Attack of the Gigantic Campaign Contributors
Illinois’ Politicians Draw Most of their Funds from Very Few Donors

Political campaigns in Illinois are fueled by a small number of contributors giving donations of $10,000 or more – contributions so large they would be illegal in federal elections and in most other states.

Unlike most other states, Illinois puts no restrictions on the size or source of campaign contributions. Where most states limit giving, Illinois allows donors to give as much as they wish and lets candidates take as much as they can get. The Illinois system empowers large donors to act as kingmakers, determining who has the resources to mount a campaign and who does not.

The state constitutional officers, state parties, and state legislative leaders now draw most of their funds from a tiny portion of their donor base. Donors who will give over $10,000 are in a unique position among a politicians’ supporters. Not surprisingly, many such donors have recently been linked to state contracting scandals.

During the 2003-2004 campaign cycle, candidates for state legislative and executive office and Appellate and Supreme Court reported receiving $107 million in contributions from someone other than themselves and their immediate family. Of that, $54 million, or 51.2%, came from donors who made contributions of $10,000 or more.

Who was giving at that level? Clearly, very few donors can afford to do so. An examination of state candidates found 13,000 named donors, of whom just 522 gave $10,000 or more. That’s fewer than 5% of all donors who accounted for more than half of all giving.

Undoubtedly, that overcounts the number of actual donors who gave that much to a single candidate; not all were voters in Illinois; and some were corporations, unions, associations, and political committees. Still, even if they were all distinct state voters, that would be roughly 10 large donors for every 100,000 voters in the 2004 general election.

That is to say, if Wrigley Field, Sox Park or Busch Stadium were sold out, the players on the field would be the only people there who gave large donations; everybody in the dugouts and the stands would be on-lookers. Baseball games are intended to work that way; participatory democracy is not.

Statewide officials, on average, were slightly more dependent on these very large donors, though this was mainly due to the fundraising profile of one statewide officer: the governor. Gov. Blagojevich reported $11 million in receipts. $6.5 million, or 59.5%, came from 234 donors who gave $10,000 or more. Comptroller Dan Hynes, who mothballed his state committee for most of the 2003-2004 cycle while he focused on a U.S. Senate campaign, reported $145,000 in receipts, of which $121,000, or 83.8%, came from 5 large donors. The other statewide officials had a smaller percentage, though notably each drew over a quarter of their funds from 18 or fewer donors. Attorney General Lisa Madigan reported $1.1 million, of which $329,000, or 27.9% came from 13 large donors. Secretary of State Jesse White reported $1.2 million, of which $345,000, or 27.9%, came from 13 large donors. And Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka reported $1 million, of which $313,000, or 29.9%, came from 18 large donors.

Legislative leaders and state parties were even more dependent on these large donors than the statewide officers. Each of the four caucus leaders got most of their funds from only a few dozen very large donors. These leaders, in turn, generally spent their funds for the benefit of a very small number of candidates in targeted legislative races ; these targeted candidates typically depended upon their caucus leader for the vast majority of their financial support. Thus, the leaders were both recipients of very large donations and very large donors themselves.

House Speaker Michael J. Madigan reported $10.6 million between his two main committees, Citizens for Michael J. Madigan and the Democratic Party of Illinois, which he chairs. Of that, $7,8 million, or 73.8%, came from very large donors. The $7.8 million figure does not include donors who gave more than $10,000 aggregate split between Madigan’s own PAC and the party PAC.

Senate President Emil Jones reported $7.2 million between his two main committees, Citizens for Emil Jones and the Illinois Senate Democratic Fund. Of that, $4.8 million, or 66.4% came from donors who gave more than $10,000. The $4.8 million figure does not include donors who gave more than $10,000 aggregate split between Jones’ own PAC and the caucus PAC.

House Republican Leader Tom Cross reported $5.1 million to his two main committees, Citizens for Tom Cross and the House Republican Organization. This effort does not count the Illinois House Victory Fund, a committee run by Cross which gave nearly all of its receipts to the House Republican Organization. Of the funds raised by Cross’ committees, $3.0 million, or 59.0%, came from large donors. The $3.0 million figure does not include donors who gave more than $10,000 aggregate split between Cross’ own PAC and the caucus PAC.

Senate Republican Leader Frank Watson reported $5.8 million between his two main committees, Citizens for Frank Watson and the Republican State Senate Campaign Committee. Of that, $3.4 million, or $58.2%, came from large donors. The $3.4 million figure does not include donors who gave more than $10,000 aggregate split between Watson’ own PAC and the caucus PAC.

Most rank and file members of the legislature drew a very small percentage of their funds from large donors. Indeed, of sitting rank and file legislators (ie, the 173 legislators who do not lead a caucus), most (106) got more than 99% of their funds from donors who gave them no more than $10,000. Ten got between 25% and 50% of their funds from large donors, and 8 got a majority of their funds from large donors. Those 8 relied most heavily on transfers from caucus leaders.

The 2004 Supreme Court race was entirely dominated by large donors. The two candidates, Republican Lloyd Karmeier and Democrat Gordon Maag, reported raising over $9 million between them, shattering national spending records for a state high court seat. Nearly all of that was from large donors. Indeed, the reason the Illinois Republican Party appears so dependent on large donors is that a single donor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, gave half of the funds it reported raising, and all of that money was passed through to the Supreme Court race; absent the U.S. Chamber contributions, the Illinois Republican Party could not have afforded to make such large contributions to its party in the Fifth Judicial District. The race, which broke national records, was an anomaly in Illinois’ history, but nonetheless drove the results for the 2003-2004 cycle.

Democrat Gordon Maag reported $4.6 million in receipts. Of that, $4.2 million, or 91.7%, came from just 9 large donors, primarily personal injury trial lawyers. Republican Lloyd Karmeier reported $4.8 million, of which $4.0 million, or 82.7%, came from 18 large donors.

Most of the funds raised by candidates for state office would be illegal in other states, and in federal elections. Most states bar contributions in excess of $5,000; many have lower limits. Candidates for federal office are barred from taking more than $2,000 from any one donor for any one election. Corporations have been banned from giving to candidates in federal elections since 1904; unions have been similarly banned since 1947. Most states ban corporations, unions, and other non-persons from giving, and most states that allow non-persons to give limit that giving. Limiting contributions at $5,000 for any election, or $10,000 for any election cycle (primary and general election) would both bring Illinois into the mainstream of American politics and also reduce candidates gross dependence on a tiny number of donors who pony up such significant sums.

If limits were in place, candidates would still be able to raise sufficient funds to mount a campaign. Indeed, most donors would not be affected by limits, as most give far less than even the federal limit. Rank and file legislators would, by and large, see minimal impact on their fundraising, as most get only a small share of their funds from very large donors. But the small handful of donors whose contributions dominate the top of the ticket and the legislative leaders would be prevented from wielding undue influence over government officials.

Limiting contributions at $5,000 per election, or $10,000 per cycle, would have its biggest effect on the tiny fraction of donors who give large contributions, and on the handful of candidates who find themselves in proxy fights between leadership or special interests. Statewide officials would see their total fundraising reduced, on average, by 33.1%. Speaker Madigan would see a 61.8% decline; Senate President Emil Jones a 51.4% drop, House Republican Leader Cross a 42.5% fall, and Senate Republican Leader Watson a 40.5% reduction. The Supreme Court candidates in the last election would have seen a larger decline: Republican Karmeier a 78.9% fall, and Democrat Maag an 89.8% cut.

But changes in election rules do not occur in a vacuum; weaning candidates from major donors can also spur outreach to smaller donors who currently opt not to give. Indeed, at the federal level, the elimination of soft money led candidates and parties to step up efforts to reach out to donors who had not previously given. Both presidential candidates reported dramatic upswings in the number of small givers, and in the aggregate amount raised by small givers, such that both candidates raised more from small donors than they lost from big givers. Apparently, small givers, assured that they will not be outbid for the attention of favored candidates, can and will give enough to make up the difference.

Click Here for Tables on the Statewide Officers, Legislative Leaders and Supreme Court Candidates.

Click Here for Tables on Rank and File Legislators.