Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

I’m a reform agnostic

Posted in:

Illinois

* I know we talked about this yesterday, but after reading this quote I thought the subject merited more discussion…

“The system we have is obviously not working,” [Cindi Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform] said. “How many more indictments, wire taps, grand juries and arrests must the voters be expected to endure before we are willing to try something new?”

Earlier in the day, she and other good-government advocates announced a new push to build public support for capping campaign donations.

Campaign contribution caps are not “new.” They’ve been used in DC for years and years. Yet, congressmen, lobbyists and others are still going to prison.

Simple solutions are usually neither. I’m not necessarily against campaign caps, but how much will this really clean up our system? Does anyone really believe that Rod Blagojevich would’ve avoided arrest if we had campaign caps in Illinois?

* Then again, four former US Attorneys have signed on to the idea…

We urge the state legislature—and the governor—to enact the pending legislation modeled after federal law that puts specific and reasonable limits on political contributions by individuals, corporations and unions.

Enactment of the proposed legislation will be a significant and much needed first step to ending the corruption that has for too long been part of our state’s history.

* On the other hand…

Laura Renz, research director for the Virginia-based Center for Competitive Politics, called on lawmakers to exercise caution as they consider changes to the campaign finance system.

A system with contribution limits generally hampers challengers who are taking on political incumbents, she said.

Incumbents have greater name recognition, making it easier for them to raise funds, but challengers often rely more heavily on large donations from fewer contributors, she said.

“Thus, by insulating incumbents from challenge, contribution limits can actually make it harder for voters to become aware of and root out corrupt politicians,” she said.

More…

Ann Lousin, who helped write the 1970 state Constitution and who teaches law at John Marshall Law School in Chicago, spells out some of the opposition to campaign finance limits for individuals, businesses and political groups. “If I can figure out a way around it in five minutes, you shouldn’t put it into the statute,” she said. “You go back to sunshine, sunshine, sunshine. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

She said individuals could disguise their financial support through friends or relatives, while state contractors could hide their donations by funneling money though subcontractors, which aren’t part of the public record. “All you’re doing is putting it underground,” she said.

* When somebody can show me a reform that actually works and has a real track record of success in cleaning up a notoriously bad system, then I’ll be for it. Until then, I’ll remain an agnostic.

Also, would the good government groups pushing this plan agree to cap their own donations? Good for the goose…

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:28 am

Comments

The problem is the campaign donation caps attack the problem from the wrong end. People come with fistfulls of cash to politicians because it is “worth” having their influence, particularly in contracting. Fix our bidding and contracting process and lobbyists will be less interested in giving money.

If you can’t buy a contract with donations, you solve part of the problem.

Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:34 am
Open goverment tied to frequent investgations and prosecutions seems the best tool.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:42 am
I agree Rich, but I also have selfish reasons. From time to time I’ve worked professionally on campaigns in Illinois. “Caps” sounds way too much like “pay cut” to me.

Seems like caps could be another incentive for government employees to do campaign work while on the public payroll. Not good. Not good at all.

I asked a friend who is affiliated with a good government group where the cap should be. I suggested a tight cap at $25,000 per individual per candidate sounded reasonable to me. He was thinking more like $2,500. I told him that would ensure only self-financers win office in Illinois, sort of like the U.S. Senate “millionaires” club.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:46 am
Rich, while I don’t think caps are worth much by themselves (with a State Board of Election that can’t or won’t investigate violations of the law), the standard you create is unrealistic.

I’m sure some libertarian theoretician can prove that as long as gov’t does stuff that causes people to gain or lose money the people who stand to gain or lose money will invest some money influencing the outcome of elections.

There is no perfect reform, but there are reforms that improve upon the status quo.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:46 am
I have to agree with Renz on this point.

Brendan Reilly probably could not have run a competitive race and beaten Burt Natarus if a relative handful of his supporters who really believed in him had been handcuffed in their ability to support him.

And what Canary fails to recognize is that the former governor’s prolific shakedown was in response to a new campaign reform law that would have banned state contractors from contributing to his campaign.

That seems to negate the argument for campaign contribution caps. Sure, the Governor still could have shaken down 1500 state contractors and appointees for $2,300 instead of shaking down 100 for $25,000 each. But it makes it that much harder for any officeholder to keep their criminal enterprise secret, very difficult to find anything of equal tangible value that you can deliver for $2,300, and almost impossible to offer 1500 quid pro quos without them starting to cancel each other out. You can only promise the same road contract to so many people, right?

Perhaps that law should be expanded: to prohibit gubernatorial appointees from fundraising or making campaign contributions.

You could even create a disincentive for shakedowns by making the ban retroactive, and requiring campaigns to reimburse all contributions to anyone who is appointed to a board/commission or receives a state contract going back five years.

That would discourage future state officeholders from rewarding their donors.

Finally, let me add this. I think that the time has come for a new test case before the U.S. Supreme Court on campaign finance, and I don’t think there’s a better place for a test case than Illinois.

From the beginning, the Supreme Court has always weighed the public’s right to be assured that their system of government is honest and elections are fair against the rights of individuals and candidates to exercise their free speech.

In striking that balance and deciding where the line should be drawn, the Supreme Court has always cautiously erred on the side of free speech. But I think the festering corruption in Illinois politics — from the county boards across the state, to the City of Chicago, to our highest office — makes a compelling case for throwing caution to the wind and reconsidering issues like campaign spending limits and outright bans on third-party ads within 90 days of the election.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:53 am
In campaign finance, as in most other things, I firmly believe a balance should be struck between extremes, and that this balance can and should be adjusted as circumstances warrant.

I would simply like to see a reasonable compromise or balance between unlimited, anything-goes campaign financing and strictly limited three- or four-figure caps that would force officeholders and candidates to spend nearly every waking moment begging for money.

With regard to Illinois politics in particular, I would concentrate mainly on discouraging pay-to-play for state contracts, not so much on limiting donations from individuals or from issue oriented PACs.

Ultimately, though, the best defense against corruption is the character of the candidates and officeholders. A crooked pol like Blago will find a way to get around any law.

Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:55 am
I guess the question becomes, do we want to do something, but recognize this little step as a little step - or do we hold back until we see a better alternative?

In this case, I will support caps as a starting point, just to begin this process. I hear enough skeptics recognizing the futility of caps to hope that these people will not give up in finding a better solution.

But nothing is not an option for Illinois in so many ways. I do not believe that passing caps will hinder the next steps that need to be taken, so let’s get together and start this process, instead of waiting.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:02 am
I agree with caps. They should be including “transfers” between campaign accounts. And put some teeth into enforcement of laws. A candidate who files phony D2 forms is slapped on the wrist. Pull him/her off the ballot. Have them forfeit their position if elected. The State Board of Elections enforcement process needs to be severely upgraded.

Sunshine is nice but won’t stop the wrongdoers unless there is something more than a tiny slap on the wrist or a little fine.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:04 am
Since caps were instituted at the federal level, campaign spending has continued to skyrocket. Motivated contributors find ways around the laws.

As I’ve posted on this page before, the most reform-initiating measures that could be taken would be term limits on the top leadership positions in each caucus and a fair map. You still might have powerful or slick leaders, but the turnover would create a consistent level of “freshness” and a fair map would better-represent the population and give voters more say in what happens in Springfield with more consistently competitive districts. That said, I’m not holding my breath.

Comment by Amuzing Myself Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:04 am
==a real track record of success in cleaning up a notoriously bad system==
Are there any examples of this? Anywhere? Is Illinois in a league of its own that it needs to be at the forefront of this movement and experiment with some method? Politics and money have been intertwined since at least Judas Iscariot, I don’t see how you can separate them…

Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:08 am
The current proposal is wack-a-mole, and probably an incumbent-protection insurance policy in practice.

If you want to do a Brit system — six weeks campaigning, free television and radio — you might make some real headway in reducing the influence of money. But we’re a long way from that.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:23 am
“You go back to sunshine, sunshine, sunshine. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

How about sunshine and caps?

Comment by scoot Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:38 am
To answer Rich’s 2nd question, will good govt types limit their own contributions, doubt it.

As someone who has been a registered lobbyist and knows many more, I’ve always been amazed at Canary’s demand of campaign finance reform and lobbying reform and denounciation of lobbyists and, yet, her group agressively, directly solicits money from the SoS lobbyist list. Clearly, her organization and other goo-goo groups depend on the same money they believe perverts the political system in Illinois.

Comment by SangamoGOP Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:40 am
==A system with contribution limits generally hampers challengers who are taking on political incumbents, she said.==

While YDD cites a case-in-point, this situation is actually pretty unusual. In most races, the challenger has difficulty raising large contributions, while the incumbent gets lots of large contributions from people who figure betting on the incumbent is a good bet. Since challengers are less likely to win, contributors usually give smaller contributions. Limits would be more likely to level the playing field.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:50 am
True, true the current system sucks, but to quote the inimitable Mike Royko: “Lord, save us from the Reformers!!”

Comment by You Go Boy Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:55 am
Wouldn’t we still have “bundlers” even with caps?

Comment by anon Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:48 am
I’m not sure I understand the idea of capping contributions to watchdog groups. Would that mean that not-for-profit foundations — which are legally banned from making any political contributions — would be limited to $2,500 a year (or whatever) to support the watchdogs? Seems like a great way to put the watchdogs completely out of business.

Comment by soccermom Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:56 am
Some combination of high caps (higher than 2300, at least for start-up contributions) and good disclosure laws are worthwhile. Public financing is better but probably unfeasible.

What the Rod example has also shown is that the problem is not only bribery but extortion. Caps help protect honest lobbyists and interest groups, too.

Too much emphasis on disclosure is subject to the same objection that caps are: if somebody wants to collect really dirty money, they’re not going to put it on their forms.

Comment by ZC Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:57 am
Vanillaman et al –

Once caps are passed and reformers hail “problem solved”, I highly doubt we will ever, ever get public financing, unless the next impeachment happens to coincide with a budget surplus.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:15 pm
Good point ZC—those who cheat will still cheat.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:15 pm
Why not have an independent review board that awards contracts. The main graft problem is that contractors can influence decisions by contributions. If the board is not allowed to legally accept any money then there will be no reason to give huge sums.

The independent board should be appointed by journalists led by Sam Zell.

Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:17 pm
Whatever is done, we have to be very careful about unintended consequences. We have to make sure that the changes made make it impossible for the less affluent to run for public office. Campaign contribution caps, the shakman decree both operate to eliminate less affluent candidates. These measures remove the campaign from the streets and put it on the airwaves, costing lots of cash that is becoming more and more difficult to raise. Campaign reform can’t wipe out the campaign. All of our candidates will be like Peter Fitzgerald when he ran for US Senate. Ads on TV and no public appearances. The stealth campaigner that no one can beat because they don’t have the money.

Then folks argue for term limits, which also leads to unexpected consequences. In California, elected officials get around term limits by simply rotating and exchanging seats. They stay in, they just move offices to get around the law. How effective can someone who has to run every two years be if he or she can only hold the office for two terms? Voters just need to pay more attention and hold their elected officials accountable. Democracy takes an involved constituent for it to work. Term limits are for the lazy voter.

Comment by Penelope Pitstop Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:40 pm
oops, I mean we have to make sure the changes do not make it impossible for the less affluent to run. sorry!

Comment by Penelope Pitstop Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:42 pm
So far, the most prevalent argument I’ve heard against campaign finance limits goes like this, ‘Well, people will just skirt the rules anyway. There’s nothing you can do to prevent that.”

That’s true. It’s also a pretty lame excuse for continuing on with business as usual.

Campaign finance limits are not so different from speed limits. The prospect of speeding tickets, an accident, increased insurance rates deter most people from zipping down the Drive at 100 mph. Speed limits don’t net 100 percent compliance but they do help reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities and produce a fine-based revenue stream.

It looks to me like those who are most vocally rejecting limits are those on the inside, those who believe that Blagojevich was an aberration, those who believe that pay-to-play is merely a contracting problem, those who indulge the thrill of 100 mph despite what it costs others.

Those of us on the outside, the ones stuck with the unpaid bills, the lousy schools and self-interested “players”? We tend to see it differently.

Unless they’re in your own account, unlimited dollars don’t have much to recommend them.

Comment by Suzanne Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 1:00 pm
===Campaign finance limits are not so different from speed limits. ===

False.

You don’t need to hire an army of lawyers before you start your car. But if you try to run for Congress without said lawyer army, you’re gonna run into big trouble.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 1:08 pm
Only real solution is term limits. We all have a list of people we would want excluded from limits and those standouts are the reason we don’t go there, but the only way to really change our State system is limit the time in office by the holders. 8 per house 16 tops for both. 2 terms each on all statewide.
The blue code of silence is nothing compared to the silence of fellow state wide office holders, until they need to run against each other for the next step up. no more wait your turn. We need statewide officers to throw each under the bus.

Comment by frustrated GOP Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 1:45 pm
There is no real solid answer, but I believe a hybrid of several solutions would help the issue…keep in mind no answer is going resolve this issue-quit frankly there are just some bad people in this world who like to cheat…but a system of 100% transparency in donations, hard and non-negotiable fines for violating campaign finance law, giving limits, outlawing corporate contributions, and reasoable term limits (I buy into 3 house and 2 senate terms may not really be enough time to accomplish your goals, but surely 12 years in either chamber ought to be). also it is unreasonable to do it all at once…the people who have raised the money under the rules need to be able to keep a portion of it and transfer the rest to a party organization and term limits would be applicable to every member from this day going forward, but not retroactive

Comment by Downstate GOP Faithless Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 2:13 pm
Campaign donation limits are the ANTI-REFORM. They protect incumbents, special interests and lobbyists. Look at Washington. The most powerful people are the insider “bundlers.” And they’re hidden from view.

If someone does not do business with the government and does not lobby the government, why should they be limited in the amount of money they can give?

There are lots of civic-minded people who get nothing/want nothing from the government who want their values reflected in their leaders, and who are willing to help challengers and outsiders balance the scales against insider incumbents running on special interest money.

Comment by Chicago Dem Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 3:01 pm
>>Campaign finance limits are not so different from speed limits

Comment by SangamoGOP Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 3:14 pm
Once caps are passed and reformers hail “problem solved”, I highly doubt we will ever, ever get public financing, unless the next impeachment happens to coincide with a budget surplus.

So you are suggesting we don’t do anything unless we can actually do something. I think we’ve been trying that approach for a long time and have been experiencing nothing instead of something.

Your approach can be countered similarly - those needing to be reformed with simply apply what Blagojevich et al. applied last year - claim that the reforms aren’t good enough, and that they would rather wait for what they define as a more effective measure - so nothing gets done.

I say do something, then demand more when they claim they are finished, instead of demanding better, and hoping nothing prevents anything from being done.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 4:48 pm
The point, Rich, is the purpose of limits, not how cumbersome it may be to start a committee or a car.

Comment by Suzanne Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 5:06 pm
Oh, wait, what are you driving?

Comment by Suzanne Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 5:06 pm
limits wont work, and today, not only is the U.S. Senate a millionaires club but so is the U.S. House of Reps (for the most part). Competitive elections in those districts cost up to $4m for one side. That at least has some prestige.

State Rep and State Senate don’t have that same prestige. So don’t count on many rich people filing. As for the rest of us working class people, what challenger in the world will run knowing they can only raise $2,300 a pop and $30,000 from the caucus committees? They won’t be able to walk precincts or do anything but raise money.

This bill is dumb and dangerous.

Comment by this old hack Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 5:47 pm
Marginal goo-goos took a swing and missed. Leadership swatted them away like little flies. Nothing to get worked up over.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 6:46 pm
==As for the rest of us working class people, what challenger in the world will run knowing they can only raise $2,300 a pop==

Most challengers would love a $2300 contribution. Ask someone who has run as a challenger. If you challenge in the primary or run against an incumbent in a gerrymandered district you get very little in the way of support from any direction. Contributors will only spend a little to fund Don Quixote tilting at an entrenched windmill.

The reform that needs to come first is computerized, non-partisan redistricting. Competitive districts would have a better chance at leveling the playing field.

After that, 10 or 12 year limits for the GA and 2 term limits for constitutionals. Contribution caps at $2500 for individuals and $5000 for unions and corporations.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 7:47 pm
Sunshine, as in immediate and public disclosure of contributions is the best answer. Caps and term limits are not the answer. Money and politics have always mixed, but public disclsoure and scruitny have not always been there. Should also add, there needs to be better visibility of contracts and appoints as well so that contributions and connections are more easily exposed and obvious.

Contribution caps reward the independently wealthy and drive fundraising underground as noted. Moreover, take the US Attorney’s letter which notes, Illinois is only one of five states without campaign caps–well look around to those other 45 states and 6 territories and you will see it did not end pay to play and/or public corruption–or for that matter federally. Moreover, because political contributions like water, always finds its level and a way, contribution limits, but the permissible “independent” advertising and campaign efforts, effectively takes away messaging and control from the candidate and/or limits an opponent from responding with equal resources and messaging.

Term limits are there already and thear are what as knows as elections. Term limits, in practice and my experience, only empower the special interests and staff (who want to join the special interests/lobbyists at some point). You lose political experience, political courage and institutional knowledge with term limits. Demand responsive and public disclosure of your elected officials, nor limit those who want to fairly and on an equal footing challenge the status quo.

Comment by been there before Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:12 pm
Good for you, Rich

Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:18 pm
sorry for the typos and mistakes, hit send/”say it” before finished by accident.

Comment by been there before Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:18 pm
Clearly the limits are unworkable nonsense
Speaking of Sunshine, let’s get some disclosure from Canary and the BGA, etc…..who pays their bills? BGA 990 claims they do no lobbying
Seems like the go-gos need to be a honest too.

Comment by EmptySuitParade Wednesday, Mar 18, 09 @ 6:36 am