Illinois Campaign for Political Reform

Phillies in Five!!!

2009-11-04T14:41:00.002-06:00

or, Why Redistricting Matters

The Philadelphia Phillies are facing elimination tonight in game 6 of the World Series. One week ago, their ace pitcher led the team to a clear 6-1 rout of the Yankees, but New York came back to win the next three by scores of 3-1, 8-5, and 7-4. Philadelphia won the fifth game 8-6, but they have to win both remaining games to take the Series.

If the Phillies had scored the same number of runs in different games, the Series would be very different. If the Phillies, for instance, could move 3 runs from game 1 to game 2, they'd still have won the first game, 3-1, but they also would have won the second game 4-3. In which case, it'd be the Yankees facing elimination. And indeed, if you drained the Phillies' excess runs from games 1 and 5 and moved them to games two and three, while also moving a few Yankee runs from those games into game 4, one could have engineered a Philadelphia Championship last Monday night.

Of course, the Yankees could plot similar changes. They've outscored the Phillies, and could re-jigger their runs into a five-game Championship (they'd still need five games anyway you slice it, but moving one run each from games 2, 3, and 4 into game 5 would have ended the Series).

Now, the purists will insist that's not how the game of baseball is played. Runs count only in the game in which they are scored. But that's exactly how the game of redistricting works. Voters can be moved from one district to another.

Suppose you're a public official who squeaks by each election, while a friendly official in a neighboring district coasts to victory time and time again. Couldn't you take a few of their voters, who'd be only too happy to vote for you, and ditch some of the malcontents who don't appreciate your candidacies? If you're always drawing 52%-55% of the vote to your neighbor's 72-75%, just by trading a few precincts, you could both get a comfortable 60% without too much trouble. You get to spend more time with your family at election time (without leaving office!) and the voters? They get you to represent them. What's not to like?

A lot, actually, Redistricting is never a benign process. Redistricting can inflate a political majority, deny representation to minorities, and insulate officials from the normal checks on power that elections are supposed to bring. Especially when redistricting is dominated by one political party, as it has been in Illinois for the last three maps, the process can hand an enormous electoral advantage to the side that draws the lines.

Redistricting is a necessary part of governing. Districts should be roughly equal in population, so as people move around, districts should be redrawn. They should also be crafted so that the governing body, as a whole, most accurately reflects the voters, as a whole. But how you draw the lines, how you slice the dirt, can determine who votes for which officials, who can run against which officials, and ultimately who gets to be an official. It's not surprise that officials take a keen interest in redistricting.

Most voters don't seem to follow the process. But it's not too late. Maps get drawn in 2011, after the 2010 census. If you want to learn more about how the process works, the redistricting game, which was put together by the Annenberg Center at the University of Southern California, is a great place to start.

CHANGE Illinois! Says Agreement to Limit Campaign Contributions Puts Illinois on the Road to Reform

2009-10-29T23:55:00.001-05:00

Remains Committed to Additional Reforms

The CHANGE Illinois! coalition has reached agreement with Governor Quinn, Senate President Cullerton and Speaker Madigan on legislation that would establish limits on campaign contributions by political parties, legislative leaders, individuals, corporations, unions, and PACs.

For the first time in the history of Illinois – one of only five states where unlimited campaign contributions are legal – there would be limitations on the amount of money contributed to political campaigns.

Other important elements of the agreement will create a framework for regulation of the finance system and enforcement of a new limits law. They include:
• Swift disclosure to the public of every contribution of $1,000 or more;

• Quarterly (now just twice a year) reports from committees detailing the source of every contribution of more than $150 and listing how funds were spent in the quarter;

• Audits of the finances of political committees selected at random by the State Board of Elections to check compliance with state laws; and

• Creation of a searchable database of penalties assessed by the State Board of Elections in response to violations of the campaign disclosure and limitation laws.

In addition, a bi-partisan task force, including public members, will be created to analyze the new limits, make recommendations for improvements, and examine the feasibility of creating a voluntary public campaign finance system for all state offices, including the judiciary.

“Setting limits on contributions to political campaigns, will be an important step in bringing meaningful reform to Illinois,” said George Ranney, a co-chair of CHANGE Illinois! and President and CEO of Chicago Metropolis 2020. “As important as this first step is, it is only that – one step in a long road to the reform of this state’s political culture. We have much more work to do and loopholes to be closed.”

“After scandals in Washington and in state capitols and city halls around the nation, the federal government and most other states passed laws limiting the role of campaign contributions during the past couple of decades,” said Cynthia Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “Finally, Illinois is about to signal to the rest of the nation that we’re ready to join them and impose limits on all contributions coming into the system.”

CHANGE Illinois! is a coalition of civic, business, labor, professional, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, which represents more than 2 million members advocating for Illinois to join the federal government and virtually every other state in the nation by enacting campaign finance limits.

The coalition led a public education campaign that generated support for strong campaign finance reform and resulted in Gov. Quinn’s veto of a badly flawed campaign finance bill passed earlier this year by the General Assembly. Members of the coalition promised to work with the Governor and legislative leaders to produce a bill with meaningful limits and effective enforcement tools.

Following that veto, the coalition worked with the Governor and legislative leaders to design a reform program that would be comparable to systems in use elsewhere in the nation.

Under terms of the agreement, individuals will not be able to contribute more than $5,000 to any candidate in an election cycle; businesses, labor unions and associations will have $10,000 limits on contributions to candidates; and political action committees will be limited to no more than $50,000 per candidate.

One major stumbling block in negotiations centered on the ability of political parties and caucus leaders to transfer unlimited amounts of money from their funds to political candidates. The final agreement does include limits on the amounts of money that can be transferred to candidates during primary elections. Party leaders will no longer be able to control local primary election campaigns by pouring unlimited amounts of money into the campaigns of favored candidates.

“There was no agreement reached on transfers from leaders to candidates during general election campaigns, but CHANGE Illinois! will continue to advocate for those limits in the future,” Ranney said.

“Because parties and legislative leaders have been able to contribute unlimited amounts of money in primary campaigns, few people have been willing to run for
office without the backing of party leaders,” said Anton Valukas, a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and a member of CHANGE Illinois! coalition. “As long as they have the support of their leaders, many state legislators get a free ride to reelection. Setting limits in the primary will not remove all advantages of incumbency, but they should give more challengers a fighting chance and offer voters more choices.”

The agreement will create limits on transfers from party leaders to all candidates for all state and local offices in primary elections. Each limit will be an aggregate limit, meaning the total of any combination of party and leader committees in a primary cannot exceed the limit. The limits on transfers are $200,000 for statewide candidates, $125,000 to Senate candidates, $75,000 for House candidates, and a range of limits from $50,000 to $125,000 for candidates running for every other office – from local offices to seats on the Illinois Supreme Court.

"Placing limits on campaign contributions and their influence is an important first step in reminding our elected officials that the citizens and voters of Illinois have special interests too," said Bob Gallo, AARP Illinois Senior State Director. "This legislation promises to be a significant first step in addressing the lack of public confidence in the capability of our elected officials to address the issues concerning individuals and their families during these difficult economic times."

“This reform measure, while imperfect, is a long time overdue and an essential first step toward a cleaner, fairer, more representative election system,” said Dawn Clark Netsch, a former legislator, statewide officeholder, long-time advocate of limits and a member of CHANGE Illinois! coalition.

CHANGE Illinois Says Campaign Contribution Limits Must Be Applied Fairly and Across-The-Board

2009-10-08T10:34:00.000-05:00

A coalition of campaign reform advocates on Thursday reported some progress in negotiations on campaign finance reform legislation, but the unresolved issue of limiting contributions by legislative leaders and political parties has prevented a final agreement.

“When Gov. Quinn vetoed the flawed limits legislation at the end of August, the legislative leaders and the governor said they would work with us on an improved limits bill that could be passed in the fall veto session, and we have participated in several negotiating meetings and side discussions,” said George Ranney, co-chair of CHANGE Illinois! and President and CEO of Chicago Metropolis 2020. “That veto session begins next week, and we still don’t have an agreement. We’re running out of time.”

Leaders of the CHANGE Illinois! coalition said the negotiators appear to have tentative agreements on ways to limit contributions by individuals, political action committees, candidate committees, corporations, labor unions, and associations, but they have not been able to agree on the central issue of limitations on the campaign funds controlled by legislative leaders and the political parties.

“There has been a good exchange of information and ideas with legislative leaders and the governor, and we seem to have agreements on several issues,” said Peter Bensinger, a CHANGE Illinois! co-chair and a former Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. “But we will not be part of any agreement which limits contributions from everyone except legislative leaders and political parties.”

Created earlier this year, CHANGE Illinois! is a coalition of civic, business, labor, professional, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, which represent more than 2 million members in Illinois. CHANGE Illinois! advocates an end to this state’s unregulated campaign finance system and for the creation of a system of campaign contribution limits, like those in use at the federal level and in virtually every other state in the nation.

For a copy of the full press release and supporting documents, please visit the CHANGE Illinois! website at http://www.changeil.org.

Supreme Court Upholds Importance of Elections

2009-09-25T08:47:00.002-05:00

The Illinois Supreme Court has been busy, and while most of the news coverage has been on wills and religion, sex offenders, and the death penalty, let's not forget another ruling that came down this week. In Gardner v Mullins, a unanimous court ruled that units of government cannot manipulate the length of time an appointee serves in elected office in order to avoid the voters. (download a pdf) We applaud the Court for preserving the integrity of the ballot.

The case arose after the death of an elected member of the Winnebago County Board. Mary Ann Aiello's term was to end on December 6, 2010. Her death on June 26, 2008 cut that short, leaving just over 29 months remaining on her term. According to state law, partial terms of more than 28 months can be filled by appointment only until the next General Election which, in this instance, would have been in November, 2008. The Winnebago County Board, however, did not appoint a successor until two months had elapsed, so that only 27 months remained in the term. That appointee then claimed that he did not have to stand for election until 2010.

The ability to appoint members to elected bodies is one of the more delicate powers given to public officials. The goal is to ensure a modicum of public representation until the voters can voice their desires. Special elections can be costly and generally draw low voter turnout; for many offices, Illinois policy is to allow for interim appointments until the next regular election.

But the power can be and has been abused. Most political observers can cite an instance or three of the swapping of one candidate for another after the primary or the substitution of one official for another after the election, all without asking the voters if they approve of the change. Usually, there is no recourse when the new official lacks credibility, except to wait for the next election.

In this case, the Supreme Court has narrowed the circumstances where a public body can manipulate the process to ensure that a favored person becomes a public official. By ruling that the remaining time on the ballot, which determined how soon voters are consulted, is calculated from the start of the vacancy and not the time of the appointment, the Court has appropriately make clear that voters should be consulted whenever possible, and not merely when convenient for the appointers. The unanimity of the ruling, written by Justice Garman, underscores this important point.

Cindi Canary in the News

2009-09-21T10:51:00.002-05:00

ICPR Director Cindi Canary is in this week's Crain's Chicago Business with a discussion of Rod Blagojevich's recent book and how it relates to the way that campaign finance reform is playing out. A subscription is required, but here's the link.

And here's an excerpt:

With about 275,000 new book titles published annually in the United States, the odds were that, sooner or later, even Rod Blagojevich would find a publisher.

“The Governor” tells his side of the story, and I’m not buying it—either the book or his fairy tale about the zealous prosecutor out to get him.

Some might ask what Illinois has done to deserve the spectacle of Rod Blagojevich on the talk-show circuit and his wife on a jungle reality show.

And if you were listening to NPR over the weekend, yes, that was Cindi in a rebroadcast of This American Life. The show, which originally aired in 2000, includes a segment with Cindi discussing a situation where "The Fix is In." Download the free podcast here:

Citizens United, and Citizens' Elections

2009-09-09T11:05:00.004-05:00

The US Supreme Court today hears oral arguments in Citizens United v FEC. It's an unusual time for the US Supreme Court to hear arguments (their term doesn't start until next month), but Citizens United is not a typical case. The Court heard arguments last Spring in the case and then took the unusual step of asking for additional arguments on issues not raised by the parties. This could be the case where the US Supreme Court takes off on a new activist agenda in the area of campaign finance.

Many have weighed in on the possible outcome, and ICPR signed onto an amicus brief (PDF) urging the Court to consider the impact of their decision on judicial elections. Much of the commentary has focused on the possibility that the Court will strike down a century of jurisprudence that forbids corporations to make campaign donations. But there are a lot of other ways the Court could rule, which also would have a dramatic impact on how campaigns are conducted, and how the public perceives the honesty of the electoral process.

At issue is whether an organization can promote a commercial enterprise during the weeks right before an election, when that commercial enterprise is focused squarely on a candidate in the election. Citizens United produced "Hillary: The Movie," a documentary critical of then-US Sen. and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and sought to promote the movie through TV commercials. The movie itself was available on a pay-per-view basis. The FEC objected, finding that the ads to promote the movie violated the electioneering communications provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act.

How far the Court uses this case to strike down portions of McCain-Feingold will indicate how activist the Court has become. The Court could find merely that the FEC was mistaken that the electioneering communications provision covered the ads. (The electioneering communications provision deals with some ads that mention candidates in the 60 days before a General Election) The Court could find that the electioneering communications provision is unconstitutional in some circumstances, or perhaps in all circumstances. At an extreme, the Court could find, as some have predicted, that corporations have a constitutional right to participate in elections by making campaign contributions.

How the Court rules will clearly have a significant impact on how states can ensure the integrity of elections by regulating campaign finances. While striking the prohibition on corporate contributions is indeed the worst case scenario, it would have little impact in Illinois, where corporations can and do already make large (indeed, unlimited) contributions. But Illinois also has an electioneering communications provision and so a ruling in that area will affect Illinois. No matter how the Court rules, states around the nation, including Illinois, will have to take stock of their laws and make changes to assure the public that elections are fair and honest.

Ding, Dong, HB 7 is dead!

2009-08-27T17:24:00.001-05:00

Flanked by the four legislative leaders, Gov. Pat Quinn today vetoed HB 7, the severely flawed contribution limits bill approved this May, and said he would work with all interested parties to craft a new campaign finance system by this fall.

Quinn said he has a “firm commitment” from the legislative leaders -- Senate President John Cullerton, Speaker Michael Madigan, House Republican Leader Tom Cross and Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno – that they will work with his office and all interested parties to create a better campaign finance system. Gov. Quinn said he expects the new legislation will be finished in time for the legislative session in October, commonly known as the veto session.

ICPR strongly opposed HB 7 and we commend the governor for rejecting this legislation. We also applaud the legislative leaders, and sponsor Sen. Don Harmon, for agreeing to head back to the negotiating table and creating a better campaign finance system for Illinois.

We look forward to working with the leaders and Gov. Quinn to create a campaign finance system that creates meaningful campaign contribution limits, while also improving disclosure and enforcement provisions.

In his statements to the press, Gov. Quinn said he decided to veto the bill because of the feedback he heard from Illinois residents. We thank you for contacting Gov. Quinn, along with your lawmakers, to ask them to support meaningful campaign finance legislation, and we encourage you to continue speaking out.

HB 7 in Detail: Independent Expenditures

2009-08-21T09:24:00.003-05:00

Today we resume our series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Previous posts are here and here and here and here and here.

Independent expenditures are so common in federal elections that they are routinely referred to by the initials "IE." These IE campaigns spring up in part because federal law limits how much anybody can give to a candidate, so that groups that want to spend more in support or opposition to a candidate have to work outside of that candidate's campaign. And there are explicit disclosure and contribution limit rules for IE efforts in federal law.

It makes sense for Illinois to adopt rules for IE campaigns at the same time that we adopt limits on campaign contributions generally. But while HB 7 has a section on "independent expenditures," it uses the term in very different ways than federal law does. These differences threaten the effectiveness and legality of the bill.

While federal law applies to any organization, the provision in HB 7 dealing with independent expenditures applies only to those "made by a natural person," meaning single individuals acting alone. The immediate consequence of this is to suggest that no other entity can engage in "independent expenditures," and the consequences of that would be vast. It would turn the contribution limits into spending limits, for one, which would certainly draw a skeptical judicial eye in the inevitable challenge (note that the bill exempts parties and some other committees from this limit).

There are also apparent drafting problems in this section. The section ensures a modicum of disclosure from natural persons acting independently of any political committee. Individuals are required to report when they have spent $3,000 and again at $20,000. It is not clear that the bill would require any continuing obligation to report -- say, at increments of $20,000. Nor is it clear that the person would have any obligation to disclose at the time that they commit to making an expenditure. If they have to disclose only when they actually pay the bills, that disclosure may well come well after the ads have run, and long after Election Day.

To the extent that HB 7 tried to ensure that individuals making large expenditures in relation to candidates are covered by disclosure requirements, the bill is on a useful errand. But the section is drafted in ways that fall short of that goal and threaten the abilities of others to make their voices heard in the course of campaigns. It needs to be re-written.

HB 7 in Detail: Effective Date

2009-08-20T09:28:00.001-05:00

All new laws take effect eventually. Many laws take effect within a few weeks of passage; in some instances, they'll take effect a few months after passage. But HB 7 isn't like most other bills. The majority of HB 7 would not take effect until January 1, 2011, more than 19 months after the House and Senate approved it.

There can be valid reasons for delaying implementation, but contribution limits should not be delayed that long. HB 7 deals with the rules of campaign finance, and changing those rules in such a fundamental way in the middle of a campaign can cause great confusion. When New Mexico adopted contribution limits in March of this year, their legislature set the effective date at November 3, 2010. That's a long way off, but it's the day after the 2010 General Election, so it makes sense -- as soon as the next election cycle is over, the rules change. And that's one of the two effective dates that we kicked around in regard to HB 24 (the other being, "immediately").

There are at least two significant problems with January 1, 2011 as a start date. First, it gives politicians 7 weeks after the 2010 General Election to get ready. One of ICPR's early legislative wins was the ban on taking campaign funds for personal use, which became law in 1998. In order to win approval of the law, we had to agree to a kind of "grandfather clause" that exempted funds raised before the effective date of the law. Wouldn't you know it, one legislator's campaign fund "borrowed" $100K on the day before the effective date. They paid it back the day after, but on the day the law took effect, they had an extra $100K in their fund, money they will be able to claim for personal use when they retire. (On the upside, there was only one legislator who was this crafty). Setting the effective date for contribution limits 7 weeks after the election will likewise allow for more last minute shenanigans, as contributors evaluate incumbents and decide which should get a final outsized donation before the law takes effect.

The other problem with the effective date is that it occurs just 7 weeks prior to the 2011 municipal elections. Candidate petitions will be due in December, objections will be decided and the ballot fixed and then the campaign finance rules will change. Candidates can take huge sums in December, 2010, but after January 1st anyone who didn't get their fundraising ramped up in time will have to comply with new rules. This scenario will play out in localities all over Illinois, including the City of Chicago.

There are serious policy reasons why the date should be moved up to November 3, 2010.

While we're on the subject of dates in the bill, one more bears notice. HB 7 creates a study commission to examine the question of public financing for judicial campaigns. A bill to create public financing for judicial elections has passed the Senate with bi-partisan majorities in each of the last three sessions. (Then-Sen. Barack Obama was the chief sponsor the first time it passed.) But House Speaker Michael Madigan never called the bill for a vote in the House. So it would seem the key issue for a study commission is to figure out what objections the House has to the bill. The study commission is supposed to report back on January 1, 2012 -- two and a half years from now. Will it really take that long to figure out what changes are needed to satisfy the House?

HB 7 in Detail: Calendar year cycles

2009-08-19T09:11:00.002-05:00

Contribution limits always come with time limits. In federal elections, a contributor may give $2,400 to a candidate for each election, so that a contributor who maxed out before Election Day can give again after Election Day. HB 7 sets astronomically high limits on giving to campaigns, much higher than in federal elections. And it sets those limits by calendar year, rather than by election. This difference raises some legal and policy questions.

At least one court has declared that calendar year limits are unconstitutional. A federal appeals court ruled in SEIU v. Fair Elections Practice Commission (1992) that the State of California does not have a sufficient interest in calendar years to overcome a person's right to participate in the political process. Courts are divided on this; other courts have approved calendar year limits. But when setting limits, it is fair to ask why giving more than the amount in a given time frame should be prohibited. Both the amount and the time frame have to be justifiable, and it is not at all clear what is so magical about January 1, that limits should restart on that date.

There are also policy concerns. Our state elections include primaries, now in early February, and general elections, in early November. Setting limits by calendar year means that a donor who maxes in January, before the primary, cannot give again to that candidate until long after the general election.

Now, most incumbent legislators are not opposed in the primary, and about half are not opposed in either the primary or the general, so maybe they aren't so concerned about this issue. But how is it in the state's interest to say that if you give the max on December 31, you can give the max again the next day, but if you max out right before the primary, you cannot give again until after the general? How does that time-frame address the fact or appearance of corruption?

Too, setting limits by calendar year allows incumbents to get a leg up on fundraising. This is especially true for officials in four-year terms, who can take in a couple of calendar years’ worth of contributions before a challenger would even consider running for their seats. How is a challenger who sat out the first two years of a four-year term without raising any money to compete against an incumbent who holds regular golf outings?

The better time frame for all offices is to set limits by the election cycle.

HB 7 in Detail: Penalties for violations

2009-08-18T09:53:00.004-05:00

Today, ICPR continues its series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Earlier posts are here, here, and here.

Suppose you think the dollar amounts you are allowed to contribute in HB 7 are too low. (Stop laughing, this is a serious blog post!) If you wanted to give more money to a committee than HB 7 would let you, what do you do? Let's consider the consequences of violating HB 7.

The penalty section in HB 7 is here (it starts on page 42 of HB 7):

18 (h) Contributions or transfers in violation of this
19 Section. A political committee that receives a contribution or
20 transfer in violation of this Section shall dispose of the
21 contribution or transfer by returning the contribution or
22 transfer, or an amount equal to the contribution or transfer,
23 to the contributor or transferor or donating the contribution
24 or transfer, or an amount equal to the contribution or
25 transfer, to a charity. A contribution or transfer received in
26 violation of this Section that is not disposed of as provided
1 in this subsection within 30 days after its receipt shall
2 escheat to the General Revenue Fund.

That's it. The committee would have 30 days to give the money back, or the state could lay claim to it. Alternately, the committee could give an equal amount to charity within 30 days. The contributor pays no penalty, even if the contribution was knowingly and intentionally excessive. And other than the loss of the excess amount, the committee pays no penalty, even if the committee plotted and planned with the contributor to violate the law.

So what do you do if you need cash for that final push before Election Day? ICPR would never counsel anyone to break the law. But, strictly hypothetically, what if someone did break the law? Here's what happens: If the candidate wins, the committee would have a few weeks to raise enough money from other donors to refund the excess to those who gave illegal contributions, or make a donation to charity. And winning candidates usually have a comparatively easy time raising money from new donors; from a contributor's point of view, the candidate's a sure thing. And if the candidate loses? So what if the state may lay claim to the money; if the committee is broke, there's no money for the state to seize. Dissolve the committee, and there will be no continuing obligations to worry about.

Real reform laws need real teeth. The penalties section in HB 7 needs to be improved.

A victory for reform: Freedom of Information Act improvements signed into law

2009-08-17T13:21:00.008-05:00

The state law intended to guarantee Illinoisans access to government records got a much-needed overhaul today, when Gov. Patrick Quinn signed a bill strengthening the law’s enforcement provisions.

The Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, is supposed to ensure taxpayers have access to government records. But the law is too-often not followed or altogether ignored, preventing Illinoisans from gathering information about their governments’ work.

Numerous reform groups, including ICPR and the Illinois Reform Commission, worked with Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office this winter and spring to draft a rewrite of the existing FOIA. On Monday, Quinn signed into law the group’s work-product, Senate Bill 189.

The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2010, makes a number of critical improvements to FOIA and its partner, the Open Meetings Act. Among them:

- Shortens the amount of time public bodies have to respond to FOIA requests to five business days from the current seven-day allowance. The legislation also shortens the extension public bodies can grant themselves to five days from the current seven.

- Makes permanent the position of Public Access Counselor, or PAC, within the Attorney General’s office, and grants the counselor power to help resolve FOIA disputes. The PAC will have the power to issue both advisory and binding opinions as to whether requested records are public.

- Mandates that courts award attorneys’ fees to records-requestors who successfully sue for access to open records after illegally being denied access to them. The current law gives judges discretion to award attorneys' fees, which means that people who take their records requests to court -- and win -- might be left to foot their attorneys' bill.

- Requires designated government employees to complete annual FOIA and Open Meetings Act training to educate them about state law and help ensure compliance.

- Strengthens enforcement provisions by allowing courts to impose civil penalties for public bodies that intentionally disregard the law.

You can check out the text of the new law here.

HB 7 in Detail: Constituent Services

2009-08-14T10:38:00.003-05:00

Today, ICPR continues its series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Previous posts are here and here.

HB 7 creates a wholly new type of committee, one dedicated to "constituent services" -- a new type that's ripe for abuse. It's true that for many years, public officials have used personal funds or campaign contributions to supplement the public funding allocated to their district offices. While the proper solution to underfunded district offices is to increase the public allocation, the use of a small portion of campaign funds has become a normal practice in Illinois.

HB 7 institutionalizes this practice by creating new committees dedicated to supplementing the district office allocation. But it raises very troubling questions. Will incumbents be able to use their constituent services committees to produce and distribute mailers and hold public events? It will be difficult if not impossible to determine when such activities are political (aimed at voters in the district), as compared to expenditures that are (as HB 7 states) “related to constituent services and the maintenance of the official’s public office” as these are aimed at the exact same people, and may occur at the exact same time. Note that there are none of the restrictions on Constituent Services Committees that apply to mailings on behalf of legislators by the Legislative Printing Unit, for instance.

Furthermore, would donors be able to contribute money to an official’s constituent service committee at the same time that they lobby them? Session day fundraisers have been banned for over a decade. The law now bars legislators from holding "fundraising functions" on session days. But a separate bill, SB 54, makes a change to the section of the 2003 Ethics Act regarding session day fundraisers, inserting the word "political" before the phrase "fundraising functions" (this change is on page 18 of SB 54):

1 (5 ILCS 430/5-40)
2 Sec. 5-40. Fundraising in Sangamon County. Except as
3 provided in this Section, any executive branch constitutional
4 officer, any candidate for an executive branch constitutional
5 office, any member of the General Assembly, any candidate for
6 the General Assembly, any political caucus of the General
7 Assembly, or any political committee on behalf of any of the
8 foregoing may not hold a political fundraising function in
9 Sangamon County on any day the legislature is in session (i)
10 during the period beginning February 1 and ending on the later
11 of the actual adjournment dates of either house of the spring
12 session and (ii) during fall veto session. For purposes of this
13 Section, the legislature is not considered to be in session on
14 a day that is solely a perfunctory session day or on a day when
15 only a committee is meeting.

On its face, this change would seem to allow non-political fundraising. Perhaps the intent is merely to let legislators sponsor events for groups like United Way or the Cancer Society. But coupled with the creation of Constituent Services Committees, which are by intention for non-political purposes, this provision is very disturbing. Could a Constituent Services Committee hold a session day funder? The law doesn't say, and where the law is silent, loopholes are formed.

A look at what's on the the governor's desk

2009-08-13T08:26:00.003-05:00

A bunch of bills dealing with the reform agenda were sent to the governor's desk earlier this year. Where are they now, and what does the future hold? Let's take them in alphabetical and numerical order:

HB 7, relating to campaign finance, was sent to the governor on June 30. The governor has until Saturday, August 29 to take action.

HB 35, creating an "accountability portal" on the Internet with state expenditure and salary information, was signed into law on Tuesday, August 11. It's PA 06-225.

HB 267, which allows grace period voter registration as late as 7 days prior to an election (now, grace period registration ends 14 days prior), was sent to the governor on June 17. The governor has until Sunday, August 16 to take action.

HB 723, which imposes petition signature requirements on candidates nominated for office after a primary election, was sent to the governor on June 26. The governor has until Tuesday, August 25 to take action.

SB 51, which makes improvements to the procurement code, was sent to the governor on June 19. The governor has until Tuesday, August 18 to take action.

SB 54, which changes the 2003 Ethics Act and the Lobbyist Registration Act, among other things, was sent to the governor on June 19. The governor has until Tuesday, August 18 to take action.

SB 189, which makes improvements to the Freedom of Information Act, was sent to the governor on June 26. The governor has until Tuesday, August 25 to take action.

SB 1592, which allows for the late filing of Statements of Economic Interest when the filer has suffered a "serious and catastrophic" injury or is serving in the military, was sent to the governor on June 18. The governor has until Monday, August 16 to take action.

(Today we're taking a break from our litany of concerns about HB 7. That analysis will resume tomorrow)

HB 7 in Detail: Defining when a committee "receives" a contribution

2009-08-12T10:20:00.002-05:00

Today, ICPR continues its series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Previous posts are here.

In revisions to the Election Code, HB 7 changes the definition of when a committee "receives" a contribution. The date of receipt determines when a committee must report a contribution, and is especially important during the A-1 reporting period: the final 30 days before an election, when committees are required to report contributions over $500 within two working days of receipt. The date of receipt also becomes a factor around the end of the regular reporting period, in determining when the public is told of a contribution.

Current law uses the word "receipt" but does not define it in statute, relying instead on the common sense of the word. The State Board of Elections has defined the word in regulation, relying again on the common sense meaning of the term.

HB 7 changes the definition to when the "candidate or campaign treasurer" has "actual personal physical possession of the contribution." This greatly narrows the definition in ways that are deeply problematic. When, for instance, would the candidate or treasurer have "actual personal physical possession" of an electronic funds transfer? An on-line contribution? An inter-bank exchange?

But there are deeper problems, and an example will illustrate: In 2006, Todd Stroger, then a candidate for Cook County Board President, missed statutory deadlines to make public reports of more than $250,000 in contributions received in the final weeks before the election. He later claimed that the contributions had been “received” by the committee but were being vetted, and so were not “received” by the officers of the committee. After much haggling, the State Board of Elections disagreed with Stroger's interpretation. Under current law, he was found to have violated the Election Code and was fined just over $25,000. This provision in HB 7 would validate his failure to disclose.

With this change, a committee could receive a contribution without triggering reporting requirements. Until the candidate or treasurer of the committee directed a staff person to hand the contribution to the treasurer or candidate, creating the necessary “actual personal physical possession,” there might be no obligation to report a contribution. There is nothing to require a committee to disclose once a staff person has told the candidate or treasurer of the receipt, so long as the staffer does not deliver "actual personal physical possession" of the contribution. The chair of the committee or other staff could have "actual personal physical possession" of a contribution indefinitely without ever triggering disclosure. Contributions received by the committee before Election Day could, under this proposal, be held until after the voting is over, then delivered to the treasurer, deposited, and used to pay debts incurred before Election Day. This could postpone disclosure for months, completely defeating the purpose of A1 reports.

This is a huge step backward, and one of several reasons why ICPR believes that HB 7 is worse than nothing.

HB 7 in Detail: Ballot Questions

2009-08-11T10:24:00.002-05:00

HB 7, the campaign finance measure, has garnered a lot of media attention, none of it positive. (see, for instance, today's editorial in the Daily Herald). The bill was sent to Gov. Quinn on June 30, and he has until later this month to decide whether to sign it, veto it, recommend changes with an amendatory veto, or allow it to become law without his signature.

Our opposition to HB 7 is well known. Yes, we object to the provisions that would allow for astronomically high contributions. Where federal law allows contributions of $2,400 for people and $5,000 from political committees each election, HB 7 allows contributions of up to $10,000 from people and $90,000 from committees each calendar year. But that is far from the only flawed section of the bill. Over the next few days, we intend to outline our concerns with the non-limit parts of the bill. Some of these reflect ambiguous drafting. Some reflect intentional changes to the statute that will have adverse consequences. In the next few days, we'll focus on different parts of HB 7, other than the astronomical dollar amounts, in order to explain our concerns.

Start with how HB 7 treats ballot questions. HB 7 defines “single candidate committee” (on page 39 of the bill) as:

4 "Single-candidate committee" means a political
5 committee organized to support or oppose the election of a
6 single, specific candidate or public official or to support
7 or oppose one or more questions of public policy. (emphasis added)

The term "single candidate committee" is a misnomer, as the definition also encompasses committees formed to support or oppose ballot questions. It has been long established that governments can require financial disclosure as it relates to these questions of public policy, but cannot impose limits. At least since Buckley v Valeo, the US Supreme Court's landmark ruling on campaign finance, courts have held that there is no public interest in limiting giving to ballot question committees.

That's because the purpose of contribution limits is to address the fact or appearance of corruption and ballot questions are not "corruptible," or even sentient. Ballot questions do not exercise judgment or discretion. They pass or fail, and then it is up to other officials to implement them. Including ballot questions in the definition of a "single candidate committee" may be sloppy drafting or careless thinking but it is also certainly an invitation to a legal challenge.

In the next few days, we'll post concerns with other portions of the bill.

Fix FOIA Now

2009-08-07T13:23:00.005-05:00

Newspapers around the state have been running editorials in favor of SB 189, the Freedom of Information Act reform bill. Saying that newspapers strongly support FOIA is probably akin to a dog bites man story. As is saying that ICPR also strongly supports the bill.

But today's Daily Herald editorial gave some of the reasons why they support the bill, and we at ICPR can identify with these problems:

Our reporters battled some bureaucrats for months when we tried to learn about red-light cameras for our recent "Seeing Red" investigative series. One village clerk said we didn't need the documents because others had reported on the cameras. Another village official called the request a waste of time.

In all, it took more than two months to obtain documents about a government program operating all over the region. It should take seven days under the existing loophole-ridden law.

As part of our review of lobbying by units of government, we at ICPR send out hundreds of FOIA requests each year. (here's a PDF of our most recent report) Most units respond promptly, and we commend them for that. After all that's what the law requires. But what we cannot understand is why so many units of government fail to respond in a timely fashion; and sometimes, not at all.

It's not just small governments that violate the law (thinking here of the Village of Bellwood, which received our letter 11 months ago and still has not responded, despite phone calls, follow-up letters and an in-person site visit). The City of Chicago and Cook County have both taken months to respond in each of the last two years. Chicago and Cook have law departments bigger than most law firms; they ought to know what the law requires.

Every time we do the report, there are a dozen or more units that ignore our requests. It is not practical for us to sue each and every unit that does not respond in a timely manner. Should it be necessary that we do so?

Of course not. But to make the law work as it was intended, what is necessary is that Gov. Quinn sign SB 189. We urge him to sign SB 189 pronto.

A Good, Clean Campaign

2009-08-05T15:14:00.002-05:00

Although it's been barely 200 days since the legislature was sworn in, this week marked the start of candidate petition season. When candidates turn in their petitions around Halloween, election authorities will ask them to submit a bunch of other papers as well, including, Statements of Economic Interest, political fundraising disclosures, and the Code of Fair Campaign Practices.

ICPR has long been a supporter of the Code. It's a little thing, voluntary and non-binding, but the Code is the only provision in Illinois law written explicitly and solely to encourage good behavior on the campaign trail. For years, we've mailed copies to all candidates for statewide and legislative office, urging them to sign the Code and abide by its principles. While a handful of candidates regularly submit the Code with their petitions, I'm always heartened to see how many ultimately do signal their agreement. It's a small step candidates can take to aver their intentions to run campaigns everyone can be proud of.

Reporter Sam Hudzik of WBEZ/Chicago Public Radio ran a story today on the Code. I'm sure ICPR will tout the Code to candidates in November, once all the petitions have been filed. But kudos to WBEZ for starting a conversation about it now, at the beginning of what will be a long political process.

Problems with Proposed Lobbying Changes

2009-08-03T11:55:00.000-05:00

One of the hit-or-miss bills that passed the General Assembly this year was SB 54, which, among other things, made substantial changes to the Lobbyist Registration Act (LRA). The genesis of the LRA portion of the bill is plainly found in HB 736, which ICPR supported, but SB 54 differs in some key ways.

One difference is the disclosure of lobbyist costs, and several recent news stories make clear how the differences between HB 736, which did not pass the GA, and SB 54, which did, will impact public policy discussion. In one news story, the federal government gave billions to the financial services industry, and the industry responded by spending dramatically more on lobbying. In another news story, Congress took up legislation to regulate student loans, and lo and behold, the industry hired a bunch of lobbyists to fight the proposals. A third national news story compares the progress of the debate over health care reform with spending by health care interests (noting, also, that health care interests combine to spend more on lobbying at the federal level than any other sector).

All of these stories are built around disclosure of lobbyist contracts. At the federal level, lobbyists are required to report how much they bill their clients. Indeed, spending on lobbying is often in the same ballpark as spending on elections. Interest groups that spend millions on campaign contributions to candidates often spend similar amounts to hire lobbyists to influence elected officials. Just as disclosure of campaign finance is in the public interest, so too is it in the public interest to let the public know how much an interest group is spending to influence legislation.

The Illinois General Assembly has yet to go that far in statute. HB 736, the bill that did not pass, would have mandated disclosure of lobbying costs, but SB 54 did not include that provision. This was a missed opportunity to help the public better understand how particular interests are trying to sway the General Assembly.

Another provision in SB 54 that did not come from HB 736 raises the registration fee for lobbyists. And the increase is a whopper. Currently, most lobbyists pay $350 per lobbyist per year to register with the Secretary of State (non-profits, including ICPR, pay $150 per lobbyist per year). SB 54 raises that fee for all lobbyists, including non-profits, to $1,000. For most lobbyists, it's a steep increase; for non-profits, it's a huge added cost.

The increase is particularly steep because of the way that lobbying is defined. Generally, anyone who communicates with officials to influence legislative, executive, or administrative actions is a lobbyist. There are exceptions, of course (it's statute, after all) but broadly, once you are paid or reimbursed $500 for such communication, you become a lobbyist and must register. Which is to say, once you are paid or reimbursed $500, you must pay $1,000 to register. And the entity that paid or reimbursed you the $500 must also pay $1,000 to register. That's $2,000 in registration fees for $500 in reimbursements. Large lobbying firms will likely be able to absorb these costs, but smaller groups, especially non-profits, will have a harder time.

SB 54 increases the registration fee in order to cover additional administrative costs, but some of the cost of registration (the $200 difference between the for-profit and non-profit rate) goes into the General Revenue Fund. It seems that the state is still using lobbyist registration fees to produce income for the General Revenue Fund.

Both of these changes are unfortunate components of the new Lobbyist Registration Act. Gov. Quinn, or the General Assembly, would do well to revisit them.

Picking the Pickers: Redistricting Update

2009-07-31T14:00:00.002-05:00

Experts who testified at a Senate Redistricting Committee meeting this week didn’t paint a pretty picture about Illinois’ current redistricting process.

In fact, they described the process that produces new legislative district maps every 10 years as downright awful.

In Illinois, the redistricting process is dominated by lawmakers: The state Constitution gives the entire General Assembly the first crack at drawing the boundaries for state legislative districts. But if lawmakers can’t reach an agreement, the Republican and Democratic leaders in each chamber get to appoint one citizen and one lawmaker, each, to a special eight-member Legislative Redistricting Commission. If that panel can’t agree on a map, either, the redistricting process gets thrown into the hands of one randomly chosen ninth member of the commission.

During each redistricting process over the last three decades, lawmakers have butted heads over the map – ultimately going to the “tiebreaker round,” and throwing the process into the hands of one party.

As the Daily Herald editorial board notes today, experts have acknowledged allowing one party to control the state’s map is a bad way to operate. Redistricting greatly impacts future elections because it determines which residents can vote for which representatives. Left in the hands of one party, redistricting can – and has – produced districts that greatly favor candidates of that party.

Now, in advance of the 2011 redistricting process that will follow next year’s Census, the Illinois Senate is hosting once-a-month committee hearings around the state about redistricting.

Former State Senator and Comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch, drawing from her experience as a delegate to the 1970 Constitutional Convention that produced the current redistricting process, explained that the tiebreaker option was supposed to be, in essence, the “nuclear option.” The thought of winner-take-all was supposed to encourage political parties to work together, for fear that they would lose the tiebreaker. There was also some hope among the delegates that the ninth member would be a "negotiator" or moderating influence, not someone who would side with one party against the other.

But, that wasn’t the case in 1981, nor 1991, nor 2001. And there’s no reason to think 2011 will be any different – unless the system is changed.

Roosevelt University Political Science Professor Paul Green said that the tiebreaker provision has made redistricting a partisan answer to a question that is not supposed to be partisan.

Atlhough Green and Netsch were asked to testify about the history of redistricting in Illinois, both said that the system must be changed to allow people who aren’t lawmakers or partisan agents to have a role in the process.

Green also noted what amounts to the elephant in the redistricting committee room: Although many members of the General Assembly have voiced concerns about the current redistricting process, few – if any – are willing to be “political martyrs,” and sacrifice their own chance to be re-elected for the sake of reform.

That’s part of what makes redistricting reform in Illinois so challenging. Lawmakers historically have demonstrated reluctance to change the status quo. Even though – as Green aptly pointed out – that redistricting is largely to blame for Illinois’ woefully noncompetitive state legislative elections.

Illinois needs a better redistricting system. We need a system that ensures the districts that are created just two years from now foster active political discussion and elect lawmakers that are responsive to their voters. We need a system that ensures that the 177 members of the General Assembly look as much like the other 13 million residents of Illinois as possible.

Several plans to ameliorate the current system have already been drafted – including proposals from several lawmakers, the Illinois Reform Commission, and the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute.

We hope the Illinois General Assembly gives these plans serious consideration, and creates a new process that is transparent and reflects the desires of the public. ICPR supports the principles recently adopted by Americans for Redistricting Reform.

The Senate Redistricting Committee is scheduled to next meet on Aug. 18 in Springfield. An audio recording of the hearings will be made available through the General Assembly's website.

Compare and Contrast

2009-07-24T16:06:00.004-05:00

The big corruption story out of New Jersey last week sounds, in broad strokes, eerily familiar -- lots of people, in and out of government, in a state famous for corruption, rounded up on charges of cheating the public. I can't think of a public corruption case in Illinois involving religious leaders and kidney traffickers, but the point isn't to see which state is worse, but rather to ensure good government. Neither state is doing well on that score.

What struck me were the follow-up stories. From New Jersey came widespread condemnation of the alleged corruption. One story quoted Gov. Jon Corzine as saying, "The scale of corruption we're seeing as this unfolds is simply outrageous and cannot be tolerated."

Compare that with the normal reaction from Chicago Mayor Richard Daley when corruption is found in his town. Rather than broadly condemning corruption, he has tended personalized the response, blaming "a few bad apples," or blaming the people who were convicted for “disgrac[ing their own] name.”

This focused response results in public messaging which is ambiguous at best, or tolerant at worst, as when Robert Sorich, head of Daley's Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, was convicted in 2006, and Mayor Daley announced, "I am saddened by the verdict for these men and their families," while his brother and top political advisors feted Sorich with a fundraiser at a local Bridgeport church.

Clarity counts for a lot. Even, especially, from those in charge, in a position to set the tone by saying clearly and simply what's right and what's wrong.

If only we didn't need FOIA

2009-07-23T10:13:00.002-05:00

One of the most successful stories of the spring legislative session was the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reform measure, SB 189, now on the governor's desk. The bill will go a long way to rebalancing the interests of the public in getting access to government records. The Northwest Herald recently wrote that Gov. Quinn "should sign the bill now and send a message that his administration is serious about improving public access to government information." We couldn't agree more.

A couple of recent stories show why a stronger FOIA is needed. These same stories also show how units of government can make FOIA a lot less necessary. In one, the Better Government Association announced a lawsuit against the Office of Cook County Board President Todd Stroger to compel production of phone records. In another, a suburban school district stopped making information packets available to the public in advance of board meetings. And while not strictly a third FOIA story, the Trib this morning wrote about a possible Open Meetings Act violation, where a member of a village council privately e-mailed other members about an upcoming vote.

Let's remember that the Freedom of Information Act is not the reason why the public deserves access to government records; it is only the means by which that access is guaranteed. The reason why is because it is our government, and we the public have a right to know what government is doing for us, to us, and in our name. FOIA and the Open Meetings Act are like umbrellas -- you want one when it rains, but you don't look forward to using one every day. Having a stronger FOIA will help people better understand what government is doing, but units of government could make that task even easier by being more open with all of their actions.

D2 Day Interim Report

2009-07-21T16:39:00.001-05:00

Last week we went out on a limb and predicted that today's papers would be full of stories about how much money candidates raised in the first six months of this year. And events have proven us correct. (Although, to be fair, we didn't go all that far from the tree trunk on that one.) Now that the reports are in, there are some interesting tidbits in the numbers. A few stragglers are yet to file, but here are a few observations:

* State Rep. Jack Franks raised more money than anyone. Most of it from relatives, but still, his $1.3M is more than any of the Four Tops, more than any sitting statewide official, more than any known challenger.

* The other surprising name on the list of top fundraisers is Sen. Dale Righter, who reported $353K in receipts; putting him comfortably in the Top Ten.

* State Rep. Julie Hamos is sitting on more money than the entire Democratic Party of Illinois. Combining her cash on hand with her investments, she's got $530K, while the venerable DPI reported $473K available. And she's not alone -- Sen. James DeLeo reports $703K, and Rep. Jay Hoffman has been sitting on a pile for years (it's now at $1.2M). Senate Democratic Leader James Clayborne reports $653K, all of it in cash.

We'll have more analysis in the weeks to come. Check back for more!

De-rigging Redistricting

2009-07-15T10:30:00.002-05:00

The Illinois Constitution requires the state to redraw its state legislative and Congressional district boundaries every 10 years, following the national census. This process, known as redistricting, greatly impacts future elections because it determines which voters will pick which representatives.

Ideally, districts will be drawn to maximize competitiveness, foster active political discussion and reflect the uniqueness of communities.

But practice hasn't live up to the ideal. Indeed, many have described redistricting as the process by which elected officials choose their constituents. In the hands of a skilled mapmaker, for example, districts can be drawn to favor one political party, thus allowing them to maintain control of the district and its representation in upcoming elections. Districts also can be drawn to protect incumbents from likely challengers, or crafted so that two incumbents are put in the same district and forced to either drop out or run against each other.

The redistricting process outlined by the Illinois Constitution calls for the General Assembly to draw the state's legislative district boundaries. If legislators fail to reach agreement, then a Legislative Redistricting Commission is convened, with 8 members dived evenly between Republicans and Democrats. If that, too, fails, a "tiebreaker" of sorts goes into effect -- and one new member of the Commission, either a Republican or a Democrat, is chosen at random and gets the final say on what Illinois' districts will be for the next 10 years.

In each of the last three remaps, not only has the legislative process failed, but the 8-member Commission also failed, so the tie-breaker delivered control of the process into one party's hands. In each instance, the party that won the tiebreaker created districts which greatly favored their party's candidates, giving them an incalculable advantage in elections for the Illinois House and Senate for the ensuing decade.

There has been broad acknowledgement that Illinois' redistricting process leaves much to be desired. While it seems all would agree that Illinois needs a system which ensures all residents receive fair and equal representation, there is not a consensus on how to redesign the current system or even over whether changes need to be focused on the Constitution or on practices within the legislature. Many, particularly Democrats, are hopeful that the legislature will write a map in 2011 without convening a Commission, despite the odds.

The Illinois Senate has formed a Redistricting Committee, which is scheduled to hold four meetings this summer to hear testimony on redistricting. The first meeting is tentatively scheduled for 11 a.m. Wednesday, July 22, at the Thompson Center, 16th floor, in Chicago. Dawn Clark Netsch, Northwestern University law professor and ICPR board member, and Paul Green of Roosevelt University are among those scheduled to testify.

If you're in the Chicago area, we encourage you to attend. Future meetings of the Committee are planned for Peoria (August 19), Carbondale (September 16), and Springfield (October 14); for updates and to confirm times and locations, go here.

Disclosure Update

2009-07-14T11:12:00.001-05:00

One week from today the newspapers will be full of stories about how much money candidates have raised in the last six months. That's because one week from yesterday is the deadline for filing semi-annual D2 disclosure reports with the State Board of Elections.

Campaign finance is one form of disclosure that lets the public know about potential (and actual) conflicts of interest that elected officials may have. The other big disclosure form required of office holders is the Statement of Economic Interest. That was due to be filed with the Secretary of State by May 1. The SoS Index Division then scans the documents into PDF format and posts them to the web. As of today, over two months later, most (but, as of yesterday, not all) current legislators' forms are posted. Get their forms here.

Not posted, and not even filed, are forms from candidates for office who are not otherwise required to file. Candidates running in the 2010 elections won't have to file until they submit their petitions (they have to submit the receipt for the SEI along with their petitions). And what's more, they won't have to file again unless they win. In a curious loophole that benefits challengers over incumbents, they do not have to file updates next May 1. So check back for more Statements of Economic Interest, and don't forget D2s next week.