Illinois Campaign for Political Reform

Chicago Sigs

2010-02-26T13:23:00.001-06:00

Two recent stories, one in the Trib and one in Progress Illinois, highlight the problems with HB 6000, a proposal to make it more difficult to run for alderman in the City of Chicago. The Trib also editorialized about the bill. We echo those concerns; this bill will make it harder for candidates to run for city council in the state's largest municipality, with no apparent public policy benefit to the voters of the city.

There are two key elements to the bill. The first raises the number of signatures a candidate has to gather on petitions from 2% of the votes cast in the last municipal election to a flat 500. This would mean an increase of anywhere from 17% in the 19th Ward to nearly 600% in the 22nd; on average, it more than doubles the number of names required. While 500 names isn't so onerous (it's the same amount as for state House seats, even though House districts are much bigger than wards), it is still a big jump from the current rule.

But the number of signatures isn't the biggest problem with the bill. The second key element in the bill codifies a rule that petition signers can ink only one petition for city council. This has been the rule in other races, but is apparently not in statute for Chicago races -- the Chicago Board of Elections says they are routinely challenged on their application of the rule.

The one-petition-only rule means that once you sign one aldermanic petition, you cannot sign any others -- even if a better candidate comes along later. That is to say, when the guy with the clipboard asks for your help getting on the ballot, what you're really doing is committing to support that candidate over all others. It puts a terrific burden on petition signers.

On the other hand, if you are a candidate and you get out early, it creates an incentive to mop up as many signatures as you can. If you can get 5,000 signers, that's 5,000 fewer people who can sign an opponent's petitions. Getting 5,000 signatures won't be easy. But many incumbents can pull it off. So can some of the groups, like SEIU, who supported challengers in 2007. Furthermore, the signature rule creates new possibilities for candidacy challenges.

Is it good policy? The integrity of the ballot is certainly worth protecting. So what problem is this rule designed to solve? Are there too many frivolous candidates on the ballot? Is there an urgent need to have petition signers commit early to one and only one candidate? We don't see that as the biggest problem facing elections these days. On the contrary, there are too many reasons to toss candidates off the ballot, and this bill only creates more.

We hope the General Assembly will put the brakes on this measure.

Citizens Repudiate Unlimited Corporate Campaign Spending

2010-02-17T09:54:00.003-06:00

Last month's 5-4 ruling by the US Supreme Court, which said that corporations have a constitutional right to unlimited expenditures in elections, has sparked outrage among voters of all stripes. According to a poll released by the Washington Post today, four in five voters oppose the ruling. Two of every three voters (65% ) "strongly oppose" the ruling. Opposition was at super-majority strength in both parties -- 85% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, and 81% of independents.

The high court ruling that prompted this united opposition came in a case called Citizens United v FEC. That Jan. 21 decision threw out over a century of federal law barring corporations from participating in elections. And it's just common sense that corporations can be excluded from elections. Corporations, for instance, don't vote. People vote. And corporations cannot write checks. People write checks; they may choose to do so from a corporate check-book, but it's a person who make the decision to spend money and where that money should come from. Insisting, as a 5-4 majority of the US Supreme Court has now done, that corporations (and unions and other non-persons) have a constitutional right to spend money on elections means that people who have access to corporate check-books have more abilities than to people who do not have access to corporate check-books. That's why so many voters, in both parties, are outraged.

ICPR has a Q&A on the ruling, including its effect on Illinois' new contribution limits law, here.

Kudos on a Couple of Stories

2010-02-16T09:57:00.002-06:00

We can't let another day go by without noting the legwork that Daily Herald reporter James Fuller and Crain's columnist Greg Hinz put in on stories about campaign giving to county officials.

Connecting the dots between vendors and candidates is never easy. Finding the links between contributions and contracts takes a lot of digging, a bit of serendipity, and a ton of support from people who know the local terrain. For state-level contracts, this job is made much easier by the Comptroller's Open Book website, but for local units of government, writing stories like these takes an effort. We commend Fuller and Hinz for their efforts..

Fuller's piece was on campaign giving in Kane County. He identified over three dozen entities that gave more than $43K in total to a member of the Kane County Board. All of them were contractors in Kane County, which has no rules prohibiting such contributions despite the appearance of pay to play. Whether these contributions were, in fact, improper depends on why they were made, but until somebody connects those dots, it's hard even to ask the question.

We also want to recognize Crain's reporter Greg Hinz, for staying on top of contributions from contractors that appear to have been funneled to Cook County Commissioner Joseph Moreno. Cook County forbids contractors to make large contributions directly to Cook County Board members, and state law forbids disguising the source of campaign funds. Hinz followed a political group's fundraiser in honor of Moreno and the ensuing contributions from contractors to that group, which appears to have passed the money on Moreno's fund.

Pay-to-play is tricky to prove. It goes in part to the intent of the contributor, and while disclosure rules detail who gave how much to whom and when, they do not cover the why of that transaction. Reporters like Fuller and Hinz have provided a context in which contributions can be better understood.

Top Races in Cook County

2010-01-29T14:15:00.004-06:00

Today we conclude our look at races up and down the ballot with listings of the top races in the state's largest county, the County of Cook. The race for Board President clearly leads the list, but some smaller races also deserve attention.

The four Democrats seeking nomination have raised about $4M, but that cash is not shared evenly. On paper, incumbent Todd Stroger has the most money at $1.5M, most of it raised years ago, though he invested $500,000 of that in CDs last August and it's not clear that he can access that money for next Tuesday's race. This year he has reported a $100K loan from former Senate President Emil Jones. Challenger Toni Preckwinkle shows $1.3M in cash for the primary. Her largest contributors include SEIU at $150K and Fred Eychaner at $50K. Current Water Rec District head Terry O'Brien reports $636,382 in cash for the primary. Over half of that comes from himself, his other political committees, or his family. Current Clerk of Courts Dorothy Brown lags in fundraising, showing $500K in cash for the primary. Top contributors include $25K in loans from a Dorothy Brown who shares the candidate's home address but is listed as General Auditor for the CTA, which position the candidate held some years ago.

The Republican and Green races are far quieter. The Green nomination is uncontested after former Democrat Sean Burke was removed from the ballot, leaving Tom Tresser unopposed. Two Republicans are seeking their party's nomination. John Garrido III reports $81K in funds for the primary, mostly from himself and his relations. Roger Keats reports $21K in cash, with none giving more than $1K.

The race for Democratic nomination for County Assessor shows $1.5M in total receipts, nearly all of that held by current Board of Appeals member Joe Berrios, and nearly all of that from his own many political funds. Berrios, in office for decades, has amassed a fortune spread among 4 active political committees; he has been shunting the monies to one fund for the purpose of this primary. New money to the committee is coming primarily from attorneys. Robert Shaw, the former Chicago alderman and mayor of Dolton and twin brother of the late state Senator William Shaw, reports $36K for the primary, including $5K from former Senate President Emil Jones. Former judge Raymond Figueroa shows $28K for the primary, including $20K from Citizens for Maldonado, the political committee of the former Cook County Board member and current Chicago 26th Ward Alderman and Committeeman Roberto Maldonado.

Tracking contributions in County Board seats has been complicated by the large number of candidates who are filing reports on paper despite raising well above the threshold mandating electronic disclosure. Most egregious is Friends of Derrick Smith, who filed a paper D2 showing $22K in receipts (more than twice the limit for paper filings) and has since filed 4 paper A1s with another $3,600 in receipts.

The hottest county board contest is in the 4th District, between incumbent William Beavers and two challengers. Beavers took over the seat after John Stroger suffered a stroke, leaving the Chicago City Council to do so. He reports $214K for the primary. Main challenger Elgie Sims shows a lead in fundraising, with $268K. Sims, a lobbyist, is largely self-financing, but also shows $5K each from AFSCME and the Chamber of Commerce. Third candidate Karen Sommerfield has yet to form a fundraising committee.

The race with the second highest fundraising is actually the grudge match that wasn't. The race to succeed Forest Claypool was expected to be spirited, as former Chicago Ald. Ted Matlak faced state Rep. John Fritchey. Fritchey has reported $329,602 for the race,, most of it raised before he started circulating petitions, but Matlak hasn't formed a political committee, so if he's campaigning, he's not spending any money on it.

Third is another lopsided race, this for the Democratic nomination in the 16th District. McCook Mayor Jeff Tobolski reports $182,974 for the primary. He faces two opponents, neither of whom has an active fundraising committee. The winner will face either incumbent Republican Tony Peraica, who reports $71,843, or challenger Brian Sloan, who shows $5,760; and a Green Party nominee, either Alex Matos or Alejandro Reyes, neither of whom has formed a committee.

Other races do appear to be more closely contested, even the dollar totals are lower. In the 1st District, five candidates combine for $102,420. Challenger Adekunle Onayemi leads with over half of combined reported receipts at $58,807, while a previously mentioned paper filer, Derrick Smith, claims $25,881 and incumbent Earlean Collins is in third with $17,078. Onayemi, an architect, draws heavily from personal funds for the contest.

In the 6th District, incumbent Joan Patricia Murphy shows $69,768 while challenger Nick Valadez reports $63,490. Murphy's money comes from labor (SEIU and the operating engineers) while Valadez is relying on family support. John Fairman, also in the race, shows $24,384 in his paper filings.

Top Statewide and Legislative Contests for Next Tuesday's Primary

2010-01-28T15:09:00.002-06:00

We continue our look at downticket races today with some statewide and legislative contests.

Statewide
What's striking about the races for the Lt. Gov. nomination in both parties is how self-funders dominate both contests. Two candidates, one D and one R, account for virtually all of the $4.5 million that the 12 candidates have reported. Over 98% of Democrat Scott Lee Cohen's $1.9 million came from his own pocket, while Republican Jason Plummer has drawn on family and the family lumber yard for over 95% of his $1.1 million. No other candidate in either race has reported more than $350K.

Justin Oberman's $662,100 in reported receipts accounts for two-thirds of the money raised by the three people seeking the Democratic nomination for Treasurer. The largest share of his money, $260K, comes in the form of loans from Coloradoan Steve Belin. Robin Kelly's $309,312 accounts for the other third of total fundraising, and Mark Doyle's $49,420 pales in comparison. On the Republican side, Judy Baar Topinka reports $77K; far less than the two leading Dems but more than the other two candidates in her race.

For Comptroller, Democrat Raja Krishnamoothi leads with $1M, but David Mililer remains close at $800K. Krishnamoorthi and his relations account for only about $20K of his total; his largest contributor is Dr. Siva Sivananthan who, directly and through companies, has given $57K. Miller is relying on the Illinois Education Association ($100K) and the Dental Society ($50K; Miller is a dentist) for his largest contributions. Clinton Krislov's $79K came mostly from his own pocket. Republican Dan Rutherford reports $823K, and is unopposed for the Republican nomination, while Green Scott Summers has yet to form a committee.

Legislative
The high number of legislative retirements resulted in an abnormally high number of open seats, but the hottest legislative race is in the 23rd House District, where incumbent Dan Burke has raised $541K to fend off Rudy Lozano and two others. Lozano reports $87,152; the other two candidates have yet to form political committees and so have not reported any receipts.

In second place for House races is the contest for the Democratic nomination to the seat now held by Julie Hamos of Evanston. Five candidates combine for $397,656. Former Citizen Action legislaive director Patrick Keenan-Devlin leads the group with $153,403, followed by Maternal Health Coalition head Robyn Gabel at $116,047. Attorneys Jeff Smith and Eamon Kelly have raised $68,720. and $47,732, respectively, and former Evanston Ald. Ed Moran reports $12K.

For seats in the state Senate, the two-way race for the Democratic nomination in the 9th District shows the most money. Challenger Jim Madigan reports $125, 468 against incumbent Heather Steans' $245,403. Madigan shows a couple of $10K contributions, none higher; while Steans reports the bulk of her money from herself and her relatives. Close behind is the race in the 13th Senate district between incumbent Kwame Raoul and challenger Al Hofeld, Jr. Raoul reports $237,728, with no donors in the five-figures, while Hofeld's $103,227 comes largely from himself.

US Senate
In the US Senate race, Republican Mark Kirk has raised more than any other candidate, of any party, since the start of the year. He claims $230,826 on his 48-hour reports. Democrat Alexi Giannoulias claims $105,400 on his 48-hour forms, and David Hoffman lists $103,200 on his, while Jacob Meister loaned himself another $78K and Cheryl Jackson lists $21,750.

Andy Martin, again seeking nomination to the US Senate, this time in Illinois, today issued a press release touting a "whistle stop" tour of central Illinois. While the release claims the focus will be on high speed rail issues, the press release makes plain that it will also discuss his Senate campaign.

Late last year, Martin ran several radio spots attacking another Republican seeking the Senate nomination. The ads ran on several radio stations in the weeks before the Christmas holidays.

These expenditures come despite Martin's decision not to form a political committee to raise funds for his Senate bid. Yet each of these events must cost something, and whether he is paying for them out of his own pocket or soliciting help from others, federal law requires that he disclose the source and use of his campaign funds.

Andy Martin is not the only Senate candidate without a political committee. LeAlan Jones, the lone candidate for the Green Party nomination, also has not formed a committee.

Top Judicial Races for Next Week's Primary Election

2010-01-27T16:07:00.002-06:00

ICPR's website has updated fundraising totals for the US Senate, Illinois Governor, and Cook County Board President candidates. For the Democrats, Pat Quinn reported big receipts since Tuesday, showing $250K from SEIU and another $50K from another of Chicago Ald. Ed Burke's committees. How odd that the lifelong reformer now relies so heavily on the Regular Chicago Democrats and Rod Blagojevich's biggest campaign contributor. Hynes has raised about $250K recently, including $100K each from the laborers and the IFT.

For the Republicans, Kirk Dillard reported another $100K, including another $50K from Ron Gidwitz and $25K from the Operating Engineers. Dan Proft also had a $50K check from Richard Uihlein, who has been popping up a lot in the disclosure reports this year. The head of Uline Industries gave $50K to Matt Murphy last summer and $5K to another Republican seeking the nomination, Andy McKenna, though the $95K he's given to Proft is the bulk of his recent giving.

Judicial races aren't getting much press attention this year and it's a shame, because there's some big fundraising in several. There are five Appellate Court seats on the ballot, all in northern Illinois or Cook County. Here are the top races:

The race for the Democratic nomination for First District (Cook County) McNulty Vacancy race shows $632,115 in total receipts among 6 candidates, though Jim Epstein has the lion's share of that, with $516,432. A Democrat named Jim Ryan reports $56,526, while Arnette Hubbard reports $50,251, No one else has five figures. Epstein has dozens of donors in the 4-and 5-figure range, but his biggest supporter is himself, at $260,000 in loans this calendar year.

The race for the Republican nomination in the Second District Callum Vacancy race shows $509,119 between two candidates. While not evenly matched, both candidates here have significant fundraising. Ann Jorgensen reports $404,119 in total; most of that, $284,245.21 -- came in a single donation from the Ann Teresa Brackley Trust (Ann Jorgensen's middle name is Brackley). The other candidate, Kenneth Moy, reports $105,000, all from himself, all in the last six weeks.

The race for the Republican nomination in the other Second District seat -- the Gilleran Johnson Vacancy -- shows the third-highest fundraising total for appellate court seats at $454,830. Mary Schostok reports $425,472, while the only other candidate, Donna Kelly, reports $29,357. Schostok's biggest supporter is her husband, Michael Schostok, a lawyer who has contributed $108,000.

For seats on Illinois' circuit court bench, the top spot goes to the race for the Republican nomination in the 18th Circuit (DuPage County), Kilander Vacancy. Two candidates combine for $258,365. Ron Sutter reports $186,471; he gave $50K to his campaign as did Paul and Dorothy Sutter of Bloomington. Brian McKillip reports $71,894, of which $30,000 came from himself.

In the four-way contest for the Democratic nomination for the Otaka Vacancy in the Cook County 90th Subcircuit, there is $197,761 in combined receipts. Yehuda Lebovitz leads the fundraising with about half that total -- $97,604. Most of that figure -- $68K -- came from another PAC formed to support an earlier Lebovitz bid for the bench; that PAC, in turn, raised most of its money from the candidate. Abbey Romanek reports $45,652, nearly all from herself. Geary Kull reports $42,290. He's his largest contributor but, at $5K; he's also the smallest self-funder in the race. Dennis Fleming is fourth in the fundraising at $12,215.

Third highest is the contest for the Republican nomination in the Fifth Circuit in east-central Illinois for the Cini Vacancy. Matt Sullivan reports $64,200, while Frank Young shows $51,250 and Brian Bower reports $32,250. Eric James Neumann has yet to form a committee.

Fourth highest is for the Democratic nomination for the Vandersnick vacancy in the 14th Circuit in the Quad Cities area. Three candidates combine for $136,489. Clarence Darrow leads in fundraising, showing $68,835, including $36,269 from various Darrows. Trish Joyce shows $53,155, including $28,000 from herself. Maritia Griffith has $14,500, nearly all from Ronald Griffith.

Fifth highest fundraising is in another seat in Cook County's 9th Subcircuit -- this one for the A Vacancy. Six candidates combine for $127,042. Evanstonian Steven Bernstein leads the group with $79,461, which includes $25K of his own money. Previous legislative candidate Michael Ian Bender comes in second place with $33,456, none of it his and no more than a few thousand from any one donor. No other candidate has five figures.

Later this week -- legislative race totals and more.

Cook Knows; Why Don't the Rest of Us?

2010-01-26T09:44:00.003-06:00

According to a Sun-Times story over the weekend, lobbyists in Cook County billed their clients $1.3 million in the second half of 2009. That includes only work to lobby officials and agencies of Cook County. For the year, billings were $2.1 million. The top five lobbyists accounted for over half of the total.

Want to do the same sort of analysis of lobbyists at the state level? Ever wonder about people who hang out around the rail and how they rank? Tough. The state doesn't require lobbyists to file reports like that.

The public has a right to know what lobbyists bill their client in Cook County and at the federal level, but the State of Illinois does not give the public access to the same amount of information. It would take legislation to change that.

Court Ruling to Deliver $300M Boost to Media

2010-01-25T13:47:00.004-06:00

Last week's US Supreme Court ruling in the case Citizens United has sparked a host of media stories about the implications for the future of campaign finance regulation. The ruling is over 180 pages long, and it will take some time before the dust all settles and the real impact can be seen.

In the meantime, here are some stories about the ruling that have not received much coverage in the press. The headline to this post is actually the banner headline in today's issue of Advertising Age. The media industry journal goes on to predict that, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, media companies can "Expect More Money, More Clutter and No Inventory in November." In a related story, the journal predicts "Supreme Court Ruling Will Put Political Ad Spending 'on Steroids'."

Whatever the ruling may mean for democracy, it apparently also means more cash for media companies.

Happy Holidays, from your political committee

2010-01-08T10:20:00.002-06:00

Fox Chicago ran a story last night about a Cook County Commissioner who mailed 10,000 holiday cards from her campaign fund. Since ICPR was quoted in the story, we want to clarify a few things.

Illinois law does require political committees to include notice on things that the committee paid for. This legal requirement affects committees that issue things like "a pamphlet, circular, handbill, … or other communication directed at voters and mentioning the name of a candidate in the next upcoming election…" There is no exemption for holiday cards, birthday cards, or any other type of communication, and in our view, these holiday cards would be covered. This county commissioner filed petitions of candidacy last fall and is on the February ballot; these holiday cards were mailed right in middle of the window when her candidacy is active, and so we think notice should have been included on the cards. The full text of the law is here (scroll down to Section 9-9.5).

That said, paying for holiday cards with campaign funds and forgetting the disclosure is not the most egregious thing we've ever seen. We're not the State Board of Elections (hear the sigh of relief from candidates everywhere) but it would not surprise us if this did not result in a monetary fine. Nor, necessarily, do we think it should. Our goal is to improve the culture of Illinois politics; if fines are required to do that, so be it, but we hope candidates will recognize their legal and ethical obligations even if falling short of them doesn't hit them in the wallet. Candidates who slip up should acknowledge the opportunity to do better, and should strive to do better next time.

Lobbyist Registration Suspended

2010-01-06T10:11:00.002-06:00

The General Assembly goes into session next week for three days. Anyone attending can expect to find lobbyists hanging out around the rail on the third floor. But will any of those lobbyists be registered with the Secretary of State, as required by law? That remains to be seen.

Lobbyists are required by state law to register within two business days of entering into an agreement to lobby, and before actively engaging in lobbying on behalf of a client. Registration ends with the calendar year, and most lobbyists renew their registration in January. But this year, a lawsuit over the recent increase in registration fees has closed registration for everybody.

SB 54, signed into law last summer, had a lot of provisions. There's a lot of good stuff in that bill, and the SJ-R recently editorialized in favor of some of them, dealing with public access to reports of Inspectors General under the 2003 Ethics Act. Another section made some long-needed clean-ups to the Lobbyist Registration Act. But it also increased the registration fee dramatically. Under previous law, for-profit entities and lobbyists each paid $350 per year to register, while non-profits could register for $150. Under the new law, all registrants, for- and non-profit, would be required to pay $1,000.

The fee increase is especially onerous for non-profits (and let's acknowledge here that ICPR is a non-profit). Many employees of non-profits lobby in the course of their work. If a legislator reaches out to them for advice or guidance on an issue, answering that question is lobbying and triggers registration. Testimony before a legislative committee, under most circumstances, is lobbying and requires registration. Speaking with an agency head about the implementation of a new policy is lobbying. It's difficult to be an effective advocate for a cause or organization without coming into contact with legislators and other government officials, but that contact can quickly trigger the registration requirement and the $1,000 fee. With the fee rising nearly 6-fold, many non-profits were alarmed.

The ACLU of Illinois and the Illinois Society of Association Executives filed separate suits against the increase, the former in federal court and the latter in state court. In the ACLU suit, U.S. District Judge Joan B. Gottschall issued a temporary injunction, forbidding the Secretary of State to collect the increased fee from non-profits, pending the conclusion of the case. Further arguments are expected soon, and the suit could be concluded in a matter of days or weeks. The ISAE suit has a hearing before Illinois 7th Circuit Court Judge Pat Londrigan on Friday.

But while the federal injunction applies only to non-profits, the Secretary of State ended registration for all lobbyists. They could have kept registration open, collecting the $1,000 fee from for-profit entities and no fee from non-profits, or they could have collected the old $150 fee from non-profits and, after the two suits were concluded, adjusted the fee accordingly. Instead, it now appears that Illinois is the only state in the country without lobbyist registration.

Let's hope this gets resolved soon.

Voter Registration - Today, Tomorrow, Next Week Even (but don't dally)

2010-01-05T16:21:00.002-06:00

A string of recent news stories (or maybe it's just the headlines) have noted that today is the last day to register to vote in the February 2 primary election. While that's true, it's only part of the story, and we hope that no one who wants to vote in the primary and is eligible to do so gives up because they think they've missed the deadline. Illinois offers many ways to register and participate in elections; just as one door shuts, another opens.

Today is the last day to register with a deputy registrar and with the motor voter system. But if you want to vote in the primary, you will still have an alternative. It will require more effort, but for the next three weeks you can take advantage of "grace period" registration. To do this, you'll need to go to your local election authority and register in person. Bring two forms of ID with you, at least one with a photograph (drivers license, passport, state ID with a photo; a written lease or a utility bill or bank statement mailed to your home will also do for the second). Be prepared, though; you also may be required to vote when you register, as some jurisdictions combine grace period registration with early voting. The unregistered have until January 26th to take advantage of grace period registration.

Grace period registration is increasingly common and will allow people who did not get to the registrar by the 28th day before the election to cast ballots in the primary. If you want to vote and are not now registered, don't assume it's too late.

ICPR Says Contribution Limits Bill is Victory for Illinois Voters

2009-12-09T21:24:00.000-06:00

The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR) on Wednesday said the campaign contribution limits legislation signed by Gov. Quinn is a significant victory for Illinois voters and should help reduce the influence wielded by big campaign contributors.

“Credit for enacting this significant, but long overdue reform, goes to the people of Illinois,” said Cynthia Canary, ICPR Director. “The arrest of Rod Blagojevich one year ago and the subsequent worldwide headlines and talk show appearances turned stomachs across the state. The spectacle drew the attention of every voter, and the General Assembly could no longer ignore the growing call for change in the rules that govern campaigns.”

Noting that the fight to impose contribution limits in Illinois dates back more than three decades, Canary said the opposition can be traced in part to the culture of corruption that has plagued Illinois government and the indifference displayed by too many elected officials. “Imposing contribution limits will not cure all that ails Illinois politics and government,” Canary said. “No single law can ensure honesty and fairness. That is going to require the active participation of many more citizens acting as watchdogs, holding candidates accountable for their actions and running for state and local offices.

“Enactment of this limits bill is reason for optimism about the future prospects of additional reforms, including the enforcement of campaign laws, regulation of lobbying and disclosure of personal finances of key government officeholders,” she said. “But because this bill limits party and legislative leader contributions to candidates in primaries but not in general election campaigns, even this bill fell short of what is needed, and we’ll work to close that loophole in the next legislative session.”

For additional information about SB 1466 and other reform issues, please visit www.ilcampaign.org.

Founded in 1999 by the late Sen. Paul Simon, ICPR is a non-partisan public interest group that conducts research and advocates reforms to promote public participation in government, address the role of money in politics and encourage integrity, accountability, and transparency in government.

Phillies in Five!!!

2009-11-04T14:41:00.002-06:00

or, Why Redistricting Matters

The Philadelphia Phillies are facing elimination tonight in game 6 of the World Series. One week ago, their ace pitcher led the team to a clear 6-1 rout of the Yankees, but New York came back to win the next three by scores of 3-1, 8-5, and 7-4. Philadelphia won the fifth game 8-6, but they have to win both remaining games to take the Series.

If the Phillies had scored the same number of runs in different games, the Series would be very different. If the Phillies, for instance, could move 3 runs from game 1 to game 2, they'd still have won the first game, 3-1, but they also would have won the second game 4-3. In which case, it'd be the Yankees facing elimination. And indeed, if you drained the Phillies' excess runs from games 1 and 5 and moved them to games two and three, while also moving a few Yankee runs from those games into game 4, one could have engineered a Philadelphia Championship last Monday night.

Of course, the Yankees could plot similar changes. They've outscored the Phillies, and could re-jigger their runs into a five-game Championship (they'd still need five games anyway you slice it, but moving one run each from games 2, 3, and 4 into game 5 would have ended the Series).

Now, the purists will insist that's not how the game of baseball is played. Runs count only in the game in which they are scored. But that's exactly how the game of redistricting works. Voters can be moved from one district to another.

Suppose you're a public official who squeaks by each election, while a friendly official in a neighboring district coasts to victory time and time again. Couldn't you take a few of their voters, who'd be only too happy to vote for you, and ditch some of the malcontents who don't appreciate your candidacies? If you're always drawing 52%-55% of the vote to your neighbor's 72-75%, just by trading a few precincts, you could both get a comfortable 60% without too much trouble. You get to spend more time with your family at election time (without leaving office!) and the voters? They get you to represent them. What's not to like?

A lot, actually, Redistricting is never a benign process. Redistricting can inflate a political majority, deny representation to minorities, and insulate officials from the normal checks on power that elections are supposed to bring. Especially when redistricting is dominated by one political party, as it has been in Illinois for the last three maps, the process can hand an enormous electoral advantage to the side that draws the lines.

Redistricting is a necessary part of governing. Districts should be roughly equal in population, so as people move around, districts should be redrawn. They should also be crafted so that the governing body, as a whole, most accurately reflects the voters, as a whole. But how you draw the lines, how you slice the dirt, can determine who votes for which officials, who can run against which officials, and ultimately who gets to be an official. It's not surprise that officials take a keen interest in redistricting.

Most voters don't seem to follow the process. But it's not too late. Maps get drawn in 2011, after the 2010 census. If you want to learn more about how the process works, the redistricting game, which was put together by the Annenberg Center at the University of Southern California, is a great place to start.

CHANGE Illinois! Says Agreement to Limit Campaign Contributions Puts Illinois on the Road to Reform

2009-10-29T23:55:00.001-05:00

Remains Committed to Additional Reforms

The CHANGE Illinois! coalition has reached agreement with Governor Quinn, Senate President Cullerton and Speaker Madigan on legislation that would establish limits on campaign contributions by political parties, legislative leaders, individuals, corporations, unions, and PACs.

For the first time in the history of Illinois – one of only five states where unlimited campaign contributions are legal – there would be limitations on the amount of money contributed to political campaigns.

Other important elements of the agreement will create a framework for regulation of the finance system and enforcement of a new limits law. They include:
• Swift disclosure to the public of every contribution of $1,000 or more;

• Quarterly (now just twice a year) reports from committees detailing the source of every contribution of more than $150 and listing how funds were spent in the quarter;

• Audits of the finances of political committees selected at random by the State Board of Elections to check compliance with state laws; and

• Creation of a searchable database of penalties assessed by the State Board of Elections in response to violations of the campaign disclosure and limitation laws.

In addition, a bi-partisan task force, including public members, will be created to analyze the new limits, make recommendations for improvements, and examine the feasibility of creating a voluntary public campaign finance system for all state offices, including the judiciary.

“Setting limits on contributions to political campaigns, will be an important step in bringing meaningful reform to Illinois,” said George Ranney, a co-chair of CHANGE Illinois! and President and CEO of Chicago Metropolis 2020. “As important as this first step is, it is only that – one step in a long road to the reform of this state’s political culture. We have much more work to do and loopholes to be closed.”

“After scandals in Washington and in state capitols and city halls around the nation, the federal government and most other states passed laws limiting the role of campaign contributions during the past couple of decades,” said Cynthia Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “Finally, Illinois is about to signal to the rest of the nation that we’re ready to join them and impose limits on all contributions coming into the system.”

CHANGE Illinois! is a coalition of civic, business, labor, professional, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, which represents more than 2 million members advocating for Illinois to join the federal government and virtually every other state in the nation by enacting campaign finance limits.

The coalition led a public education campaign that generated support for strong campaign finance reform and resulted in Gov. Quinn’s veto of a badly flawed campaign finance bill passed earlier this year by the General Assembly. Members of the coalition promised to work with the Governor and legislative leaders to produce a bill with meaningful limits and effective enforcement tools.

Following that veto, the coalition worked with the Governor and legislative leaders to design a reform program that would be comparable to systems in use elsewhere in the nation.

Under terms of the agreement, individuals will not be able to contribute more than $5,000 to any candidate in an election cycle; businesses, labor unions and associations will have $10,000 limits on contributions to candidates; and political action committees will be limited to no more than $50,000 per candidate.

One major stumbling block in negotiations centered on the ability of political parties and caucus leaders to transfer unlimited amounts of money from their funds to political candidates. The final agreement does include limits on the amounts of money that can be transferred to candidates during primary elections. Party leaders will no longer be able to control local primary election campaigns by pouring unlimited amounts of money into the campaigns of favored candidates.

“There was no agreement reached on transfers from leaders to candidates during general election campaigns, but CHANGE Illinois! will continue to advocate for those limits in the future,” Ranney said.

“Because parties and legislative leaders have been able to contribute unlimited amounts of money in primary campaigns, few people have been willing to run for
office without the backing of party leaders,” said Anton Valukas, a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and a member of CHANGE Illinois! coalition. “As long as they have the support of their leaders, many state legislators get a free ride to reelection. Setting limits in the primary will not remove all advantages of incumbency, but they should give more challengers a fighting chance and offer voters more choices.”

The agreement will create limits on transfers from party leaders to all candidates for all state and local offices in primary elections. Each limit will be an aggregate limit, meaning the total of any combination of party and leader committees in a primary cannot exceed the limit. The limits on transfers are $200,000 for statewide candidates, $125,000 to Senate candidates, $75,000 for House candidates, and a range of limits from $50,000 to $125,000 for candidates running for every other office – from local offices to seats on the Illinois Supreme Court.

"Placing limits on campaign contributions and their influence is an important first step in reminding our elected officials that the citizens and voters of Illinois have special interests too," said Bob Gallo, AARP Illinois Senior State Director. "This legislation promises to be a significant first step in addressing the lack of public confidence in the capability of our elected officials to address the issues concerning individuals and their families during these difficult economic times."

“This reform measure, while imperfect, is a long time overdue and an essential first step toward a cleaner, fairer, more representative election system,” said Dawn Clark Netsch, a former legislator, statewide officeholder, long-time advocate of limits and a member of CHANGE Illinois! coalition.

CHANGE Illinois Says Campaign Contribution Limits Must Be Applied Fairly and Across-The-Board

2009-10-08T10:34:00.000-05:00

A coalition of campaign reform advocates on Thursday reported some progress in negotiations on campaign finance reform legislation, but the unresolved issue of limiting contributions by legislative leaders and political parties has prevented a final agreement.

“When Gov. Quinn vetoed the flawed limits legislation at the end of August, the legislative leaders and the governor said they would work with us on an improved limits bill that could be passed in the fall veto session, and we have participated in several negotiating meetings and side discussions,” said George Ranney, co-chair of CHANGE Illinois! and President and CEO of Chicago Metropolis 2020. “That veto session begins next week, and we still don’t have an agreement. We’re running out of time.”

Leaders of the CHANGE Illinois! coalition said the negotiators appear to have tentative agreements on ways to limit contributions by individuals, political action committees, candidate committees, corporations, labor unions, and associations, but they have not been able to agree on the central issue of limitations on the campaign funds controlled by legislative leaders and the political parties.

“There has been a good exchange of information and ideas with legislative leaders and the governor, and we seem to have agreements on several issues,” said Peter Bensinger, a CHANGE Illinois! co-chair and a former Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. “But we will not be part of any agreement which limits contributions from everyone except legislative leaders and political parties.”

Created earlier this year, CHANGE Illinois! is a coalition of civic, business, labor, professional, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, which represent more than 2 million members in Illinois. CHANGE Illinois! advocates an end to this state’s unregulated campaign finance system and for the creation of a system of campaign contribution limits, like those in use at the federal level and in virtually every other state in the nation.

For a copy of the full press release and supporting documents, please visit the CHANGE Illinois! website at http://www.changeil.org.

Supreme Court Upholds Importance of Elections

2009-09-25T08:47:00.002-05:00

The Illinois Supreme Court has been busy, and while most of the news coverage has been on wills and religion, sex offenders, and the death penalty, let's not forget another ruling that came down this week. In Gardner v Mullins, a unanimous court ruled that units of government cannot manipulate the length of time an appointee serves in elected office in order to avoid the voters. (download a pdf) We applaud the Court for preserving the integrity of the ballot.

The case arose after the death of an elected member of the Winnebago County Board. Mary Ann Aiello's term was to end on December 6, 2010. Her death on June 26, 2008 cut that short, leaving just over 29 months remaining on her term. According to state law, partial terms of more than 28 months can be filled by appointment only until the next General Election which, in this instance, would have been in November, 2008. The Winnebago County Board, however, did not appoint a successor until two months had elapsed, so that only 27 months remained in the term. That appointee then claimed that he did not have to stand for election until 2010.

The ability to appoint members to elected bodies is one of the more delicate powers given to public officials. The goal is to ensure a modicum of public representation until the voters can voice their desires. Special elections can be costly and generally draw low voter turnout; for many offices, Illinois policy is to allow for interim appointments until the next regular election.

But the power can be and has been abused. Most political observers can cite an instance or three of the swapping of one candidate for another after the primary or the substitution of one official for another after the election, all without asking the voters if they approve of the change. Usually, there is no recourse when the new official lacks credibility, except to wait for the next election.

In this case, the Supreme Court has narrowed the circumstances where a public body can manipulate the process to ensure that a favored person becomes a public official. By ruling that the remaining time on the ballot, which determined how soon voters are consulted, is calculated from the start of the vacancy and not the time of the appointment, the Court has appropriately make clear that voters should be consulted whenever possible, and not merely when convenient for the appointers. The unanimity of the ruling, written by Justice Garman, underscores this important point.

Cindi Canary in the News

2009-09-21T10:51:00.002-05:00

ICPR Director Cindi Canary is in this week's Crain's Chicago Business with a discussion of Rod Blagojevich's recent book and how it relates to the way that campaign finance reform is playing out. A subscription is required, but here's the link.

And here's an excerpt:

With about 275,000 new book titles published annually in the United States, the odds were that, sooner or later, even Rod Blagojevich would find a publisher.

“The Governor” tells his side of the story, and I’m not buying it—either the book or his fairy tale about the zealous prosecutor out to get him.

Some might ask what Illinois has done to deserve the spectacle of Rod Blagojevich on the talk-show circuit and his wife on a jungle reality show.

And if you were listening to NPR over the weekend, yes, that was Cindi in a rebroadcast of This American Life. The show, which originally aired in 2000, includes a segment with Cindi discussing a situation where "The Fix is In." Download the free podcast here:

Citizens United, and Citizens' Elections

2009-09-09T11:05:00.004-05:00

The US Supreme Court today hears oral arguments in Citizens United v FEC. It's an unusual time for the US Supreme Court to hear arguments (their term doesn't start until next month), but Citizens United is not a typical case. The Court heard arguments last Spring in the case and then took the unusual step of asking for additional arguments on issues not raised by the parties. This could be the case where the US Supreme Court takes off on a new activist agenda in the area of campaign finance.

Many have weighed in on the possible outcome, and ICPR signed onto an amicus brief (PDF) urging the Court to consider the impact of their decision on judicial elections. Much of the commentary has focused on the possibility that the Court will strike down a century of jurisprudence that forbids corporations to make campaign donations. But there are a lot of other ways the Court could rule, which also would have a dramatic impact on how campaigns are conducted, and how the public perceives the honesty of the electoral process.

At issue is whether an organization can promote a commercial enterprise during the weeks right before an election, when that commercial enterprise is focused squarely on a candidate in the election. Citizens United produced "Hillary: The Movie," a documentary critical of then-US Sen. and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and sought to promote the movie through TV commercials. The movie itself was available on a pay-per-view basis. The FEC objected, finding that the ads to promote the movie violated the electioneering communications provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act.

How far the Court uses this case to strike down portions of McCain-Feingold will indicate how activist the Court has become. The Court could find merely that the FEC was mistaken that the electioneering communications provision covered the ads. (The electioneering communications provision deals with some ads that mention candidates in the 60 days before a General Election) The Court could find that the electioneering communications provision is unconstitutional in some circumstances, or perhaps in all circumstances. At an extreme, the Court could find, as some have predicted, that corporations have a constitutional right to participate in elections by making campaign contributions.

How the Court rules will clearly have a significant impact on how states can ensure the integrity of elections by regulating campaign finances. While striking the prohibition on corporate contributions is indeed the worst case scenario, it would have little impact in Illinois, where corporations can and do already make large (indeed, unlimited) contributions. But Illinois also has an electioneering communications provision and so a ruling in that area will affect Illinois. No matter how the Court rules, states around the nation, including Illinois, will have to take stock of their laws and make changes to assure the public that elections are fair and honest.

Ding, Dong, HB 7 is dead!

2009-08-27T17:24:00.001-05:00

Flanked by the four legislative leaders, Gov. Pat Quinn today vetoed HB 7, the severely flawed contribution limits bill approved this May, and said he would work with all interested parties to craft a new campaign finance system by this fall.

Quinn said he has a “firm commitment” from the legislative leaders -- Senate President John Cullerton, Speaker Michael Madigan, House Republican Leader Tom Cross and Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno – that they will work with his office and all interested parties to create a better campaign finance system. Gov. Quinn said he expects the new legislation will be finished in time for the legislative session in October, commonly known as the veto session.

ICPR strongly opposed HB 7 and we commend the governor for rejecting this legislation. We also applaud the legislative leaders, and sponsor Sen. Don Harmon, for agreeing to head back to the negotiating table and creating a better campaign finance system for Illinois.

We look forward to working with the leaders and Gov. Quinn to create a campaign finance system that creates meaningful campaign contribution limits, while also improving disclosure and enforcement provisions.

In his statements to the press, Gov. Quinn said he decided to veto the bill because of the feedback he heard from Illinois residents. We thank you for contacting Gov. Quinn, along with your lawmakers, to ask them to support meaningful campaign finance legislation, and we encourage you to continue speaking out.

HB 7 in Detail: Independent Expenditures

2009-08-21T09:24:00.003-05:00

Today we resume our series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Previous posts are here and here and here and here and here.

Independent expenditures are so common in federal elections that they are routinely referred to by the initials "IE." These IE campaigns spring up in part because federal law limits how much anybody can give to a candidate, so that groups that want to spend more in support or opposition to a candidate have to work outside of that candidate's campaign. And there are explicit disclosure and contribution limit rules for IE efforts in federal law.

It makes sense for Illinois to adopt rules for IE campaigns at the same time that we adopt limits on campaign contributions generally. But while HB 7 has a section on "independent expenditures," it uses the term in very different ways than federal law does. These differences threaten the effectiveness and legality of the bill.

While federal law applies to any organization, the provision in HB 7 dealing with independent expenditures applies only to those "made by a natural person," meaning single individuals acting alone. The immediate consequence of this is to suggest that no other entity can engage in "independent expenditures," and the consequences of that would be vast. It would turn the contribution limits into spending limits, for one, which would certainly draw a skeptical judicial eye in the inevitable challenge (note that the bill exempts parties and some other committees from this limit).

There are also apparent drafting problems in this section. The section ensures a modicum of disclosure from natural persons acting independently of any political committee. Individuals are required to report when they have spent $3,000 and again at $20,000. It is not clear that the bill would require any continuing obligation to report -- say, at increments of $20,000. Nor is it clear that the person would have any obligation to disclose at the time that they commit to making an expenditure. If they have to disclose only when they actually pay the bills, that disclosure may well come well after the ads have run, and long after Election Day.

To the extent that HB 7 tried to ensure that individuals making large expenditures in relation to candidates are covered by disclosure requirements, the bill is on a useful errand. But the section is drafted in ways that fall short of that goal and threaten the abilities of others to make their voices heard in the course of campaigns. It needs to be re-written.

HB 7 in Detail: Effective Date

2009-08-20T09:28:00.001-05:00

All new laws take effect eventually. Many laws take effect within a few weeks of passage; in some instances, they'll take effect a few months after passage. But HB 7 isn't like most other bills. The majority of HB 7 would not take effect until January 1, 2011, more than 19 months after the House and Senate approved it.

There can be valid reasons for delaying implementation, but contribution limits should not be delayed that long. HB 7 deals with the rules of campaign finance, and changing those rules in such a fundamental way in the middle of a campaign can cause great confusion. When New Mexico adopted contribution limits in March of this year, their legislature set the effective date at November 3, 2010. That's a long way off, but it's the day after the 2010 General Election, so it makes sense -- as soon as the next election cycle is over, the rules change. And that's one of the two effective dates that we kicked around in regard to HB 24 (the other being, "immediately").

There are at least two significant problems with January 1, 2011 as a start date. First, it gives politicians 7 weeks after the 2010 General Election to get ready. One of ICPR's early legislative wins was the ban on taking campaign funds for personal use, which became law in 1998. In order to win approval of the law, we had to agree to a kind of "grandfather clause" that exempted funds raised before the effective date of the law. Wouldn't you know it, one legislator's campaign fund "borrowed" $100K on the day before the effective date. They paid it back the day after, but on the day the law took effect, they had an extra $100K in their fund, money they will be able to claim for personal use when they retire. (On the upside, there was only one legislator who was this crafty). Setting the effective date for contribution limits 7 weeks after the election will likewise allow for more last minute shenanigans, as contributors evaluate incumbents and decide which should get a final outsized donation before the law takes effect.

The other problem with the effective date is that it occurs just 7 weeks prior to the 2011 municipal elections. Candidate petitions will be due in December, objections will be decided and the ballot fixed and then the campaign finance rules will change. Candidates can take huge sums in December, 2010, but after January 1st anyone who didn't get their fundraising ramped up in time will have to comply with new rules. This scenario will play out in localities all over Illinois, including the City of Chicago.

There are serious policy reasons why the date should be moved up to November 3, 2010.

While we're on the subject of dates in the bill, one more bears notice. HB 7 creates a study commission to examine the question of public financing for judicial campaigns. A bill to create public financing for judicial elections has passed the Senate with bi-partisan majorities in each of the last three sessions. (Then-Sen. Barack Obama was the chief sponsor the first time it passed.) But House Speaker Michael Madigan never called the bill for a vote in the House. So it would seem the key issue for a study commission is to figure out what objections the House has to the bill. The study commission is supposed to report back on January 1, 2012 -- two and a half years from now. Will it really take that long to figure out what changes are needed to satisfy the House?

HB 7 in Detail: Calendar year cycles

2009-08-19T09:11:00.002-05:00

Contribution limits always come with time limits. In federal elections, a contributor may give $2,400 to a candidate for each election, so that a contributor who maxed out before Election Day can give again after Election Day. HB 7 sets astronomically high limits on giving to campaigns, much higher than in federal elections. And it sets those limits by calendar year, rather than by election. This difference raises some legal and policy questions.

At least one court has declared that calendar year limits are unconstitutional. A federal appeals court ruled in SEIU v. Fair Elections Practice Commission (1992) that the State of California does not have a sufficient interest in calendar years to overcome a person's right to participate in the political process. Courts are divided on this; other courts have approved calendar year limits. But when setting limits, it is fair to ask why giving more than the amount in a given time frame should be prohibited. Both the amount and the time frame have to be justifiable, and it is not at all clear what is so magical about January 1, that limits should restart on that date.

There are also policy concerns. Our state elections include primaries, now in early February, and general elections, in early November. Setting limits by calendar year means that a donor who maxes in January, before the primary, cannot give again to that candidate until long after the general election.

Now, most incumbent legislators are not opposed in the primary, and about half are not opposed in either the primary or the general, so maybe they aren't so concerned about this issue. But how is it in the state's interest to say that if you give the max on December 31, you can give the max again the next day, but if you max out right before the primary, you cannot give again until after the general? How does that time-frame address the fact or appearance of corruption?

Too, setting limits by calendar year allows incumbents to get a leg up on fundraising. This is especially true for officials in four-year terms, who can take in a couple of calendar years’ worth of contributions before a challenger would even consider running for their seats. How is a challenger who sat out the first two years of a four-year term without raising any money to compete against an incumbent who holds regular golf outings?

The better time frame for all offices is to set limits by the election cycle.

HB 7 in Detail: Penalties for violations

2009-08-18T09:53:00.004-05:00

Today, ICPR continues its series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Earlier posts are here, here, and here.

Suppose you think the dollar amounts you are allowed to contribute in HB 7 are too low. (Stop laughing, this is a serious blog post!) If you wanted to give more money to a committee than HB 7 would let you, what do you do? Let's consider the consequences of violating HB 7.

The penalty section in HB 7 is here (it starts on page 42 of HB 7):

18 (h) Contributions or transfers in violation of this
19 Section. A political committee that receives a contribution or
20 transfer in violation of this Section shall dispose of the
21 contribution or transfer by returning the contribution or
22 transfer, or an amount equal to the contribution or transfer,
23 to the contributor or transferor or donating the contribution
24 or transfer, or an amount equal to the contribution or
25 transfer, to a charity. A contribution or transfer received in
26 violation of this Section that is not disposed of as provided
1 in this subsection within 30 days after its receipt shall
2 escheat to the General Revenue Fund.

That's it. The committee would have 30 days to give the money back, or the state could lay claim to it. Alternately, the committee could give an equal amount to charity within 30 days. The contributor pays no penalty, even if the contribution was knowingly and intentionally excessive. And other than the loss of the excess amount, the committee pays no penalty, even if the committee plotted and planned with the contributor to violate the law.

So what do you do if you need cash for that final push before Election Day? ICPR would never counsel anyone to break the law. But, strictly hypothetically, what if someone did break the law? Here's what happens: If the candidate wins, the committee would have a few weeks to raise enough money from other donors to refund the excess to those who gave illegal contributions, or make a donation to charity. And winning candidates usually have a comparatively easy time raising money from new donors; from a contributor's point of view, the candidate's a sure thing. And if the candidate loses? So what if the state may lay claim to the money; if the committee is broke, there's no money for the state to seize. Dissolve the committee, and there will be no continuing obligations to worry about.

Real reform laws need real teeth. The penalties section in HB 7 needs to be improved.

A victory for reform: Freedom of Information Act improvements signed into law

2009-08-17T13:21:00.008-05:00

The state law intended to guarantee Illinoisans access to government records got a much-needed overhaul today, when Gov. Patrick Quinn signed a bill strengthening the law’s enforcement provisions.

The Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, is supposed to ensure taxpayers have access to government records. But the law is too-often not followed or altogether ignored, preventing Illinoisans from gathering information about their governments’ work.

Numerous reform groups, including ICPR and the Illinois Reform Commission, worked with Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office this winter and spring to draft a rewrite of the existing FOIA. On Monday, Quinn signed into law the group’s work-product, Senate Bill 189.

The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2010, makes a number of critical improvements to FOIA and its partner, the Open Meetings Act. Among them:

- Shortens the amount of time public bodies have to respond to FOIA requests to five business days from the current seven-day allowance. The legislation also shortens the extension public bodies can grant themselves to five days from the current seven.

- Makes permanent the position of Public Access Counselor, or PAC, within the Attorney General’s office, and grants the counselor power to help resolve FOIA disputes. The PAC will have the power to issue both advisory and binding opinions as to whether requested records are public.

- Mandates that courts award attorneys’ fees to records-requestors who successfully sue for access to open records after illegally being denied access to them. The current law gives judges discretion to award attorneys' fees, which means that people who take their records requests to court -- and win -- might be left to foot their attorneys' bill.

- Requires designated government employees to complete annual FOIA and Open Meetings Act training to educate them about state law and help ensure compliance.

- Strengthens enforcement provisions by allowing courts to impose civil penalties for public bodies that intentionally disregard the law.

You can check out the text of the new law here.

HB 7 in Detail: Constituent Services

2009-08-14T10:38:00.003-05:00

Today, ICPR continues its series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Previous posts are here and here.

HB 7 creates a wholly new type of committee, one dedicated to "constituent services" -- a new type that's ripe for abuse. It's true that for many years, public officials have used personal funds or campaign contributions to supplement the public funding allocated to their district offices. While the proper solution to underfunded district offices is to increase the public allocation, the use of a small portion of campaign funds has become a normal practice in Illinois.

HB 7 institutionalizes this practice by creating new committees dedicated to supplementing the district office allocation. But it raises very troubling questions. Will incumbents be able to use their constituent services committees to produce and distribute mailers and hold public events? It will be difficult if not impossible to determine when such activities are political (aimed at voters in the district), as compared to expenditures that are (as HB 7 states) “related to constituent services and the maintenance of the official’s public office” as these are aimed at the exact same people, and may occur at the exact same time. Note that there are none of the restrictions on Constituent Services Committees that apply to mailings on behalf of legislators by the Legislative Printing Unit, for instance.

Furthermore, would donors be able to contribute money to an official’s constituent service committee at the same time that they lobby them? Session day fundraisers have been banned for over a decade. The law now bars legislators from holding "fundraising functions" on session days. But a separate bill, SB 54, makes a change to the section of the 2003 Ethics Act regarding session day fundraisers, inserting the word "political" before the phrase "fundraising functions" (this change is on page 18 of SB 54):

1 (5 ILCS 430/5-40)
2 Sec. 5-40. Fundraising in Sangamon County. Except as
3 provided in this Section, any executive branch constitutional
4 officer, any candidate for an executive branch constitutional
5 office, any member of the General Assembly, any candidate for
6 the General Assembly, any political caucus of the General
7 Assembly, or any political committee on behalf of any of the
8 foregoing may not hold a political fundraising function in
9 Sangamon County on any day the legislature is in session (i)
10 during the period beginning February 1 and ending on the later
11 of the actual adjournment dates of either house of the spring
12 session and (ii) during fall veto session. For purposes of this
13 Section, the legislature is not considered to be in session on
14 a day that is solely a perfunctory session day or on a day when
15 only a committee is meeting.

On its face, this change would seem to allow non-political fundraising. Perhaps the intent is merely to let legislators sponsor events for groups like United Way or the Cancer Society. But coupled with the creation of Constituent Services Committees, which are by intention for non-political purposes, this provision is very disturbing. Could a Constituent Services Committee hold a session day funder? The law doesn't say, and where the law is silent, loopholes are formed.