Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Stroger endorsed, Daley scrambles
Posted in:
[I’ve updated this post and moved it to the top so I can add some context and related stories]
* 7:31 am - House Speaker Michael Madigan’s proposed campaign finance reform bill has now been filed. I’m still leafing through it, but you can read it for yourself by clicking here.
Madigan will run this amendment through his Executive Committee today at 9 o’clock.
* 9:00 am - The House Executive Committee is preparing to begin its meeting. Mike decided he wanted to come back to town for a couple of days, so he’s covering the hearing for us. Here are some related stories about this particular bill.
The Pantagraph editorializes…
Limiting campaign contributions from individuals, corporations and unions without limiting such support from political parties and legislative leaders is worse than leaving the state’s weak campaign finance laws unchanged.
Approving such a change would be a step backward - not forward - because it would increase the power and influence of legislative and political leaders.
Look, even the reformers say that the leaders could continue making those gigantic contributions via independent expenditures if the reformers’ version of campaign finance reform passed. Would that version make it slightly more difficult for leaders to fund campaigns? Yes. Would it really reform the process? Nope.
The Sun-Times and the SJ-R also editorialize in favor of the non-existent limits and the SJ-R adds this idea…
Limiting contributions from legislative leaders to their candidates is one way to loosen the choke chain leaders have on members. Another way is to institute reforms in the legislative rules suggested by the Illinois Reform Commission.
The commission suggested that bills with 16 sponsors in the House or eight in the Senate automatically get a full committee vote. We’d settle for a higher threshold — perhaps 45 percent of the members in each chamber — to prevent the minority party from hijacking a chamber.
The commission’s idea was insane and the best example of its cluelessness about the real life legislative process. I’d go for a 50 percent threshold, because, frankly, majority members have trouble getting their bills out of Rules as well, and half would prevent this from being used as a partisan gridlock tool.
The Tribune’s editorial was so yellow and hyper as to be unreadable.
[ *** End of Updates *** ]
* Here’s the campaign limits section. Sorry for the formatting, but I’m in a hurry…
(b) During an election cycle, a candidate political committee may not accept contributions with an aggregate value over the following: (i) $5,000 from any individual, (ii) $10,000 from any corporation, labor organization, or association, or (iii) $50,000 from a candidate political committee or political action committee. A candidate political committee may accept contributions in any amount from a political party committee; except a candidate political committee may accept contributions from only one political party committee established for the purpose of electing candidates to the General Assembly.
(c) During an election cycle, a political party committee may not accept contributions with an aggregate value over the following: (i) $10,000 from any individual, (ii) $20,000 from any corporation, labor organization, or association, or (iii) $50,000 from a political action committee. A political party committee may accept contributions in any amount from another political party committee or a candidate political committee. Nothing in this Section shall limit the amounts that may be transferred between a State committee and federal committee of a State central committee of a political party.
(d) During an election cycle, a political action committee may not accept contributions with an aggregate value over the following: (i) $10,000 from any individual, (ii) $20,000 from any corporation, labor organization, or association, or (iii) $50,000 from a political action committee or candidate political committee.
* Self funders…
(h) Self-funding candidates. If a public official, a candidate, or the public official’s or candidate’s immediate family contributes or loans to the public official’s or candidate’s political committee or to other political committees that transfer funds to the public official’s or candidate’s political committee or makes independent expenditures for the benefit of the public official’s or candidate’s campaign during the 12 months prior to an election in an aggregate amount of more than (i) $250,000 for statewide office or (ii) $100,000 for all other elective offices, then the public official or candidate shall file with the State Board of Elections, within one day, a Notification of Self-funding that shall detail each contribution or loan made by the public official, the candidate, or the public official’s or candidate’s immediate family. Within 2 business days after the filing of a Notification of Self-funding, the notification shall be posted on the Board’s website and the Board shall give official notice of the filing to each candidate for the same office as the public official or candidate making the filing, including the public official or candidate filing the Notification of Self-funding. Upon receiving notice from the Board, all candidates for that office, including the public official or candidate who filed a Notification of Self-funding, shall be permitted to accept contributions in excess of any contribution limits imposed by subsection (b). For the purposes of this subsection, “immediate family” means the spouse, parent, or child of a public official or candidate.
[If the comment link doesn’t work, try clicking here.]
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 10:49 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Stroger endorsed, Daley scrambles
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The headline is oxymoronic…Madigan would never do such a thing…
Comment by Anonymous45 Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 11:51 am
All of the provisions in this bill are little more than window-dressing unless the State Senate (which has a load of former House members who cared little for Madigan’s style and/or stunts) concurs.
Comment by fedup dem Wednesday, Oct 14, 09 @ 1:14 pm