* From the Tribune’s campaign contribution story…

Madigan was a master of the state’s campaign finance laws and knew how to obscure the original source of donations. A former top Madigan lieutenant explained one such tactic, called “directed money,” in detail last summer in federal court.

Former state Rep. Lou Lang, a deputy Democratic majority leader when Madigan was speaker, explained that donors would send money to certain campaign funds with the expectation that Lang and others would pass that cash to another candidate in a competitive race.

“Directed money is a phrase referring to campaign donations procured by a third party, in this case likely the speaker, to go to a legislator or some other public official that has a campaign account for the purpose of re-donating it to other folks,” Lang testified.

Viewed in Springfield as legal money laundering, the activity not only allows donations to be masked, but it could allow politicians to keep getting cash from contributors who have given them the maximum amount allowed by law.

Lang said he would receive a list of which candidates needed a financial boost and then be told to “send the money out.”

The funds sent to the lawmaker would be directed by Madigan or the Madigan-controlled Democratic Party of Illinois, said Lang, who testified at the federal perjury-related trial that led to the conviction of Madigan’s chief of staff, Tim Mapes, who was also the state party’s longtime executive director. […]

While every system has questionable workarounds, candidates running for federal office are required to be more transparent. An actual notation is required by the Federal Election Commission when the original donor is explicit about the ultimate recipient, said Derek Willis, a University of Maryland data journalism teacher who specializes in campaign finance.

“If a donor wants to give money to a candidate via a third party, that third party is required by law to submit to the FEC the name and information about the donor and the recipient — even if the amount is under $200, which is the threshold for reporting individual contributions,” Willis said. “That additional layer is important because, without it, we know less about donors and what they might want from the people they give to.”

That federal procedure doesn’t really apply to this situation. The ultimate decisions are not made by the original contributors, they’re made by the people in charge usually after the contributions are given.

But, yes, the practice does allow for an evasion of the contribution caps. I’ve been writing about this behavior for years. It obviously increases the power of the chamber leaders. And it allows groups and companies that may not be popular with voters to participate in crucial elections without being unmasked.