The campaign finance reform bill passed by the Illinois General Assembly last week has been decried by some as “a crock,” “phony,” “a meaningless compromise” and “a farce.” The reform organizations that signed on were accused of being “bought out.”
Such commentary, while rhetorically entertaining, ignores the messy give-and-take of the legislative process, improved disclosure requirements, and the first-ever approval of campaign contribution limits in Illinois — something that was unthinkable just a year ago.
It is disappointing that the amount of money legislative leaders can contribute to candidates during general elections wasn’t capped. But the totality of the reforms enacted over the last two years should not be ignored because one provision is absent.
While recognizing that the bill failed to sever the financial umbilical cord between members and their leaders, this page urges Gov. Pat Quinn to sign it.
Springfield is a town full of people who deal with the legislative process. Most will tell you that they don’t get everything they want when they try to pass a bill. That’s what happened here.
Still, it is important that the discussion over legislative leaders, their powers and the role of campaign contributions continues.
Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, has expended great effort trying to convince us that there is no connection between the leaders’ power and the unlimited contributions they can pour into contested legislative races.
“I’m eager to hear somebody say why I’m wrong,” Cullerton told us Friday. “I gave money to people (while running for Senate president). They told me they weren’t going to vote for me.
“(An example is state Sen.) Gary Forby. And by the way, have you noticed since Gary Forby got elected how I’ve controlled him on his votes — on the motorcycle helmet law,” Cullerton added, sarcastically. Forby is against requiring riders to wear helmets, while Cullerton favors it. The Senate defeated the bill in a lopsided 42-14 vote in April.
“If you think (House Speaker) Mike Madigan is this all-powerful guy … find out how he does it. But it’s not because of this provision in the law.”
The real scandals, Cullerton notes, have been in the past two governors’ administrations. The legislature addressed them by limiting state contractors’ ability to contribute to campaigns, implementing new purchasing rules and other new laws.
Cullerton’s strongest argument is that even if leaders’ contributions were capped, they still could spend unlimited amounts of money as long as they didn’t coordinate with the candidates.
“At the federal level where they have this distinction, it’s a joke,” Cullerton said, adding that if the aim of campaign finance laws is to lower the cost of campaigns, giving the money to the candidate helps because TV ad rates are cheaper when the ad is bought directly by a candidate.
Cullerton makes some legitimate points. Perhaps $100,000, the cap this page has suggested, is too low.
But it's hard to believe the leaders’ power isn’t enhanced by the large amount of campaign money they control. Even those Democrats who didn’t vote to make Cullerton their leader surely are grateful for his contribution to their races. They may now grant a favor they might not have otherwise entertained. It’s basic human nature, and no one ever is going to admit that campaign contributions played a role in any decision.
Also inherent in this system is a potential for corruption. Let’s not forget that George Ryan preceded Michael Madigan as speaker of the Illinois House. Illinois politicians are nothing if not creative. Had Ryan stayed in power for as long as Madigan has, would he have found a way to leverage his position for financial gain?
In this state, we cannot just trust that the people who hold legislative leadership positions in the future will be good public servants.
State Journal-Register
