STATE OF THE STATE
Campaign finance reform
is a matter of style over substance
by Jennifer Davis
The campaign finance measure approved by lawmakers last spring calls for the most significant reforms in public ethics in more than two decades. Nevertheless, it would force few changes in the real–world relationship between cash and politics.
If the measure makes it into the statute books, for instance, lobbyists will have to stop dispensing checks to public officials face–to–face on state property. That includes the hallways outside the legislative chambers, where one former lawmaker, lobbyist Al Ronan, got caught handing out contributions a few years back. But that's a matter of location. Lobbyists can still contribute any amount they want anywhere else.
And the measure bans "gifts" to public officials, while allowing gifts to "friends." A matter of semantics. In fact, there are five pages' worth of such exemptions, including golf and tennis outings.
It also establishes several ethics commissions to oversee the giving and the getting, but those panels won't have investigatory powers and won't meet in public.
Indeed, it seems there's a trap door for each and every step in the right direction. But perhaps it's merely a matter of truth in labeling. This bipartisan package is called a campaign finance bill. That's misleading because it doesn't really change the way political campaigns are financed. We can call it ethics reform, though. The creation of the oversight commissions and the ban on personal use of campaign funds constitute important reforms.
"This bill deals with some disclosure and ethical issues," allows Kent Redfield, who teaches political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield, "but it doesn't address the fundamental question about the role money plays in public policy."
Redfield works with the Illinois Campaign Finance Project, the research and education group that issued a long list of recommendations last year. He adds that neither the House speaker nor the Senate president would have taken a vote on a bill significantly changing the way they do business. "And this doesn't."
Under the measure, Illinois remains one of the last holdouts among the states to restrict campaign contributions to state candidates. The sky will still be the limit on transfers between political action committees, and between the state parties and those committees, which makes tracing the dollars more difficult. And the legislative leaders will still control large campaign kitties, enabling them to handpick—some say control—candidates for the General Assembly.
Jim Howard, executive director of Illinois Common Cause, has a colorful assessment: "This is a crap sandwich filled with the finest political pumpernickel you'll find in Illinois."
Still, in this state, anything is better than nothing when it comes to campaign finance reform. And it's been 24 years since anything like this has landed on the governor's desk. (In 1974, the General Assembly required candidates to file itemized reports with the State Board of Elections on all receipts and expenditures of more than $150. Last year, they stopped requiring people who inspect contribution and spending reports to give a reason for looking. They also allowed for electronic filing of those reports.)
But these changes hardly put Illinois at the forefront of reform. California, South Carolina, Kentucky and Maine are far ahead. Maine, for example, has adopted voluntary public financing. And California candidates who agree to spending limits can accept twice as much money as those who don't.
"Why do we need campaign finance reform?" asks Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a nonprofit citizen education group. "Because this is the issue behind every other issue we care about."
That organization points to three policy issues affected by campaign finance: electric utility deregulation, cable television fees and tobacco restrictions. A quote from the group's brochure: "Think Illinois' campaign finance system doesn't affect you? ... Last year, the cable television industry tried to slip through legislation that would allow them to charge customers up to $5 for every late payment. To grease the wheels, the cable industry gave $388,095 to state legislators between January 1995 and July 1, 1997. The bill passed the House, and only after much press coverage and public outcry was the bill rejected in the Senate."
Canary's group highlights that
6 | July / August 1998 Illinois Issues
connection between money and policy on its web site at www.ilcampaign.org. "Something else we want to do on our web site is to keep track of the incumbent [General Assembly] class and what they do with the money they have as of June 30, 1998," says Canary, referring to what is commonly known as the "personal use" portion of the bill.
The legislation prohibits lawmakers from using campaign contributions for houses and cars, vacations and fancy clothes, for example. That provision has been lauded as one, if not the best, part of House Bill 672.
"The average Illinoisan, I don't believe, thinks it's a good idea for us to take campaign money and convert it to personal income," says LaGrange Park Republican Rep. Jack Kubik, who was one of four legislators who helped craft the bipartisan bill.
Michael Lawrence agrees. He works with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon at a new public policy think tank at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and initiated and guided the reforms through the legislature.
"I think probably what will be viewed as the most far-reaching aspect of this bill is its virtual prohibition on personal use of campaign funds." Lawrence, a longtime Statehouse reporter, most recently was Gov. Jim Edgar's press secretary. "I think without personal use this package would not have been viewed as substantial. I personally don't agree with that, but perception is important."
Judge for yourself.
•Personal Use. There are two exceptions in this category. Candidates can pay themselves and family members for "services actually rendered." However, that phrase is not defined.
Candidates can convert to personal use any cash in their campaign accounts as of June 30, 1998, though they must count any converted funds as income for tax purposes—as is the case now. Politicians can make the one–time conversion whenever they choose.
Redfield is concerned that the definition of "personal" is too vague. "It's good we've addressed personal use, but this is certainly not as clean as what's been done in other states," he says. "In those states, lawmakers can't use campaign money to buy flowers for the couple who just celebrated an anniversary. You can still do that [under this bill. And] this still allows people to hire their spouses."
Further, Redfield criticizes the one–time conversion because the timeframe for that option is open-ended.
"When the feds did this, they grandfathered themselves in, but they also set a deadline." A deadline would force lawmakers to choose: Take the money or run for office. (Given the role money plays in campaigns, it would be nearly impossible for a candidate to run for re–election after emptying his or her campaign fund.)
"This bill does as little as you can do and still call it personal use."
Enforcing—even tracking—the measure's personal use provisions will be difficult, adds Ron Michaelson, executive director of the State Board of Elections, the agency that administers elections and keeps campaign reports. This is partly because the language is vague and partly because there would be political pressures.
"Lots of other states have tried this and found it's very difficult. There are lots of gray areas. And sometimes you're dealing with politically powerful individuals. It's definitely going to be difficult for us."
•Gift Ban. The measure supersedes the executive order gift ban Gov. Edgar signed last summer, which, while stricter than HB 672, only applies to the 60,000–some state employees under his control. This bill bans fewer things. Food and drink, for example, are exempt. (Lobbyists spent $1.3 million on Illinois officials in 1996, much of it in the form of refreshments.)
•Disclosure. This provision is more clear–cut. It gives the state board authority to fine candidates who fail to report big donations right before an election. That was "ambiguous" before, Michaelson says. "And we were finding many instances where big money was reported right after the election that was received before the election."
Additionally, the measure sets up a phased–in electronic filing system for political committees. Beginning July 1, 1999, committees that have or spent $25,000 or more must file electronically with the State Board of Elections. By July 1, 2003, political committees that have or spent at least $10,000 must do so. The information will be widely available on the Internet.
Political committees and interest groups must also use names that reflect who they are. And the bill increases fivefold the fines the board can levy. If someone violates a ruling, the board can impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000. If that someone is also a constitutional officer, the penalty can go as high as $10,000. "The part dealing with fines is not ambiguous at all," says Michaelson, who calls the legislation a "tremendous step forward."
•Ethics commissions. The bill provides for separate ethics commissions for lawmakers, judges and each constitutional officer. The appointed members will be citizens and government officials; they will investigate only "signed, notarized, written complaint[s]." Further, their meetings, up until the appeals process, are closed to the public and exempt from Illinois' Freedom of Information Act.
"We are sensitive to the fact that there needs to be some private discourse to protect the accused," says Beth Bennett of the Illinois Press Association. "But there are lots of public bodies that have allowances for that." She adds that her group wants to work with the bill's sponsors over the summer to "bring some sunshine into this process."
SIU's Mike Lawrence, however, argues the measure provides a "reasonable" balance between the rights of an individual and the public's right to know. He notes the complaint and its disposition will be released to the public, and "if the accused exercises his right to a full–fledged hearing, that, too, will be open."
Still, Jim Howard, while critical of the measure, echoes others on one key point:
This isn't perfect. Parts of it may not even be very good. But it's something, and that's great for Illinois.
7 | July / August 1998 Illinois Issues
|
