* Background is here if you need it. You’ll recall that the Illinois State Board of Elections deadlocked last month on whether Senate President Don Harmon’s campaign committee was responsible for nearly $10 million in fines and refunds after he continued accepting campaign contributions above the state limit beyond an end-point set by a board staffer via a letter. Harmon’s legal counsel Mike Kasper claimed the staff cut-off point was counter to state law.
After the tie vote, the board’s deputy general counsel declared that the assessments would be imposed. Kasper and several board members argued, however, that state law and judicial precedent are clear that the board cannot impose any sanctions without a majority.
* The state board met again today. The board’s general counsel Marni Malowitz [corrected attribution] had this to say before the vote…
So my recommendation to the board today is to first vote on whether to impose the penalties contained in the June 5, 2025 notice. If at least five members vote to assess the penalties, then I can recommend an additional clarifying motion to ensure the board’s action is clear for judicial review if needed. Conversely, if at least five members vote against assessing the penalties, then the appeal can be granted because no violation of the election code was found and no penalties would be owed.
Now, if the board votes four to four on whether to assess penalties, no penalties will be owed because there will be no determination by at least five members that the committee violated [state law].
The board split again 4-4. Other votes were taken, but the long and short of it is that Harmon’s committee is off the hook.
* Meanwhile…
Illinois Senate President Don Harmon is facing a new challenge over a State Board of Elections staff finding that his campaign committee owes $9.8 million in fines for accepting campaign contributions in excess of state limitations.
The libertarian-leaning Liberty Justice Center, which frequently advocates on behalf of Republican causes, last week filed a citizen-initiated complaint with the election board regarding Harmon’s committee. The move could allow the matter to go to court and sidestep the bipartisan election panel’s stalemate on the issue. […]
The complaint filed through the Liberty Justice Center follows along the staff-initiated finding that Harmon violated the law. But as a citizen-initiated complaint, it could allow a court to review whether the board followed state law or to seek a judicial mandate requiring the board to act.
It’s not clear whether the courts would hear that, but we’ll see.
…Adding… From Harmon’s spokesperson…
We’re pleased to have this matter finally behind us and to focus all of our energy on solving the real problems facing Illinoisans every day.
- NotRich - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 12:30 pm:
Sometimes a tie isn’t “like kissing your sister”!! It’s a victory.
- HappyGoLucky - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 12:36 pm:
If my political committee made an error I would be fined and have to pay a penalty.
But that’s because I’m not a powerful politician and president of the state senate.
Let’s stop pretending we live in a progressive state just because our great democratic majority pontificates before the alter of progressive social issues.
Anyway if youll excuse me I have to go pay my property tax bill that increased by %20 this year.
Ah progres!
- hmmm - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:00 pm:
Fact of the matter is the Election Board is split evenly, Ds and Rs. Who else is really surprised by the outcome????
- Harrison - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:01 pm:
My household deadlocked on whether or not we should pay the second installment on our property taxes that’s due the week before Christmas.
Tough luck Cook County
- City Zen - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:02 pm:
==The libertarian-leaning Liberty Justice Center, which frequently advocates on behalf of Republican causes==
Election fairness is a Republican cause? Where’s the ACLU?
- Homebody - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:04 pm:
The absolutely biggest travesty in American politics is how much people are willing to excuse bad behavior by people on “their” side.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:14 pm:
Nice legal work if you can get it. All the other times Harmon self funded based on BoE staff’s understanding of “elections” did not help his case, but I guess he is safe. Why didn’t he just stick with the program? Better safe than sorry.
- here we go again - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:15 pm:
No Kings! Except when it’s our guy. Then all cool. Got it.
- Sue - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:22 pm:
So have there been any instances in which a board member voted to penalize someone of their own party or is it a given that the laws are effectively unenforceable because they will always be ties?
- 4-4 4ever - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:40 pm:
The nice thing about the Board of Elections is that it entrenches the two major parties so they can always beat up 3rd party/independent candidates, meaning that accountability is always reserved for those without political power. Love to see it
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:40 pm:
===My household deadlocked on whether or not===
Just stop.
First of all, it’s not at all clear that the board staff’s interpretation of the law in question is valid. Staff has made several mistakes on this case. So a split on the board was anticipated.
Secondly, the law is abundantly clear that a 4-4 tie means no penalties can be enforced. This was the most egregious staff mistake at the last hearing.
The system, while very flawed, was set up this way to prevent a single political party from dominating the proceedings.
I’d be open to hearing suggestions for change. I’m not interested in your playground analyses.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:41 pm:
===The board split again 4-4. ===
Nothing more clearly reduces this board to irrelevance than them deciding that they really just make campaign finance suggestions.
What of their oaths to the people of this State and to our Constitution?
Yet another albatross for our state government.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:49 pm:
===What of their oaths to the people of this State===
Again, the underlying law is in legit dispute about when Senate (and only Senate) candidates’ contribution limits expire. For House members, it’s their terms of office. According to the Board, Senators’ caps-off end after the next primary election.
- Juvenal - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:55 pm:
1. Kasper wrote the law. If he says the ISBE lawyer is wrong, I believe him.
2. The issue here seems to be staff getting too caught up in their own illusory power. You got excited because you thought you landed a whale, you were in the news, I get it.
3. I just want to point out that Reformers were very excited about Caps back when we passed campaign finance reform. Madigan was very worried about self-funders like Pritzker even then. It did not occur to me — perhaps it had only occurred to Kasper and Madigan initially - that a candidate could bust the cap by loaning themselves money. That manuever has rendered the Caps pretty meaningless.
4. What is this all about? A mere difference of interpretation that has zero substantial impact on campaign finance in this particular case. If ISBE lawyer is correct, then the right thing to do would have been for Harmon to simply loan his campaign another $100K in the second half of his cycle, lifting the caps for a second time.
It would have changed nothing: not how much he raised, spent, the Republicans raised or spent, or what contributions were disclosed and when.
5. I do think Kasper is correct, btw. It is illogical to think that if i waged a two-year campaign for the Illinois Senate, i could bust the caps in July, 2024 when I launch my campaign to defeat Doris Turner, in 2026. And then I would have to “bust the caps” again in January, 2025 to keep raising large dollar amounts?
What if I wait until December, 2024 to “bust the caps,” raise $1 million really fast, and then do not bust the caps again in 2025-26 cycle? Does that mean Doris cannot raise big dollars because the caps are back on?
See how the board’s technical reading of the law makes no sense in practice?
6. To me, this whole case reads like staff felt “disrespected,” and they were going to teach Harmon a lesson. That is an abuse of power and a waste of taxpayer resources.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 1:55 pm:
===Kasper wrote the law===
Pretty sure Harmon sponsored it.
- Sue - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 2:06 pm:
Size of the penalty was absurd but excusing the violation is pathetic- at least the disputed contributions should have befn required to be returned
- West Sider - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 2:18 pm:
Juvenal —-If ISBE lawyer is correct, then the right thing to do would have been for Harmon to simply loan his campaign another $100K in the second half of his cycle, lifting the caps for a second time.—–
None of this made any sense. At most it deserved an admonishment. It was never more than an accounting disagreement.
- Juvenal - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 2:18 pm:
=== Pretty sure Harmon sponsored it. ===
You may be right.
I would have guessed Emil/Madigan, but we could ask Kasper.
- Think again - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 2:23 pm:
= no penalties will be owed because there will be no determination by at least five members that the committee violated=
There will be no official penalty/fine imposed - but Harmon will absorb all the slings and arrows of the public that will see this as just one more insider /crony tool that keeps wealthy incumbents in office.
- Skokie Man - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 2:28 pm:
===So have there been any instances in which a board member voted to penalize someone of their own party or is it a given that the laws are effectively unenforceable because they will always be ties?===
Bumping this question from above. I don’t know where to search past cases, but if anyone knows a link I’m happy to do my own research.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 2:31 pm:
UPDATE: Kasper didn’t write that bill. Harmon was the Senate sponsor.
- huh - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 2:38 pm:
It is absolutely irrelevant whether Kasper wrote the law or not. The State attorneys who administer the law through the Board of Elections may have a different opinion about what the law does than what the Senate Legal or LRB attorney would think - and that’s just fine. The Board, and ultimately the courts, will decide what the law means - not a fancy lobbyist-political attorney
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 2:39 pm:
===The Board, and ultimately the courts, will decide what the law means ===
And the board couldn’t come to an agreement on what the law means.
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 3:31 pm:
Juvenal’s fifth point is on the money. The staffer’s interpretation is that anyone in a four year term could self fund millions when no one else is even thinking about their reelection and then let caps come back into effect when petitions are due. Not to pick on our governor, but JB could put tens of millions into his PAC and then Bailey or whoever would be bound by limits when running against him. Is that truly how reformers and the Liberty Center read that clause?
- fwiw - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 4:15 pm:
fwiw, we’re all trying to make the policy “make sense”, but at its core the law says that you can self fund (including via a loan), pay yourself back the next day, and immediately start raking in contributions without limits - regardless of whether or not you have an opponent taking advantage of the caps being lifted (or any opponent at all). but you’re all right, we should all dunk on a government attorney for trying to enforce a law that you don’t think “makes sense”
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 18, 25 @ 4:21 pm:
===we should all dunk on a government attorney===
Welcome to America.