Guest essay

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

Illinois officials chose to reform campaign finance for the first time in more than two decades. One participant in the effort explains why. And how

by Mike Lawrence

Carter Hendren's response was predictable. He laughed. Instantly, we were both laughing. I had just told the Senate president's chief of staff about my newest challenge: to help make significant campaign finance reform a reality during the upcoming session of the Illinois General Assembly. "Good luck!" he said wryly.

As veterans of the Statehouse wars, Carter and I both knew Illinois' campaign finance laws had not been substantially changed for nearly a quarter of a century. And we knew why. The vast majority of major players in state government — the same players whose support was vital to changing the system — were happy with the system.

They might not say so publicly. Many had even voted for reform bills, confident those proposals would go nowhere and others would wear the collar for yet more flops. But, away from their voting switches and the TV cameras, they favored the status quo. And understandably so.

Most of us, including some academics, editorial writers and members of good-government groups who regularly beat the drums for changes in other institutions, tend to guard our own turf assiduously. And on their turf, Illinois legislators and statewide officials had been virtually unrestricted in how they could raise and spend political funds. In short, campaign finance reform had become one of those issues where many legislators preached "yes" and prayed "no."

Bring on Peter Graves, Martin Landau and Barbara Bain. Or Tom Cruise, if you choose. This was mission impossible.

But former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon has a fundamental philosophy about daring long odds: If you try, you may not succeed; however, if you don't try, you definitely will not succeed. He had determined the Public Policy Institute he heads at Southern Illinois University would try — at the risk of failing — to catalyze real reforms in the way political contributions are solicited and spent. And he designated me to spearhead this initiative because I was fresh from the state political arena, having joined him at SIU only a few months earlier after serving as Gov. Jim Edgar's press secretary.

Carter's office was my first Statehouse stop on this adventure for a couple of reasons. He and I were longtime pals who had fought shoulder-to-shoulder in the same foxhole when he managed the 1990 Edgar campaign. Moreover, he was the most highly valued and trusted adviser to Senate President James "Pate" Philip, a Wood Dale Republican who had become known as the chief executioner of campaign reform legislation. If we were to achieve reform through the route Paul and I envisioned — by rolling up our sleeves and working with those inside the system — we had to have Pate with us.

After we got past the gallows humor, Carter and I began to talk seriously about how this long shot might, just might, be brought home. Politically, members of the Senate

38 ¦ September 1998 Illinois Issues

Republican majority who faced stiff re-election challenges were vulnerable to criticism that their caucus had killed reforms; approval of legislation embodying reforms embraced by Paul Simon would significantly diminish that vulnerability.

Governmentally, Carter believed there was a need to make major changes — particularly with respect to personal use of campaign funds — in order to stem further erosion of public confidence in the institution of the legislature and, frankly, to save members from getting into trouble. The freedom to spend political funds for nonpolitical purposes breeds excesses, Carter noted. He was convinced the Senate president shared both his view and his concern.

But, even as the pathway to making reforms a reality took shape, the land mines along it loomed large: partisanship, political posturing, visceral, though typically veiled, resistance to change.

House Democrats and Republicans were more than willing to back and pass reform legislation that included the works — limits on contributions, spending and personal use of campaign funds — knowing Philip was willing to take the heat for killing it in the Senate. A seemingly deadly combination — disingenuous posturing and genuine love for the status quo — how could it be overcome?

Carter had some suggestions. So did Larry Hansen, vice president of the Joyce Foundation, which provided funding for our initiative. Larry had a command of the issue from a national perspective. He also had sharp political instincts honed through experience in the national and Illinois legislative arenas as a key adviser to top Democrats. The strategy that evolved was essentially this: Assemble a bipartisan group of legislators from the House and the Senate. Make experts on campaign finance available to them. Through a low-key, unofficial process, encourage and help them to reach consensus on significant reforms. Convert that consensus into legislation. Pass the legislation.

Members of the reform task force met early in the morning and late at night. They kept their disagreements as well as their agreements private. They were candid with each other. And none breached their confidentiality pact. It was statesmanship, not showmanship.

We asked each of the four legislative leaders to recommend a member for our task force. We said we wanted legislators who were sincerely interested in reform, trusted by their leadership and collegial. In other words, send us no hot dogs. Send us members who can produce a good product their leadership and other colleagues will end up buying.

The leaders sent us four excellent legislators. Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Hinsdale Republican, was the one I knew best. I had worked closely with him when he served as Gov. Edgar's first chief of staff. I had never met Chicago Democratic freshman Sen. Barack Obama; however, like Dillard, he was viewed as a rising star by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Rep. Jack Kubik, a Berwyn Republican, had announced he was retiring from the House but brought the principled yet

Illinois Issues September 1998 ¦ 39

pragmatic approach that had distinguished his seven terms in the legislature. Rep. Gary Hannig, a Democrat from Litchfield and an assistant majority leader, had demonstrated considerable experience and ability in working across party lines to help shape state budgets.

At their first meeting early in February, the four agreed a representative from the governor's office should join them. That brought capable Andy Foster, the governor's deputy chief of staff and his 1994 re-election campaign manager, on board. Not long thereafter, two experts in campaign finance were added: Ron Michaelson, executive director of the State Board of Elections, and Kent Redfield, a political science professor at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

Wisely, the group decided to deal first with the reform proposals most likely to gain consensus. That process allowed the group to build a package of agreed-to reforms before it reached the most divisive issues. And progress in reaching bipartisan, bicameral agreements created a positive, trusting atmosphere vital to the ultimate success of the mission.

The members met early in the morning. They met at night. They sandwiched the meetings between General Assembly committee and floor sessions. They kept their disagreements, as well as their agreements, private. They were candid with each other about where they and their leaders stood on various issues, and none breached their confidentiality pact.

It was statesmanship, not showmanship. The group met without fanfare. At one of the earlier meetings, Paul came to Springfield to encourage the task force members. He held no news conference and did no interviews. He told them that he believed substantial reform could be achieved if they persisted. He said he understood the eventual package likely would not include all of the changes he advocated.

This former United States senator and one-time presidential candidate also shared a lesson he had learned decades ago when he was a state legislator: If you settle for nothing short of the most radical changes, you will get nothing. Reform is incremental. Paul's remarks reinforced the already evident intent of this task force. Its members wanted more than applause from the reform community. They wanted to pass a bill, not merely propose one.

The task force members knew the key to success was to get a strong but reasonable bill to the floors of the House and Senate. If that happened, they were convinced, even the most antagonistic of their colleagues would vote "yes," fearing the political consequences of a "no."

For the bills to reach the floor, they needed the backing of the two presiding officers — President Philip and Chicago Democratic House Speaker Michael J. Madigan. So the task force members kept in touch with their leaders. They also took discreet soundings among the rank-and-file. Even if Philip and Madigan were inclined to call the bills, they would not do so in the face of a party caucus revolt. The two leaders had to be in a position to soften opposition by persuading their members the reforms were reasonable, livable and, yes, necessary for the sake of the institution and for their own election-year portfolios.

For the bills to reach the legislative floor, they needed backing from the chambers' presiding officers. So task force members kept in touch with their leaders. And took discreet soundings among the rank-and-file. Even if the leaders were inclined to call the bills, they would not do so in the face of a party caucus revolt.

Ultimately, the package included no limits on the amounts of contributions or expenditures. Honest philosophical differences and practical considerations precluded them. Moreover, the package included a grandfather clause on personal use of campaign funds that we knew would be the subject of criticism from some who enjoy Monday morning quarterbacking but typically find themselves on the sidelines when reality-based progress is made.

But the package did include major reforms that many advocates had regarded as unattainable — at least in this century. Cynthia Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, quickly recognized that and generated vital grass-roots backing for the changes. Jim Howard of Common

40 ¦ September 1998 Illinois Issues

Cause also provided crucial support. Both advocate even broader reforms, but they focused on the major improvements that were included in the legislation.

No longer could legislators or any other state official accept campaign contributions in the Capitol or solicit them when encountering lobbyists there. No longer would there be Springfield fund-raisers during the final 90 days of the legislative session or during the veto session, when legislators have life-or-death control over bills vital to interest groups. No longer could candidates lawfully shield from the public sizable contributions arriving late in the campaign until after voters went to the polls. No longer could political action committees use vague names, making it difficult for the public and the news media to pinpoint the interests behind the contributions. In the same vein, the employers and occupations of major individual donors would be disclosed. And candidates in races that draw significant contributions would be required to file their disclosure reports electronically, facilitating computer-aided analyses that would shed more light on the monetary influences in policy-making.

Redfield and Michaelson regarded those disclosure reforms — backed up with tougher penalties for non-compliance — as tremendous progress.

Four legislators, who come from different parties and widely divergent parts of our state, responded to the challenge to reform campaign finance. They were bonded by statesmanship and the courage to risk both failure and the enmity of their colleagues. It should happen more often.

Not surprisingly, the media and the legislators themselves focused on the provisions strictly limiting personal use of campaign funds. Those provisions imposed new restrictions on personal use of political funds. The grandfather clause aside, no longer could Illinois politicians use their campaign funds to buy houses or to purchase personal cars or to put their kids through school or to enhance their retirement.

We did agree to allow current and former public officials to convert to personal use an amount equivalent to what they had in their accounts as of June 30, 1998. But if we had not agreed, we would have kissed away an opportunity to enact historic personal-use prohibitions that will apply from this point forward.

Even with that bow to reality, the media and other seasoned legislative observers were skeptical about the prospects for the package.

Adjournment of the spring session was just hours away when the bill was put in final form. But President Philip, persuaded he had reasonable legislation that would allow him and his troops to ditch the villain's role, got behind the bill with the full force of his leadership. It cleared the Senate. And Speaker Madigan pledged his full support.

An unexpected snag occurred, though, when Oswego Republican Rep. Tom Cross, the sponsor of the bill that had been amended in the Senate, refused to call it. But Philip was in no mood to have the Republicans shoulder the blame for killing reforms he had come to embrace. And neither was George Ryan, the party's 1998 candidate for governor. After Ryan and Philip made calls, the bill was called, and passed, just moments before the legislature called it quits for the summer.

Substantial reform was achieved only a few months after Carter and I enjoyed our hearty laugh over the seeming futility of the mission. And it was achieved in a way that might offer lessons on how to engage other tough issues.

In the Senate, battling together for the legislation were Kirk Dillard, a Republican from DuPage County, and Barack Obama, a Democrat from the south side of Chicago. In the House, it was Jack Kubik, a Republican from suburban Cook County, and Gary Hannig, a down-state Democrat. Four legislators — from different parties and widely divergent parts of our state — responded to the challenge, bonded by statesmanship and the courage to risk both failure and the enmity of their colleagues.

It should happen more often.

Mike Lawrence is associate director of the Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. He was formerly Gov. Jim Edgar's press secretary.

Illinois Issues September 1998 ¦ 41