Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Working the refs
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
One way of getting around the state’s new campaign contribution caps law is by forming a lot of different campaign committees. State law forbids people from forming more than one committee (except for independent expenditures, political parties and state legislative leaders), but nothing in the law prevents “friends” and allies from forming their own committees to receive and give money.
For example, House Republican Leader Tom Cross has his own PAC, Citizens to Elect Tom Cross, his allowed “caucus” PAC, the House Republican Leadership Committee, and also appears to control or at least influence four other committees: Illinois Crossroads PAC, Citizens to Change Illinois, the Illinois House Victory Fund and the Move Illinois Forward PAC.
Before we go any further, let me stress that none of this appears to be illegal. The House Republicans don’t deny they’re doing this, with one official saying that they even include these campaign accounts in the presentations they give to large donors.
The point here is not to say that somebody is doing something wrong. It’s to show that if somebody wants to contribute money, they’ll find a way. State law caps the dollar amount that campaign committees can both give and receive, so multiple funds means contributors can give more money and the various funds can then, in turn, give out more cash.
The state’s contribution cap law is just not very good at what it’s supposed to do. In fact, the law makes it more difficult to track donors, because we have to look up so many different angles. I happened to stumble upon these House Republican committees, for example, while casually looking up contributions made by Jack Roeser.
The Illinois Crossroads PAC was formed in January, but reported collecting no contributions until July. It has since received more than $40,000 from Cross’ personal committee, plus two $10,000 contributions from Otto Engineering, a company owned by conservative activist and GOP fundraiser Jack Roeser. Walmart kicked in another $10,000, and energy magnate Gerald Forsythe contributed $5,000. Residual Based Finance Corp. contributed $2,500. The PAC has reported receiving $82,500 so far this cycle, and has contributed $70,000 to the Illinois Republican Party.
Citizens to Change Illinois was formed back in 2007, years before the caps were implemented. Its treasurer is a longtime aide to Cross. The PAC had just $22,000 in the bank at the end of June, but then money started coming in the next month, totaling $67,500, including two $10,000 checks from Roeser’s company, $10K from Walmart, $5k from Gerald Forsythe and $2,500 from Residual Based Finance Corp. $60,000 of the money raised since June 30th has already been contributed, with $35,000 going to the state Republican Party and the rest going to House GOP candidates.
The Illinois House Victory Fund is controlled directly by Cross. It was formed way back in 2004, but it had just a bit over $20,000 in the bank as of June 30th. So far, it’s received the usual two $10,000 checks from Roeser’s Otto Engineering and the $2,500 from Residual Based Finance Corp. All of the contributions it has made so far have gone to a handful of House Republican candidates.
Move Illinois Forward PAC, based in Oswego (which is in Cross’ district), was formed several years ago, but it had only $15K in the bank at the end of June. Since then, Otto has contributed $10K, Forsythe contributed $5K and Residual has contributed $2,500. The PAC has so far contributed $25K to Cross’ House Republican Organization and $15K to targeted House GOP candidates.
Again, there doesn’t seem to be anything untoward about these committees or these contributions, at least not at this point. It’s just money finding a way to its intended target. You may hate it, but the truth is that’s just the way of the political world — and of the money world.
It’s also a pretty good demonstration of how a perhaps well-intended law doesn’t perform as promised.
But most of all, it’s further proof that nobody, not even reformers, ought to be crowned as unquestioned experts in this business.
* Related…
* Jacobs, Albracht race nears spending record
* Ill. GOP facing long odds Nov. 6
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 9:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Working the refs
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
My comment is more of a question really. At what amount of money should we feel that the money is influencing the candidate? I don’t necessairly mean that the “influence” is illegal or improper. Giving 2,500 to an alderman may be more “influential” than say $20,000 to a GOP PAC. What are these big ticket donors hoping for? Face time? Influence? A job? Perhaps it really is a deep felt need to advance a particular agenda….but, I have doubts.
Comment by Lobo y Olla Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 9:42 am
Is a $2,500 donor considered a “big” donor?
Comment by Lobo y Olla Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 9:43 am
Good column Rich. I have often thought that the real “corruption” in our government isn’t illegal but it can be far more insidious. The “corruption” I refer to is the practice of misdirection and purposeful confusion our lawmakers and bureaucrats write into the bills they propose and pass and the subsequent actions they take to circumvent the laws they don’t want to abide by. I have tried to decipher many different bills and laws and become very frustrated at the ambiguity and contradictory language those documents contain.
I have seen it stated many times on this blog that people wished the GA would do something as it appears they don’t get much done. However I recently was searching for a certain Agencies budget appropriation and went through at least 10 different bills that were a part of a several pagew listing that came up when I searched XXX agency appropriations. Many of those bills ended up having no relevance to the agency I was looking for. That is when I began to see that the GA really was doing something. They were doing their best to confuse and misdirect the public.
This brings us back to the “corruption” I spoke of, why can’t they just be straightforward and state plainly what it is they are accomplishing with each bill. One begins to wonder if this is not done to hide what it is they are actually doing. The hiding of political contributions is just part of the larger issue of hiding most of their actions. Until this mindset is eliminated and the legislators and bureaucrats decide they owe the voters/taxpayers open and transparent government there will always be “a way around” any bill that is passed. You can’t legislate honesty and integrity.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 9:50 am
What’s the Wal-Mart donations about? Is it somehow related to the Wal-Mart strikes/walkouts of late?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 9:56 am
At least you can still at least track who contributed. Campaign disclosure at the federal level is now strictly voluntary. Or I don’t know actually, maybe that has seeped its way stateside as well.
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 9:56 am
Great column, Rich. Laying out what is going on, and being quite clear its legal helps in the money discussion.
I have always said that money in these races are not a problem for me, not one bit. Give as much as you want, to whomever you want, but complete transparency and disclosure for even $1. contributed.
If you feel “Two-Putt” Tom Cross deserves $100,000., then give it to him, and declare you gave it to him.
Which leads to my 2nd thought about this post …
===* Ill. GOP facing long odds Nov. 6 ===
“Now, I am not one to make excuses …but …”
This is called, “getting ahead of the story so I can stay the leader of the Caucus” press drop.
Remind me of this article when Tom Cross tells us he shot when he golfed on Election Day again, and be sure to point out Christine ‘Radonodgogo’, ‘Radagonenono’ or whoever is the Leader of the SGOP, who was and is irrelevent now and after this election even more irrelevent, if THAT is even possible.
The “talking points” are out there for those two to try to slavage their leadership positions, Veto-Proofed or not.
Pathetic!
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 9:58 am
Couldn’t help but notice this is the 2nd time this year you painted a big red target on the House GOP for contribution caps. Yeah, you say it isn’t illegal, but for the 2nd time this year you infer it is unseemly.
Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 10:06 am
@Just me - Is that a problem? I find it unseemly but acknowledge it’s legal. Do you find it on the up and up, or are you saying that since it’s legal it is completely unremarkable?
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 10:12 am
Haine’s opponent takes in $20,000 from Free Market State PAC. You look at the PAC filings and they had $975 on hand in June, no A1s, and failed to file last night. One of three PACs at same address. Yes, these new laws are really opening up disclosure. Should be quite a fine, though.
Comment by Robert Wadlow Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 10:14 am
These stupid dodges to comply with the law indicates nothing more than the laws are idiotic on their face. We should eliminate ALL contribution limits and instead insist on instant, transparent disclosure. This allows elected officials to cease the endless fundraising and get down to business, while also allowing the press and the public to perform whatever due diligence they feel they need.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 10:17 am
The new laws haven’t done anything to reduce the amount of money or it’s influence. It is, however, much more difficult to be able to track the money as it moves through the system. This is not an improvement over the old way.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 10:44 am
Why do you think politicians want to ‘cease the endless fundraising and get down to business?’ Fundraising is what they are good at–governing, not so much.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 10:47 am
=Why do you think politicians want to ‘cease the endless fundraising and get down to business?’ Fundraising is what they are good at–governing, not so much=
Cheryl44, you’re missing the point.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 11:26 am
Some real barn-burner races out in the Quads this year. Politics is a full-contact sport out there, so I’d imagine the heat will be turned up even higher before it’s all over.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 11:49 am
Whatever happened to the Reboot Hedge Fund Hustlers? Where is their cash going? Did they give up on the pols and just spending on spa treatments?
Come on Capt Fax let’s get going.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 11:55 am
I wouldn’t be so quick to assume it’s all legal. A counter case could certainly be made.
Comment by too obvious Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 12:51 pm
The unintended consequences of contribution limits is a common problem when a proxy is used to measure success (see the effect of bounties on the cobra population: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/10/11/the-cobra-effect-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/). The proxy in this case is campaign funding when what we’re really trying to control is lawmaker competence. Truth be told, the elected representative could even be said to be a proxy in and of itself whereas a statistically representative citizen is what we truly seek to accurately represent the interests of everyone given that it is not practical for everyone to directly participate in lawmaking.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 1:17 pm
Robert Wadlow above
FreeeMarket State PAC’s A-1 did show up 4 minutes ago. It looks like a shell organization to allow Roeser, Uihlein and other conservative businessmen to “legally launder” money into campaigns bypassing the caps–as this whole post is about.
Heck, the initial Organizational Statement of the PAC states N/A for its purpose, further exposing as nothing more than a shell game.
train111
Comment by train111 Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 3:26 pm
I’m not missing the point. I’m stating the obvious. We’d like them to do their job. They don’t seem to know what that job is.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 4:04 pm
Cheryl’s right.
“What are these big ticket donors hoping for? Face time? Influence? A job? Perhaps it really is a deep felt need to advance a particular agenda….but, I have doubts.”
The most effective are obviously looking for “spokesmodels” (i.e., opportunities to align elected officials and their staff with their brand name, businesses, and products). The more doors these officials open for them, the better of an investment the official is for them.
Getting involved with a “cause” is merely a pretense–especially when they show up at events carrying their products in their tote bags and waving them in front of everyone’s face and the cameras.
I once thought that doing that was against all sorts of ethical violations. Kind of makes you wonder, though, why so many are willing to look the other way when only a small group seems to be violation.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 5:12 pm
And a bit off topic, but maybe not: Am I the only one who can’t take someone whose campaign spending is at issue seriously when he starts bolivating about “wasteful” government spending and programs? I’m wondering how closely the two might be aligned and whether one might be a valid diagnostic indicator of the other.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 16, 12 @ 5:38 pm