Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE SESSION COVERAGE *** Quinn to close 14 facilities
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
The pro-choice group Personal PAC has filed suit to kill off Illinois’ campaign contribution limits to certain political action committees. If the group succeeds, some candidates may start justifiably quivering.
Currently in Illinois, contributions to state political action committees are capped at $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for corporations, groups and unions.
Personal PAC’s lawsuit wants those caps wiped out, arguing that the controversial “Citizens United” U.S. Supreme Court case and the “Wisconsin Right to Life” U.S. Appeals Court case mean the caps are unconstitutional. The two rulings declared that spending and contribution limits on federal and state PACs that are engaged in independent expenditures are unconstitutional.
Personal PAC claims it has missed out on $100,000 in contributions since the state caps were put into place last year. Nobody will be holding a tag sale for the group any time soon, however. At the end of December, Personal PAC had more than $1.4 million in the bank. It raised close to $700,000 last year alone, after the contribution caps first kicked in.
Four years ago at this time, the group had $770,000 in the bank after raising $997,000 the previous 12 months. The state’s year-old campaign contribution caps haven’t appeared to hurt the group much, if at all, but it wants more freedom to raise even more cash.
Personal PAC long has been one of Illinois’ top-performing political action committees. It raises and spends tons of money every election cycle and has one of the better track records in Illinois politics.
But because of the new caps, it wants to set up a separate entity to make uncoordinated, independent expenditures on behalf of candidates. That means the group won’t give money directly to candidates but will spend the cash to help them without coordinating with the candidates’ campaigns.
In the past, Personal PAC usually designed its direct mail and radio and TV commercials and reported them as what are called “in kind” contributions to the campaigns it was supporting. The group could coordinate directly with the candidates it supported, but Personal PAC usually tightly controlled its message, regardless of what the candidates wanted it to do.
That independence created some friction over the years. The group is heavily funded by liberal Democrats, but Personal PAC has backed several pro-choice Republicans against Democrats. A few years ago, some Democrats attempted to start a contribution boycott, but the group was just too strong to stop.
Back when the law limiting contributions to groups such as Personal PAC was passed, I wrote that the proposal was a direct shot at the group itself.
Personal PAC can’t set up one of those newfangled, independent-expenditure committees because Illinois law also forbids groups from establishing more than one campaign account at a time. This provision also is aimed at Personal PAC and groups like it. Since the Wisconsin case, which was decided by a Chicago-based federal appeals court, allowed PACs with independent-expenditure committees to raise money without limit, Personal PAC wants the court to stop Illinois from interfering.
It looks like Personal PAC has a pretty good case here.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that limiting independent expenditures won’t rein in corruption, and the original legal rationale for campaign contribution caps was to stop corruption. So, now it’s Katie bar the door.
If this contribution cap is lifted, Personal PAC and other groups will be free to raise as much money as they can from large contributions. But candidates still will be operating under strict campaign finance limits. Personal PAC and other groups, like labor unions, corporations, etc., will be able to raise and spend money freely to go after candidates who can do neither.
In other words, Illinois’ campaign finance reforms, combined with the U.S. Supreme Court’s logic, have the real potential to transfer power from the political class to the monied class.
If Personal PAC wins, the legislative effort to stifle and limit the group’s voice will have backfired badly on the control-minded politicians.
* The Question: Do you agree with the US Supreme Court that limiting independent expenditures will not rein in corruption? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments please. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 12:20 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE SESSION COVERAGE *** Quinn to close 14 facilities
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m a Democratic consultant, and have worked both for campaigns and independent expenditures.
I have never, ever been asked to bend the letter or spirit or letter of the law with an IE.
I can’t say the same for campaigns.
There is simply not the same incentive for malfeasance for IEs as for campaign committees. IE contributions and expenditures should be disclosed, not restricted.
Comment by Dirt Digger Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 12:34 pm
It depends on what kind of corruption you’re talking about. If we’re talking about graft, then no, limiting expenditures will not rein in corruption. If you’re talking about a corruption of the political process — where those with money and a limited interest drown out those without money and a broader public good, then yes, limiting independent expenditures will rein in corruption. Since I believe the latter is a real problem, I disagree with the Supreme Court.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 12:34 pm
Voted no…
In terms of reining in corruption, look at the corruption in this state, its more about dudes getting paid or getting something of value personally (think F–in golden) than selling out for campaign cash.
Yeah it happens for campaign cash, but in general these guys are so cheap the limits will not stop that.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 12:44 pm
tOA is precisely correct. It depends on how one defines “corruption”.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 12:46 pm
especially if one defines it as “things I don’t like or agree with” rather than it’s usual definition. Is it “corrupt” that the wealthy live better than the poor? That the powerful defeat the powerless (for example, the Yankees vs the Athletics)? That seven footers have better NBA prospects than six footers? Give me a break!
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 12:52 pm
The current republican presidential campaign is a prime example of why the Supreme Court got it wrong.
The super pac are not supposed to have any coordination with a candidate. It is the perfect vehicle for a candidate to spend untold sums of money with a veneer or “clean hands”.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 12:55 pm
I agree with part of what tOA says about corruption and the small contributors. I voted no because I see it as one of the alternatives that tOA presented, that if corruption can be expanded to mean gross inequity in the way campaigns are financed, then corruption can be limited through caps on independent expenditures.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 1:01 pm
@steve schnorf
I don’t believe I was saying that it’s wrong that there are distinctions based on money in our society. However, I was saying that when money makes it so one-sided that the public good gets drowned, then there is a problem.
Seriously, Steve, you’ve been around long enough to know how things work. Company or person A has a huge stake in, let’s say, a tax deduction. They have the incentive to put a lot of money to keep that deduction — even if keeping that deduction harms thousands who cannot get health care, or social services, or whatever. Or even if that deduction means that my very meager income taxes go up by $1. So the welfare of thousands, or millions, goes by the wayside because we allow unlimited spending that only a few can afford to keep a policy that benefits only those few. Sorry, that is a corruption of the (small d) democratic system.
And it’s a problem because of the extent of the corruption, not because of its mere existence.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 1:01 pm
We will see another example of big money in play in the Governor Walker’s recall election. He has big contributors who are funding his campaign, but will that be enough to convince voters to give him a second chance?
I heard that even though Romney’s people spent a lot of money in the Florida primary, it was the debates that helped Romney win the state. There might be some skepticism about ads, and people might want to see the candidates handle themselves in public and in debates.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 1:10 pm
NO!
It is the political consultants, direct mailers and the media who reap the benefit of unlimited expenditures. The politicians just get to keep or win their job, and the headaches that go with it.
Comment by anon sequitor Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 1:10 pm
My dictionary app tells me there are at least 7 different definitions of “corrupt.” The election process may not be a tit-for-tat illegal operation, but it certainly has been debased and altered into a different/worse form. And the fact that each Republican presidential candidate has a sugar-daddy billionaire providing IEs on an unprecedented scale shows that the Supreme Court decision hasn’t brought back the democratic process.
Let the arms race continue. Maybe after all the well-heeled power-broker wannabes lose a few election cycles they’ll give up. or the sour grapes backlash will get us to where we really have to be–publicly financed election processes that last 6 months instead of 18.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 1:23 pm
As long as politics affects money, money will flow into politics.
Contribution caps (and the like) have the sole effect of making the flow of money in more complicated (and perhaps cuts off the middle level contributors at the cap point), but the big money players always get their money poured in.
Comment by titan Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 1:27 pm
Voted yes. Titan has it right. The big money people always find a way to get the money in. Limiting contributions hasn’t worked for the past 30 years. The key is both disclosure and we have a long way to go on that.
Comment by RWP Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 1:39 pm
Real solutions to political corruption go way beyond trying to limit campaign contributions. These attempts are more distractions than real solutions.
Comment by mark walker Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 1:59 pm
I voted “no,” simply because the Supremes allow unlimited contributions without disclosure.
I’ve got a flash for you, folks. Advertising, especially negative advertising, is highly effective. Don’t you want to know where the money comes from?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 3:00 pm
=I’ve got a flash for you, folks. Advertising, especially negative advertising, is highly effective. Don’t you want to know where the money comes from?=
Yes I want to know, because I recently gave some money from home and I had to disclose my occupation.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 3:04 pm
Wdslgr: I think the Supremes left open the possibiltiy of disclosure requirements, in Citizens United.
Comment by Anon III Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 3:15 pm
@Steve,
On this, one needs only look at the R race and see that a handful of eccentric billionaires are now able to single-handedly keep their candidates in the race. And yes, obviously the wealthy have more influence than the poor. But are there no lines? Citizen United is distorting the political process in an enormously destructive way. If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn it soon (which I doubt), I strongly favor a constitutional amendment to allow for reasonable restrictions.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 3:23 pm
We need a constitutional amendment to put an end to the notion that corporations are the equivalent of a human being.
Comment by Aldyth Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 3:45 pm
When has their not been corruption?
Comment by Liberty First Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 4:08 pm
I voted yes. I think what we’re talking about here is the distinction between “I’ll scratch your back, and you scratch mine” and “One Man, One Vote vs. One Dollar, One Vote.” I agree, as long as corporations are considered people (and if they are, why aren’t they filling out 1040s and paying the 30% tax rate? Maybe they should register for the Draft while they’re at it? But I digress) limits won’t amount to a hill of beans.
Comment by What planet is he from again? Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 4:31 pm
I agree w/SCOTUS. People with money will find a way to contribute to causes and campaigns they care about. I am not intuitively troubled by that. Individuals who don’t have millions are able to join together in groups like Citizens United, or pro-life or pro-abortion groups, whatever they support.
An additional note. I can’t speak to this issue in particular, but in my experience in state and federal regulation and observing other types of cases, an individual’s rights and state state govts’ power are different than under federal govt. That is, generally, states have rights to impose many things and tend to many more domestic issues than the federal govt is empowered to tend to. We are a union of 50 states. Thus, my point is that I don’t know whether the SCOTUS would recognize that, for state elections, Citizens United would apply as it does to federal elections. It might. I just don’t know.
Comment by Peggy R/Southern Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 4:39 pm
Funneling money through candidate committees with fast reporting seems to me the best way to get a handle on this problem.
Comment by Cal Skinner Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 5:22 pm
Of course the Supreme Court is wrong. The basic outcome of Citizens United is to vastly increase the ability of a small wealthy minority to engage in pay-to-play politics, and furthermore to hide this behind corporate entities that have personhood. If that isn’t corrupt, what is?
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 5:52 pm
But Pat Collins and Cindi Canary said limits are the answer to everything. Doesn’t the SCOTUS understand? Pat and Cindi can’t be wrong. Ever. Limits are the answer. So what if it has the practical effect of turning government over to shadow entities with no accountability. If that’s what the good government people want, well, they certainly know what’s best for the rest of us.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 6:45 pm
CU didn’t say that corporations are persons, but that individuals as citizens do not lose their rights if they organize themselves as corporations. Surely, it would be unjust if the individuals who formed a company were not allowed to look out for their interests as shareholders and managers before legislators and regulators. After all, their employees are allowed to organize in direct opposition to shareholder interests. Why can’t the owners and managers express their views?
CU, however, was not a corporation that was selling consumer or industrial products but a film with explicit political purposes. Some analysts of CU have noted that if corporations don’t have rights, then media corporations do not have free speech rights.
Comment by Peggy R/Southern Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 7:14 pm
@Michelle - Good one!
@Peggy - I agree that individuals shouldn’t lose their rights as citizens by forming corporations.
BUT they also shouldn’t be able to double their rights at everyone else’s expense either.
I voted Yes because I agree with The Court that campaign limits don’t eliminate corruption. Only public financing does that.
If you set the contribution limits at $50, someone is going to find a way to give $1 million in $50 increments.
The root of the problem was the court ruling that equated money with speech.
You have the right to talk as much as you want. But you don’t have the right to buy up the public airwaves and drown out everyone else’s speech.
Freedom of speech — if its to be enjoyed by all of us — must have its limits. Because we can’t all talk at once.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 8:43 pm
I just wanted to draw the discussion back to Rich’s original and key point, that allowing Personal PAC to create unlimited independent expenditures / contributions will in effect mean that the outside groups play under more generous financing laws than the candidates themselves.
In the long run, yes of course this will lead to more corruption. Because no way will the candidates and parties allow themselves to be outgunned like that (nor should they). They will find loopholes and twists in the law to in effect, in all but in name also allow themselves to raise and spend unlimited sums. They’ll call it “soft soft money” or some such other.
And unlimited contributions will again provoke corruption - not for every politician but for Rod Blagojeviches out there.
So yes, this will set into course a chain of actions that will help facilitate the next mega-scandal in IL, without in any way stripping responsibility from the actual politicos who will be involved in it.
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Feb 21, 12 @ 9:31 pm