Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pointless press releases, Part 9,438
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* The plaintiffs in this case were represented by Liberty Justice Center, an arm of the Illinois Policy Institute that filed a recent lawsuit to halt in-precinct election day voter registration…
Illinois lawmakers did not trample on the U.S. Constitution when they gave the go-ahead for committees dedicated to electing state legislative candidates to make bigger contributions than many other donors, a federal judge held today.
In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman rejected the argument that lawmakers were improperly playing favorites when they set higher contribution limits for legislative caucus committees than for such donors as individuals, corporations and political action committees.
Imposing lower contribution limits on those other donors does not violate the First Amendment or the equal protection clause, Feinerman held. […]
One sufficiently important interest, he wrote, citing cases that included Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), “is the state’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.”
Placing limits on the amount of money donors can give to a candidate is a way to serve that interest, Feinerman wrote.
And, he continued, lawmakers could legitimately believe the possibility that a large contribution is part of a pay-to-play transaction is greater when the donor is an outsider.
“Illinois reasonably concluded that corruption (or the appearance thereof) by private individuals and non-legislative entities poses a far more serious risk to the democratic process than does a legislative leader contributing to another legislator or electoral candidate in that leader’s own caucus,” Feinerman wrote.
The Tribune editorial board might disagree with that particular sentiment. Plaintiffs plan to appeal.
Spending by the leadership committees is capped during the primary, but not the general.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 7, 16 @ 4:20 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pointless press releases, Part 9,438
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Never thought I would find myself agreeing with Dan Proft…and yet…
Comment by Chi Girl Wednesday, Sep 7, 16 @ 5:05 pm
IPI’s legal arm has a lot of money to pour into losing lawsuits. I wonder where it comes from? Surely not donors who also support particular candidates, right?
Comment by A worker Wednesday, Sep 7, 16 @ 5:43 pm
Madigan and the Federal Judges he controls!
Comment by burbanite Wednesday, Sep 7, 16 @ 6:03 pm
Anyone keeping track of the number of “frivolous lawsuits” filed by Team Rauner?
Asking for a friend.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Sep 7, 16 @ 6:47 pm
YDD, I don’t know, but I do recall that RNUG was taking wagers about how yuge the outside legal fees would be under Rauner. I hope no one took the over.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Sep 7, 16 @ 10:26 pm
@YDD and AA- IT occurs to me that there is a GOP candidate, possibly at the national level, who’s name escapes me that LOVES to sue people as well.
This seems to be a common characteristic of these bidness’ types.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Sep 8, 16 @ 9:02 am