* We discussed this Tribune report yesterday about a recent $415,000 loan made by the Chicago Teachers Union’s operating fund to its campaign funds…
“The loan to the CTU’s Political Action funds simply moves money from when we collect it (after the 2023 municipal election) to the time we need it (during the 2023 municipal election),” said an email bulletin to members Feb. 12. “The loans will be repaid with political funds we collect between the end of February and the end of June.”
Campaign finance records show the transfers aren’t without precedent. The CTU contributed around $323,000 in 2015 to the CTU-led Chicagoans United for Economic Security super PAC, which is a committee allowed to raise and spend unlimited funds advocating for or against certain candidates. The union separately gave around $570,000 that same year to then-Cook County Commissioner Jesús “Chuy” García’s unsuccessful campaign for mayor. […]
Boyle and Alison Eichhorn, a fellow delegate and former union trustee, claim that only a fraction of the money the union transferred in 2015 — to help a candidate it’s no longer endorsing — has been repaid. Four years later in 2019, the Chicagoans United for Economic Security super PAC transferred around $72,000 back to the union, campaign finance data show. Boyle said a repayment plan for the remainder of the loan was included in the CTU budget that year, but that no budget since then has reflected any payments.
* From a lawyer pal, who is backing a different mayoral candidate…
The loan that CTU took from its operating fund to its political action committee is illegal. There may be no caps on in the mayoral race, but there is a cap on the CTU PAC. Only a loan from a financial institution is not considered a contribution under the campaign finance law.
(B) “Contribution” does not include:
(f) a loan of money by a national or State bank or credit union made in accordance with the applicable banking laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business, but the loan shall be listed on disclosure reports required by this Article; however, the use, ownership, or control of any security for such a loan, if provided by a person other than the candidate or his or her committee, qualifies as a contribution………
(Source: P.A. 96-832, eff. 1-1-11.)
The remedy is the [committee] must return the contribution or donate it to charity.
The statute is here.
* I sent all this to Matt Dietrich at the Illinois State Board of Elections. His reply…
Since this was described as a loan from the CTU operating fund to its PAC, it would fall under contribution limits. Your lawyer friend is right that only bank loans are not subject to contribution limits. So it appears to be a potential violation, but we won’t know for sure until we notify the committee and give them 30 days to take corrective action. Then, if they don’t do that, we will assess them and see what kind of defense they offer if/when they appeal.
I’ve reached out to CTU for comment.
…Adding… More from Dietrich…
Also, we sent them a letter seeking clarification on Feb. 9, the day the A-1 with the $140,000 was filed. I didn’t know that when I sent the earlier reply.
*** UPDATE *** Matt Dietrich at the Illinois State Board of Elections…
CTU is now saying that the contributions in question were actually aggregated member dues, not loans.
Attorney Larry Suffredin will compose letters in each case to confirm the receipt amounts in each instance were aggregated dues. We’ll make that part of the public filing for each committee. We have asked him to instruct each committee to report such receipts more transparently on the front end in the future (perhaps using parenthetical information after the donor/lender name) to head off a repeat of the confusion here.
I would expect the explanatory letters to appear in the committee files on our website tomorrow. If this is the case, there would be no violation.
