Congress and most states responded to the Watergate scandals of the early 1970s by enacting contribution limits for political candidates. They recognized that outsized contributions from single donors created a great risk of corruption and that limits were necessary.
Unfortunately, Illinois held out from enacting any form of campaign limits for more than 30 years, until Rod Blagojevich demonstrated the extent to which a mammoth war chest of illicit money could dominate an election and that large sums of money could be extracted from job seekers, board and commission appointees, contractors and others seeking political favors. In 2009 Illinois finally passed a bill implementing campaign contribution limits which went into effect January 2011.
Shifting federal case law now threatens our achievements. As a result of a recent lawsuit in Illinois, a federal judge has ruled that political committees that do not actively coordinate expenditures with candidates may accept unlimited contributions from any single source, opening the door to the possibility of more Blagojevich-style corruption in the future.
In response, ICPR filed an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief in that case, and worked with the Illinois Attorney General's office to defend state law. The judge concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United directed that his decision allow unlimited giving in some circumstances.
Unfortunately, Illinois held out from enacting any form of campaign limits for more than 30 years, until Rod Blagojevich demonstrated the extent to which a mammoth war chest of illicit money could dominate an election and that large sums of money could be extracted from job seekers, board and commission appointees, contractors and others seeking political favors. In 2009 Illinois finally passed a bill implementing campaign contribution limits which went into effect January 2011.
Shifting federal case law now threatens our achievements. As a result of a recent lawsuit in Illinois, a federal judge has ruled that political committees that do not actively coordinate expenditures with candidates may accept unlimited contributions from any single source, opening the door to the possibility of more Blagojevich-style corruption in the future.
In response, ICPR filed an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief in that case, and worked with the Illinois Attorney General's office to defend state law. The judge concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United directed that his decision allow unlimited giving in some circumstances.
What Now?
ICPR will continue to advocate for campaign finance reform in Illinois. Our focus includes:
Preserving Limits: ICPR will collaborate with members of the General Assembly and participate in the court cases to curtail the influence of special interests on policy in Illinois.
Monitoring campaign cash: We will work tirelessly to keep our Sunshine Database up-to-date and make improvements to make detailed information about the flow of money in politics easily available to the public.
Disclosure and transparency: We will advocate for a government that is open and shares information with the public.
Exploring viable public financing options: ICPR supports piloting a voluntary public financing system to elect Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate Court judges.
With your help, we now must be vigilant tracking Super PAC fundraising and reporting on the their impact on elections and government.
Get Involved
Visit ICPR's Super PAC webpage containing a full background and chronology of the campaign finance story, along with links to key opinions and documents.
Encourage people you know to sign up for our Spotcheck newsletter and visit our website at www.ilcampaign.org.
Learn more about some of the issues facing Illinois and support our efforts by attending our upcoming fund-raising lunch, "Out of the Shadows of Corruption" on Wednesday, April 18 at the East Bank Club in Chicago. (Get more information and purchase tickets.)
No comments:
Post a Comment