Februrary 23, 2009

New Pay to Play Law: The Welcome Mat for Campaign Finance Reform?

Although Illinois legislators have long discussed the need for stronger state laws governing “pay to pay” and campaign finance reform, the ongoing fallout over Blagojevich and his litany of corrupt dealings has forced the issue to an entirely new level of urgency.  Now with the Senate moving closer to ousting Blagojevich from office, the floodgates are already beginning to open in terms of new ethics reforms that will emerge in 2009.

Prior to Blagojevich’s political unraveling, the Brennan Center for Justice flagged Illinois as the problem-child of the Midwest when it comes to lax regulation of campaign finance.  In a 2007 publication, the Center used other major Midwestern states of Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, all of which place restrictions on campaign contributions, including a blanket prohibition on contributions from corporations, to push the case for reform in Illinois.

Illinois Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn also recently launched his own effort to drum up support for stronger ethics reforms with the creation of a new Illinois Reform Commission to look at Illinois laws regarding ethics and make recommendations for change as it sees fit.  The Commission encourages public comments and kicked off those efforts with its first meeting in Chicago yesterday.

But politicians and ethics advocacy groups are not the only ones pushing for change.  In a recent poll released by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, more than 70 percent of respondents support placing limits on political contributions that include barring corporate and union contributions altogether.  Similarly, nearly 90 percent said they would support laws that reduce the influence of money in politics in general.

The Chamber reported in last week’s Government Affairs Report that legislation has already been introduced for the 96th General Assembly that places limits on campaign contributions and prohibits the solicitation by corporations, labor organizations, and associations of employees and employee families for campaign contributions. 

Among the number of restrictions placed on campaign contributions, HB 24 limits corporations, labor organizations, and associations from contributing more than $5,000 to a candidate for public office during each election period.  This limit includes the aggregation of all contributions from associated entities, including political committees for which the corporation, labor organization, or association is the sponsoring entity.

HB 24 also prohibits individuals, corporations, labor organizations, or association from contributing, in aggregate, more than $80,000 to political committees during a two-year period (beginning with January 1 of an odd-numbered year and ending on December 31 of an even-numbered year).  This limitation is then increased by the Consumer Price Index every two years.

HB 24 has been introduced in previous years in various forms by both Democrats and Republicans, but it has never moved very far.  Blagojevich’s extreme abuse of the system and the intense spotlight of the national media may have changed that momentum.

Legislators already hastily jumped at the opportunity to end pay to play in Illinois, but that new law has created tremendous problems for businesses attempting to slog through a confusing mess of compliance requirements.  The Chamber does not deny that some campaign finance reform may be needed, but the lessons of P.A. 95-0971 should prove that successful reforms should not be hastily assembled nor should they be negotiated in a legislative vacuum. 

Impeachment Outcome: What Do You Think?

With the Senate set to begin its impeachment trial on Monday, the governor continuing to ramp up the absurdity of his rhetoric, and the majority of the Illinois public believing that a conviction will be inevitable, the Chamber still wants to know how you think this will end.

• The Senate will definitely convict and the governor will be forced to leave office kicking and screaming.
• The Senate will convict, but the governor will suddenly appear remorseful (or maybe he is just upset over the sudden realization that he no longer has a pension).
• The Senate trial will move towards conviction, but the governor will resign shortly before they can convict.
• The Senate will not end up convicting and the painful saga will continue.

As a quick historical note, former Texas Governor James Ferguson resigned the day before the Texas Senate convicted him on impeachment charges that included misapplication of public funds in 1917.  Despite his resignation, the Senate Tribunal’s decision was sustained, which meant Ferguson was prohibited from holding public office in Texas.  Ferguson still tried to run for governor in 1918 and President of the United States in 1920.  He was soundly defeated in both attempts.