Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “Doomsday” maneuver on horizon
Next Post: Crises loom for Democrats in 2010
Posted in:
* I wrote this weekly syndicated newspaper column to illuminate the drumbeat of propaganda about how Illinois is almost completely alone in how it regulates campaign contributions. It’s not. You can see all the state regulations by clicking here. And now, the column…
Editorial writers, crusading columnists and reformers say it all the time: Illinois is one of only a small handful of states that does not regulate campaign contributions.
That’s technically true, but you might be surprised at how little some other states actually regulate those contributions.
Gov. Pat Quinn’s independent reform commission has recommended that Illinois adopt the same basic contribution limits for individuals and political action committees as the federal government. But if contribution limits are supposed to get the influence of money out of politics, they’ve failed miserably in Washington, D.C., where money has become an obsession, and that obsession rules all.
According to a March analysis by the National Conference of State Legislatures, some states have few campaign contribution restrictions at all. Still others have much more stringent caps than proposed by the governor’s reform commission.
Neighboring Iowa, for instance, has no limit on individual contributions to candidates and doesn’t cap state party contributions, political action committee contributions or labor union contributions to candidates. However, Iowa does prohibit direct contributions by corporations. Here is a rundown of some other states:
• Texas, Pennsylvania and North Dakota prohibit direct corporate and union contributions to candidates, but have zero limits on any other contributions.
• Indiana restricts contributions by corporations and unions to $5,000 per year for statewide candidates and $2,000 per year for all other candidates. Individual, political action committee and state party contributions are not limited. Mississippi and Alabama have similar restrictions.
• Ohio limits individual and PAC contributions to a somewhat odd $11,395.56 per candidate, per election, while capping state party contributions to $642,709.58 for statewide candidates, $128,200.05 for state Senate candidates and $63,815.14 for state House candidates. Corporate and labor union contributions are prohibited.
• According to the NCSL report, a total of 13 states have no caps on individual contributions. Even more have no limits on state party contributions, although some states, like Kentucky, require that candidates other than gubernatorial candidates accept no more than half of their money from the state parties. Kansas is one of a small number of states that severely restricts state party contributions during primaries but imposes no limit on general election spending.
• California’s contribution limits are much higher than the proposed federal-style limits in Illinois, perhaps reflecting its large numbers of big media markets and the fact that limits are indexed to inflation. California caps individual, union and corporate contributions at $25,900 for gubernatorial candidates, $6,500 for other statewide candidates and $3,900 for legislative candidates. PAC contributions are roughly double those limits. But last month, the California’s Fair Political Practices Commission reported that candidates still have managed to raise almost $1.1 billion since the caps took effect in January of 2001. That total did not include independent expenditures, which would be a lot more money.
• Florida, another large state with multiple TV markets, has a $500 across-the-board limit on campaign contributions from all sources. But recent local reporting has shown how easy it is for special interests to get around those caps via “electioneering communications organizations.” One example was an alleged scheme by Anheuser Busch to bankroll favored candidates via a police union fund.
• The state of New York uses a mathematical formula to limit individual, PAC and union gubernatorial campaign contributions. The formula is based on the number of party members. New York also has a $100,000 limit on family member contributions to legislative candidates. State party contributions to candidates are prohibited in primaries and unlimited in general elections. Corporations are limited to $5,000 per year in aggregate.
• Michigan prohibits all corporate and union campaign contributions and has very low caps for all other contributions. Statewide candidate contributions are limited to $3,400 for individuals and many PACs per election cycle. Senate candidate contributions are capped at $1,000 and House contributions are limited to just $500. “Independent” campaign committees have much higher caps.
As you can plainly see, the range of limits is far broader than we ever are told. This issue is not as black and white as it’s usually portrayed. I actually favor contribution caps, but they should either be extremely low with lots of safeguards (unlike Florida) to really stamp out the money, or high enough that every check doesn’t become an obsession. Illinois Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno has proposed a $10,000 cap on individuals and PACs. That seems reasonable to me.
Another option I’d consider is public funding, which appears to be working in Connecticut…
In 2004, former Gov. John Rowland admitted he traded political favors for more than $100,000 in private flights to Las Vegas, Vermont vacations and repairs to his cottage from state businesses. He spent 10 months in prison. The year before, Connecticut Treasurer Paul Silvester was sentenced to four years in prison for taking bribes and kickbacks.
The state tried to change its colors by revamping the way elections are run. Lawmakers now can avoid soliciting donations from influential lobbyists, unions and businesses by using government funds to run their campaign.
Roughly three out of four of candidates for legislative office opted for the public funds, reducing the amount money they collected from powerful special interests that managed to dictate public policy. […]
One example that reformers offered is the new Connecticut lawmakers’ decision to approve a measure the previous General Assembly had rejected because of its ties to a powerful bottle industry. The move, which took back $20 million in unclaimed bottle deposits, only happened because legislators no longer relied on money from special interests, ethics watchdogs say.
* And I still believe the “fumigation” proposal will be changed, but maybe not in the House…
Capitol Fax, the insider Statehouse newsletter, reported Friday that the fumigation may only apply to “double exempt” employees, hires who are not even protected by the state personnel code.
But Madigan’s spokesman, Steve Brown, said no amendments are expected. That’s too bad because such an amendment would make the bill more palatable. If you went to work for Blagojevich as a double exempt employee after 2006, you had to know your career might not last long. That being said, Quinn ought to have the “testicular virility,” as Blagojevich once put it, to take care of business himself.
If they don’t change this bill, it’ll be irresponsible and way too disruptive to government. The governor’s office is expecting a change, however, so be patient.
* Related…
* Speak up on reform: Do it for 6 dead kids
* As campaign reform looms, Illinois candidates look to load up
* Political perks: Illinois state legislators’ raises, benefits under review
* Fed up with graft? You’re obligated to weigh in
* How to contact your lawmakers
* Statehouse Insider: OK of Madigan’s plan no sure thing
* In leadership controversy, Chicago State University needed Quinn’s help, didn’t get it
* UIC graduation: Gov. Pat Quinn urges graduates to commit to social causes, people
* Meeting planned to discuss Pontiac prison job openings
* Gov: Bring eyes,brain, heart to Howe
* Illinois after Rod Blagojevich: Pat Quinn’s first 100 days
* Governor looks ahead after 100 days in office
* Blago evidence would take 51 years to read: lawyers
* Blago lawyers agree to $110-an-hour limit
* Madigan going too far with guilt by association
* Britt: Madigan fumigates state government (Cartoon)
* Mike Lawrence: Mike Madigan must rise to the challenge
* Tom vs. Mike
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 11, 09 @ 9:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “Doomsday” maneuver on horizon
Next Post: Crises loom for Democrats in 2010
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rich provided a good summary of what’s going on.Lowering campaign contribution limits might not change anything.Think of it this way,you can’t bribe the Illinois Hospital Facilities Board if it doesn’t exist.
Comment by Steve Monday, May 11, 09 @ 9:52 am
Illinois needs to regulate campaign contributions because we are so corrupt.
We are a state that needs the political circle to be transparent.
We are a state that when we get $100.00 we spend $200.00 of it. Than we go and ask for a stimulus check because we don’t know how to be responsible with our money.
As far as Madigan going on a firing spree. I think someone needs to hose him down and tell him to cool it for a while.
I think Springfield need the Super Nanny to help most or the politicians with there childish behavior.
Comment by Boscobud Monday, May 11, 09 @ 9:55 am
The Speaker wants to get rid of everyone directly associated with Blago -
does that apply to the Chairman of the Party that was his campaign chairman the two times Blago ran?
Comment by Capitol View Monday, May 11, 09 @ 10:09 am
Illinois political culture is so rotted that if you just add a little money to it, it blooms into new rot.
The problem isn’t just the money. The problem is the amoral attitude within both political parties.
Do you see the same kind of corruption in other US States that we see here? No. Connecticut passed reforms within weeks of their governor’s resignation. New York passed reforms within months before it’s newly elected governor was forced to resign. Gee - I’d take a Spitzer over a Blagojevich with those kinds of results. Louisiana passed sweeping reforms just months after Bobby Jindal was inaugurated. But when we want reform, we get nothing. After Ryan, we got worse than Ryan, a lying pile of corruption with a hair-do, Rod Blagojevich.
So what’s Illinois’ problem here?
The problem is the corruption within both amoral political parties willing to renominate and actually publically co-chair a corrupted failure of a governor, because he could win in 2006. In Illinois, we have two parties willing to win at all costs - especially when it is us that is paying those costs.
Both of our political parties are willing to risk everything Illinoians have, in order to keep political power. You just cannot expect reform from those who cheat their way into office. They gerrymander, they pay-to-play, they deal make, they prop up their children for office, then they sit on their hands and let the budget collapse. Our political parties do not care, because they do not pay the costs - we do.
Until they face electoral defeat, or the threat of electoral defeat, nothing in Illinois will change. It isn’t just about campaign contributions. We need to demand reforms within both political parties in Illinois - first, by voting their nominees out of office.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, May 11, 09 @ 10:11 am
–Editorial writers, crusading columnists and reformers say it all the time: Illinois is one of only a small handful of states that does not regulate campaign contributions.–
It’s always refreshing when the sacred and accepted “fact” that drives a dubious policy proposal is shown to be false. Well done.
Until the broadcast outlets, U.S. Postal Service, airplane and automobile leasers, printers, hotels, caterers, etc., start giving away their products and services to candidates, you’re going to need money and a lot of it to run a statewide campaign in Illinois. Especially if you’re a new kid on the block.
Paul Simon and Jim Edgar raised a lot of money to run statewide in Illinois. Was that bad?
Not everything should be seen through the prism of Blago, and virtually no laws will dissuade crooks — that’s why their crooks. You can only try to keep them out, or, once they’re in, catch them and jail them.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 11, 09 @ 10:28 am
With regard to Jindal’s efforts in Louisiana, one very significant factor in his election was the fact that hundreds of thousands of New Orleans residents (predominantly Democratic voters) left the state and never returned after Hurricane Katrina.
This would seem to indicate that to reform Illinois in the same manner and dislodge the “machine” for good, some horrific disaster would have to strike Chicago and permanently drive away 1/3 to 1/2 of Cook County’s population.
Since Lake Michigan doesn’t have hurricanes, and even the biggest tornadoes don’t affect nearly as big an area as a hurricane, probably nothing short of a nuclear or biological attack, or an asteroid falling on the Loop, would do the trick — and that, of course, would be a “cure” for corruption far worse than the disease.
Comment by Secret Square Monday, May 11, 09 @ 10:34 am
Could the taxpayer have a list posted of these “double exempt” employees/hires on-line or in the newspapers?
Bet it’s quite a web of who’s who.
Comment by HGW XX/7 Monday, May 11, 09 @ 10:51 am
Taxpayer funded campaigns are an awful idea. The state doesn’t have the money for them and part of a democracy is having the ability to throw the bums out. This is too much overthinking of a problem. The real solution is a strong republican party with leaders ready to strap it on, come up with some ideas and leaders and go knock the socks off the Democrats.
Comment by Shore Monday, May 11, 09 @ 12:40 pm
I just can’t accept Marin’s premise, which must be that if these reforms had been in place, the Willis children would be alive. Surely she is not so naive or ill-informed as to believe that campaign and ethics reform laws are going to stop certain SoS employees from taking bribes to give undeserving people drivers’ licenses. It was already quite against the then-current laws, so let’s make it against some more?
VM, you talk as if “political parties” are some plague imposed on us by distant and vengeful gods. They aren’t. They are all of us imposed upon ourselves. You are railing against yourself and your fellow men and women.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, May 11, 09 @ 1:18 pm
===The real solution is a strong republican party with leaders ready to strap it on===
Because the IL GOP is so much less corrupt than the IL Dems? Please.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 11, 09 @ 2:03 pm
=== Taxpayer funded campaigns are an awful idea. The state doesn’t have the money for them and part of a democracy is having the ability to throw the bums out. ===
Publicly-funded campaigns make alot of sense:
1) If you believe Republicans, the ‘Corruption Tax’ costs taxpayers $300 million a year in the Chicago area alone. Scale that statewide and you’re easily looking at $500 million ~ FAR more expensive than publicly-funded elections.
2) Public financing makes it far easier to throw “the bums” out, because elections are more likely to be driven by the merits of a candidate’s ideas, not their ability to raise money.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, May 11, 09 @ 3:44 pm
Fumigate now. This doesn’t have to be difficult and it isn’t.
Comment by always anonymous Monday, May 11, 09 @ 6:22 pm
Marin should havecheck the clips on the Ryan race and commercial. The media howled that it was unfair. Do gooders howled. Ryan walked into office
and IL got….well you remember.
Comment by 2ConfusedCrew Monday, May 11, 09 @ 6:30 pm
2cc==a pretty good Governor
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, May 11, 09 @ 11:40 pm