Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: As deadline looms, abortion providers and advocates warn about possible loss of Greyhound bus station
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to yesterday’s edition and some other stuff (Updated)
Posted in:
* From the Tribune’s campaign contribution story…
Madigan was a master of the state’s campaign finance laws and knew how to obscure the original source of donations. A former top Madigan lieutenant explained one such tactic, called “directed money,” in detail last summer in federal court.
Former state Rep. Lou Lang, a deputy Democratic majority leader when Madigan was speaker, explained that donors would send money to certain campaign funds with the expectation that Lang and others would pass that cash to another candidate in a competitive race.
“Directed money is a phrase referring to campaign donations procured by a third party, in this case likely the speaker, to go to a legislator or some other public official that has a campaign account for the purpose of re-donating it to other folks,” Lang testified.
Viewed in Springfield as legal money laundering, the activity not only allows donations to be masked, but it could allow politicians to keep getting cash from contributors who have given them the maximum amount allowed by law.
Lang said he would receive a list of which candidates needed a financial boost and then be told to “send the money out.”
The funds sent to the lawmaker would be directed by Madigan or the Madigan-controlled Democratic Party of Illinois, said Lang, who testified at the federal perjury-related trial that led to the conviction of Madigan’s chief of staff, Tim Mapes, who was also the state party’s longtime executive director. […]
While every system has questionable workarounds, candidates running for federal office are required to be more transparent. An actual notation is required by the Federal Election Commission when the original donor is explicit about the ultimate recipient, said Derek Willis, a University of Maryland data journalism teacher who specializes in campaign finance.
“If a donor wants to give money to a candidate via a third party, that third party is required by law to submit to the FEC the name and information about the donor and the recipient — even if the amount is under $200, which is the threshold for reporting individual contributions,” Willis said. “That additional layer is important because, without it, we know less about donors and what they might want from the people they give to.”
That federal procedure doesn’t really apply to this situation. The ultimate decisions are not made by the original contributors, they’re made by the people in charge usually after the contributions are given.
But, yes, the practice does allow for an evasion of the contribution caps. I’ve been writing about this behavior for years. It obviously increases the power of the chamber leaders. And it allows groups and companies that may not be popular with voters to participate in crucial elections without being unmasked.
posted by Isabel Miller
Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 11:35 am
Previous Post: As deadline looms, abortion providers and advocates warn about possible loss of Greyhound bus station
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to yesterday’s edition and some other stuff (Updated)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Mayor is doing this exact thing with the Leaders for Tomorrow PAC. Our purpose is to launder money.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 11:42 am
I am sure Lou Lang is correct, the problem is how to realistically implement reforms. For example, a wealthy constituent is a mover and shaker in local politics - he/she knows the party boss either statewide or countywide - and makes a big contribution - to central or state committee- the contribution may be solicited by the boss to be directed to a certain candidate, or the donor could suggest to the party boss to transfer cash to a local crony.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 11:54 am
Illinois law prohibits this activity. Section 9-25 of the Election Code provides that “No person shall make…a contribution in the name of another person, and no person shall knowingly accept any …contribution made by one person in the name of another person.”
Comment by Southside Markie Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 12:24 pm
The tradition continues.
Yesterday you showed that members of the House Democratic Party moved $760k from their campaign accounts to the State Democratic Party. Obviously, this was for the favorable mail rates, but only 5 members kicked into that.
Are we to believe that $760k from Democrats, in safe districts, is needed for their personal mail? Is it for the benefit of other candidates not named? Who may already be maxed out by the same contributors?
Comment by Frida's boss Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 12:34 pm
=Illinois law prohibits this activity=
I never said it was legal - just that it goes on and it is hard to regulate.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 12:35 pm
So, is the system better now than it was in 2008 when the caps were passed?
Comment by low level Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 1:30 pm
===So, is the system better now than it was in 2008==
Money will always find a way around restrictions.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 1:36 pm
=======So, is the system better now than it was in 2008==
Money will always find a way around restrictions.===
I agree. Thats also why I don’t think it is better now than 2008. At least then large contributors made direct to who the end beneficiary was. Easier to connect the dots.
Comment by Been There Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 1:52 pm
Before people call this conduct prohibited, maybe read DeGrazia. Old, a but still good law as best as I know. 105 Ill. App. 3d 509.
Comment by Grandpa Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 3:45 pm
I don’t remember Madigan complaining about all of Blagojevich’s media coverage of his corrupt actions. In fact, I remember Madigan being quite public and leading an impeachment effort at the time.
Comment by Just Me 2 Wednesday, Sep 4, 24 @ 4:23 pm