WITH FAT CATS GIVING MILLIONS, THEY GET TO CALL THE TUNE

Commentary by Cynthia Canary
Director, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform

Unlike some of our neighboring states, Illinois isn't known for its reform tradition and nowhere is this more obvious than in the freewheeling way in which elections are financed in the land of Lincoln. States across the nation have worked to rein in campaign costs and prevent corruption. Missouri and 36 other states have contribution limits, Vermont has spending limits, and Arizona provides full public funding of elections. Illinois, by contrast, places absolutely no limits on political giving. Illinois law provides no brake on political giving and as a result, it never really stops.

When the costs are totaled, candidates for Illinois' governor will have spent well over $52 million making their case to the voters during the state's 2002 primary and general elections, over twice what was spent in 1998. In the general election period alone, candidates for attorney general raised over $8 million, candidates for the Illinois Supreme Court collected over $1.2 million, and a single candidate for the state senate amassed an astonishing $1.1 million. In all of these races previous records were shattered. The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform estimate that the total cost of Illinois' 2002 elections will be in the neighborhood of $150 million, up about 40% from 1998.

Nationwide, people complain about the rising cost of elections. But in Illinois, it is not just the cost of campaigning that troubles voters; it's also where the money is coming from and the astronomical size of the donations being doled out. The number of very large contributions of $10,000 or more has grown by almost 35% over the past four years. In 2002, generous individual givers provided several candidates with $100,000 checks, with corporations, unions and associations directing sums many times that amount to the candidates of their choice. Washington-based political committees, like KOMPAC, a fund connected to House Speaker Denny Hastert, or the Democratic Governors Association invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into Illinois campaigns this year.

We calculate that in the state's most competitive statewide races as few as 3% of the largest contributors accounted for over 60% of the funds raised. Candidates are dependent on a miniscule group of political givers for the bulk of their funding. The state's powerful legislative leaders and the party and caucus committees they control pump millions of dollars into elections, making them inordinately powerful in determining which candidacies are viable. Ordinary givers who may contribute $50 or $100 to a candidate are barely a blip on the radar screen. Is it any wonder that Illinois voters have grown increasingly concerned that their interests will be trumped by those of big contributors?

Some contend that given the importance of elections we shouldn't be overly concerned with spending what amounts to a pittance compared with how much is spent on fast food. While there is no denying the importance of elections or that the cost of effectively communicating with voters is expensive, the argument rings hollow. It is naïve to think that state elections will be run on the cheap, but it is equally unrealistic to believe that democracy will flourish if campaign fundraising is left unfettered in its acceleration.

Big money politics and negative campaigns have driven a wedge between the electorate and its representatives, with more and more citizens opting out of the process each election. The question before Illinois' new leaders is what should be done?

There is no silver bullet, but sensible contribution limits are a good place to start. Establishing common sense limits will contain the influence of special interests, open up the playing field and send a signal to the public that the system is not for sale. The power of legislative leaders need also be reined in, and establishing limits on funds transfers from one political committee to another begins to accomplish this. Other ideas to be explored include tax-credits to encourage small contributions, voters' guides to let all candidates share their positions with the electorate, and public financing programs allowing candidates to opt out of the fundraising game all together.

Citizens are looking to the Blagojevich administration to make good on the promise of change. Implementing comprehensive reforms will ensure that the only special interest in Illinois is the public interest.