Funding of Illinois court race is challenged

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch

Funding of Illinois court race is challenged
By Kevin McDermott

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Two shadowy entities that funneled hundreds of
thousands of dollars into last year's Illinois Supreme Court race have
created a loophole that could emasculate the state's campaign disclosure
laws, political reformers alleged in complaints filed Thursday.
The Chicago-based Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and others filed
two complaints with the Illinois State Board of Elections, against two
entities that lined up on opposite sides of the bitter race for the court's
downstate seat.
Cited were the Justice for All Foundation, which heavily backed Democrat
Gordon Maag, and the Coalition for Jobs, Growth and Prosperity, which
backed Republican Lloyd Karmeier, the winner.
The Post-Dispatch disclosed in November how the two entities, set up as
nonprofit corporations, funneled money to the candidates through registered
political action committees.
Those PACs had identical names and addresses as the nonprofits.
PACs are required under Illinois law to show where they get the money that
they give to candidates. But in the case of the Justice for All and Jobs
Coalition PACs, they merely reported that the money came from the nonprofit
corporations of the same names.
The end result, the Post-Dispatch found, was that at least $540,000 was
pumped into the race from sources that can't be identified in records -
this despite state law requiring identification of any donor of more than
$150 to a political candidate or committee.
The Maag-Karmeier race pitted big-business interests against trial lawyers
in what was perceived as a battle for and against limitations in lawsuits.
Business groups heavily backed Karmeier, while trial lawyers and related
groups heavily backed Maag.
The complaints filed Thursday essentially allege that the nonprofit groups
are actually PACs for those two forces, and should be required to reveal
their donors the way PACs are required to. The complaints claim there are
questions regarding the source of about $830,000 in contributions in all
from the two entities.
"What we want (the State Board of Elections) to do is to clarify the rules
. . . to make it clear that transfers from nonprofits to PACs are still
covered" by state disclosure laws, said Cynthia Canary, director of the
Campaign for Political Reform.
Canary's group was joined by the Sunshine Project at the University of
Illinois at Springfield in the complaint.
"There is a great deal more at stake here than simply knowing the real
sources of money that went into this Supreme Court election," Kent
Redfield, director of the Sunshine Project, said in a written statement.
"If the Illinois State Board of Elections allows this behavior to go
unpunished, it will open a gigantic loophole in our disclosure laws, and
this same kind of hidden financing scheme will surface repeatedly in future
legislative and statewide elections."
Canary said the complainants are less interested in securing a fine against
the two nonprofits than with making sure that they and other entities can't
move that much unattributed money in future elections. If the two groups'
methods are allowed to stand, Canary said, "disclosure (laws) could be
useless by the 2006 elections."
A Madison County union official, George Machino, is listed as the treasurer
of the Justice For All Foundation. Machino is president of the Greater
Madison County Federation of Labor. He did not return a message left at his
office on Thursday.
Doug Whitley, of the Jobs Coalition, said Thursday that his organization
was merely operating under the system that's already in place.
"It's true that there's not a specific requirement under Illinois law to
get at funds contributed through a nonprofit organization," Whitley said.
"(The reform group) sees it as a loophole that needs to be closed. I'd
concur," Whitley said. But in the meantime, he said, his organization has
stayed within the lines of current law.
When a complaint is filed with the State Board of Elections, a hearing
judge is assigned to conduct an initial, closed hearing to determine
whether the complaint has any validity. If the hearing judge determines it
does, than an open hearing is conducted, with the complainant and the
target of the complaint both invited to give testimony.
The hearing judge then makes a recommendation to the full Board of
Elections, an eight-member bipartisan committee of citizens. The board has
the power to order that organizations divulge additional records if they're
accused of a lack of disclosure. If initial orders of the board aren't
followed, it can impose fines.
[]Reporter Kevin McDermott[]
[]E-mail: kmcdermott@post-dispatch.com[]
[]Phone: 217-782-4912[]