Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Drivers Who Use Uber Have The Freedom To Pursue Their Passions
Posted in:
* 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.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 9:00 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: Drivers Who Use Uber Have The Freedom To Pursue Their Passions
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I look forward to CTU explaining this one.
Comment by Pawar Lost Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 9:06 am
You can file this one under basically meaningless reform-oriented laws. CTU forward shifts member dues and calls it a loan. Okay, maybe they can’t call it a loan (there are like a dozen complications that could intervene which Dietrich rightly referenced), and the remedy is…they give back the money exactly like they were already planning on doing.
This sort of thing happens all the time in terms of, well what does this actually cost in the end? If it’s a basically token fine and some angry letters then okay sure. And yes you CAN describe that as lawbreaking but that is not exactly a complete picture of what’s going on.
Comment by Will Caskey Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 9:11 am
===they give back the money exactly like they were already planning on doing===
lol
Except “plan” and “execute” are two different things, as the 2015 “loan” shows.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 9:21 am
===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.===
Did they use the same bond counsel as the Park District’s Soldier Field team?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 9:29 am
CTU shenanigans/ignoring laws doesn’t surprise me. But I think the “real” story is that it appears to have “gifted” Chuy hundreds of thousands - the 2015 loans to the PAC and directly to Chuy. Although it is unclear whether the direct loan to Chuy was repaid, it seems pretty clear that the 250K balance of the PAC loan will never be repaid.
Comment by WestBurbs Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 9:31 am
CTU backed Chuy in 2015, and lost. CTU backed Preckwinkle in 2019, and lost. CTU is backing Brandon Johnson, and … well … ain’t lookin’ good.
Comment by Old IL Dude Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 9:34 am
This may be more than a simple election law violation. If there are dissenting “non-members” i.e. those that only pay “fair share” fees - refunds would be required.
“when non-members object to such use. Seven Supreme Court decisions have held that union dues exacted from dissenting non-members may not to be used for political and ideological purposes and must be expeditiously refunded to dissenting non-members”
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/97-618.html
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 9:34 am
LOL, Yeah Rich obviously I’m not offering an opinion on how well they’re DOING it, and have been paid to point out how not well they’re doing it before. I just see a lot of this stuff spun up as if it’s wire fraud or whatever and try to keep it in context.
Comment by Will Caskey Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 9:36 am
The piece in the Sun Times with the bubbles for donations to candidates was interesting.Brandon Johnson has a bunch of big bubbles. Bubbles burst.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 10:05 am
CTU wading in, as a union, the reality is that the legality to such a movement of monies, you need professional election law advice, not political advice to the want.
It’s one thing to be, say, overzealous, it’s another to seemingly ignore statues to monies.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 10:08 am
Once again, SDG has proven she is out of her mind and out of her league. Good riddance
Comment by Wardster Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 10:10 am
Union money contributions get scrutinized but contributions from the 77 Committee are perfectly overlooked. How disappointing but typical.
Comment by Corruption Committee Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 10:46 am
==Union money contributions get scrutinized but contributions from the 77 Committee are perfectly overlooked. How disappointing but typical.==
Overlooked how? There have been multiple news stories about 77 Committee and its contributors.
Comment by Sad Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 10:49 am
===How disappointing but typical. ===
Bite me.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 11:10 am
If CTU was an IFT or IEA affiliate, they would have professional staff to know that what they did was not legal. I don’t know much about the structure or inner working of CTU, I would assume they have a legal team that would guide them on this. They definitely should have known, but if it is all teachers maybe they didn’t.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 11:10 am
CTU should’ve hit up Randi for that money, then AFT could have created an intercompany loan on their books. Nationals often provide loans to affiliates and locals.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 11:23 am
**If CTU was an IFT or IEA affiliate, they would have professional staff to know that what they did was not legal.**
Uh, CTU *IS* an IFT affiliate.
Comment by JoeMaddon Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 11:30 am
==If CTU was an IFT or IEA affiliate==
CTU is an IFT affiliate. There are numerous CTU employees that serve as officers in IFT, including Brandon Johnson.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 11:32 am
It’s a mess that they are going to have to fix. Sometimes People feel pressured to make things happen without checking with those who would be able to give them sound advice.
Comment by Tinman Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 11:36 am
= *IS* an IFT affiliate.=
My bad.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 11:55 am
What is the fine? A couple grand? Big deal. Cost of doing business and installing a puppet regime.
Comment by Just Me 2 Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 1:43 pm
The CTU gets a pass over and over and when they finally get caught in the act, the CTU and their minions attack the media and wait for the story to fall out of the news cycle…never to be picked up again. Members of the media, please hold them accountable this time around.
Comment by Shytown Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 4:16 pm
Is it weird the CTU attorney is also a Cook County commissioner?
Comment by Chicago Chic Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 5:26 pm
===also a Cook County commissioner===
He’s retired.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 5:38 pm
Don’t let a Lightfoot-Vallas runoff happen progressives.
Comment by Lake Villa township Wednesday, Feb 22, 23 @ 5:53 pm