Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Bears continue to confuse PR messaging with passing legislation
Posted in:
* This is what I told subscribers back on April 30th…
WRITE BETTER LAWS The complaint filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections alleging illegal coordination between Dan Proft’s independent expenditure committee (People Who Play by the Rules PAC) and Darren Bailey’s 2022 Republican gubernatorial campaign has highlighted some gaping holes in state campaign laws and rules.
State law prohibits coordination between independent expenditure committees and the campaigns they’re supporting. But the law doesn’t define what coordination actually is beyond forbidding “an electioneering communication in connection, consultation, or concert with or at the request or suggestion of a public official or candidate, a public official’s or candidate’s designated political committee or campaign, or an agent or agents of the public official, candidate, or political committee or campaign during any 12-month period.” The Board of Elections’ rules are basically silent beyond that.
And because this is the first such IE coordination complaint ever filed in Illinois, we have no case law, either. But it’s fairly certain that we eventually will have some case law because whoever loses at the board level will undoubtedly appeal to the courts, where just about anything could happen.
So, the judicial branch is going to decide something that probably should’ve already been laid out by lawmakers and the Board of Elections.
It was a long piece, but that’s the basic gist.
* Tribune…
A hearing officer has recommended that the Illinois State Board of Elections dismiss a complaint filed by the state Democratic Party contending political operative and right-wing radio show host Dan Proft and former state Sen. Darren Bailey coordinated campaign spending in Bailey’s unsuccessful 2022 race against Gov. J.B. Pritzker. […]
While state and federal laws say independent expenditure PACs are not allowed to coordinate campaign spending with a candidate, hearing examiner James Tenuto basically said that the complaint against Proft’s PAC cannot be sustained because the state lacks rules to define such coordination.
Tenuto said an examination of the facts and evidence presented “does not demonstrate ‘an agreement or some other activity which indicates some level of material involvement in the decision making between the independent committee and candidate of his campaign.’ Thus ‘coordination’ among the respondents has not been proven.”
Tenuto noted that Democrats cited federal rules and regulations to try to establish proof of coordination between Proft and Bailey. But, he said, “Illinois has not adopted any rules and regulations concerning independent expenditures” and said rules or statutory changes are needed to “clarify which activities are acceptable and/or prohibited in regards to independent expenditures.”
Tenuto recommended the board either dismiss the complaint or find that the alleged violations of coordination had not been proven.
Stay tuned.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 7:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Bears continue to confuse PR messaging with passing legislation
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Tenuto isn’t objecting to Illinois laws, he’s saying the agency hasn’t adopted rules to spell it out like the feds did. If this complaint fails, it’s because the Board failed, not the legislature.
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 8:32 am
As noted in the Tribune story quoted in Isabel’s Morning Briefing, “Tenuto noted that Democrats cited federal rules and regulations to try to establish proof of coordination between Proft and Bailey.”
The drafters of the law could have incorporated that language of the federal rules, or explicitly referenced them, in the language of the Illinois bill.
But they didn’t, so that’s on them.
If ambiguous laws were effective, the legislature could replace the entire Illinois code with “Be good; don’t be bad” and go home.
But the law, and people, doesn’t work like that.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 8:57 am
Whether it’s blowing millions of dollars of Uihlein on failed campaigns or violating election laws, you have to give Proft credit for never facing any consequences for his actions.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 9:22 am
Part of me wonders if drafting this law so it would end up with no definition, as it were, was not part of the plan.
That way you can say “we have a law” but not really have one.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 9:49 am
As an attorney: federal criminal laws are often super simple, often only one sentence long, and federal courts are totally comfortable using case law to fill in the blanks over time.
But in state courts and administrative hearings, ALJs and state court judges often seem petrified of being the one to stick their neck out and actually ruling on whether people violate any laws that don’t have paragraph long explanations already written up.
I don’t have proof as to why this is, but I have a number of suspicions that mostly tie back to state politics and the likelihood that the judges run in the same circles (socially or politically) as the people who whose wrath they would incur if they actually took a stand on anything.
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 9:52 am
A fitting end to the last Governor Election.
The whole campaign was something to see.
From JBP funding of Candidate Bailey’s campaign, to really awful attack commercials, to “pink slime” newspapers and the very dramatic envelope offer, this last campaign should go down as an embarrassment for both major parties.
Perhaps our junior high and high school teachers can use that election as an example of why Illinois needs our young people to register and get involved in getting our state going in a better direction.
Comment by Back to the Future Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 10:16 am
I’m not going to write anything helpful, other than to say thank you. I often do not understand legal arguments and I’ve been trying to understand what is going on here, but frankly, my intelligence was quite lacking. Between Rich’s explanation and the commenters interpretations, I think I finally get it. I really appreciate this site(bp) So again, thank you.
Comment by Lurker Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 10:42 am
Homebody, you nailed it.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 11:02 am
Z and Proft grifted tens of millions and never called to account. The system is really screwed up right now and needs to change.
Comment by Watchful eye. Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 11:16 am
The lack of board rules is obviously not an oversight, and the hearing officer is just trying to not get it wrong, so who can blame him? Let’s get back to the good ol days when the board just called candidates skeevy and moved on
Comment by hilarious Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 11:32 am
Consequences?…Profit and Bailey have to be who they are…that’s punishment enough.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 12:51 pm
===the Board failed, not the legislature. ===
lol
This sort of finger-pointing is why we can’t have nice things. The GA could tighten up the laws and even direct the board to issue rules by a date certain.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jun 12, 24 @ 1:26 pm
How can there not be coordination? I have been in Illinois politics since 1978, ideas and strategy are not invisible to the campaigns. Odd how talking points from the media are often similar to campaigns.
Comment by Lightning Thursday, Jun 13, 24 @ 2:06 am