Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Are Illinois nuke plants safe?
Posted in:
* The leadership contribution cap idea is taken as a given by editorial writers and pundits who believe that the reform would vastly improve the Springfield climate. I’m not so sure…
For a political system that is supposed to operate with checks and balances, Illinois has too many big money checks and not enough balance.
We’re referring to a loophole in campaign finance reform enacted last year that limits private donations and primary-election spending, but that lets state parties and legislative leaders dole out all the money they want to favored candidates in general elections. […]
Ideally, support for candidates in a state legislative race should come from people living in the district. But as the law now stands, only the state parties and legislative leaders —through their political action committees —may donate unlimited amounts. Everyone else is relegated to the sidelines in what amounts to proxy wars between the state’s top politicians.
That’s why the Legislature should advance two bills supported by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform — one in the Senate and one in the House — that would cap donations from political parties and legislative leaders in general elections. The limits would be set at $300,000 for a statewide race and $85,000 for individual House and Senate candidates. House Minority Leader Tom Cross is backing a separate bill that would set even lower limits.
Less money from leaders to candidates would necessarily mean less influence by leaders, right? Well, yeah, but this won’t accomplish that at all.
Instead of focusing on pie in the sky fantasies about how things maybe should be run, let’s look at how things actually do run.
Most of the money spent in these races is on direct mail and TV. Almost all the direct mail sent out by House and Senate Democratic candidates is funneled through the Democratic Party of Illinois account in order to obtain a substantial postage discount. The Republicans do the same thing through the Illinois Republican Party. The caucus leaders also spend a lot of TV dollars on behalf of candidates.
Take, for instance, Sen. John Mulroe (D-Chicago). Mulroe “raised” $364K in cash and received another $385K in in-kind contributions during the last six months of 2010. Most of those in-kinds were from DPI and the Senate Democratic Victory Fund. The mailers said “Paid for by the Democratic Party of Illinois” and the cable TV ads said they were “Paid for by the Senate Democratic Victory Fund.”
You could legally cap the in-kind cash spent by parties and caucus leaders. But you cannot legally cap the cash they can spend on behalf of their candidates via what are known as “independent expenditures.”
Look at what happens in federal races. The big dogs swoop down and spend loads of cash on TV, radio and mail via independent expenditures. Candidates are prohibited by law from even knowing about that spending. Candidates cannot, by law, control the message. On one hand, it gives them an easy way out if the DC types go way over the top. But on the other hand, they have literally no say in how money is being spent on their behalf.
Do you see what I’m getting at here?
If Illinois caps leader and party contributions, then rank and file candidates will - by force of law - have even less input on their races than they do now (and they don’t have a whole lot of input now). The leaders won’t stop spending money. The DC model already proves that. They’ll just spend money without consulting the candidates whatsoever, because they’ll be barred by law from doing so. In-kind expenditures with messages like “Paid for by DPI,” will simply be replaced by independent expenditures with messages like “Paid for by DPI,” and few in the voting public will ever notice the difference.
I’m figuring that Leader Cross is well aware of this reality. Kudos to him for recognizing a very easy press pop. But his idea won’t reform a thing. If anything, leadership power will only become more concentrated.
Everybody wants an easy solution. There are none. Remember the Cutback Amendment? It was supposed to be an easy way of breaking up the Statehouse power institutions. Instead, it built the career of the longest-serving House Speaker in US history.
Money and power will always find a way.
* Speaking of independent expenditures, I told subscribers about this weeks ago…
On Jan. 31, three co-chairmen of Ms. Braun’s campaign finance committee — Elzie Higginbottom, Cecil Butler and Leon Finney Jr. — formed a political group called United Communities of Chicago Inc. The group soon reported accepting checks from donors who already had given the maximum amount permitted under the new law to the Carol for Chicago fund, Ms. Braun’s campaign committee, according to state records.
Mr. Finney and another prominent Braun supporter, John W. Rogers Jr., head of Ariel Investments, had contributed $5,000 each to Carol for Chicago on Jan. 19. Mr. Rogers gave another $5,000 to United Communities of Chicago on Feb. 8, and Mr. Finney donated a total of $8,500 to the group before the election.
The Braun campaign isn’t required to report this to the state because it’s an independent expenditure, so, legally, she can have no role in it. How three members of Carol Moseley Braun’s campaign finance committee could do this “independently” is another question, however. But even the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform wasn’t sure whether it was a violation or not when I checked with them last month.
* Also, contribution bundling is done all the time at the federal level, so it’s no big surprise that it’s now happening under our new DC-modeled campaign reform law…
The Puigs, longtime masonry contractors, pooled $30,000 for Mr. Chico’s ultimately unsuccessful campaign in one day in early February, writing $5,000 checks in the names of six separately incorporated, family-owned businesses, state and city records show. […]
Another situation that arose in the mayoral race involved 10 people affiliated with the Jimmy John’s restaurant chain, each of whom contributed $5,000 to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign less than two weeks before Mr. Emanuel won the election. When Crain’s Chicago Business asked Mr. Emanuel’s aides about those donations, a spokesman for the campaign said the $50,000 from those donors had been returned “out of an abundance of caution and to avoid even the suggestion of impropriety.”
Direct corporate contributions are prohibited under federal law, so that first item about the Puig family wouldn’t happen at the DC level, probably for that very reason. But banning corporate contributions wouldn’t be easy here. And, frankly, they could just write checks from individual family members to get around a ban if it was ever enacted.
Also, I’m betting that the Jimmy John’s contributions were more likely returned because of the owner’s threat to move his corporate headquarters out of Illinois than any worry over a legal violation. As long as it was their own cash, that bundling was perfectly legal under our new law.
* And speaking of good intentions, while this has nothing to do with campaign reform, it’s a reform that appears to be backfiring. The Chicago Public Schools is feeding more breakfasts to more children, but they’re now doing it during classroom hours, instead of before school…
So chew on this: children are losing, perhaps, 20 minutes each day. That’s 57 hours over 170 school days, or more than 10 days — of instructional time.
* Related…
* Legislative Leaders and Parties Pay for 63% of Spending in Hot Races
* Chart: 2010 Targeted Legislative Races Total Expenditures and Leader/Party Support
* Appointments lag to State Board of Elections
* Let the sun shine in
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 1:16 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Are Illinois nuke plants safe?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Ok, call me a cynic. Children are suffering from childhood obesity…..they’re eating breakfast during school….are they eating two breakfasts? Maybe the problem is not Michael Pollan’s now retreacted HFCS, but simply too many calories. Also, are we paying teachers now not to teach in the classroom but to be lunchroom monitors? It’s enough for guys like me to request a huge overhaul in everything we do in the school systems.
Comment by MasterBlaster Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 6:40 am
Master Blaster - you can’t teach hungry children. That is a known fact.
Somehow the critics of the breakfast program are probably also critics of low test scores, poor teacher performance, etc.
Comment by Leroy Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 6:49 am
It sure seems that Illinois’ limited contribution limits law made things worse rather than better, adding to the Speaker’s power and more “independent” expenditures. Reformers should take note.
Comment by Frtchy Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 8:09 am
so we have “Rahm” pac, now “Carol” pac, will there be a
“Chico” pac?
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 8:10 am
Trying to get money out of politics is an endless game of whack-a-mole.
At one point, transparency seemed to be the best, feasible reform, but even that is regressing now, thanks to the Supremes.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 8:18 am
*Ok, call me a cynic. Children are suffering from childhood obesity…..they’re eating breakfast during school….are they eating two breakfasts?*
No. Kids are eating at school because the families can’t afford to feed them at home.
Moreover, obesity is not just about eating too much. It is about the type of food you are eating. IF you live in a poor neighborhood, you access to nutritious food is limited, and you are more likely eating foods with lots of fat, preservatives, etc.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 9:00 am
So let’s see Chicago schools have the shortest school day and shortest school year in the country and we are now taking another 20 mins out of class time. Yeah these kids are going to be able to compete in a global economy.
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 9:00 am
Aside from Rich’s well-reasoned points, attempts to limit campaign contributions or “dirty up” outside money inevitably lead to even more self-funders like Scott Lee Cohen and Socialite candidates whose Rolodex is full of rich friends.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 9:16 am
-Direct corporate contributions are prohibited under federal law-
I am no election lawyer, so perhaps someone who is can clarify… but I thought the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case opened the floodgates for direct and unlimited contributions from the treasuries of corporations. If my understanding is right, along the way they overturned about 25 years of campaign finance reform law to conclude that money=speech and people’s rights=corporate rights
Comment by JimmyCrackCorn Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 9:24 am
Why not just take the campaigning out of the picture? Restore sortition to democracy by using it for the House and you’d have a citizen check on an elected Senate. This would eliminate House campaign issues and I’d expect it to decrease Senate campaign financing’s importance. Lobbying might see an uptick but not as much as would be saved, in my opinion. I think paid third party lobbying could be controlled as well.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 9:27 am
===but I thought the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case opened the floodgates for direct and unlimited contributions===
Via IEs or to 501c4 groups.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 9:31 am
My local Chicago public school had a free breakfast program for students who needed it. They had to be at school by 8:30 to eat it. Now all of the kids eat breakfast during what was school hours. Ouch. Who is selling CPS the breakfasts asked my cynical neighbor.
Comment by jeff Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 9:39 am
There is a required “seat time” that is mandated to the schools. This “seat time” is the amount of time a child is in his/her seat and must be of a certain length of time for the day to be considered a complete day and meet the school aid requirement. In the District I where used to be a board member we had to lengthen our day by 20 minutes because an audit found that we were not meeting the requirement. This is supposed to be learning time. I am wondering if the CPS has found a way to include the breakfast time in this “seat time.”
The only way I could see that they could do it would be to allow those who qualify for free and reduced lunches, which is how you get the breakfasts, to either eat their breakfast in the classroom while instruction was going on or excuse them from the classroom to go to the cafeteria while the other students are learning. Either way the child would not be paying attention to the teacher or learning.
While economics do not always match achievement, we had a school that had the highest participation in the free and reduced lunch program that was also our highest acedemic achieving school, there are parallels that can be drawn that link the two. It would seem counterproductive to take these children out of the learning environment for any reason.
I wonder what that reason is? We had to fight pretty hard to get our teachers to accept the additional 20 minutes without additional compensation. I wonder if that is the issue here?
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 12:28 pm
There’s no reason the kids can’t learn while they eat breakfast. Another thing–maybe when they’re teenagers they’ll be less likely to seek to harm someone they grew up having breakfast with.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 1:11 pm
while we are discussing politics and transparency, hats off for a good run to Cindy Canary. she has carried the reform banner, waving it well. her work at the group will be missed.
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 1:51 pm
We must lengthen all of our school day . Get these poor kids a good breakfast,and lunch if necessary. But keep the kids in school,bring back
music and art.
Comment by mokenavince Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 2:18 pm