ICPR Statement to the Campaign Finance Reform Task Force December 15 Public Hearing

Statement of Michelle Jordan

Board Member, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform

To the Campaign Finance Reform Task Force

December 15, 2011

Good Morning members of the Illinois Campaign Finance Task Force. I am Michelle Jordan. I sit on the board of The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. We are a non-partisan public interest group that conducts research and advocates reforms to promote public participation in government, to address the role of money in politics and to encourage integrity, accountability, and transparency in government.

The  US Supreme Court has addressed the issue that we are here today to discuss. The Court in Buckley considered the constitutionality of public financing in its 1976  ruling. [Buckley v Valeo (424 U.S. 1).] The Buckley decision, while better known for holding that contribution limits are a legitimate exercise of state authority, held that the public financing for presidential elections was constitutional.

Some claimed that public financing, was "inconsistent with the First Amendment" Other arguments claimed that it discriminated against certain interests that violated Due Process. But the Court clearly stated that they found no merit in these contentions. (at 85) Moreover: the majority noted that there is a significant government interest in eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions  (96). So, on a federal level, it is settled law that public financing programs can be constitutional In fact, they have been enacted in many jurisdictions.

The draft report of this Campaign Finance Reform Task Force suggests (on page 42) that there might be a conflict between public financing and the Illinois' Constitution's provision in Article VII.  ("Public funds, property or credit shall be used only for public purposes." [Art. VII, Sec 1(a)])

Certainly it would be inappropriate, under Article VII, for example, if a sitting Secretary of State decided that photocopiers and other equipment of his office should be used to support the candidacy of the same sitting Secretary of State in his candidacy for governor, as was the case here in Illinois more than a dozen years ago.

ICPR, objects to the clandestine use of public resources to benefit favored candidates, candidates that were chosen for private reasons with out meaningful public input. But we see no conflict between the idea that public funds should be used for public purposes and accomplishing the goal of offering public financing to candidates for public office.

The question is, can there be a legitimate public purpose in creating a system that offers, on a voluntary basis, public funds to all candidates for an office equally. The answer is a clearly YES. Every major court ruling that has looked at campaign finance laws has concluded that it is legitimate for government to protect the integrity of its elections, to promote the honest operation of government, and to combat the fact or appearance of corruption that may arise as a result of privately financed elections. The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 specifically that public financing is a legitimate means of "eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions." On this basis, I am confident that public financing serves a public purpose, and would survive any and all Article VII challenges.

Without the specter of the next campaign hanging over their heads without the fear that they cannot raise the money equal or greater than that of their challenger public servants would be more able to perform the work that they were elected to do. It is unfortunate and corrosive to the public trust, and oftentimes demeaning and humiliating that they are required to beg for money from the citizens of Illinois, from the voters of Illinois, from their constituents their neighbors and friends or in the case of the judiciary the very attorneys who come into their courtrooms every day asking them for a fair and impartial hearing on behalf of their clients.

I am certain if you asked them no elected official would claim they enjoy the process. It is demeaning to have to beg for money to keep your job. We know that it has become a necessary evil if they want to continue their public service and for the best and the brightest public servants, that is the very thing that propelled them into politics: Serving the public.

I urge  that you recommend that the General Assembly consider a system of public financing.