Ready For Reform: Chapter 2

By The Illinois Reform Commission

Editor's Note: This is the second part of a multi-part series excerpting the final report from the Illinois Reform Commission. We don't necessarily endorse all parts of the report, but offer it up as a starting point to generate support for bringing real structural change to Illinois' sordid political culture.

*

CAMPAIGN FINANCE
I. Introduction
For decades, Illinois has been rocked by one public corruption scandal after the next - each seeming to take the state to a new low. "Pay-to-play" has become a term of art in Illinois politics as interested parties make large campaign contributions expecting a return on their "investments." These problems are not new, nor are they limited to Illinois. The difference is that the federal government and nearly every other state in the country have adopted a more comprehensive system of campaign finance regulation than Illinois. Instead, Illinois has chosen to rely solely on a disclosure-based system requiring candidates to identify campaign contributions on a semi-annual basis. In fact, excepting the newly adopted pay-to play bans, Illinois is one of four states without any campaign contribution limits and one of less than half the states without some form of public financing.

As we have a significant track record to evaluate the disclosure-only system in Illinois, we conclude that it is not working. Extensive corruption has continued. Campaign contribution disclosures may have helped people identify the problems, but the filings have not stopped our last two governors from having to leave office in disgrace. Moreover, mere disclosures have done nothing to create elections that are more competitive or open to qualified challengers. The public perception remains that money buys power, and once in power, some elected officials can, and do, use their positions to reward contributors and perpetuate their hold on office.

The time for bold action is now. Illinois must join the 46 states that have already enacted campaign contribution limits and the 25 that have some form of public financing. In conjunction with improvements in the existing disclosure laws, these changes will give the public more confidence in the fairness of elections, reduce opportunities for big money to improperly influence the conduct of public officials and re-enfranchise voters and small donors in our democracy.

Accordingly, the Commission recommends amending the Election Code and other statutes in the following four areas: Disclosure Requirements, Contribution Limits, Public Financing and Enforcement. As a brief summary, Illinois should:

1. Require year-round, real-time submission of campaign disclosure filings.

2. Require disclosure of campaign contribution "bundlers."

3. Require greater disclosure of those making independent expenditures on behalf of a campaign.

4. Impose limits on contributions to political campaigns from all sources.

5. Ban campaign contributions from lobbyists and trusts, and extend bans on contributions from state employees, entities seeking state contracts and entities engaged in regulated industries.

6. Hold primary elections in June.

7. Institute a pilot project for public financing of judicial elections and consider phasing-in public financing of legislative and constitutional races.

8. Enhance powers of the Illinois State Board of Elections.

9. Create more robust discovery and enforcement mechanisms.

Although the Commission fully recognizes that no magic bullet will prevent all future scandals, the Commission believes that these changes will decrease the opportunities for corruption.

*

II. Information and Sources Considered
Leading up to and following the Commission hearings on February 23 and March 5, 2009, the Commission conducted extensive research into the complex area of campaign finance. To understand the current situation in Illinois, the Commission heard from former candidates, sitting elected officials, representatives of the Illinois State Board of Elections (ISBE), and advocates for campaign finance reform in Illinois.

In addition to considering several 50-state surveys, the Commission reached out to experts from across the country to better understand what other states have been doing.

Finally, the Commission considered legislative proposals for campaign finance reform, including those currently pending in Illinois as well as more general proposals that national organizations have offered as potential models.

In all these efforts, the Commission sought to understand not only the legal and academic issues surrounding legislation in this area, but also the practical implications of any regulation it might propose.

A. Research Reviewed.
From the start, the Commission understood that it would have to balance the significant constitutional restrictions designed to protect the substantial First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association against the State's interest in promoting a healthy, functional democracy free from corruption.

For example, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected efforts to limit individual expenditures, finding the legislation too great of a burden on the rights of free speech and association to pass the Court's strict scrutiny evaluation. On the other hand, recognizing the government's need to curb corruption and the appearance of impropriety, the Court has concluded that most contribution limits pass muster under an intermediate scrutiny analysis.

Given the rich history of jurisprudence in the area, the Commission sought to understand the topic thoroughly before proposing any recommendations.

1. Understanding the constitutional parameters.
The Brennan Center's Writing Reform project on campaign finance regulation provided a useful starting point to understanding the history and jurisprudence associated with common types of campaign finance regulation as well as a valuable tool in identifying other resources to consider.

The Commission also reviewed many other materials that guided its foray into Supreme Court jurisprudence on campaign finance regulation. In addition, the Commission examined less traditional resources, like websites and blogs, to collect as many varied views of the topic as possible, including from organizations like the Center for Competitive Politics, which generally oppose campaign finance regulations on First Amendment and other grounds.

Fifty-state surveys from the National Conference of State Legislatures and others helped the Commission identify national trends and creative solutions to problems posed by campaign fundraising. Wanting to compare states with reasonable similarities to Illinois, the Commission reviewed Joyce Foundation and Brennan Center studies examining or comparing systems in: Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. These studies reviewed legislative features, and provided statistical studies concerning amounts spent on elections and projections of the impact of various legislative schemes on contributions and their sources.

Almost without fail, each study praised Illinois for its comparatively strong electronic disclosure system, but heavily criticized the state for its lack of other campaign finance regulations.

As the Commission has identified in its chapters on Transparency and Enforcement, these comparisons highlight the need for Illinois to improve the content, timing and enforcement of campaign contribution disclosures.

2. Identifying the present state of campaign finance regulation in
Illinois.
Illinois has long resisted most campaign finance regulation other than disclosure requirements. The Illinois Campaign Financing Act, 10 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/9-1.1 et. seq. (West 2006) regulates the disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures in Illinois. Any "individual, trust, partnership, committee, association, corporation, or any other organization or group of persons" which receives or spends more than $3,000 on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate or "question of public policy," must comply with all provisions of the Campaign Financing Act, including the filing of campaign disclosure reports.

The Illinois Campaign Financing Act does not limit who may contribute to the campaigns of state officials or how much may be contributed.

The Act, however, does limit the manner in which candidates may acquire and spend funds. For example, public officials, state employees and candidates for public office may not fundraise on state property, see 10 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 5/9-8.15, nor may they use campaign funds for most personal or "non-electoral" expenses. See 10 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 5/9-8.10. Currently, the Act does not require former elected officials to liquidate their campaign committees when they leave office. Theoretically, if the former official's committee remains active, the official can spend from it indefinitely.

Without contribution limits in place, Illinois candidates for constitutional, legislative and judicial races raised and spent nearly $185 million in the 2005-2006 election cycle. Constitutional officers accounted for almost half the amount, while judicial candidates, who ostensibly should be objective, non-partisan arbiters of the law, raised and spent nearly $35 million on their campaigns. In the 2008 elections, judicial candidates raised and spent approximately $800,000 on races for five judicial circuits and subcircuits, with recent races downstate and for the Supreme Court garnering significant media attention because of the exorbitant costs involved.

Illinois took its first step toward contribution limits last year when it amended the Procurement Code by enacting Public Act 095-0971. This law, which became effective January 1, 2009, prohibits any businesses with $50,000 in actual or pending state business from contributing to campaign committees for officeholders, or their candidates, who oversee awarding of the contract(s) to the business. It also imposes additional disclosure obligations on those businesses. These obligations run to affiliated entities as well as affiliated persons and their families. ISBE officials have been working to create the online filing system necessary to implement this law and expect to be done before the statutory deadline.

But without additional resources allocated to the agency, it remains unclear how ISBE will be able to enforce this law.

3. Comparing Illinois to other states.
At least seven other states have "pay-to-play" legislation in place, which bans state contractors from contributing to certain candidates or elected officials. Connecticut, Hawaii and West Virginia include state legislators among those ineligible to receive contributions from state contractors. See generally, CONN. GEN. STAT. §9-612, HI REV. STAT. §11-205.5, and W. VA. CODE §3-8-12(d). All seven of these states limit individual campaign contributions to statewide and legislative candidates and either ban or limit corporate contributions.

Illinois is now one of four states without any individual or corporate campaign contribution limits outside the "pay-to-play" context.

Additionally, at least 25 states have adopted some form of public financing for political campaigns. Several states have provide partial public financing to candidates for certain elected positions, while a small minority of states has adopted totally "clean" elections, which are fully financed for those that participate. Others simply provide tax incentives to individuals who make political contributions. Several states are considering legislation this year to adopt or expand public-financing programs.

B. Commission Witnesses.
With two full Commission hearings on this topic on February 23 and March 5, 2009, the Commission heard many different perspectives about the legal, theoretical and practical implications of campaign finance regulation. To the extent possible, the Commission used its first hearing to understand the issues surrounding campaign finance regulation, while using its second hearing to focus on specific types of legislation. These witnesses were scholars in the area of campaign reform measures or were current or former elected or appointed officials, whose personal experiences informed the Commission about the benefits and burdens of the current system. The witnesses represented a wide range of viewpoints on the core issues of disclosure laws, contribution limits, public financing and enforcement.

1. Identifying present state of campaign finance in Illinois.
Cynthia Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, and Kent Redfield, currently a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Illinois, testified about Illinois' experience with campaign finance regulation, or the lack thereof. Each cited statistics demonstrating the growing nature of the problem. For example, in eight years in office, Governor Jim Edgar raised $11.8 million, with eight contributions exceeding $25,000. In four years in office, Governor George Ryan raised $20 million, with thirty-five contributions over $25,000. Most recently, in his six years in office, Governor Rod Blagojevich raised $58 million, including 435 contributions over $25,000.

These and other statistics supported the witnesses' contentions that Illinois' disclosure-only system of campaign finance regulation had done nothing to decrease the hold that big money interests have over Illinois politics.

2. Identifying national trends.
Several witnesses, including Michael Malbin, Executive Director of the Campaign Finance Institute, and Jennifer Bowser, Senior Fellow in the Legislative Management Program of the National Conference on State Legislatures, testified about the campaign
finance laws in other states, including Illinois' Midwestern neighbors. Although each credited Illinois with having a reasonably strong electronic disclosure system, each noted the relative lack of content on the disclosure forms and the comparative infrequency of the filings. Moreover, they also described Illinois' rejection of other regulations prevalent in the vast majority of states and in the federal system. Indeed, all of the experts identified Illinois as one of a handful of states without any contribution limits.

In fact, this number has changed during the Commission's tenure as New Mexico recently adopted contribution limits - making Illinois now one of four states without campaign contribution limits. Several witnesses suggested that the absence of contribution limits and public financing created elections that were less fair and that strongly favored incumbents. They noted that big money interests wielded undue influence over the election process and over the decisions of elected officials.

3. Understanding growing use of public finance systems.
Other witnesses, like Nick Nyhart, President and CEO of Public Campaign, addressed the finer points of various public financing systems as a way of taking big money out of campaigns. These witnesses also provided anecdotal and statistical support demonstrating the effectiveness of public financing in encouraging challengers. They highlighted success stories across the country in which publicly-financed candidates were able to defeat incumbents and wealthier candidates who had opted not to participate in the public financing system. Additionally, they identified possible sources of revenue for public financing systems, even during periods of economic distress.

4. Recognizing limitations and shortcomings of campaign finance regulation.
Nearly every witness acknowledged that no particular reform would be a magic bullet to cure what ails Illinois.

Some witnesses, including Bradley Smith, former Commissioner, Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, opposed increased regulations. Mr. Smith
cautioned that campaign finance regulation is often a reaction to a problem rather than a solution.

For example, he asked the Commission to consider whether contribution limits would have prevented the former governor from attempting to sell the Senate seat in exchange for a position on a charitable board.

BEACHWOOD EDITOR'S NOTE: Blago wouldn't have been seeking such a position if his voracious fundraising hadn't engulfed his administration in a federal criminal investigation.

He argued that existing laws prohibiting extortion and bribery are usually sufficient to address such situations, without the adverse effects on free speech activities or the advantages for wealthy candidates that may accrue from campaign contribution limits.

In addition to problems that Mr. Smith noted, several witnesses highlighted practical considerations associated with financing campaigns in Illinois.

Representative Thomas Cross, for example, noted among other things that the timing of primaries in Illinois tended to favor incumbents who are better able to fund campaigns from winter through fall.

Joan Krupa and John Rendleman discussed the role that big and out-of-district money played in their respective campaigns. Other witnesses advocated the need for tighter disclosure rules to prevent situations in which contributors time their contributions to skirt the rules for pre-election disclosure.

5. Looking at ISBE ability to enforce campaign finance laws.
Officials from the ISBE commented on practical problems of another kind when discussing their efforts to enforce existing legislation as well as potential reforms the Commission was considering. Although the ISBE officials believed that their personnel could handle proposed changes to the state's electronic filing system, including increased regularity of the filings and increased information in the filings, they expressed concern over their ability to review the data submitted and enforce the filing requirements.

They noted that ISBE has no effective means of independently verifying the information. Staff must manually review all of the data submitted in the electronic filings with no computer program able to compare the information filed on A-1s reports identifying certain contributions over $500, with that revealed on the semi-annual filings. ISBE's subpoena power and ability to conduct independent audits is also restricted. Additionally, ISBE's present practice is to keep complaints confidential until deciding whether they are
meritorious and to only reveal enforcement actions in Board minutes or documents available through Freedom of Information Act requests.

In general, the information and testimony gave the Commission a clear roadmap on both the need for campaign finance reform, and the ways that campaign finance reforms can have unintended negative consequences.

*

III. Commission Findings
The Commission's research identified four key points that define the debate over campaign finance reform: (A) disclosure, (B) contribution and expenditure limits, (C) public financing, and (D) enforcement.

A. Disclosure: Since the 1970s, the Illinois Election Code has required some disclosure of campaign contributions. Although some credit the electronic filing system as one of the better online systems in the country, the content and timing of the disclosure filings in Illinois do not compare as favorably to other states. Most importantly, the current system enables public officials and candidates for public office to delay reporting contributions until after the pertinent election or legislative vote. Without timely access to relevant information about campaign contributions, voters are denied the opportunity to identify connections between the sources of a candidate's campaign contributions and his or her legislative votes.

B. Contribution and expenditure limits: Illinois is one of four states without general campaign contribution limits. Without additional contribution limits, it will be easier for the state to fall victim to "pay to play" scandals in which government decision-makers award contracts and other privileges based on contributions to their campaign funds instead of on the merits of the bid. The state took the first step in this direction when it adopted Public Act 95-971 to address the pay-to-play problems but, in the Commission's view, significant loopholes - and ongoing administrative problems - remain.

The federal government adopted campaign contribution limits nearly 40 years ago and 46 other states have followed suit adopting some form of individual or corporate contribution limits. Contribution and expenditure limits will reduce the influence of large contributors and help decrease the widespread public perception that large donors control Illinois politics.

C. Public financing: At least half of the states in the nation have adopted some form of public financing of elections while many other states are considering instituting new public financing programs or expanding existing programs.

Based on a review of the efficacy of those programs, the Commission finds that public funding has directly promoted participation and competition in elections by giving funding to serious candidates who may not have access to large contributions from private sources.

As a result, states with public financing, like Maine, have seen more women and minority candidates seek public office. Importantly, these candidates, like Janet Napolitano, until recently the Governor of Arizona, have mounted successful campaigns against candidates who were more established, wealthier and not participating in the public financing program.

Testimony and materials from Jennifer Bowser, Senior Fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures, Nick Nyhart, and the Commission's own research into systems in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine and North Carolina showed that by relying on models that have worked in these and other states, Illinois could fund a public financing system successfully. Even in the face of economic downturns, other states have been able to fund their programs relying on some combination of: (1) surcharges on civil and criminal penalties paid within the state; (2) public check-off systems (less successful in recent years); (3) tax deductions for contributions to the public financing fund; (4) general revenue fund allocations; (5) "seed money" candidates raise to qualify for public funding; and (6) return of unused funds from public financing awards.

D. Enforcement: The Commission finds that the ISBE must be a stronger enforcer of the campaign finance laws, particularly if those laws are strengthened. Not all of the tools ISBE needs will be costly. ISBE officials testified that they can modify the electronic filing system to incorporate proposed changes to the disclosure requirements with minimal costs - including incorporating additional information and more frequent filings.

Moreover, utilizing basic enforcement tools like subpoena power likely will increase ISBE's ability to impose and collect penalties, with minimal costs. The Commission further finds that those changes that require the State to incur costs, such as requiring staff review of increased filings or administering a public financing system, will be dwarfed by additional revenues that will result from stepped-up enforcement.

Even though no single solution will restore public confidence or foreclose truly criminal behavior, the Commission believes that comprehensive campaign finance reform is a necessary first step.

Enhanced disclosure and contribution limits will decrease opportunities for corruption and encourage greater public access and input into the legislative system. Legislators will become accountable to a broader range of constituents rather than the narrow interests of large contributors.

Moreover, a comprehensive system of limits on contributions and expenditures in conjunction with a credible system of publicly-financed elections will increase competition for elected positions and encourage public-spirited individuals to seek state office.

None of this will happen overnight, but as the State faces an unprecedented integrity crisis, the Commission urges the governor, legislators and the public to demand and enact real change.

*

IV. Commission Recommendations
Remedying the inherent problems in the present system of campaign finance regulation in Illinois requires significant reform. Small changes, patches and tinkering at the edges of this system will not adequately address the problems that brought the State of Illinois to the present crisis of confidence.

Accordingly, on March 31, 2009, the Commission unveiled its legislative proposals for substantial change in four areas of the regulation of campaign financing - disclosure requirements, contribution limitations, public financing and enforcement. While adopting any of these reforms will be a positive improvement to the current system, the Commission recommends that the State adopt the complete package of reforms to provide a holistic remedy to the ailments that currently afflict our campaign finance system.

A. Disclosure Recommendations.
Timely disclosure of the campaign finance system is critical to the transparency of the election system, preventing corruption and empowering voters. The Commission concludes that the benefits of an enhanced disclosure system outweigh any marginal imposition on candidates, including those with minimal campaign experience or small staffs.

1. Year-Round "Real Time" Reporting.
The Commission heard testimony indicating that elected officials and candidates for public office often delay disclosure of contributions until the next reporting period. This deprives the public and legislative opponents of access to key information needed to link candidates to the special interests supporting them. The Commission, therefore, recommends amending the Election Code to require year-round electronic submission of A-1 forms to the Illinois State Board of Elections within five business days after receipt of any contribution of $1,000 or more for statewide elections and $500 or more for any other elections.

2. Bundling Disclosures.
Unlike the federal election code and election codes in other states, the Illinois Election Code does not require disclosure of contribution "bundling." Bundlers collect contributions from other people on behalf of the candidate. They can be a significant source of campaign funds. Under current law, the public is only aware of the individuals who make the underlying contributions, and then only if those individual contributions exceed the disclosure threshold. The public is unaware of the bundler's connection to the campaign even though the candidate likely recognizes the bundler's efforts.

To close this loophole, the Commission recommends amending the Election Code to:

A) require political committees to disclose the identity, occupation, employer and amounts received of any person or entity that at any time coordinated contributions equaling or exceeding a threshold amount ($16,000) during any reporting period;

B. define contributions as "coordinated" if: (1) a person or entity physically or electronically forwards the contributions to the political committee; (2) the political committee credits the person or entity through records, designations, or other means of recognizing that the person or entity has raised the money; or (3) the political committee knows or has reason to know that the person or entity raised the funds; and

C) require political committees to file disclosures within five business days after receiving the contribution that causes the coordinator's aggregate amount raised to exceed the threshold, and update it each time the contributor's efforts generate a new amount of contributions equal to or greater than the threshold.

3. Independent Expenditure Disclosure.
As ways to contribute directly to campaigns decrease, "independent expenditures" are likely to increase. In such cases, large contributors who can no longer donate unlimited amounts directly to a campaign may simply pay vendors on behalf of the candidate to purchase advertisements or sponsor campaign functions.

Although the current law includes some disclosure obligations, the Commission believes that the public should be able to identify the connection between the person making the expenditure and the campaign.

Accordingly, the Commission recommends amending the Election Code to require any person or entity making an independent expenditure in support of the candidacy of any person to disclose their identity, occupation and employer as well as the nature, beneficiary and recipient of any expenditures which individually or in the aggregate, are equal to or greater than $5,000.

Additionally, the legislation should define "coordinated expenditure" to recognize that no express agreement would be necessary for the expenditure to be "coordinated" and, therefore, subject to disclosure requirements.

B. Contribution Limits.
Enhanced disclosure will not stop corruption, nor will it answer the public outcry for genuine reform of Illinois' system. A system without contribution limits will not achieve the goal of fair, competitive elections, and will not engender public confidence on the merits of honest governance rather than the influence of large monetary contributors.

With two consecutive governors leaving office in disgrace, the state can no longer pretend that the answer lies in disclosure alone.

The Commission's research yielded abundant evidence that large campaign contributions adversely influence decisions made by state officials.

Even in the wake of the very public and tragic licenses for bribes scandals involving former Governor Ryan's administration, Cynthia Canary informed the Commission that Governor Blagojevich raised over a third of his campaign funds from large donors with more than 435 contributions exceeding $25,000 - raising at least the appearance of impropriety.

Lynda DeLaforgue's comments and other research revealed that commercial interests have successfully blocked legislation, such as legislation to regulate the pay-day lending businesses, by making consistent and substantial contributions to office-holders.

Several members of the public and witnesses, including Joan Krupa and John Rendleman, described the adverse effects of large contributions, especially from outside their districts - noting that many voters feel disenfranchised. Despite the validity of the concern about out-of-district contributions, the Commission recognizes constitutional difficulties with banning them.

To reduce the influence of large donors, the Commission recommends laws imposing contribution limits, whether in- or out-of district, as follows:

1. Establish Contribution Limits.

2. Extend Pay-to-Play Ban.

3. Ban certain contributions from lobbyists.

4. Hold later election primaries.

C. Public Financing.
The Commission found persuasive the testimony of the witnesses who identified the many benefits of various forms of publicly financing political campaigns. These witnesses and the Commission's research repeatedly identified the adverse affects of ever-increasing campaign costs and contributions.

In particular, the Commission noted the significant costs associated with recent elections to the Appellate and Supreme Courts, as well as the outlandish costs of certain seats in the General Assembly.

As noted above, at least 25 states have adopted some form of public financing because it decreases the influence of big money in politics, increases the diversity of candidates available to voters and allows all campaign donors, small and large alike, to feel as though their contribution matters.

No one should feel disenfranchised when they are donating $50 and participating in local elections.

Mindful of legitimate criticism based on concerns about the financial costs of a public financing program in light of present economic realities, the Commission believes that a phased approach has the best chance of success in the current environment.

The costs of maintaining the status quo, with its concurrent public corruption trials, special elections and inflated procurement costs outweigh the "new" costs of public financing.

After significant discussion, the Commission recommends that the State begin with public financing of judicial elections because more than all other public officials, judges should be non-partisan and as independent as possible.

After seeing how well public-financing works and working through administrative issues that ISBE will face, the Commission believes that the state should evaluate possibilities for expanding the program to elections of statewide legislative offices and Constitutional posts.

1. Set up Pilot Project for Public Finance.
The Commission recommends amending the Election Code to adopt a pilot program for public financing of judicial elections beginning with the 2010 election cycle.

Moreover, the state should seriously consider expanding the program to include legislative candidates in 2012 and constitutional offices in 2014.

The program should have the following attributes:

A) Qualifying Contributions. Require candidates to establish credibility by raising a minimum number of qualifying contributions not to exceed $200 per contribution. (The number of contributions required to qualify will vary by office.)

B) Initial Grant. Candidates who qualify should receive initial grants which should vary depending on the type of race (circuit, appellate or judicial court). These grants should be sufficiently large to keep the campaign viable.

C) Spending caps. In return for the qualifying grant, each candidate must agree to abide by predetermined spending limitations. Violations of the spending limitation should result in disqualifications from the program and return of previously provided funds.

D) Matching funds. The Commission believes that judicial candidates should not fundraise after accepting the initial grant. If the Ssate expands the program to legislative or constitutional offices, to keep the fiscal costs of the program down and still encourage communication between the candidate and constituents, the Commission recommends allowing the candidates to continue limited fundraising efforts after accepting their initial grants. Legislative and constitutional officers may continue to solicit private contributions in amounts not to exceed $500. The state should match these funds on a sliding scale (matching less as the candidate raises more) up to a capped amount.

E) Rescue funds. The State should increase the amount of matching funds available to public financing candidates who face opponents who have opted not to participate in the public financing program and are outspending the publicly financed candidate. This amount should be capped.

2. Funding.
The Commission acknowledges the difficult economic and financial situation currently facing the state. Mindful of the budgetary crisis, the Commission still recommends adequately funding a public financing program and retaining any remaining funds to increase the amount available in years when more people are participating. Research suggests that funding can come from a $50 surcharge on lawyer registration fees and a $1.00 surcharge on court filings for the judicial races. If additional funds are needed, or if the state expands the program to legislative or constitutional candidates, other sources of funding may include:

A) the Whistleblower fund;
B) ten percent surcharge on civil and criminal penalties;
C) voluntary donations on tax filings (check the box);
D) require candidates who participate in public financing to remit any unused funds to the public financing fund; and
E) a $50 surcharge on lobbyist registration fees

D. Enforcement.
Finally, discussions with ISBE representatives revealed that ISBE rarely uses common discovery and enforcement tools, although staffing issues may explain some of this under-utilization.

The Commission's legislative proposals rely upon ISBE having the proper enforcement tools and resources to vigorously enforce the laws. The Commission therefore recommends amending the Election Code to:

1. Increase transparency of Election Code violations, including:

A) requiring the Board to hear complaints publicly;
B) making available a searchable, on-line database of violations and penalties assessed or waived; and
C) updating the database within five business days of any Board action.

2. Increase enforcement of Election Code and other campaign finance violations, including:

A) encouraging greater imposition of existing penalties for knowing or willful violations;
B) adopting a more consistent use of available enforcement tools like subpoena power; and
C) instituting regular and random audits of campaign committees to discover violations.

*

As noted above, the Commission firmly believes that the current state of affairs in Illinois requires a holistic approach to campaign finance regulation. We recommend that the governor and legislature consider all of these suggestions in concert with each other, even though adopting any of these recommendations would improve the system.

-

See also:
* Ready for Reform: Chapter One/Executive Summary.

© 2006 - 2012, The Beachwood Media Company