Election reforms in Illinois

After a four-year hiatus from election reform legislation, lawmakers crafted more than 60 changes in the Illinois Election Code into four bills and passed them without the usual accompaniment of partisan bickering, finger-pointing and bullying. There is general agreement among lawmakers, State Board of Elections' officials and Gov. James R. Thompson that this year was a productive session for election reform.

But on the Statehouse sidelines, dedicated reformers like Common Cause/Illinois largely view the past session as one of defeats overshadowing small victories. And indeed, while House Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D-30, Chicago) gave the go-ahead for the House to address a backlog of election legislation, lawmakers steered clear of sweeping reforms like partial public financing of gubernatorial campaigns and caps on political action committee (PAC) campaign money. Instead, the greatest portion of the legislative package was dedicated to nonpartisan technical changes like allowing a

'An Illinois reformer has to have the time sense of a geologist'

sequestered juror on a state or federal jury to vote absentee.

"An Illinois reformer has to have the time sense of a geologist," says Common Cause/Illinois lobbyist Gary Snyderman. Common Cause's frustration this session centers on the failure of a gubernatorial elections finance act proposed by Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch (D-4, Chicago). Common Cause favors spending limits for state officers linked to a system of public financing of campaigns, which Netsch's proposal sought to accomplish. Under her plan, gubernatorial candidates raising more than $100,000 in contributions of $500 or less would then receive one-to-one matching funds for all contributions of $150 or less. Netsch also sought to weaken the influence of "special interests" by limiting individual contributions to no more than $1,000 per candidate for each election, and limiting PACs, corporations and labor unions to $5,000. Thompson had vetoed partial-public financing for gubernatorial races in 1983 and 1985. Thompson remains ideologically opposed to tax dollars being used for campaigns, and he said in his last veto message: "I disaggree violently with the assumption of the bill that gubernatorial elections are dominated by 'special interests.' "

Common Cause champions spending caps and public financing of gubernatorial and other statewide campaigns by pointing out Illinois' shortcomings and highlighting reform efforts in other states. First the numbers: In the 1986 gubernatorial race between Thompson and LaRouche-plagued challenger Adlai E. Stevenson III, Thompson raised almost $3.3 million from special interests, 46 percent of his total campaign funds, according to Common Cause.

"The campaign financing system in Illinois is very entrenched," says John Manske, executive director for Common Cause/Illinois. "It's a catch-22; the ones who benefit the most from the system are the ones who would have to change the system." Rep. Grace Mary Stern (D-58, Highland Park), head of the Democratic task force on election reform this past session, takes a different view: "My colleagues like the phrase 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' "

Common Cause is worried that the expansive increase in special interest money and the proliferation of PACs has all but solidified the power of incumbency. In the General Assembly, Sen. Joyce Holmberg (D-34, Rockford) was the only incumbent in the 1988 election who raised less money than the challenger, according to Manske. Democrat-turned-Republican Sam Panayotovich (R-35, Chicago) and John O'Connell (D-47, Western Springs) were the only incumbents to lose in the 1988 General Assembly elections. Although there are no readily available figures for Illinois House and Senate races, PAC money favored incumbents by a nine-to-one ration in the 435 congressional elections in 1988. Manske says the PAC money-incumbent relationship is as strong on the state level.

Next the reforms in other states: Thirteen states have a system of partial public financing of gubernatorial campaigns, including the Midwestern states of Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The latter three states also cap what gubernatorial candidates can spend on the primary and general election campaigns. Twenty-six states, including Michigan, Minnesota

October 1989 | Illinois Issues | 21

and Wisconsin, limit the amount individuals may contribute to specified statewide races.

Leaving aside historically progressive states like Wisconsin, Common Cause points to reforms enacted by Louisiana, a state not widely recognized as one in the forefront of progressive legislation. In 1988, Louisiana's Democratic Gov. Buddy Roemer led the charge and passed what he has called the toughest election reform bill in the nation. PACs with membership below 250 can contribute no more than $5,000 per statewide candidate and $2,500 per legislative candidate. Larger PACs are limited to twice those amounts. A statewide candidate may also only receive $50,000 per primary and general election per year from PACs. Likewise, a state legislative candidate is limited to receiving $35,000. Louisiana thus joins the unlikely group of Arizona and Hawaii as the only states placing aggregate limits on the amount of money that candidates may accept from PACs.

But by most indications, sweeping reforms in Illinois are unlikely in the current political environment of a tightly balanced two-party system facing the storm of redistricting. Reform organizations like Common Cause will remain lone voices in the Statehouse corridors. Speaker Madigan spokesperson Steve Brown echoes the feelings of many lawmakers when he said during the session, "I'm

Michaelson terms the past session as 'a major breakthrough'

sure Common Cause is well- intentioned, but the rest of us live in the real world."

Reformers like Common Cause, intent on overhauling the way Illinois runs elections, persevere knowing that it will take years to see their wishes realized. Others are content to chip away at bits and pieces of the laws that govern campaigns and elections by setting reachable goals one session at a time. One such pragmatic reformer is Ronald D. Michaelson, executive director of the State Board of Elections. Michaelson terms the past session as "a major breakthrough." Michaelson says H.B. 2702 and three other House bills constituted almost 60 changes in the Election Code and Campaign Finance Act, and although there were "no real sexy or politically hot proposals that create a lot of visibility," there were some important provisions nonetheless.

For Michaelson, the cornerstone of the breakthrough in election law change was establishing a procedure to contest stateswide elections. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the state's previous statewide election recount procedure after the tumultuous 1982 gubernatorial election. In 1982, Thompson defeated Stevenson by only 5,074 votes, which prompted the Stevenson camp to petition for a statewide recount. In a four-to-three opinion justices of the state' highest court rejected Stevenson's petition and ruled unconstitutional the entire recount provision. The General Assembly had neglected to fix that gaping hole in the election code for six years. As Michaelson stressed during the 1986 campaigned, if a statewide candidate had lost a close election in 1986, even by a mere one vote, there was no recourse to contest the election.

Michaelson is also thrilled with a change in the campaign disclosure law that now requires political committees to file all-inclusive (contributions and expenditures) reports twice a year. Prior to this change, only one full report was required each year; that made it impossible to receive a full picture of a candidate's campaign finances until well after the election was over. For example, voters, journalists and the candidate's opposition had to wait until July 31, 1989, to examine a candidate's contributions and expenditures in the campaign for the November 1988 election.

Semi-annual filing may not seem like an important reform, but Michaelson says because campaign disclosure is the "sole linchpin" of Illinois election law, any strengthening of disclosure is a step forward. "Since we have no limits on contributions or expenditures and no public financing, disclosure is all the more important. The public needs to have a better feel and understanding of the campaign finance process, and I think this change helps," he says.

There was a great deal of activity the past year in the area of election and campaign reform. But depending on whether one takes the viewpoint of a Common Cause lobbyist or a State Board of Elections' official, it was either a "disappointing" or "remarkably productive" session. Take your pick.

Bill Kemp is a staff writer at Illinois Times in Springfield.

October 1989 | Illinois Issues | 22