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I’m not trying to single out one person here. It just brings up an important point. From Block Club Chicago…
Ald. Jim Gardiner (45th) is facing financial consequences for instructing a city employee to ticket a vocal critic in his ward in 2019.
The Chicago Board of Ethics slapped the alderman with a $20,000 fine Monday, after ruling that Gardiner retaliated against Jefferson Park resident Pete Czosnyka.
Czosnyka, who has routinely criticized the alderman online, was hit with a $600 fine for overgrown weeds and rodents. He said his garden was not violating any city ordinances, and the city ultimately agreed with him. Block Club was first to report on the incident.
Under current state law, the alderman could pay that fine with campaign funds. But there is some ambiguity in state law. From the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling in Byron Sigcho-Lopez vs. Illinois State Board of Elections…
Byron Sigcho-Lopez, the alderman for Chicago’s 25th Ward, filed a complaint with the Illinois State Board of Elections (Board), alleging that his predecessor’s campaign committee, the 25th Ward Regular Democratic Organization (Committee), unlawfully paid personal legal fees from campaign funds. […]
Until the General Assembly amends the statute to, for example, specifically prohibit payment from campaign funds for legal fees incurred in defense of criminal allegations against a public official or candidate, the issue requires the Board’s consideration on a case-by-case basis, applying the plain language of the applicable statutory provisions. In this case, despite the parties’ arguments regarding legal defense fees incurred as a result of public corruption allegations, the record here reveals that Solis had not been indicted on criminal charges but only that he had worked with federal investigators using his official capacity to expose public corruption. Considering the evidence before the Board, we find that the Board’s conclusion—that Solis’s legal fees amounted to a proper expenditure not prohibited as “satisfaction or repayment” of a personal debt (10 ILCS 5/9-8.10(a)(3) (West 2018)) but incurred “to defray the customary and reasonable expenses of an officeholder in connection with the performance of governmental and public service functions” (id. § 9-8.10(c))—was not clearly erroneous. Thus, we affirm the Board’s decision, finding that the complaint was not factually and legally justified.
The State Board of Elections referred me to that ruling when it responded to my question…
Yes, he could use [campaign funds] to pay the fine but someone could file a complaint about it and our board might rule otherwise. … A complaint could be filed alleging that this fine did not result from customary and reasonable expenses of governmental/public service functions. … Just as with legal fees, there is no specific [state] prohibition on paying fines.
* The Question: Should the Illinois General Assembly specifically prohibit elected officials from paying governmental ethics violation and similar fines with campaign funds, and require them to pay the fines with their own personal funds, perhaps deducted directly out of their government paychecks, or should this be left up to the State Board of Elections? Explain.
- Drury's Missing Clock - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 1:32 pm:
Yes but you should be able to use government menu money instead /s
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 1:34 pm:
Yes, but only if they want to put some teeth into this. If the fines have to come out of their pockets, that might actually make some of these people think twice when it comes to ethics.
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 1:35 pm:
“Should the Illinois General Assembly specifically prohibit elected officials from paying governmental ethics violation and similar fines with campaign funds”
Yes.
“or should this be left up to the State Board of Elections?”
Also yes. Or more of a blended situation where being on a ballot requires any fines from the above to have been paid off, similar to any fines issued directly from the SBOE needing to be paid off.
I’ve seen plenty of big fish in little ponds use their campaign funds to go after someone in the public directly. Usually through lawsuits designed to silence critics. Lawsuits they eventually lose, but still. Saying, “this guy caused me to lose the election” in a lawsuit filing shouldn’t mean a lawsuit qualifies as a use for campaign funds, simply because the convoluted reasoning involves an election.
It’s common enough where it needs to be addressed.
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 1:40 pm:
Yes. There is almost zero deterrent effect unless it stings.
- Huh? - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 1:58 pm:
Yes. More to the point, the use of campaign funds should be prohibited for any legal purposes that are not directly related to an election.
- vern - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 2:04 pm:
Yes, if this is way we’re going to police things. But I’m generally skeptical of the ethics fine system, which seems to exist in lieu of criminal enforcement.
- Sue - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 2:11 pm:
Prohibiting the use of campaign funds for anything other then campaigning is reprehensible particularly when the funds are used to pay for attorneys fees when a politico is investigated or indicted. Making someone pay for their own unethical behavior might serve as a deterrent. It’s is sickening how Madigan and Trump are spending 10’s of millions of other people’s money on their legal fees
- Norseman - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 2:12 pm:
Yes. As others have said, money out of their pockets will be a more effective sanction.
- Frida's boss - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 2:12 pm:
You can use campaign funds for pretty much any personal expense, why not legal fees? If your argument is it’ll stop issues, it won’t. You could just start paying for “election expenses” and filter that money you would’ve used over to your defense.
Campaign funds can legally be used for pretty much anything including paying themselves a salary (there’s the payment for the legal fees), using it for childcare, paying for rent in Springfield, funding a “leased vehicle” etc etc.
Campaign funds can be legally used for all kinds of personal expenses.
It’s easy to go after legal fees because it’ll be a great IPI/Trib/SunTimes/Chicago Tonight story for the vultures.
If you want to clean it up take it away as an option for any expense that isn’t mail, literature, campaign staff salaries, or rental space. No snacks, no open bars at events, no “volunteer” dinners, nothing, no “supplies” for offices, no childcare expenses, no paying themselves a salary, no vehicle allowance, no mileage, nothing.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 2:14 pm:
We all hope politicians will think twice with a more effective sanction. They should do that now, but too many don’t think beyond their desire to keep their jobs.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 2:44 pm:
I’m trying to figure out why using government resources to retaliate against someone isn’t straight up a criminal act.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 2:50 pm:
People, stick to the question at hand.
- Just Another Anon - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 2:51 pm:
Any public policy which incentivizes unethical or illegal behavior by public officials is bad public policy. Ethics rules have more impact when someone actually has to pay the price.
- ElTacoBandito - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 3:40 pm:
If it is a fine for a specific act the elected did themselves, then yes it should come out of personal expenses and not campaign funds. I like the idea of it coming from the paycheck so there are less shenanigans.
==It’s is sickening how Madigan and Trump are spending 10’s of millions of other people’s money on their legal fees==
I always feel that way initially and then I think well its just people wasting their own money donating to those pols. I never have donated to a candidate who used it for stuff like that but I would be so salty if they did so.
- Yes - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 6:20 pm:
Absolutely. If a fine comes out of campaign funds that is not a punishment whatsoever for the elected and therefore doesn’t impose a meaningful consequence for past bad behavior or provide a deterrent to future bad behavior.
- Dennis - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 6:57 pm:
Pay from personal funds. Maybe even restrict further, what campaign cash can be used for.
- Punch - Wednesday, Oct 18, 23 @ 12:13 pm:
Rich,
Respectfully, in this particular case the former Alderman’s supporters go after him and it’s for the most part political retaliation. There’s a group of them that have orchestrated continuous stories, comments on Facebook and even following, stalking and harass the Alderman.
So while it all sounds like a slamdunk, the money is raised and until someone does something about that abusive behavior, I’d say they should leave it alone.
Who keeps the ignorant, abusive voters at bay?