By The Beachwood Reform Affairs Desk
“In August, reform groups stood up for top Illinois politicians as they threw out the state’s first sweeping limits on campaign donations,” the Daily Herald reports. “They all promised to work together to draft an even stronger law.
“Now that lawmakers are set to take up the issue again next week, however, it seems those hopes of agreement are in danger of falling apart.
“The reform groups, united under the banner of Change Illinois!, announced Thursday at a news conference in Chicago that while many advances have been made in the proposed legislation – including caps on contributions, demands for more frequent reporting, fines for violations and random audits – there remains one ‘sticking point’: They haven’t been able to reach an agreement with legislative leaders over campaign finance limits on political parties and their caucus committees.
Here’s what CHANGE Illinois! wants you to know.
By CHANGE Illinois!
Placing limits on transfers to legislative candidates from state party committees and political committees controlled by the four legislative leaders would encourage more competitive legislative races and attract public-spirited candidates to political office. This system would also relax the grip legislative leaders hold on individual members of their caucuses and encourage rank-and-file lawmakers to vote in the interest of their constituents rather than contributors to the caucus PACs.
Here are four key issues to remember:
1. Unlimited campaign transfers between legislative leaders and legislative candidates concentrates the power held by the legislative leaders.
* Over the last four decades, power in the Illinois General Assembly has become concentrated in the hands of the four legislative leaders. The leaders’ ability to dole out limitless sums of campaign cash to members of their caucuses, or withhold such dollars, enhances their ability to control lawmakers and control the policy agendas within their chambers.
* Dependence on campaign cash from legislative leaders breeds conformity among rank-and-file state lawmakers and discourages independence, creativity and innovation. Moreover, dependence on dollars from leaders, PACs and outside interests interferes with the principles of local representation and constituent relations.
2. The power of the leaders causes special interests, corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to channel their political contributions to legislative leaders.
* Interest groups, corporations and unions may not care about the local issues and political concerns of individual legislators, but they do care about access to the four powerful legislative leaders and they respond to the leaders’ requests for campaign funds. As a result, these donors tend to funnel their campaign contributions through the legislative leaders, who distribute the funds as they see fit.
* The four legislative leaders controlled at least $25 million dollars in each of the last three election cycles.
* Special interests have given generously to the legislative leaders in recent years. During the 2007-08 cycle, the top-20 donors to Speaker Michael Madigan’s campaign committee (Democratic Party of Illinois) donated $1.3 million. The donors included Altria, AT&T, the Illinois Hospital Association and unions representing teachers, operating engineers, firefighters and electrical workers. Minority Leader Tom Cross collected $916,000 from his top-20 donors, including the Illinois State Medical Society, Exelon, Ameren and Arlington Racecourse.
* On the Senate side, the top-20 contributors to former Senate President Emil Jones’ committee donated $627,000. The donors included Altria, the Illinois Hospital Association, the Association of Beer Distributors and AT&T. Senator Frank Watson’s committee received $721,000 from its top-20 donors. Contributors included the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Education Association, Altria, Fairmont Park and Caterpillar.
3. Limits on campaign contributions to candidates, state party committees and legislative caucus committees would be meaningless without companion limits on transfers from legislative leaders to legislative candidates.
* Limits on individual campaign contributions would do much to encourage competitive political races and remove pay-to-play schemes from Illinois’ campaign finance system. But such opportunities would be lost if donors could funnel larger contributions through the legislative leaders.
* Even with limits on legislative leadership and party contributions, the leaders would be able to continue to play active roles in the campaigns affecting the members of their caucuses, but they would not undermine the local textures and constituent concerns within those legislative races.
4. Legislative leaders and political actions committees dominate the campaign finance scene in the very few legislative districts that are competitive. Large infusions of outside cash diminish opportunities for locally focused races and vigorous constituent representation.
* Most legislative elections involve well known, well funded incumbents facing no opponent or an opponent with neither the name recognition nor resources to mount a serious campaign. The few competitive legislative races are heavily funded by the legislative leaders, with combined spending usually exceeding $1 million.
* There are huge spending gaps in these non-targeted and targeted legislative races. In 2006 the average spending in the 107 non-targeted House races was $195,000, compared to $1.12 million in the nine targeted House races. The average spending in the 27 non-targeted Senate races was $327,000 in 2006. Average spending in the 10 targeted Senate races was nearly $1.3 million.
* The recent 59th Senate race between Gary Forby (D) and Kim Burzynski (R) is a strong example of runaway spending fueled by legislative leaders and outsiders. Forby collected $1.3 million in total contributions, with 94 percent of those dollars coming from legislative leaders, candidate committees, party committees and interest groups. Only $83,000 came from individuals and small contributors. Burzynski collected $929,000, with nearly 99 percent of those funds coming from legislative leaders, candidate committees, party committees and interest groups. Only $12,000 came from individuals and small contributors.
– Research provided by Kent D. Redfield, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
Posted on October 9, 2009