State campaign finance reform raises questions
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Illinois is close to adopting the first limits on campaign donations in its long, sordid political history. But nothing is simple. The legislation, which Gov. Pat Quinn says he plans to sign, contains loopholes, delays and gray areas that raise important questions.
Q: What's the big deal about limiting campaign donations?
A: The federal government and many states have limited the size of campaign donations for years, while Illinois has stuck to an anything-goes approach that lets people give as much as they want.
That means some public officials have accepted $25,000, $50,000, even $100,000 from people who wound up getting state jobs or landing lucrative contracts. And leaders in the House and Senate have handed huge amounts to legislative candidates, giving them significant influence over races statewide.
A lot of people fear all that money makes officials beholden to donors instead of voters.
Q: What are the proposed limits?
A: An individual could give candidates up to $5,000 in each election cycle and $10,000 to political action committees, parties and similar groups. Businesses, unions and associations could give twice as much.
Politicians could give $50,000 to other candidates and political committees.
Q: How much can political parties donate?
A: That's the biggest loophole in the legislation. A party, such as the Illinois Republican Party, can give unlimited amounts to candidates during the general election campaign. So can the four legislative leaders — that is, the top Democrat and Republican in the House and in the Senate.
There would be limits on what the parties and legislative leaders can donate during primaries — $200,000 to statewide candidates, $125,000 to state Senate candidates and $75,000 to state House candidates.
Q: Is that a problem?
A: It means a handful of political insiders can continue deciding which candidates get millions of dollars in aid for the general election. Those insiders say there's nothing wrong with that, and that primaries are when legislative leaders might be tempted to use their influence to punish rebellious lawmakers. After all, their argument goes, Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan wouldn't spend money helping elect a Republican in the fall.
But watchdog groups fear that legislative candidates will feel pressure to run their campaigns to please the people controlling the purse strings and then, if they win, vote to please them, too.
Q: Are there other loopholes?
A: Yes. One is that the legislation would let candidates accept donations but not necessarily report them until they deposit the check. In theory, a candidate could use that to delay reporting some big donations.
The law also is murky on another reporting requirement. Candidates are supposed to quickly disclose any donations of $1,000 or more. But what happens if someone gives two donations of $500? Or four or five? Because no single donation reached $1,000, election officials may conclude no reporting is necessary.
Q: If there are caps on donations, won't the big donors just give their money to the parties and legislative leaders to be passed along to the candidates?
A: Yes and no. If some group wants to give a lot of money to Democratic Senate candidates, for instance, one way is to give each candidate the maximum and then give money to the Democratic Senate campaign committee. But there's also a cap on how much can be given to the campaign committee, so the big donors can't simply funnel all their money through that organization.
Q: Will the changes have a big impact on next year's elections?
A: No. Assuming the measure becomes law, the new donation limits don't take effect until 2011.
Q: Would the law keep big money out of Illinois politics?
A: Probably not, but it would change how the money is spent. Illinois could see something similar to what has happened at the federal level under contribution limits — independent groups popping up to spend money supporting candidates they like, and people with political connections gathering up lots of small donations to present to a candidate in one big bundle.
Q: If the legislation has loopholes, doesn't take effect next year and won't reduce the amount of money in play, why did ethics groups support it?
A: First, they see it as worthwhile to break that direct flow of money. Even if donors spend money on behalf of a candidate, that's different from writing a big check directly to the candidate. Even with loopholes for legislative and party leaders, the watchdogs consider the caps valuable.
Second, the legislation has other important provisions. Candidates would have to report year-round on any big donations they get. They also would have to report on all donations four times a year instead of two. Groups that make independent expenditures would have to report their activity. State officials will have new authority to audit campaign funds.
Finally, it would set up a task force to study more changes in campaign finance laws. The watchdog groups hope this measure will lead to tighter restrictions down the road.
