Special interests and one wealthy man donated nearly half the $9.5 million that James R. Thompson and Adlai E. Stevenson III raised for their 1986 gubernatorial contest, according to a study completed by Common Cause/Illinois. The self-styled citizens lobby concludes that special interests could be accused of indirect purchase of access and influence: "The ability of Illinois' governors to fully serve the public interest, while the financial strings of their campaigns are held by monied interests, is in serious jeopardy," Common Cause argues. The group says its study illustrates the need for partial public financing of gubernatorial campaigns, an idea opposed by those who argue public funds could be better spent elsewhere.

Common Cause compiled figures from campaign disclosure statements filed between July of 1984 and January of 1987. It combined campaign funds for the governor and lieutenant governor candidates and treated the running mates as a single campaign. The study identified four kinds of contributions. Non-itemized, all of them less than $150, carried no identification. Special interest contributions were those made in the name of an organization. Individual contributions came from a specific person. Partisan political contributions came from party organizations or candidates' committees. For the 1986 campaign Thompson raised $7.11 million. Of thath $3.27 million (or 46 percent of the total) came from special interests; $2.20 million (30.9 percent) came from individuals; $1.14 million (16.1 percent) came in $150 or smaller non-itemized contributions; and $327,072 (4.6 percent) came from party organizations.

The Stevenson campaign raised far less, $2.39 million or a third of Thompson's total. The Democrat-turned-Solidarity candidate received $1.34 million (55.9 percent of his total) from individuals; $431,704 (18 percent) from contributions of less than $150; $289,961 (12.1 percent) from special interests; and $75,000 (3.1 percent) from partisan organizations. Common Cause notes that of the large individual contributions, $480,000 came from one man, commodities broker Richard Dennis, who loaned the Stevenson campaign another $100,000. Stevenson himself contributed $150,000, bringing the Dennis' and Stevenson's combined share to more than 30 percent of all raised. Not only are special interest contributions heavy, they are growing. Common Cause compared the 1982 and 1986 gubernatorial races. It found that contributions of less than $150 rose $440,000, those from individuals (except for Dennis) rose $390,000 and contributions from party and candidates' committees dropped $470,000. Over the same period contributions and loans from special interests increased $820,000.

Most of that money went to Thompson. In 1982 he received six times as much special interest money as Stevenson. In 1986 the figure was 11 times as much. The special interest contributions to Thompson followed a "nationwide pattern," according to the report. "Not only has special interest giving increased dramatically over the last few years, but special interest dollars flow most heavily to incumbents," Common Cause concludes. Special interests prefer incumbents because they tend to have better chances of winning, it says, and they can "do something immediately for the contributor."

Within special interests, certain types gave most of the money. The report identifies 17 categories of special interest. Thompsons's top five — construction, banking, labor, manufacturing and medical — anted up nearly $1.9 million, or 58 percent of his special interest total. The five largest categories of Stevenson special interest contributors — legal, banking, construction, transportation and medical — kicked in nearly $203,000, or 70 percent of his total. Again, Thompson's wide edge is apparent. Stevenson raised more than 41 percent of his special interest money from legal interests, while Thompson raised a mere 6 percent from the legal community — but still got $75,000 more than Stevenson!

The same lopsided numbers appear in the list of out-of-state contributors. Thompson received $414,783 from out-of-state special interests, including six New York banks. Stevenson received $37,435 in out-of-state special interest money.

The propriety of contributions by out-of-state banks that receive "substantial fees" for handling state financical transactions is one of several potential abuses cited in the report. Common Cause criticizes Dennis' largesse and points out that Thompson's largest special interest contributor, the Archer Daniels Midland Company, received a $6 million state grant in 1986 to install coal-fired boilers at its Decatur plant. Even the candidates recognized the issue during the campaign, the report says, recalling exchanges in which Stevenson accused Thompson of "gray flannel graft" and Thompson charged that Dennis' contributions "pervert the process."

"Common Cause believes it is time to face the fact that the current system of financing gubernatorial campaigns in Illinois leaves the strong impression that access to the highest office in Illinois can be bought and sold. . . . These big contributors command unwarranted political clout, sometimes seen in the granting of special access or other political favors unavailable to the average citizen," the Common Cause study concludes.

May 1987/IIlinois Issues/13

Their solution involves partial public financing of gubernatorial campaigns, and to that end Common Cause endorses a bill by Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch (D-4, Chicago) to establish a gubernatorial election fund. Illinois taxpayers would finance the fund through a $1 checkoff on their state income tax returns. This resembles the federal presidential election fund, and Thompson has twice vetoed similar bills. Gayle Keiser, Common Cause executive director, estimates that if the bill were passed this year, the checkoff could generate $5.07 millions by the 1990 gubernatorial race if 25 percent participate.

The fund would provide $750,000 in matching funds to each of two major gubernatorial candidates in the Democratic and Republican primaries, and $1 million to each party's nominee. The election fund would only match private donations of $150 or less. To qualify for public financing, candidates would have to raise $100,000 in private donations of $500 or less. Keiser termed definitions of parties that could leave out independent and third party candidates a "disadvantage."

If a candidate accepts public funding, Netsch's bill would restrict his or her total campaign spending to $1.5 million in the primary and $2 million in the general election. But the Senate Elections Committee, where the bill was assigned, will probably raise the limits to $2 million in the primary and $3 million in the general election, Keiser said.

In addition, the bill sets ceilings on contributions to gubernatorial candidates for each election, primary and general. It limits individuals to $1,000 for each election, political action committees to $5,000 and personal family contributions to $35,000. The bill also limits political party contributions to $10,000 from "individual units" in the primary and $25,000 in the general election. All limits would apply to all candidates, even those who decline public funding.

This year's bill contains almost the same provisions as the vetoed 1985 bill, Keiser said. It is bound to receive similar criticism from the governor, who pointed out in his 1985 veto message: "Concerns that receive too few dollars now should come ahead of the financial needs of politicians." The 1985 version attempted to overcome Thompson's objections to the 1983 bill that he vetoed because it would have used general revenue funds to cover any shortfall in the gubernatorial election fund. The revised 1985 bill barred the election fund from falling back on the general funds, but Thompson vetoed it, explaining: "Though the bill purports to make [public] financing "voluntary' ... it is tax dollars, not tax refunds, that are being spent."

That concern continues. "The money that would be spent in the campaign fund could be used in more worthwhile projects," said David Koltun. director of communications for the Illinois Republican State Committee. He raised another criticism. "This bill would force Republicans to subsidize Democrats and Democrats to subsidize Republicans."

"That's a question of principle; that's a question of priorities," Keiser responded. "Public financing should be a priority concern because it raises the election process above at least the public's suspicion that special interests dominate the decisionmaking of people in public office."

14/May 1987/Illinois Issues