Progress Illinois

The long wait for campaign finance reform in Illinois may soon be over. Last night, the reform coalition CHANGE Illinois agreed to support SB 1466, the bill introduced by House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) that would overhaul how politicians finance their campaigns. The House quickly passed the measure -- 66 to 49 -- largely along party lines. And this afternoon, the Senate approved the bill by a 36-22 vote.

The bill leaves intact many of the useful provisions included in HB 7, the ethics measure that passed both chambers earlier this year but was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Pat Quinn with the encouragement of all four legislative leaders. Individual contributions are to be capped at $5,000; corporations, unions, and other groups will face a $10,000 limit under the bill; and political action committees (PACs) will max out their giving at $50,000. Any public contribution of $1,000 or more will also require disclosure within two business days.

Reformers also successfully pushed for some other improvements.

Continue reading »

State legislators headed back to Springfield today to begin the second and final week of the fall veto session. Here's a quick rundown of the issues they are taking up:

Borrowing

In case you hadn't heard, Illinois' tax base might as well be quicksand. According to the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability's latest quarterly report, personal income taxes fell 18 percent, corporate income taxes dropped 29 percent, and sales taxes revenues shrunk by 15 percent since July. At the same time, the legislature has passed legislation requiring that the state fund the Monetary Award Program (which provides scholarships to low-income college students) without identifying a revenue source. As a result, Gov. Pat Quinn is looking for another lifeline, this time in the form of a $900 million loan. The Tribune has the specifics:

Lawmakers might put the borrowed money into a special pot that would be used to pay state health-care costs, generating potentially another $400 million in matching federal funds. That also would free up money elsewhere to pay for the scholarships in Illinois’ Monetary Award Program.

Borrowing is normal when revenues are smaller than expected. But Illinois has already taken out $2.25 billion in loans ($1 billion in May and $1.25 billion in August) and also delayed payment on $3.7 billion in backlogged bills to "shore up" its budget. That money, as well as this new short-term borrowing scheme, needs to be repaid by June 30, 2010. In other words, the plan just digs a deeper hole.

Continue reading »

When the General Assembly reconvenes next week for the final three days of their fall veto session, all eyes will turn to SB 1466, the bill introduced by House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) to overhaul the state's campaign finance system. This version addresses some concerns reformers had with HB 7, the campaign finance bill passed in the spring and then vetoed by Gov. Pat Quinn this summer -- with the support of the state's four legislative leaders. But lawmakers remain deadlocked over one issue: how much money those same legislative leaders can hand out during election cycles.

HB 7 would have implemented a $90,000 cap on contributions from state party and legislative leader political action committees (PAC), although in-kind contributions from those same sources were not subject to any restrictions, essentially gutting that portion of the law. In SB 1466, which passed out of committee on a party-line vote last week, Madigan makes that loophole explicit. Now reformers are scrambling to amend the language before it's voted on by either full chamber.

It's obvious why CHANGE Illinois and its allies are fighting so strenuously for a cap.

Continue reading »

Last week, House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) made the latest move in the back-and-forth over campaign finance reform when he attempted to ram through a rewrite of campaign contribution caps legislation (SB 1466), blindsiding the government watchdogs who had been negotiating the terms of a new bill for months. The move drew criticism from editorial boards across the state; the Sun-Times even called out Madigan for what they described as a "naked grab for more political power." As lawmakers head back to Springfield to continue negotiations next week, reformers will be able to display a powerful ally on their side: public opinion.

The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute released data today from a rather extensive poll (PDF) that reveals majority support in Illinois for capping the in-kind and financial contributions that legislative and party leaders dole out during election years (as regular readers know, this has become the sticking point in the latest negotiations). Moreover, a majority favor term limits on legislative leadership positions and a plurality support public financing of political campaigns. "This is an agenda for reform," the institute's director David Yepsen said while unveiling the results at a press conference today. "The people of Illinois are for it and I think those political leaders and those policy leaders who favor reform should be encouraged by these results." Watch:

Here are some highlights from the survey of 800 registered statewide voters, taken between September 9 and October 8 (the full poll results are downloadable here):

Continue reading »

Back in Springfield for the fall veto session, state lawmakers made measured progress yesterday on some legislative priorities we've been tracking for months. Here's a brief rundown of what transpired:

Campaign Finance Reform

The big news was that a House committee approved a revised version of the ethics package vetoed by Gov. Pat Quinn in late August. This bill (SB 1466), introduced by House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), covers much of the same ground as HB 7. It also applies campaign contribution limits -- $5,000 from individuals; $10,000 from corporations, labor organizations and associations; and $50,000 from political action committees or other candidates -- to the election cycle rather than the calendar year, an improvement designed to protect challengers who don't file until close to the election date.

But Madigan did make one major, self-serving change that has reformers up in arms.  He stripped the $90,000 cap from party and legislative leader campaign committees to candidates, allowing himself to continue directing unlimited resources to his preferred candidates.

Continue reading »

Back in August, Gov. Pat Quinn came to terms with the fact that the campaign finance legislation lawmakers crafted in May was less "historic" than he'd initially touted. Instead of signing off on the half-hearted attempt, which reformers panned for failing to curtail the ability of legislative leaders to dole out unlimited resources to their party's candidates among other problems, Quinn took out his veto pen and killed HB 7. That was a major victory for members of the good-government CHANGE Illinois! coalition, who for years have been lobbying for meaningful reforms to some of the nation's weakest campaign finance laws. Shortly after, they headed back to the table with legislative leaders to rework the bill in hopes of taking the "pay" out of Illinois' "pay-to-play" system. Negotiations on a new proposal were supposed to wrap up next week, when the fall veto session begins. However, it's been widely reported today that those negotiations have hit a wall.

While nothing is set in stone, it appears that progress has been made to strengthen some aspects of the initial bill. Individual contributions are likely to be capped per election year at $5,000; corporations, unions, and other groups would face a $10,000 limit; and political action committees (PACs) would max out their giving at $50,000. Contributions would also be capped by election cycle, not annually, which greatly benefitted incumbents certain to run for office again once their term ended. The sticking point, however, is over how much money political leadership committees and state parties can hand out during election cycles. CHANGE Illinois! wants to cap that figure at $100,000 -- including cash and in-kind donations -- per candidate based on both the primary and general election cycles. House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) is trying to beat back any limitations by pushing through the proposal as is.  In a perverse turn of events, CHANGE Illinois' co-chair George Ranney notes that strengthening caps on everyone but legislative and party leaders could actually play right into Madigan's hand. More from the Daily Herald:

Continue reading »

As expected, Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed HB 7 this afternoon, the campaign finance bill the General Assembly passed this May. While Quinn testified in favor of the bill earlier in the year, even calling it "historic," he emphasized today that he always considered the bill imperfect. After good government groups, editorial boards, and other lawmakers aired out the legislation's major deficiencies, Quinn says October's veto session presents an opportunity for lawmakers to "go back and do it right."

All four legislative leaders attended the press conference and praised the governor's decision, but none provided specific examples of what portions of the law they'd like to see improved. Senate President John Cullerton came the closest, explaining that he and Sen. Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) have been talking with the CHANGE coalition (who endorsed the veto) about how best to close the loopholes on campaign contribution limits and enforcement. But Cullerton hedged on the details, telling the reporters that "I don't think we should negotiate here."

What's wrong with the bill? Plenty. Our post in May ran down many of the major problems, the most egregious being that contributions would be capped on an annual basis rather than by election cycle. Also, HB 7 did nothing to prohibit in-kind contributions by leadership committees and state parties. For more, check out the detailed series of criticisms over at the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform's blog.

Another concern of some unions and advocacy organizations that hasn't received as much attention is the bill's definition of "natural person." As written currently, the term seems to refer to individual donors. That could be important because HB 7 prohibits Section 527 organizations or PACs from running an independently-funded campaign but places no similar limits on wealthy individuals.

We will be sure to follow the negotiations as they unfold.

Earlier this month the Supreme Court ruled that elected judges must recuse themselves from the bench when their own big donors' interests are at stake. With Illinois' judicial races raising record-setting amounts of campaign cash -- becoming a national example of a system is ripe for abuse -- the decision is already sending ripples through the state's legal community. Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis tells the St. Louis Post Dispatch that the ruling is likely to open "a Pandora's box," inspiring a flood of claims that judges in the Prairie State themselves should have opted for recusal.

The only way to avoid this avalanche of complaints, legal experts agree, is for the legislature or high court to step in and clarify exactly what is the threshold for impartiality. The Dispatch explains this "quandary":

This year Illinois lawmakers blew an historic opportunity to curb the influence of campaign cash in judicial elections, and that's left the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform's David Morrison with little confidence that the General Assembly is up for any sort of fundamental reform. "The Supreme Court is absolutely right that the judges look like they're being bought," he tells us, pointing out that many of the largest donations in judicial races have been funneled through party leaders.

With incumbents, along with committeemen, set to wield a great deal of political influence in the 2010 election cycle, ICPR says it's no wonder that substantive reforms -- including Sen. Kwame Raoul's proposal for publicly-financing certain judicial races -- were sidelined. There's a lot at stake next year with four seats on the Illinois Supreme Court potentially up for grabs (depending upon whether the justices run for retention or decide to retire), along with a host of statewide appelate court races.

Now Morrison is pinning his hopes on the Supreme Court stepping in to settle the underlying question: At what point do campaign contributions amount to influence peddling? At the state level, he says, "the only real solution is to insulate judges from this kind of financing."

The Supreme Court understands that judicial campaign contributions can create conflicts of interest in the nation's legal system. Why can't Illinois lawmakers?

In a 5-4 ruling today, the high court ruled that elected judges must recuse themselves from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias. The case originated in West Virginia, where coal giant Massey Energy Co. -- appealing a verdict in a dispute with a local coal company -- donated $3 million dollars to help elect State Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin to the bench. Benjamin just happened to preside over their case. Refusing to step down, he was part of a 3-2 decision to overturn the verdict in Massey's favor. "Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority opinion, "similar fears of bias can arise when -- without the consent of the other parties -- a man chooses the judge in his own cause."

As in West Virginia, Illinois judicial races have been hotly contested -- and expensive -- in recent years. As David Morrison of the Illinois Coalition for Political Reform (ICPR) reminds us, the most expensive state Supreme Court campaign in history was fought in Illinois' 5th Judicial District in 2004, when groups spent a combined $9.3 million. Two years later, the record was broken for an Illinois Appellate Court race as well, with $3.35 million flowing to the candidates.

Yet lawmakers have failed to take comprehensive steps to protect against potential abuse.

Continue reading »

After one gubernatorial impeachment and months of negotiation, the Illinois Senate voted yesterday to limit some contributions to political candidates as part of a campaign-finance overhaul. Clearing the Senate by a 36-22 margin, largely along party lines, HB 7 is the first bill in state history to cap the amount of money political candidates can receive. Appearing before a House committee this morning, Quinn described the proposal as "historic."  But many of those pushing for campaign finance reform -- including the governor's own reform commission -- have pointed out the abundant loopholes.

The Sun-Times blasted the bill, saying that what the Senate "delivered, in reality, was squat." David Morrison, deputy director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, told the Tribune that "any 2nd grader could figure out a way around" the restrictions.  But as the quote above indicates, Quinn seems ready to sign the bill.

Here's a brief run-down of the details.  Keep in mind that the contribution limits don't go into effect until January of 2011, after the next campaign cycle has concluded:

Continue reading »