While
reform groups, newspaper editorial boards, Republicans and others blasted a
campaign finance reform bill passed by the General Assembly last week, there
were a couple of big surprises which went almost unnoticed.
For
instance, powerful leaders of Statehouse special interest groups said they
would be hobbled by the bill.
The
legislation not only caps the amount of money that political action commitees
can give to candidates, it also caps the cash that PACs can raise from its own
members - an almost unheard of limit on political activity.
PACs
are limited from accepting any contributions over $10,000 a year from
"natural persons" and can't take more than $20,000 per year from
corporations, labor unions and associations.
The
new rule would slam corporate PACs like the Associated Beer Distributors of
Illinois, according to ABDI President Bill Olson, who testified against the
legislation during the Senate Executive Committee last week. Olson's PAC is one
of the most influential and wealthy in the state, but its success relies on a
relatively small number of large contributions from its members. Several other
business groups are in the same situation.
PACs
would also be severely limited on what are called "in-kind"
donations. Quite a few groups, particularly labor unions, don't just give money
to candidates. They also assign paid staff to campaigns, run phone banks, do
mailers to their own members and even air TV ads. But the bill is written in a
way which would include in-kind donations in a PAC's $10,000 annual campaign
contribution cap to candidates. So, most of that will apparently end.
The
legislation allows only a "natural person" to make independent
expenditures on behalf of candidates, so that option - which is used
extensively under the federal campaign system - would not be available to PACs
and other groups in Illinois.
By
severely limiting spending activities, the hugely powerful legislative leaders
will be able to more thoroughly control the message they want delivered to
voters and prevent outside interference in campaigns.
Groups
like the pro-choice Personal PAC spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on
direct mail and other advertising during election cycles to define candidates
as pro-choice or anti-abortion. That independent spending has made Personal PAC
one of the most feared political forces in the state. But much of the group's
spending would likely be banned by this new legislation, unless it, and others,
can find a way around the law.
Republicans
blasted the bill because they said it was designed to strengthen the already
powerful legislative leaders. They have a point. Besides the PAC limitations,
the bill allows leaders like the House Speaker and the Senate President to make
unlimited in-kind contributions. Their cash donations would be limited to
$90,000 a year, but that means a Senate incumbent with a four-year term could
still receive as much as $360,000 in cash from his or her leader.
The
use of annual limits in the bill also came under fire by reformers.
Campaign
contribution caps are often criticized as unfair to challengers because they
limit how much money they can raise against incumbents who often have far more
ties to the monied interests. On the federal level, though, contributions are
capped per election cycle. For instance, PACs can only give $5,000 to a federal
candidate for a primary race, even if that primary is for a US Senator who
won't run again until five years from now.
But
under this state legislation, the caps are annual. That means a sitting
governor can raise $10,000 every year for four years from a single PAC. Since
his or her challenger wouldn't likely gear up to run until the year before an
election, a challenger would only get two, at most, bites from the same PAC
apple, putting that person at a distinct disadvantage.
Some
of the bill is quite good. But these annual caps are a horrible abuse of power
by incumbents.
-30-
Rich
Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and
thecapitolfaxblog.com.