Pantagraph Editorial
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Expensive 2006 campaign should trigger reforms

For people who tire of seemingly endless campaign commercials and political mailings, speculation that the 2006 election season might break spending records is not good news.

It's not exactly good news for candidates who have to raise the money, either.

Those candidates should tell us how they would improve the system. More than that, they should take action if elected. The Legislature should put ceilings on the amount of money an individual, business or organization can donate to a campaign just as the federal government and nearly every other state does.

The political war chest Gov. Rod Blagojevich has filled during the last several years nearly $15 million at last count contributed to the reluctance of a few potential candidates to enter the race. In the 2002 general election, the Blagojevich for Governor campaign committee spent nearly $13 million between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2002. Citizens for Jim Ryan spent $6.3 million during that period.

After a short-lived exploration of a run for governor, Peoria-area Congressman Ray LaHood wrote in a Capitol View column for The Pantagraph last month that Illinois should reform its campaign-financing system.

Although he didn't have to, LaHood abided by federal fund-raising restrictions while considering a run for governor. Those limits restrict contributions from individuals to a maximum of $2,100 each election cycle. Political action committees may donate up to $5,000 in an election cycle.

There are several arguments against restricting campaign donations

Contributing to a campaign is a form of free speech, a way to participate in the political process.

Incumbents have built-in advantages, even if they don't spend a dime. Challengers need the freedom to raise large amounts of cash to overcome that advantage and get their names known.

Limiting the size of contributions doesn't limit spending. It just means more time must be spent on fund-raising efforts to get more individuals or organizations to contribute to make up for the lack of larger donations.

But the arguments for restrictions are compelling, too.

Unlimited campaign donations can give the donors undue influence.

The possibilities of trading money for jobs or votes increase as donation levels increase.

LaHood is among those who think lax campaign financing rules contribute to corruption in Illinois.

"To think that someone can write a check for $50,000, $100,000 or even $1 million to a state candidate is obscene," LaHood wrote in his column. "To think that a contribution can come directly from the coffers of a business that may in return receive state contracts or directly from unions that may represent state employees, well, that is just plain wrong."

For now, the most valuable tool Illinoisans have is the state's campaign finance reporting laws. Candidates must report all contributions over $500. The frequency of reporting increases as an election nears.

By knowing the source of a candidate's money, voters can decide for themselves whether the candidate might be influenced by those contributions. Reporting requirements also help uncover or at least raise questions about contributions that might be tied to jobs or contracts.

But true campaign fund-raising reforms would include limits on donations.

If an overly expensive 2006 campaign doesn't spur campaign finance reform in Illinois, perhaps a guilty verdict in a certain political corruption trial will make Illinois more ready for reform.