Barbara Flynn Currie.

6 November 2009

News from Springfield..................by State Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-25)

If Governor Quinn signs the bill, Illinois will join 45 other states in limiting the amount of money that can be contributed to election campaigns.

I worked closely with CHANGE Illinois!, (www.changeil.org) a coalition of more than 50 civic, business and labor groups, and with the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform in crafting the final product. My hat is off to both of these reform organizations for their willingness to participate in good-faith negotiations with the Governor, the House and the Senate. While we didn’t get all we wanted, the bill is a significant step along the way to a cleaner and fairer system for funding politics in Illinois.

The limits on giving are reasonable. They vary—individuals can give less than can political action committees, for example—but they apply across the board. All interests, from business to trade to labor, will be limited in their ability to fund candidate campaigns and party organizations. The limits apply in each election cycle. An earlier version instead tied the limits to the calendar year which, arguably, gave incumbents a fund-raising advantage.

The measure gets high marks for its commitment to transparency and accountability.

Today candidates report contributions and spending twice a year. Under the new bill, reports will be quarterly. As well, any contribution of $1,000 or more that a candidate committee receives must be disclosed in a timely fashion.

The State Board of Elections is empowered for the first time to conduct random audits of political committees to make sure they’re following the law. If there’s reason to suspect wrongdoing, the Board can audit for cause. Violators will be subject to strengthened penalties.

The bill limits the amounts of money party committees can contribute to candidates in primary campaigns. The limits depend on the contest. They are higher for statewide candidates, for example, than for county hopefuls. They apply in the aggregate, which means that contributions from ward and township organizations, county parties, caucus and state parties count together toward the limit.

The sticking point was whether or not the limits should also apply to general elections. The Supreme Court has ruled that even if expenditures help a candidate, they can’t be limited if they are not directly coordinated with that campaign. The legislative leaders were concerned that preventing parties from coordinating a response with candidates who are under attack from outside organizations with no funding limits would put them and their nominees at an unfair disadvantage. Think Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group whose television ads undercut John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.

The reform advocates will continue to press for general election limits on political party contributions. Primary limits, in the meantime, are not trivial. In 2008, only a few primaries for the General Assembly featured a contest, and in more than half the districts the winner of the primary faced no opposition in the general election. Limits on party leaders might encourage more people to run for public office as limits help level the playing field between challengers and those with party backing.

One of the hallmarks of the campaign reform bill is the creation of a bi-partisan task force that is charged with the responsibility to assess the effects of the reforms, to make further recommendations, and to examine the utility of a voluntary system of public financing for all state offices.

Maybe our last and best answer isn’t limits on party contributions in general elections. Maybe public financing is a surer bet if one’s goal is to take special interest money out of election campaigns.

                         #####################