Code Talkers

Part of the packet of materials candidates file when they run for office is the Code of Fair Campaign Practices. The Code is a voluntary, non-binding pledge created by the state legislature and administered by the State Board of Elections. It gives candidates an opportunity to forswear negative campaigning and other unsavory practices; it allows candidates to declare that they intend to take the high road on the campaign trail.

But not many candidates signed on to the Code when they filed their petitions. Of 421 petitions filed yesterday, only 148, or about a third, came with the Code. We hope this doesn’t mean a nasty campaign season is in our future.

Who didn’t sign the Code? It’s easier to say who did. Of the Democratic statewide filers, only Paul Mangieri turned one in. Of the Republican statewide hopefuls, only state Sen. Bill Brady and Jeremy Cole filed the Code. Jeremy Cole, you say? Yes, Jeremy Cole, of Canton, Illinois, who’s running for Lt.. Gov.

Campaigns are supposed to be a dialogue about where the state should go, with an emphasis on voter education and finding common ground. All too often, though, they can become painful to watch, bringing out the worst in candidates and turning voters away from the process. One sitting state rep, who filed petitions but not a Code, told the Tribune, "This is the friendliest you'll see the candidates be for a few months. It's like a prefight weigh-in." We hope he’s wrong, and that those filers who did not sign the Code will reconsider. Signing the Code is one sign that candidates want to change the tone of state politics. We hope more of them will do so.

Filling In Period

Today is the day people who want to run for office with a party endorsement in 2006 begin submitting their petitions for the March Primary. The Primary is where the parties fill in their official slates of candidates, and so the filing period is the time when party officials, and incumbent office holders, are most vulnerable. Anyone who wants to run – office holder, serious challenger, gadfly wacko – can file for office.

This is also the first movement in an elaborate dance that leads up to swearing-in. The first phase involves sizing the field. Incumbents tend to file early, both because first filers get the top ballot position but also because it may give them time to find other candidates, for their own race or others. Incumbents prefer to run unopposed, but some take a “more the merrier” attitude, especially in down-ticket races where the signature requirements are low and voters often have less information on candidates (more on that later).

After filing comes certification, by which time some candidates may be challenged and removed, some may have changed their minds and withdrawn, and some candidates who are ineligible may, by lack of challenge, be allowed to stay on the ballot. And then… Well, it’s a long dance.

Candidates can file through next Monday, the 19th. About half of all candidates will likely file today. Another third will file on the last day, angling for the last ballot position which, if you can’t be first, is presumed to be best. The rest will dribble in on the other four days. As of today, the race is truly on.

Dash of Disclosure

Disclosure is all that Illinois has when it comes to campaign finance regulation – that’s why ICPR is so hawkish about violations. The State Board of Elections does a great job of disseminating the reports, and most political committees do a good job of reporting. But there are a small handful trying to evade disclosure.

Today’s Tribune editorial explains why the Coalition for Jobs, Growth and Prosperity ought to come clean about the sources of their funds. They funneled over $400,000 to candidates in the 2004 elections without ever saying where the money came from. The editorial quotes Coalition co-founder Ron Gidwitz as saying that the Coalition promised donors that their names would not be disclosed.

Why would anyone make that promise, knowing that for over three decades Illinois has required disclosure for groups trying to sway elections? The 2006 elections are just around the corner. What the Coalition has done is display a road-map to funnel money around the disclosure reports. Voters deserve better.

USA Today, Tomorrow Illinois

One of the great things about the Internet is that you no longer have to stay in a hotel to read USA Today; Google News will deliver it to your desktop. In the last week, the McPaper been on a roll, reminding those of us who spend most of our time in Illinois that other states are facing problems similar to ours, and some are finding solutions worthy of study.

In an editorial last week called “Political wining and dining bring ethical indigestion” about US Rep. Randy Cunningham and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the paper wrote, “what stands out about these shenanigans is how cheaply some members of Congress and their aides are willing to compromise their integrity.” They conclude, “there’s something wrong with a system in which business as usual looks so much like bribery that it’s tough to tell the difference.”

And yesterday’s editorial, “Voters take back elections”, lauds the legislators of Connecticut who have boldly carved out fundraiser-free territory on the campaign trail. “While Congress wallows in the ethical swamp where money and politics meet, one more state just found a way out. Voters there will pay for campaigns, which might be the bargain of the century. They'll save countless dollars doled from public coffers to the favor seekers who fund campaigns now.”

What will be Illinois’ contribution to this national dialogue?

Stone Soup

For Thanksgiving my four-year-old’s daycare made Stone Soup. Everybody brought something that was thrown in the pot, along with a stone, and with a little help from the cook what they ate for lunch was not only hot and nutritious but came with a good story, too. Some kids brought carrots, some potatoes; we were charged with celery. The kids know what went into the pot, the teacher knows who brought what, and everybody knows who ate what. Soup is like that.

Grown ups, though, sometimes want to hide behind soup. “I don’t know what happened, it’s all soup to me.” Government critics sometimes complain about an alphabet soup of agencies. And now Doug Whitley of the Illinois Chamber claims that vegetable soup is too dense for him to understand.

Whitley wears many hats, and one of them is Board Member of the Coalition for Jobs Growth and Prosperity. The Coalition raised over $400K for political candidates in 2004 but they have steadfastly refused to own up to who gave it to them. $400 large is a lot of cash to just find lying around at the end of the day. But Whitley can’t be bothered to find out where it came from.

"It's impossible to legitimately report who gave the money that made it into the political process" and whose money didn't, Whitley said. "It's like vegetable soup," the St. Louis Post Dispatch reported over the weekend.

The problem here is the Coalition’s refusal to observe state law that requires segregated funds for political activities. Anyone who raises or spends $3,000 or more to spend in support of or opposition to candidates or ballot issues must form a political committee and register with the State Board of Elections. Those are the rules that just about everybody else follows (even Justice for All, the other group ICPR filed complaints against, admitted they should have disclosed their funding and did so). The FDA requires Campbell’s to list its ingredients, and the Illinois Chamber follows those rules, so Whitley must know how easily it can be done. But he wants the public to believe that the Coalition can’t seem to figure that out.

What Whitley describes is a loophole big enough to drive an election through. Illinois has no limits on political finance; we’re the only state with such a wide-open, Wild West style of campaign fundraising. All we have is disclosure. Illinois does a really good job of disclosure, but it can disclose only what the committees report.

Would that my four-year-old’s Thanksgiving lunch ended up with an untraceable $400K in the pot.

Following Connecticut's Lead (update)

A former governor in disgrace after a federal investigation into extensive corruption, mounting allegations of campaign finance abuses among state and local public officials, and a growing clamor from voters for reform; hard to tell if we’re talking about Illinois or Connecticut.

The big difference is that Connecticut has addressed its problems head-on with sweeping new campaign finance rules to limit the influence of large donors and – perhaps most importantly – allow candidates for public office to opt out of the private funding rat race entirely.

At 3 am last night, the Connecticut General Assembly gave final approval to a new plan that will ban giving by lobbyists and state contractors, create a public financing option for statewide and legislative candidates (judges are appointed in Connecticut), and regulate in-kind contributions. Gov. M. Jodi Rell has indicated she will sign the bill.

The bill isn’t perfect. Notably, it doesn’t take full effect until 2010, and some are concerned it doesn’t do enough to reign in the power of party leaders. It will likely be litigated.

But the Connecticut General Assembly has tackled this issue directly and with full public debate that stretched out over two months. This is the first time a legislature has voted to provide public financing for legislative candidates, meaning that incumbents have voted to help their challengers. Connecticut deserves applause for their handling of this issue. Let’s hope those similarities between our two states continue.

I Owe, I owe...

Lest anyone think we’ve been picking on Rep. Calvin Giles, know that there are several sitting legislators and potential candidates who owe fines to the State Board of Elections and who might face ballot forfeiture if they don’t pay those fines by January 19th, when the State Board of Elections is due to certify the ballot for the primary election. It's not that Giles is alone, it's just that Giles owes more than all others combined.

Rep. Giles owes $144,000 in outstanding fines. But others are on the list, or could be by certification. Rep. Patricia Bailey owes $6,200 in fines. Rep. Mary Flowers owes $100 in fines. Three others -- Rep. Jack Franks, Rep. Robin Kelly, and Sen. Don Harmon -- have matters before the Board and may owe fines come January, but they still have pending appeals that might get them out of trouble. (Rep. Deborah Graham, who was on the list as of the last meeting of the Board, paid her fines the day of the meeting). (Rep. Bailey may have other problems)

One assumes that incumbents who face re-election next year will file to run, but the law applies to all candidates, incumbents and challengers alike. Nobody knows who will file next month, but two candidates who lost in 2004 are on the list: Derrick Prince, who took 25% of the Primary vote against Rep. Marlow Colvin, owes $3,250, and Thomas Morris, who garnered 23% in the General against Rep. Lou Lang, owes $1,800.

State law forbids the Board to certify to the ballot the name of any candidate who owes fines. Time will tell who files and is left on the list in January.