A judge's ruling left ethics and campaign finance reforms in limbo
by Charles N. Wheeler III

Two years ago, the Illinois General Assembly approved and then-Gov. Jim Edgar signed into law an ethics and campaign finance reform package that observers termed the most significant of the last quarter century.

While that appraisal should be tempered somewhat by knowledge that the 1998 package was the only one of its kind enacted over that span, the legislation nevertheless embodied important changes in the way lawmakers and lobbyists do business.

The carefully crafted measure restricted gift giving to public officials by lobbyists and others doing business with the state, limited some unseemly fundraising practices and imposed new campaign finance disclosure requirements on candidates.

The legislation, Edgar said, "represents an important step forward in the reform of the campaign finance and ethics laws to improve account-ability and help Illinoisans better understand the political process in our state."

With the November election now just two months away, however, a local judge's ruling has left the reforms wrapped in a cloud of uncertainty. Will County Circuit Judge Thomas Ewert held the law was unconstitutionally vague because its gift ban provisions did not spell out clearly enough what was prohibited. Although the measure included a severability clause -- a legislative statement that if a portion of the law were struck down, other parts could stand independently -- the judge invalidated the entire act, including the new campaign finance provisions.

At presstime, Attorney General Jim Ryan, who defended the law, was awaiting a final written opinion from Ewert to decide whether to ask the judge to reconsider the ruling or to appeal it directly to the Illinois Supreme Court. Whatever Ryan chooses to do, it's highly unlikely the issue will be settled before Election Day. The ruling offers both a challenge and an opportunity to state and local candidates this fall.

Although the full impact of Ewert's decision won't be clear until a final order is issued, the doubt it casts on the law's validity might tempt candidates to fudge on the disclosure requirements. Thus, the challenge for everyone running for state or local office is to follow the new mandates, however suspect the law.

Indeed, a citizens' group that helped win the measure's approval two years ago called soon after Ewert's decision for legislative candidates to honor its intent. In letters to the four legislative leaders, Illinois Common Cause asked that they urge their candidates, both incumbents and challengers, to abide by the law's provisions.

"With the election only weeks away, it is especially important that citizens have the confidence that those who are seeking public office will conduct themselves within the parameters of these important reforms," wrote Jim Howard, Common Cause executive director.

The request is right on target. The new mandates -- particularly ones requiring candidates to list the occupations and employers of major donors and to report promptly large, last-minute contributions -- are designed to identify more clearly the role special interests may have in funding a particular campaign, information that should be important to voters as they weigh their choices. Nor are the disclosure requirements onerous -- after all, almost everyone on the November ballot already had to comply with them for the March primary, months before Ewert ruled.

At the same time, the law's current uncertain status affords legislative candidates an opportunity to commit themselves to re-enacting similar ethics and disclosure reforms in the next General Assembly, in case the existing law ultimately is struck down. In fact, concerned citizens might well want to press would-be lawmakers on the issue, to make sure reform is high on the legislative agenda for next spring.

Should Ewert's view prevail -- that the law's gift ban provisions as written are too vague -- lawmakers have a simple way to avoid similar pitfalls in new legislation.

Rather than imposing a ban on gifts, then providing numerous exceptions, legislators should opt instead for unlimited largesse, but with full disclosure. Perhaps it's too difficult for public officials and would-be donors to figure out what "nominal value" means; maybe it's inconsistent to permit freebie golf and tennis outings, but not free tickets to a Kane County Cougars or Springfield Capitals game. So why not avoid such concerns altogether by letting officials accept whatever comes their way, as long as they promptly report every cup of coffee and each honorary plaque?

One of the main arguments for the intitial ban was to avoid the appearance of policy-makers being unduly influenced by those bearing gifts. The law's 23 exceptions prove, however, the difficulty of deciding statutorily exactly what is proper. Mandating full disclosure of all gifts would let voters decide for themselves whether a particular item crossed the line of propriety.

Moreover, as a side effect, a full disclosure scheme would not require a plethora of ethics commissions to review allegations of improper gift giving. Instead, one statewide ethics commission could be established to offer advice to officials on specific situations, playing much the same role as the old ethics commission supplanted under the new law.

Adopting full disclosure, rather than a partial ban, on gifts to public officials also would provide a nice symmetry with reporting requirements for the other major source of concern about influence-peddling, campaign finance. For years, those opposed to any limits on who can give or how much they can shell out to political war chests have argued that disclosure is the best policy.

If sunshine is the best disinfectant for campaign donations, it should be equally salutary for gift giving.

Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

Illinois Issues September 2000 |42 ---