Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** It’s just a bill
Next Post: Unemployment rate falls, but remains a point above national level - Civic Federation endorses Pritzker budget proposal
Posted in:
JUSTICE OVERSTREET delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Garman, Michael J. Burke, and Carter concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and Justices Theis and Neville took no part in the decision.Byron Sigcho-Lopez, the alderman for Chicago’s 25th Ward, filed a complaint with the Illinois State Board of Elections (Board), alleging that his predecessor’s campaign committee, the 25th Ward Regular Democratic Organization (Committee), unlawfully paid personal legal fees from campaign funds. The Board dismissed Sigcho-Lopez’s complaint, and Sigcho-Lopez filed for administrative review in the appellate court. On administrative review, the appellate court affirmed the Board’s dismissal. 2021 IL App (1st) 200561. This court allowed Sigcho- Lopez’s petition for leave to appeal (Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020)), and for reasons other than those set forth by the Board and the appellate court, we affirm the appellate court’s judgment and the Board’s dismissal. […]
Until the General Assembly amends the statute to, for example, specifically prohibit payment from campaign funds for legal fees incurred in defense of criminal allegations against a public official or candidate, the issue requires the Board’s consideration on a case-by-case basis, applying the plain language of the applicable statutory provisions. In this case, despite the parties’ arguments regarding legal defense fees incurred as a result of public corruption allegations, the record here reveals that Solis had not been indicted on criminal charges but only that he had worked with federal investigators using his official capacity to expose public corruption. Considering the evidence before the Board, we find that the Board’s conclusion—that Solis’s legal fees amounted to a proper expenditure not prohibited as “satisfaction or repayment” of a personal debt (10 ILCS 5/9-8.10(a)(3) (West 2018)) but incurred “to defray the customary and reasonable expenses of an officeholder in connection with the performance of governmental and public service functions” (id. § 9-8.10(c))—was not clearly erroneous. Thus, we affirm the Board’s decision, finding that the complaint was not factually and legally justified.
There was no dissent.
…Adding… I was scheduled to appear on Jak Tichenor’s Illinois Lawmakers show earlier, so I didn’t have much of a chance to read through this carefully worded opinion before posting it. The justices focused primarily on what the campaign finance statute forbids. For example…
Whether legal defense fees amount to a personal debt that does not defray the customary and reasonable expenses of an officeholder in connection with the performance of governmental and public service functions must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
In the case sub judice, the parties ostensibly agree that campaign fund payments expended for personal use are prohibited by the Election Code. Sigcho-Lopez argues that legal fees expended for the criminal defense of public corruption charges amount to personal debt prohibited as a campaign fund expenditure, and the [25th Ward Regular Democratic Organization] argues that legal fees expended for the criminal defense of public corruption charges are not personal in nature because the public corruption charges would not exist irrespective of the public official’s position.
* The justices chose to “apply the plain language of the relevant campaign disclosure and regulation provisions of Illinois’s Election Code”…
In doing so, we reject the Committee’s argument that legal fees incurred as a result of public corruption and criminal activity, resulting in conviction even, may be subsidized by campaign funds because they are not personal debt incurred irrespective of the officeholder’s position. We cannot ignore that a public official’s actions that result, for example, in convictions of official misconduct or corruption are “clearly committed for their own interests.” … The essence of a conviction for official misconduct, conflict of interest, or public corruption is that the public official has attempted “to personally enrich himself or another by an act exceeding his lawful authority as a public servant.” […]
(W)e also reject the contention that, because an officeholder could not engage in public corruption absent his position as officeholder, his personal legal defense fees for proven official misconduct or public corruption may be subsidized by campaign funds as an expenditure “to defray the customary and reasonable expenses of an officeholder in connection with the performance of governmental and public service functions.”
* The court then noted a New Jersey Supreme Court decision which ruled that using campaign funds to defend against corruption charges was not an ordinary and necessary expense: “A grand jury indictment is not a customary, or usual, or normal incident of holding public office, nor does it occur in the regular course of events,” that court decreed…
This court agrees. Allowing campaign monies to subsidize public corruption amounts to an unreasonable interpretation of the Election Code.
* But…
On the other hand, we also reject Sigcho-Lopez’s contention that legal fees incurred to pay for a public official’s criminal defense against investigations or charges of public corruption amount to a per se prohibited personal debt pursuant to the plain language and spirit of section 9-8.10(a)(3) of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/9-8.10(a)(3) (West 2018). We cannot ignore that not all allegations by political rivals are sound and that baseless allegations are at times asserted against public officials because of their very capacity as public officials. […]
Therefore, in limited circumstances, pursuant to the plain language of the campaign disclosure and regulation provisions of the Election Code, the Board may appropriately allow the use of campaign funds to pay for legal expenses in defending such allegations. See Wright, 174 Ill. 2d at 404 (holding ordinance invalid to the extent it attempted to indemnify officials convicted of crimes for their attorney fees and costs incurred in their unsuccessful criminal defense but making no express determination regarding the authority of any municipality or home rule unit to indemnify its officers and employees for legal expenses incurred in a successful defense); see also State v. Ferguson, 709 N.E.2d 887 (Ohio 1998) (although public officeholder may generally not use campaign funds to pay for legal defense against criminal charges, use of campaign funds to pay attorney fees incurred in connection with dismissed indictment that failed to state prosecutable violation was not prohibited attorney fees).
Clear as mud?
…Adding… Press release…
The following is a statement from Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez (25th Ward) in response to today’s Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Byron Sigcho-Lopez v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 2022 IL 127253:
“If the law allows corrupt politicians to use campaign funds for legal defense fees, then it’s time to change the law.”
…Adding… Press release…
In response to the Illinois State Supreme Court’s decision today to dismiss cases in which campaign funds are used for criminal defense fees until specific legislation prohibiting the practice is put into law, State Representative Deanne Mazzochi (R-Elmhurst), issued the following statement:
“With this decision, the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the General Assembly needs to act immediately. We have seen millions in campaign funds expended by Mike Madigan on his own legal defense for his corruption indictment. Madigan may be the most prominent, but he is certainly not the only politician to selfishly do so. The people of Illinois deserve better.
Officials using their campaign funds for their own defense after they are tangled up in public corruption scandals is yet another example of how insider power and privilege in Illinois protect their own. I filed legislation, HB 2929 because we cannot allow campaign donations to finance corrupt politicians’ efforts to keep themselves out of jail.
Unfortunately for the people of Illinois, like numerous other pieces of legislation filed by myself and my colleagues to tackle out of control corruption in Illinois, Democrats have refused to allow these bills to be heard and voted on. Democrats have stifled every attempt made this spring to restore public trust.”
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** It’s just a bill
Next Post: Unemployment rate falls, but remains a point above national level - Civic Federation endorses Pritzker budget proposal
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I understand why Justice Burke didn’t participate because her husband is facing criminal charges. What about Theis & Neville?
Comment by Andersonville Right Winger Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:53 am
Those are some interesting recusals.
Comment by Keyrock Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 11:00 am
You could argue nothing say Illinois like almost half of its Supreme Court not participating in a case about using campaign funds for criminal defense.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 11:03 am
Interesting that the court seems to be saying that such expenses are OK because “Solis had not been indicted on criminal charges”.
So where does that leave other public officials that have been indicted?
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 11:14 am
It’s an ethical question, no doubt, raising funds that were to help win races then used to stay out of prison…
… but the legal seems to have found it’s landing spot.
No real issue with the ruling, you donate at your own risk of it’s use?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 11:15 am
Is this the end of Byron’s crusade? Someone tell him Solis isn’t running in 23
Comment by Palos Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 11:25 am
The better question is why once a politician steps down are the legal fees associated with their political career deductible. When an individual incurs legal fees unless they are business expenses they are not fully deductible. It would be income to an individual to access their political war chest to pay which can’t be characterized as a legitimate business expense
Comment by Sue Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 11:30 am
The fact that half the Supreme Court had a conflict of interest on this topic of corruption is unfortunately not surprising.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 11:45 am
These are not public funds so I do not understand why people would care so much about this issue unless they have a vendetta against the person they are filing a complaint against.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 11:52 am
I’ve never been and never plan to be an elected official, but this seems like a reasonable middle ground. Basically says it is case by case. Using campaign funds to defend yourself against phony charges is ok. Using campaign funds to defend yourself against not-phony charges may not be.
The Board of Elections is entitled to (and expected to) make those assessments on a case by case basis.
Comment by Homebody Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 11:53 am
So basically, if you prevail in your defense, then it is a proper use of funds. If you fail in your defense, it is an improper use of funds and you will now be subject to Board of Elections proceedings for the improper use of funds and potential tax liability for the personal use of those funds.
Maybe someone should make the statute clear.
Comment by Unionman Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 12:37 pm
Seems like a pretty well reasoned opinion.
And written by one of the court’s more conservative justices. Three of the four justices in this unanimous opinion are Republicans.
Comment by Steve Rogers Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 1:06 pm
Hannibal- what is irksome is that they are using these campaign contributions for what are essentially personal expenditures without having to test the money as income for tax purposes. When politicians convert campaign funds and use them for other personal expenditures without paying income taxes they go to federal penitentiary
Comment by Sue Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 1:08 pm
== Using campaign funds to defend yourself against phony charges is ok. Using campaign funds to defend yourself against not-phony charges may not be.==
That’s how I read it, and it makes sense…elected officials are subject to frivolous lawsuits. As such, many could not afford the legal fees and would be forced out of office at the threat of a lawsuit. That would not be tenable.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 1:35 pm
===and it makes sense===
But who decides?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 1:39 pm
@Rich == But who decides? ==
¶ 24 of the decision: “Pursuant to article III, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, the Board has general supervision of Illinois’s election laws.” Cooke v. Illinois State Board of
Elections, 2021 IL 125386, ¶ 48.
The jurisdiction of the court system is then given through the Administrative Review Law.
Comment by Homebody Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 2:26 pm
I think that before we get all high and mighty on the use of campaign funds in criminal defense, we should remember the late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Comment by Nuke The Whales Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 3:57 pm
== Using campaign funds to defend yourself against phony charges is OK. Using campaign funds to defend yourself against not-phony charges may not be.==
Pot calling kettle, Thank you for totally making sense of the judges opinion in two sentences.
Comment by Mama Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 4:09 pm
what happens when there is more than one lawsuit filed at the same time, and only one of several lawsuits was not-phony? Can you use campaign funds to defend yourself if all lawsuits are lumped together?
Comment by Mama Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 4:18 pm
== Clear as mud? ==
Heh. If life was easy.
Comment by sal-says Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 5:14 pm
===has made it abundantly clear that the General Assembly needs to act immediately.====
If her rush is for Madigan’s use of funds she is probably too late. I assume a lot of those funds he has under his control are grandfathered in under the old rules which allow him to use as he wants. As long as he pays taxes on them. I doubt they can pass a retroactive law about those.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 5:32 pm
Madigan in under the potential ex post facto wire?
Comment by Elliott Ness Friday, Mar 25, 22 @ 7:03 am