* Alisa Kaplan, executive director of Reform for Illinois, writing in the Tribune…
Regarding the op-ed “I disagree with the Illinois State Board of Elections that my campaign violated fundraising limits” (July 9): It’s astonishing that Illinois Senate President Don Harmon frames his legal defense as standing up for ordinary people against big money in politics. In fact, his position and his actions do the opposite.
Harmon is one of our state’s most prolific abusers of Illinois’ “self-funding” loophole. He rakes in millions in uncapped campaign donations from wealthy donors and special interests, even though he usually runs unopposed. He funnels those funds to favored incumbents and candidates to cultivate loyalty and consolidate his power.
This is the opposite of how Harmon himself describes the intention of the self-funding law. The provision was designed to level the playing field for nonwealthy challengers facing deep-pocketed, self-funding opponents, not to let powerful incumbents “drown out ordinary people” with megadonor money and influence.
Harmon argues that his interpretation of the law protects less well-heeled challengers. But it would keep contribution caps off for additional years when he’s not even on the ballot, giving him more time to stockpile funds and an even bigger fundraising head start over any future opponent.
Harmon’s supposed concern about “fairness” between state senators and representatives should also raise eyebrows. There’s no reason for the two groups’ rules to be identical — they run for different offices in different election cycles.
If Harmon truly wants to make our campaign finance system fairer, he should start by fixing the loophole he’s been exploiting for years. Not by distorting the rules to avoid accountability and amplify his power.
* From Harmon’s self defense…
When we wrote the law governing campaign finance restrictions, we did so from the perspective that wealthy candidates would use their money to drown out ordinary people. To combat that situation, we said any time a candidate or special interest spent a large amount of money in a race, those restrictions would be lifted.
At the heart of this matter is confusion surrounding a fundamental element of our campaign finance laws. We wanted fairness, so we wrote these provisions so that neither House nor Senate candidates have an advantage over the other. Because House candidates always run for two-year terms and Senate candidates more often run for four-year terms, we took pains to ensure the campaign limits didn’t confer advantages to one over the other.
The election board’s interpretation runs completely counter to that fundamental ingredient. Here’s an example.
Suppose Senator A and Representative B both remove contribution limits (sometimes referred to as “caps”) in their respective races. Senator A is in the first year of a four-year term and not on the ballot, while Representative B is running unopposed for another two-year term. Under the staff’s interpretation, after a primary election cycle, Representative B’s caps remain off through the end of the year because she advanced to the general election, but Senator A’s caps are reinstated the day after the primary.
The correct interpretation is that restrictions remain off for both candidates until an election when they are actually on the ballot.
Discuss.
- thisjustinagain - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 12:18 pm:
So lifting the caps only helps the heavily-funded candidate in the end, while the less-funded are still fundamentally disadvantaged. Harmon is a typical Illinois politician.
- Macon Deliberations - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 12:26 pm:
God bless the people at reform for Illinois. Let’s find ways to make Illinois’ campaign finance system more stringent.
- Frumpy White Guy - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 12:27 pm:
Geez, I wish they would leave Donny Harms alone already.
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 12:30 pm:
Harmon is right that the Board’s interpretation means that a self-funding incumbent in a four-year term could load up the PAC early in their term and then let limits come back into effect, restricting any challengers. Is that the outcome reformers want?
It sounds like Kaplan is arguing for a result the Board can’t give, but is using this case to push Harmon to change existing law.
- Phineas - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 1:02 pm:
They’re both right. The election board makes no sense. the remedy proposed falls short — but that’s because of the constitution. If prohibiting private funding were an option, reforms could work. In the absence of a different supreme court or constitutional change, I’d stick with Harmon
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 1:08 pm:
=== If prohibiting private funding were an option, reforms could work===
Frankly, I’m just about to the point where I’m in favor of dumping this entire goofy charade and abolishing the caps.
The downside, of course, is that the reformers, editorial boards, pundits, etc. will all scream bloody murder.
- cal skinner - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 1:09 pm:
Why should there be any limits?
- NotRich - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 1:19 pm:
Goo goo reformers are always cry berries. Just remove the dumb caps. The restrictions and rules the easier to get around with gimmicks, and more chances to make a mistake.
- Really? - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 1:23 pm:
In context of what actually happens, the distinction that Harmon is making is correct.
The ISBE interpretation makes no sense and protects on one in the example given. The $9.8 million fine here is absurd.
- It's Just a Pill - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 1:25 pm:
He funnels those funds to favored incumbents and candidates to cultivate loyalty and consolidate his power.
This is also known as “being a caucus leader”
- JB13 - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 1:31 pm:
– distorting the rules to avoid accountability and amplify his power–
Ah, yes, the ol’ Illinois Way
- Chicagonk - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 1:40 pm:
The only restriction should be that campaign contributions need to be used for campaign activities. Other than that, there really should be no restrictions.
- 44 - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 2:34 pm:
Meet the new boss…
- Leo from Dolton - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 3:03 pm:
Tell me again how money is bad? We currently have a billionaire Governor pushing his lieutenant governor for US Senate through a dark money PAC. We now have his favorite state representative running for Comptroller, and his favorite former State Representative partnering as his lieutenant governor. I love Illinois. You don’t like it, vote them out, reformers.
- Remember the Alamo II - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 3:19 pm:
Good move Kaplan. I am sure that this will motivate Harmon to change the law to allow ranked choice voting just like you and your organization want. /s
- *ducks* - Wednesday, Jul 16, 25 @ 5:50 pm:
“The downside, of course, is that the reformers, editorial boards, pundits, etc. will all scream bloody murder.”
It’ll be in the same news cycle as water being wet. They want rich people to do legislating as a hobby horse. Until they get that result, theyll remain forever petulant. I would be interested in an analysis of the original caps bill that passed post Rod that Reformer Pat Quinn got cold feet on once the legislature returned for the summer in 09. It was panned as fake reform, but I don’t think it had the self funding rules.