4 May 1998
by Jeff Finley
When a contribution is made to an Illinois political campaign, the money may eventually go toward the candidate's Chicago Bulls tickets, car, vacation to Puerto Rico, or the college education of the candidate's child. Contributions have even been used to pay for a deceased legislator's funeral. Shocking? Outrageous? Maybe, but the personal use of campaign funds is perfectly legal in the Land of Lincoln. In fact, all of the preceding examples have occurred. A bipartisan group of Illinois legislators, however, may soon bring an end to the days of campaign-financed cars and caskets.
Sen. Kirk W. Dillard (R-Hinsdale), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), Rep. Gary Hannig (D-Litchfield), Rep. Jack Kubik (R-Berwyn), and Andy Foster, the deputy chief of staff for Republican Gov. Jim Edgar, are reportedly near an agreement to support legislation that would ban the personal use of campaign funds, increase disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions, and restrict fund-raising efforts in or near Springfield while the General Assembly is in session.
They have been meeting regularly with Mike Lawrence, the governor's former press secretary who is now the associate director of Southern Illinois University's Public Policy Institute--the sponsor of the bipartisan group.
The group hopes to succeed where others have failed repeatedly. They remain hopeful but realistic about their chances of passing the legislation in the General Assembly, which has rejected reform efforts in the past.
"There's a reason why it hasn't been done in 24 years," Lawrence told students last week at SIU's Carbondale campus.
Former Sen. Paul Simon, the director of the Public Policy Institute and a longtime proponent of campaign finance reform at the state and federal levels, cheered the group's efforts.
"If what they have agreed upon becomes law, Illinois will have enacted substantial, badly needed reforms," Simon said.
Besides his duties at the Public Policy Institute, Simon is serving as co-chair of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. He was the co-chair of the Illinois Campaign Finance Task Force, which met during 1996 and 1997. Despite the publicity surrounding the ICFTF's final report, which was released in January 1997, the General Assembly failed to pass any of its suggestions last year.
Simon is just one of many individuals who have criticized Illinois for having that which they say are the most lenient campaign-finance laws of any state. The state's campaign-finance laws allow anyone to contribute any amount to any candidate, who can then transfer the money to another candidate.
Illinois' main restriction is that candidates and incumbents must report donations in excess of $150 to the State Board of Elections. If the contributions are reported properly, the State Board of Elections has no power to control who gives to a campaign, nor can it control how campaign money is spent.
Personal Use
Candidates and elected officials can use campaign money for their personal use if they report the money as income on their tax returns. They can keep their political committees, which control their campaign funds, open indefinitely, even after they have left office.
Personal use of campaign funds is illegal in almost every state except Illinois, which the pro-reform Common Cause described as tied with California and Idaho for the least restrictive campaign finance laws in the nation.
The late Rep. Robert LeFlore's (D-Chicago) political committee reportedly spent more than $7,000 in campaign funds for his funeral expenses and burial plot.
After retiring from politics, former Sen. Greg Zito (D-Melrose Park) even built a house with some of the reported $250,000 he "borrowed" from his campaign account.
Former Sen. Ralph Dunn (R-Du Quoin) reportedly applied more than $35,000 in leftover campaign funds for his wife's nursing expenses.
According to recently released 1997 tax returns, Secretary of State George Ryan, Republican candidate for governor, used a total of $15,752 of campaign funds for personal expenses, including $3,672 for Chicago Bulls tickets.
Not every Illinois political candidate or politician uses campaign funds for non-campaign activities. For example, Edgar did not convert any of his remaining campaign funds to personal use in 1997, despite the fact that he is not running for re-election as governor.
Legislators may soon have to pay for their Bulls tickets and other non-campaign expenses out of their own pockets.
The Democrat-controlled Illinois House passed a four-bill reform package in April that would ban the personal use of campaign money and limit contributions per candidate to $1,500 from an individual, $3,000 from a union or business, and $5,000 from a political action committee (PAC). The House legislation, however, may not pass in the Republican-controlled Senate, because of the contribution limits to which most Republicans object.
The Bipartisan Plan
While the House's campaign-finance-reform legislation appears to be stalled in the Senate, like last year's reform bill that passed in the House and was never voted upon by the Senate, the Public Policy Institute's bipartisan plan is picking up support. Senate President James "Pate" Philip (R-Wood Dale) recently indicated he supports the proposal as it now stands.
Unlike the House bill, the Public Policy Institute's plan would not limit the size of contributions. It would, however, end personal use of campaign money, outlaw fund-raising in or near Springfield while the General Assembly is in section, increase the penalties for violation of disclosure laws, require registration and disclosure for most unions and corporations, and enact other new reforms that would drastically alter the campaign culture in Illinois.
If the plan becomes law, lobbyists would no longer be able to attend a Springfield fund-raiser for a legislator during the same time a bill, which the lobbyist supports, is being considered. The plan would prohibit fund-raisers in Springfield or within a 50-mile radius of the capital during weeks the General Assembly meets. Legislators from districts within that region would be partially exempt from those rules, but they still could not hold a fund-raiser on a day the General Assembly is in session.
Legislators can currently solicit contributions from lobbyists in the Capitol building. The plan would forbid the solicitation and acceptance of contributions in the Capitol or the James R. Thompson Center, the state office building that holds many offices for many state agencies and the governor's northern office, in Chicago.
The plan attempts to make the reporting of in-kind contributions--gifts of goods and services. It would require a donor to estimate the value of an in-kind contribution, which would be reported to the State Board of Elections.
It would increase penalties for disclosure violations. The fine for violation by statewide committees would rise from $1,000 to $10,000. The fine for other committees would go from $1,000 to $5,000.
Contributions to campaigns in the last few weeks are often not reported until after the election. By that time, the voters have already made their decision without knowing what interest groups or corporations may have given to a candidate at the end of the campaign. The plan would require PACs to inform the State Board of Elections immediately of all contributions exceeding $500.
Corporations and unions are not currently required to report contributions to candidates. The plan would require corporations and unions that give more than $3,000 per reporting period to register with the State Board of Elections and disclose contributions.
Corporations, such as the tobacco lobby, often form PACs with names that sound like citizen groups. The plan would require PACs to identify the interests they represent, rather than disguising contributions through acronyms and vague names.
The plan would require candidates to report the occupations and employers of those who contribute more than $500 to them.
In what may be its most controversial provision, the plan would actually raise the reporting threshold for campaign committees and PACs from $1,000 to $3,000. According to the group, the change will allow the State Board of Elections to focus on the activities of major PACs and campaign committees without being so overwhelmed by the mass of data that it cannot enforce any campaign-finance laws.
It would also require PACs and campaign committees to electronically file disclosure reports if they spend or raise at least $25,000 during a reporting period. Reports filed via computer can be posted on the Internet more quickly. An Illinois law, which was passed last year, requires the State Board of Election to file campaign-finance reports on the Internet.
The plan includes new disclosure requirements for groups spending more than $5,000 to discuss public policy matters, and it requires better disclosure for the sources of campaign literature and mailings.
The bipartisan group also has asked Simon to hold a meeting of television executives to address the high cost of campaign advertisements and the possibility of free air time for in-depth discussion of issues by the candidates.
As it now stands, the plan does not include the public financing of campaign through tax revenue or voluntary check-offs on income tax forms--a concept Simon has championed.
Simon admitted the authors of the plan "may not include everything that some of us advocate, but they represent major progress and a realistic, reasonable approach toward rebuilding public confidence in our election system."
Reform and Interest Groups
A number of existing citizen-advocate groups have joined with newly formed pro-reform groups to push for campaign finance reform in Illinois. Meanwhile, other interest groups in Illinois have had to consider how reform legislation would affect their activities.
The 250,000-member Common Cause is one of the best known organizations that supports campaign finance reform at the state and national levels. The national organization uses its annual operating budget of $10 million to publish investigative studies that single out campaign abuses by other interest groups and specific politicians--a practice by which the group lobbies through intimidation rather than accommodation. Illinois Common Cause is reportedly taking a wait-and-see approach to the forthcoming reform plan by the Public Policy Institute's bipartisan group.
The Illinois Public Interest Research Group, which focuses primarily on consumer and environmental issues, wants to require Illinois candidates to raise seventy-five percent of campaign funds from citizens in their districts.
Although formed in late 1997, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform already has become a major force in advocating campaign finance reform in Illinois. The group was founded by the League of Women Voters Education Fund after it received funding from the Joyce Foundation to start the group. As mentioned earlier, former Sen. Paul Simon serves as a co-chair for the group. Lieutenant Gov. Bob Kustra serves as the group's other co-chair and, as a Republican, lends a bipartisan image to the group.
The ICPR Steering Committee includes representatives of the AFL-CIO, Sara Lee, the Illinois Farm Bureau, the Sierra Club, the Illinois Ethnic Coalition, the Chicago Tribune, the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, Protestants for the Common Good, and Illinois Issues magazine.
Because of its diverse group of supporters, the ICPR focuses on broad reform ideas, such as timely electronic disclosure of campaign contributions. All major candidates in the 1998 gubernatorial primary submitted disclosure reports to the organization, which subsequently posted the reports on the Internet.
"The public has a right--and a need--to know who funds campaigns. We want to make it easier for voters to get this information and tougher for special interests to buy electoral votes," said ICPR Director Cynthia Canary when the ICPR launched its web site earlier this year.
Reform advocates have received significant financial support from a national pro-reform charitable foundation, which is headquartered in Illinois. The Chicago-based Joyce Foundation uses philanthropy to advance campaign finance reform. Using its $750 million in assets, the foundation advances the cause of campaign finance reform by funding interest groups and researchers that directly promote campaign finance reform.
In December 1996, the Joyce Foundation committed to spend $6 million during the following three years to promote both state and federal campaign finance reform. In Illinois, it is currently providing funds for the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and the SIU Public Policy Institute's reform efforts.
The final report of the Illinois Campaign Finance Task Force listed the Illinois Manufacturers' Association (IMA) as the third largest contributor to legislative candidates. In 1994, the group gave 66 contributions of $2,000 or less and 18 contributions of $2,001 or more. With that record, a person might assume the organization would oppose campaign finance reform entirely, but that assumption would be false.
The IMA has come out in favor of some of the campaign-finance-reform proposals. It even has a representative, Boro Reljik, on the ICPR Steering Committee.
"The IMA supports the prohibition of Springfield fund-raisers while the General Assembly is in session," explained Katy Lawrence of the IMA. "Currently, the IMA does this on a voluntary basis due to the appearance of impropriety."
The IMA also supports other reform measures, such as stricter penalties for violators of disclosure requirements, a ban on the use of union dues for political purposes without the written authorization of the union's membership, and electronic disclosure that includes contributors' employer and occupation.
The IMA opposes public funding of campaigns. It takes no position on the personal use of campaign funds but opposes contribution limits unless PACs are held to the same limits as individuals.
Lawrence said interest groups should have the right to donate to political campaigns.
"The IMA believes that individuals with similar interests pooling their resources together in order to amplify their voice is a legitimate part of the political process," she said.
The National Right to Life Committee has become an unlikely ally of the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to recent campaign-finance-reform legislation in Congress.
Clare Thornton, executive director of the Chicago-based Illinois Right to Life Committee (IRLC), said her group supports efforts to ban both personal use of campaign funds and fund-raising on government property. Yet, like its parent group, Thornton said the IRLC, although a non-profit organization that does not contribute to political campaigns, "takes a stand on campaign-reform legislation because it affects the freedom of speech of the pro-life movement."
The IRLC opposes contribution limits, such as those found in the House's recently passed reform legislation.
"Individuals, corporations, labor unions, etc. have a First Amendment right to donate as much money as they want to any candidate they choose," Thornton said.
"Several campaign reform proposals merely represent political candidates attempting to gain the power to decide when and how much groups of American citizens can talk to each other about politicians. This violates the First Amendment right to free speech and would cripple several not-for-profit citizens' groups including numerous pro-life groups acting in protection of the defenseless unborn."
(Thornton is apparently referring to provisions in the McCain-Feingold bill in the U.S. Senate and the Shays-Meehan bill in the U.S. House, both of which restrict groups' ability to mention the names of candidates within 90 days of an election. At this time, neither the House's reform legislation nor the Public Policy Institute's plan would ban interest groups from mentioning candidates' names.)
Spending Limits and the Supreme Court
Illinois political candidates are raising and spending enormous amounts of money. For example, in 1996, Sen. Dave Luechtefeld (R-Okawville) and SIUC professor Barb Brown of Chester raised a total of $1.6 million to run for an office that pays $48,000 per year.
Critics of Illinois' campaign laws say the excessive spending requires candidates to court contributors, whose interests may then be given special attention once a candidate is elected. As a result, many reform proponents support limiting the amount a candidate can spend to campaign for office.
They also worry about the amount a wealthy candidate, like state Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (who spent $6 million of his own money to win the March Republican primary for U.S. Senate) or Ross Perot, can spend of his or her own money to get elected.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has linked campaign spending to free speech, so advocates of spending limits are powerless to enact the reforms.
In the landmark 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Court ruled that contribution limits and disclosure requirements are constitutional, but it declared spending limits violate the First Amendment.
The Court stated, "The mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quantity of campaign spending and the resulting limitation on the scope of federal campaigns. The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise."
The Court also said government cannot limit the amount a candidate can contribute to his or her own campaign, and it ruled the government cannot limit independent expenditures by interest groups. The Court, however, said the national and state governments can require candidates to limit spending of their own money and their campaign money if they voluntarily choose to accept public funding.
The decision has frustrated many pro-reform Illinoisans. The Illinois Campaign Finance Task Force's final report stated, "The task force joins the growing national sentiment in favor of mandatory spending limits on political campaigns, and therefore strongly supports efforts that would result in a reconsideration of Buckley v. Valeo by the Supreme Court."
The Big Four & Springfield Cash
Interest groups, corporations, and unions are not the largest source of direct contributions to Illinois political candidates. The largest contributors to Illinois candidates are Illinois lawmakers, who can legally transfer money from their campaign accounts to other campaigns. The four highest leaders of the General Assembly--Philip, Senate Minority Leader Emil Jones (D-Chicago), House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), House Minority Leader Lee Daniels (R-Elmhurst)--have become the leading benefactors. The four used their large campaign accounts to give a reported one of every three dollars that General Assembly candidates raised in 1996.
Critics of the Illinois campaign process believe the leaders' gifts cause legislators to put the will of their party leaders ahead of the interests of the citizens in their districts.
Because of a combination of the party leaders' money and interest-group money, two of every three dollars in the Luechtefeld-Brown race of '96 reportedly came from two of Springfield's five zip codes.
Even some legislators disdain the influence of outside contributors.
"I believe that we should raise one dollar in district for every dollar we received outside the district," said Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, who hails from the same district as Luechtefeld and Brown.
The General Assembly will not be considering any plans to limit outside contributions or gifts from other politicians for a while. No such provisions are part of the recently passed House legislation or the Public Policy Institute plan.
Whichever of the reform measure passes, if one actually does, do not expect the "Big Four" to lose any power or influence.
Links to other sites on the Web
Illinois General Assembly Passes Campaign Reform
Bruce Dold's Tribune Column on Campaign Reform
Bipartisan Coalition Proposes Reform
Back to Jeff Finley's Newsstand
Get your own Free Home Page