Citizens Repudiate Unlimited Corporate Campaign Spending

Last month's 5-4 ruling by the US Supreme Court, which said that corporations have a constitutional right to unlimited expenditures in elections, has sparked outrage among voters of all stripes. According to a poll released by the Washington Post today, four in five voters oppose the ruling. Two of every three voters (65% ) "strongly oppose" the ruling. Opposition was at super-majority strength in both parties -- 85% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, and 81% of independents.

The high court ruling that prompted this united opposition came in a case called Citizens United v FEC. That Jan. 21 decision threw out over a century of federal law barring corporations from participating in elections. And it's just common sense that corporations can be excluded from elections. Corporations, for instance, don't vote. People vote. And corporations cannot write checks. People write checks; they may choose to do so from a corporate check-book, but it's a person who make the decision to spend money and where that money should come from. Insisting, as a 5-4 majority of the US Supreme Court has now done, that corporations (and unions and other non-persons) have a constitutional right to spend money on elections means that people who have access to corporate check-books have more abilities than to people who do not have access to corporate check-books. That's why so many voters, in both parties, are outraged.

ICPR has a Q&A on the ruling, including its effect on Illinois' new contribution limits law, here.

Kudos on a Couple of Stories

We can't let another day go by without noting the legwork that Daily Herald reporter James Fuller and Crain's columnist Greg Hinz put in on stories about campaign giving to county officials.

Connecting the dots between vendors and candidates is never easy. Finding the links between contributions and contracts takes a lot of digging, a bit of serendipity, and a ton of support from people who know the local terrain. For state-level contracts, this job is made much easier by the Comptroller's Open Book website, but for local units of government, writing stories like these takes an effort. We commend Fuller and Hinz for their efforts..

Fuller's piece was on campaign giving in Kane County. He identified over three dozen entities that gave more than $43K in total to a member of the Kane County Board. All of them were contractors in Kane County, which has no rules prohibiting such contributions despite the appearance of pay to play. Whether these contributions were, in fact, improper depends on why they were made, but until somebody connects those dots, it's hard even to ask the question.

We also want to recognize Crain's reporter Greg Hinz, for staying on top of contributions from contractors that appear to have been funneled to Cook County Commissioner Joseph Moreno. Cook County forbids contractors to make large contributions directly to Cook County Board members, and state law forbids disguising the source of campaign funds. Hinz followed a political group's fundraiser in honor of Moreno and the ensuing contributions from contractors to that group, which appears to have passed the money on Moreno's fund.

Pay-to-play is tricky to prove. It goes in part to the intent of the contributor, and while disclosure rules detail who gave how much to whom and when, they do not cover the why of that transaction. Reporters like Fuller and Hinz have provided a context in which contributions can be better understood.

Top Races in Cook County

Today we conclude our look at races up and down the ballot with listings of the top races in the state's largest county, the County of Cook. The race for Board President clearly leads the list, but some smaller races also deserve attention.

The four Democrats seeking nomination have raised about $4M, but that cash is not shared evenly. On paper, incumbent Todd Stroger has the most money at $1.5M, most of it raised years ago, though he invested $500,000 of that in CDs last August and it's not clear that he can access that money for next Tuesday's race. This year he has reported a $100K loan from former Senate President Emil Jones. Challenger Toni Preckwinkle shows $1.3M in cash for the primary. Her largest contributors include SEIU at $150K and Fred Eychaner at $50K. Current Water Rec District head Terry O'Brien reports $636,382 in cash for the primary. Over half of that comes from himself, his other political committees, or his family. Current Clerk of Courts Dorothy Brown lags in fundraising, showing $500K in cash for the primary. Top contributors include $25K in loans from a Dorothy Brown who shares the candidate's home address but is listed as General Auditor for the CTA, which position the candidate held some years ago.

The Republican and Green races are far quieter. The Green nomination is uncontested after former Democrat Sean Burke was removed from the ballot, leaving Tom Tresser unopposed. Two Republicans are seeking their party's nomination. John Garrido III reports $81K in funds for the primary, mostly from himself and his relations. Roger Keats reports $21K in cash, with none giving more than $1K.

The race for Democratic nomination for County Assessor shows $1.5M in total receipts, nearly all of that held by current Board of Appeals member Joe Berrios, and nearly all of that from his own many political funds. Berrios, in office for decades, has amassed a fortune spread among 4 active political committees; he has been shunting the monies to one fund for the purpose of this primary. New money to the committee is coming primarily from attorneys. Robert Shaw, the former Chicago alderman and mayor of Dolton and twin brother of the late state Senator William Shaw, reports $36K for the primary, including $5K from former Senate President Emil Jones. Former judge Raymond Figueroa shows $28K for the primary, including $20K from Citizens for Maldonado, the political committee of the former Cook County Board member and current Chicago 26th Ward Alderman and Committeeman Roberto Maldonado.

Tracking contributions in County Board seats has been complicated by the large number of candidates who are filing reports on paper despite raising well above the threshold mandating electronic disclosure. Most egregious is Friends of Derrick Smith, who filed a paper D2 showing $22K in receipts (more than twice the limit for paper filings) and has since filed 4 paper A1s with another $3,600 in receipts.

The hottest county board contest is in the 4th District, between incumbent William Beavers and two challengers. Beavers took over the seat after John Stroger suffered a stroke, leaving the Chicago City Council to do so. He reports $214K for the primary. Main challenger Elgie Sims shows a lead in fundraising, with $268K. Sims, a lobbyist, is largely self-financing, but also shows $5K each from AFSCME and the Chamber of Commerce. Third candidate Karen Sommerfield has yet to form a fundraising committee.

The race with the second highest fundraising is actually the grudge match that wasn't. The race to succeed Forest Claypool was expected to be spirited, as former Chicago Ald. Ted Matlak faced state Rep. John Fritchey. Fritchey has reported $329,602 for the race,, most of it raised before he started circulating petitions, but Matlak hasn't formed a political committee, so if he's campaigning, he's not spending any money on it.

Third is another lopsided race, this for the Democratic nomination in the 16th District. McCook Mayor Jeff Tobolski reports $182,974 for the primary. He faces two opponents, neither of whom has an active fundraising committee. The winner will face either incumbent Republican Tony Peraica, who reports $71,843, or challenger Brian Sloan, who shows $5,760; and a Green Party nominee, either Alex Matos or Alejandro Reyes, neither of whom has formed a committee.

Other races do appear to be more closely contested, even the dollar totals are lower. In the 1st District, five candidates combine for $102,420. Challenger Adekunle Onayemi leads with over half of combined reported receipts at $58,807, while a previously mentioned paper filer, Derrick Smith, claims $25,881 and incumbent Earlean Collins is in third with $17,078. Onayemi, an architect, draws heavily from personal funds for the contest.

In the 6th District, incumbent Joan Patricia Murphy shows $69,768 while challenger Nick Valadez reports $63,490. Murphy's money comes from labor (SEIU and the operating engineers) while Valadez is relying on family support. John Fairman, also in the race, shows $24,384 in his paper filings.

Top Statewide and Legislative Contests for Next Tuesday's Primary

We continue our look at downticket races today with some statewide and legislative contests.

Statewide
What's striking about the races for the Lt. Gov. nomination in both parties is how self-funders dominate both contests. Two candidates, one D and one R, account for virtually all of the $4.5 million that the 12 candidates have reported. Over 98% of Democrat Scott Lee Cohen's $1.9 million came from his own pocket, while Republican Jason Plummer has drawn on family and the family lumber yard for over 95% of his $1.1 million. No other candidate in either race has reported more than $350K.

Justin Oberman's $662,100 in reported receipts accounts for two-thirds of the money raised by the three people seeking the Democratic nomination for Treasurer. The largest share of his money, $260K, comes in the form of loans from Coloradoan Steve Belin. Robin Kelly's $309,312 accounts for the other third of total fundraising, and Mark Doyle's $49,420 pales in comparison. On the Republican side, Judy Baar Topinka reports $77K; far less than the two leading Dems but more than the other two candidates in her race.

For Comptroller, Democrat Raja Krishnamoothi leads with $1M, but David Mililer remains close at $800K. Krishnamoorthi and his relations account for only about $20K of his total; his largest contributor is Dr. Siva Sivananthan who, directly and through companies, has given $57K. Miller is relying on the Illinois Education Association ($100K) and the Dental Society ($50K; Miller is a dentist) for his largest contributions. Clinton Krislov's $79K came mostly from his own pocket. Republican Dan Rutherford reports $823K, and is unopposed for the Republican nomination, while Green Scott Summers has yet to form a committee.

Legislative
The high number of legislative retirements resulted in an abnormally high number of open seats, but the hottest legislative race is in the 23rd House District, where incumbent Dan Burke has raised $541K to fend off Rudy Lozano and two others. Lozano reports $87,152; the other two candidates have yet to form political committees and so have not reported any receipts.

In second place for House races is the contest for the Democratic nomination to the seat now held by Julie Hamos of Evanston. Five candidates combine for $397,656. Former Citizen Action legislaive director Patrick Keenan-Devlin leads the group with $153,403, followed by Maternal Health Coalition head Robyn Gabel at $116,047. Attorneys Jeff Smith and Eamon Kelly have raised $68,720. and $47,732, respectively, and former Evanston Ald. Ed Moran reports $12K.

For seats in the state Senate, the two-way race for the Democratic nomination in the 9th District shows the most money. Challenger Jim Madigan reports $125, 468 against incumbent Heather Steans' $245,403. Madigan shows a couple of $10K contributions, none higher; while Steans reports the bulk of her money from herself and her relatives. Close behind is the race in the 13th Senate district between incumbent Kwame Raoul and challenger Al Hofeld, Jr. Raoul reports $237,728, with no donors in the five-figures, while Hofeld's $103,227 comes largely from himself.

US Senate
In the US Senate race, Republican Mark Kirk has raised more than any other candidate, of any party, since the start of the year. He claims $230,826 on his 48-hour reports. Democrat Alexi Giannoulias claims $105,400 on his 48-hour forms, and David Hoffman lists $103,200 on his, while Jacob Meister loaned himself another $78K and Cheryl Jackson lists $21,750.

Andy Martin, again seeking nomination to the US Senate, this time in Illinois, today issued a press release touting a "whistle stop" tour of central Illinois. While the release claims the focus will be on high speed rail issues, the press release makes plain that it will also discuss his Senate campaign.

Late last year, Martin ran several radio spots attacking another Republican seeking the Senate nomination. The ads ran on several radio stations in the weeks before the Christmas holidays.

These expenditures come despite Martin's decision not to form a political committee to raise funds for his Senate bid. Yet each of these events must cost something, and whether he is paying for them out of his own pocket or soliciting help from others, federal law requires that he disclose the source and use of his campaign funds.

Andy Martin is not the only Senate candidate without a political committee. LeAlan Jones, the lone candidate for the Green Party nomination, also has not formed a committee.

Top Judicial Races for Next Week's Primary Election

ICPR's website has updated fundraising totals for the US Senate, Illinois Governor, and Cook County Board President candidates. For the Democrats, Pat Quinn reported big receipts since Tuesday, showing $250K from SEIU and another $50K from another of Chicago Ald. Ed Burke's committees. How odd that the lifelong reformer now relies so heavily on the Regular Chicago Democrats and Rod Blagojevich's biggest campaign contributor. Hynes has raised about $250K recently, including $100K each from the laborers and the IFT.

For the Republicans, Kirk Dillard reported another $100K, including another $50K from Ron Gidwitz and $25K from the Operating Engineers. Dan Proft also had a $50K check from Richard Uihlein, who has been popping up a lot in the disclosure reports this year. The head of Uline Industries gave $50K to Matt Murphy last summer and $5K to another Republican seeking the nomination, Andy McKenna, though the $95K he's given to Proft is the bulk of his recent giving.

Judicial races aren't getting much press attention this year and it's a shame, because there's some big fundraising in several. There are five Appellate Court seats on the ballot, all in northern Illinois or Cook County. Here are the top races:

The race for the Democratic nomination for First District (Cook County) McNulty Vacancy race shows $632,115 in total receipts among 6 candidates, though Jim Epstein has the lion's share of that, with $516,432. A Democrat named Jim Ryan reports $56,526, while Arnette Hubbard reports $50,251, No one else has five figures. Epstein has dozens of donors in the 4-and 5-figure range, but his biggest supporter is himself, at $260,000 in loans this calendar year.

The race for the Republican nomination in the Second District Callum Vacancy race shows $509,119 between two candidates. While not evenly matched, both candidates here have significant fundraising. Ann Jorgensen reports $404,119 in total; most of that, $284,245.21 -- came in a single donation from the Ann Teresa Brackley Trust (Ann Jorgensen's middle name is Brackley). The other candidate, Kenneth Moy, reports $105,000, all from himself, all in the last six weeks.

The race for the Republican nomination in the other Second District seat -- the Gilleran Johnson Vacancy -- shows the third-highest fundraising total for appellate court seats at $454,830. Mary Schostok reports $425,472, while the only other candidate, Donna Kelly, reports $29,357. Schostok's biggest supporter is her husband, Michael Schostok, a lawyer who has contributed $108,000.

For seats on Illinois' circuit court bench, the top spot goes to the race for the Republican nomination in the 18th Circuit (DuPage County), Kilander Vacancy. Two candidates combine for $258,365. Ron Sutter reports $186,471; he gave $50K to his campaign as did Paul and Dorothy Sutter of Bloomington. Brian McKillip reports $71,894, of which $30,000 came from himself.

In the four-way contest for the Democratic nomination for the Otaka Vacancy in the Cook County 90th Subcircuit, there is $197,761 in combined receipts. Yehuda Lebovitz leads the fundraising with about half that total -- $97,604. Most of that figure -- $68K -- came from another PAC formed to support an earlier Lebovitz bid for the bench; that PAC, in turn, raised most of its money from the candidate. Abbey Romanek reports $45,652, nearly all from herself. Geary Kull reports $42,290. He's his largest contributor but, at $5K; he's also the smallest self-funder in the race. Dennis Fleming is fourth in the fundraising at $12,215.

Third highest is the contest for the Republican nomination in the Fifth Circuit in east-central Illinois for the Cini Vacancy. Matt Sullivan reports $64,200, while Frank Young shows $51,250 and Brian Bower reports $32,250. Eric James Neumann has yet to form a committee.

Fourth highest is for the Democratic nomination for the Vandersnick vacancy in the 14th Circuit in the Quad Cities area. Three candidates combine for $136,489. Clarence Darrow leads in fundraising, showing $68,835, including $36,269 from various Darrows. Trish Joyce shows $53,155, including $28,000 from herself. Maritia Griffith has $14,500, nearly all from Ronald Griffith.

Fifth highest fundraising is in another seat in Cook County's 9th Subcircuit -- this one for the A Vacancy. Six candidates combine for $127,042. Evanstonian Steven Bernstein leads the group with $79,461, which includes $25K of his own money. Previous legislative candidate Michael Ian Bender comes in second place with $33,456, none of it his and no more than a few thousand from any one donor. No other candidate has five figures.


Later this week -- legislative race totals and more.

Court Ruling to Deliver $300M Boost to Media

Last week's US Supreme Court ruling in the case Citizens United has sparked a host of media stories about the implications for the future of campaign finance regulation. The ruling is over 180 pages long, and it will take some time before the dust all settles and the real impact can be seen.

In the meantime, here are some stories about the ruling that have not received much coverage in the press. The headline to this post is actually the banner headline in today's issue of Advertising Age. The media industry journal goes on to predict that, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, media companies can "Expect More Money, More Clutter and No Inventory in November." In a related story, the journal predicts "Supreme Court Ruling Will Put Political Ad Spending 'on Steroids'."

Whatever the ruling may mean for democracy, it apparently also means more cash for media companies.

ICPR Says Contribution Limits Bill is Victory for Illinois Voters

The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR) on Wednesday said the campaign contribution limits legislation signed by Gov. Quinn is a significant victory for Illinois voters and should help reduce the influence wielded by big campaign contributors.

“Credit for enacting this significant, but long overdue reform, goes to the people of Illinois,” said Cynthia Canary, ICPR Director. “The arrest of Rod Blagojevich one year ago and the subsequent worldwide headlines and talk show appearances turned stomachs across the state. The spectacle drew the attention of every voter, and the General Assembly could no longer ignore the growing call for change in the rules that govern campaigns.”

Noting that the fight to impose contribution limits in Illinois dates back more than three decades, Canary said the opposition can be traced in part to the culture of corruption that has plagued Illinois government and the indifference displayed by too many elected officials. “Imposing contribution limits will not cure all that ails Illinois politics and government,” Canary said. “No single law can ensure honesty and fairness. That is going to require the active participation of many more citizens acting as watchdogs, holding candidates accountable for their actions and running for state and local offices.

“Enactment of this limits bill is reason for optimism about the future prospects of additional reforms, including the enforcement of campaign laws, regulation of lobbying and disclosure of personal finances of key government officeholders,” she said. “But because this bill limits party and legislative leader contributions to candidates in primaries but not in general election campaigns, even this bill fell short of what is needed, and we’ll work to close that loophole in the next legislative session.”

For additional information about SB 1466 and other reform issues, please visit www.ilcampaign.org.

Founded in 1999 by the late Sen. Paul Simon, ICPR is a non-partisan public interest group that conducts research and advocates reforms to promote public participation in government, address the role of money in politics and encourage integrity, accountability, and transparency in government.

CHANGE Illinois! Says Agreement to Limit Campaign Contributions Puts Illinois on the Road to Reform

Remains Committed to Additional Reforms

The CHANGE Illinois! coalition has reached agreement with Governor Quinn, Senate President Cullerton and Speaker Madigan on legislation that would establish limits on campaign contributions by political parties, legislative leaders, individuals, corporations, unions, and PACs.

For the first time in the history of Illinois – one of only five states where unlimited campaign contributions are legal – there would be limitations on the amount of money contributed to political campaigns.

Other important elements of the agreement will create a framework for regulation of the finance system and enforcement of a new limits law. They include:
• Swift disclosure to the public of every contribution of $1,000 or more;

• Quarterly (now just twice a year) reports from committees detailing the source of every contribution of more than $150 and listing how funds were spent in the quarter;

• Audits of the finances of political committees selected at random by the State Board of Elections to check compliance with state laws; and

• Creation of a searchable database of penalties assessed by the State Board of Elections in response to violations of the campaign disclosure and limitation laws.

In addition, a bi-partisan task force, including public members, will be created to analyze the new limits, make recommendations for improvements, and examine the feasibility of creating a voluntary public campaign finance system for all state offices, including the judiciary.

“Setting limits on contributions to political campaigns, will be an important step in bringing meaningful reform to Illinois,” said George Ranney, a co-chair of CHANGE Illinois! and President and CEO of Chicago Metropolis 2020. “As important as this first step is, it is only that – one step in a long road to the reform of this state’s political culture. We have much more work to do and loopholes to be closed.”

“After scandals in Washington and in state capitols and city halls around the nation, the federal government and most other states passed laws limiting the role of campaign contributions during the past couple of decades,” said Cynthia Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “Finally, Illinois is about to signal to the rest of the nation that we’re ready to join them and impose limits on all contributions coming into the system.”

CHANGE Illinois! is a coalition of civic, business, labor, professional, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, which represents more than 2 million members advocating for Illinois to join the federal government and virtually every other state in the nation by enacting campaign finance limits.

The coalition led a public education campaign that generated support for strong campaign finance reform and resulted in Gov. Quinn’s veto of a badly flawed campaign finance bill passed earlier this year by the General Assembly. Members of the coalition promised to work with the Governor and legislative leaders to produce a bill with meaningful limits and effective enforcement tools.

Following that veto, the coalition worked with the Governor and legislative leaders to design a reform program that would be comparable to systems in use elsewhere in the nation.

Under terms of the agreement, individuals will not be able to contribute more than $5,000 to any candidate in an election cycle; businesses, labor unions and associations will have $10,000 limits on contributions to candidates; and political action committees will be limited to no more than $50,000 per candidate.

One major stumbling block in negotiations centered on the ability of political parties and caucus leaders to transfer unlimited amounts of money from their funds to political candidates. The final agreement does include limits on the amounts of money that can be transferred to candidates during primary elections. Party leaders will no longer be able to control local primary election campaigns by pouring unlimited amounts of money into the campaigns of favored candidates.

“There was no agreement reached on transfers from leaders to candidates during general election campaigns, but CHANGE Illinois! will continue to advocate for those limits in the future,” Ranney said.

“Because parties and legislative leaders have been able to contribute unlimited amounts of money in primary campaigns, few people have been willing to run for
office without the backing of party leaders,” said Anton Valukas, a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and a member of CHANGE Illinois! coalition. “As long as they have the support of their leaders, many state legislators get a free ride to reelection. Setting limits in the primary will not remove all advantages of incumbency, but they should give more challengers a fighting chance and offer voters more choices.”

The agreement will create limits on transfers from party leaders to all candidates for all state and local offices in primary elections. Each limit will be an aggregate limit, meaning the total of any combination of party and leader committees in a primary cannot exceed the limit. The limits on transfers are $200,000 for statewide candidates, $125,000 to Senate candidates, $75,000 for House candidates, and a range of limits from $50,000 to $125,000 for candidates running for every other office – from local offices to seats on the Illinois Supreme Court.

"Placing limits on campaign contributions and their influence is an important first step in reminding our elected officials that the citizens and voters of Illinois have special interests too," said Bob Gallo, AARP Illinois Senior State Director. "This legislation promises to be a significant first step in addressing the lack of public confidence in the capability of our elected officials to address the issues concerning individuals and their families during these difficult economic times."

“This reform measure, while imperfect, is a long time overdue and an essential first step toward a cleaner, fairer, more representative election system,” said Dawn Clark Netsch, a former legislator, statewide officeholder, long-time advocate of limits and a member of CHANGE Illinois! coalition.

CHANGE Illinois Says Campaign Contribution Limits Must Be Applied Fairly and Across-The-Board

A coalition of campaign reform advocates on Thursday reported some progress in negotiations on campaign finance reform legislation, but the unresolved issue of limiting contributions by legislative leaders and political parties has prevented a final agreement.

“When Gov. Quinn vetoed the flawed limits legislation at the end of August, the legislative leaders and the governor said they would work with us on an improved limits bill that could be passed in the fall veto session, and we have participated in several negotiating meetings and side discussions,” said George Ranney, co-chair of CHANGE Illinois! and President and CEO of Chicago Metropolis 2020. “That veto session begins next week, and we still don’t have an agreement. We’re running out of time.”

Leaders of the CHANGE Illinois! coalition said the negotiators appear to have tentative agreements on ways to limit contributions by individuals, political action committees, candidate committees, corporations, labor unions, and associations, but they have not been able to agree on the central issue of limitations on the campaign funds controlled by legislative leaders and the political parties.

“There has been a good exchange of information and ideas with legislative leaders and the governor, and we seem to have agreements on several issues,” said Peter Bensinger, a CHANGE Illinois! co-chair and a former Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. “But we will not be part of any agreement which limits contributions from everyone except legislative leaders and political parties.”

Created earlier this year, CHANGE Illinois! is a coalition of civic, business, labor, professional, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, which represent more than 2 million members in Illinois. CHANGE Illinois! advocates an end to this state’s unregulated campaign finance system and for the creation of a system of campaign contribution limits, like those in use at the federal level and in virtually every other state in the nation.

For a copy of the full press release and supporting documents, please visit the CHANGE Illinois! website at http://www.changeil.org.

Citizens United, and Citizens' Elections

The US Supreme Court today hears oral arguments in Citizens United v FEC. It's an unusual time for the US Supreme Court to hear arguments (their term doesn't start until next month), but Citizens United is not a typical case. The Court heard arguments last Spring in the case and then took the unusual step of asking for additional arguments on issues not raised by the parties. This could be the case where the US Supreme Court takes off on a new activist agenda in the area of campaign finance.

Many have weighed in on the possible outcome, and ICPR signed onto an amicus brief (PDF) urging the Court to consider the impact of their decision on judicial elections. Much of the commentary has focused on the possibility that the Court will strike down a century of jurisprudence that forbids corporations to make campaign donations. But there are a lot of other ways the Court could rule, which also would have a dramatic impact on how campaigns are conducted, and how the public perceives the honesty of the electoral process.

At issue is whether an organization can promote a commercial enterprise during the weeks right before an election, when that commercial enterprise is focused squarely on a candidate in the election. Citizens United produced "Hillary: The Movie," a documentary critical of then-US Sen. and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and sought to promote the movie through TV commercials. The movie itself was available on a pay-per-view basis. The FEC objected, finding that the ads to promote the movie violated the electioneering communications provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act.

How far the Court uses this case to strike down portions of McCain-Feingold will indicate how activist the Court has become. The Court could find merely that the FEC was mistaken that the electioneering communications provision covered the ads. (The electioneering communications provision deals with some ads that mention candidates in the 60 days before a General Election) The Court could find that the electioneering communications provision is unconstitutional in some circumstances, or perhaps in all circumstances. At an extreme, the Court could find, as some have predicted, that corporations have a constitutional right to participate in elections by making campaign contributions.

How the Court rules will clearly have a significant impact on how states can ensure the integrity of elections by regulating campaign finances. While striking the prohibition on corporate contributions is indeed the worst case scenario, it would have little impact in Illinois, where corporations can and do already make large (indeed, unlimited) contributions. But Illinois also has an electioneering communications provision and so a ruling in that area will affect Illinois. No matter how the Court rules, states around the nation, including Illinois, will have to take stock of their laws and make changes to assure the public that elections are fair and honest.

Ding, Dong, HB 7 is dead!

Flanked by the four legislative leaders, Gov. Pat Quinn today vetoed HB 7, the severely flawed contribution limits bill approved this May, and said he would work with all interested parties to craft a new campaign finance system by this fall.

Quinn said he has a “firm commitment” from the legislative leaders -- Senate President John Cullerton, Speaker Michael Madigan, House Republican Leader Tom Cross and Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno – that they will work with his office and all interested parties to create a better campaign finance system. Gov. Quinn said he expects the new legislation will be finished in time for the legislative session in October, commonly known as the veto session.

ICPR strongly opposed HB 7 and we commend the governor for rejecting this legislation. We also applaud the legislative leaders, and sponsor Sen. Don Harmon, for agreeing to head back to the negotiating table and creating a better campaign finance system for Illinois.

We look forward to working with the leaders and Gov. Quinn to create a campaign finance system that creates meaningful campaign contribution limits, while also improving disclosure and enforcement provisions.

In his statements to the press, Gov. Quinn said he decided to veto the bill because of the feedback he heard from Illinois residents. We thank you for contacting Gov. Quinn, along with your lawmakers, to ask them to support meaningful campaign finance legislation, and we encourage you to continue speaking out.

HB 7 in Detail: Independent Expenditures

Today we resume our series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Previous posts are here and here and here and here and here.

Independent expenditures are so common in federal elections that they are routinely referred to by the initials "IE." These IE campaigns spring up in part because federal law limits how much anybody can give to a candidate, so that groups that want to spend more in support or opposition to a candidate have to work outside of that candidate's campaign. And there are explicit disclosure and contribution limit rules for IE efforts in federal law.

It makes sense for Illinois to adopt rules for IE campaigns at the same time that we adopt limits on campaign contributions generally. But while HB 7 has a section on "independent expenditures," it uses the term in very different ways than federal law does. These differences threaten the effectiveness and legality of the bill.

While federal law applies to any organization, the provision in HB 7 dealing with independent expenditures applies only to those "made by a natural person," meaning single individuals acting alone. The immediate consequence of this is to suggest that no other entity can engage in "independent expenditures," and the consequences of that would be vast. It would turn the contribution limits into spending limits, for one, which would certainly draw a skeptical judicial eye in the inevitable challenge (note that the bill exempts parties and some other committees from this limit).

There are also apparent drafting problems in this section. The section ensures a modicum of disclosure from natural persons acting independently of any political committee. Individuals are required to report when they have spent $3,000 and again at $20,000. It is not clear that the bill would require any continuing obligation to report -- say, at increments of $20,000. Nor is it clear that the person would have any obligation to disclose at the time that they commit to making an expenditure. If they have to disclose only when they actually pay the bills, that disclosure may well come well after the ads have run, and long after Election Day.

To the extent that HB 7 tried to ensure that individuals making large expenditures in relation to candidates are covered by disclosure requirements, the bill is on a useful errand. But the section is drafted in ways that fall short of that goal and threaten the abilities of others to make their voices heard in the course of campaigns. It needs to be re-written.

HB 7 in Detail: Effective Date

All new laws take effect eventually. Many laws take effect within a few weeks of passage; in some instances, they'll take effect a few months after passage. But HB 7 isn't like most other bills. The majority of HB 7 would not take effect until January 1, 2011, more than 19 months after the House and Senate approved it.

There can be valid reasons for delaying implementation, but contribution limits should not be delayed that long. HB 7 deals with the rules of campaign finance, and changing those rules in such a fundamental way in the middle of a campaign can cause great confusion. When New Mexico adopted contribution limits in March of this year, their legislature set the effective date at November 3, 2010. That's a long way off, but it's the day after the 2010 General Election, so it makes sense -- as soon as the next election cycle is over, the rules change. And that's one of the two effective dates that we kicked around in regard to HB 24 (the other being, "immediately").

There are at least two significant problems with January 1, 2011 as a start date. First, it gives politicians 7 weeks after the 2010 General Election to get ready. One of ICPR's early legislative wins was the ban on taking campaign funds for personal use, which became law in 1998. In order to win approval of the law, we had to agree to a kind of "grandfather clause" that exempted funds raised before the effective date of the law. Wouldn't you know it, one legislator's campaign fund "borrowed" $100K on the day before the effective date. They paid it back the day after, but on the day the law took effect, they had an extra $100K in their fund, money they will be able to claim for personal use when they retire. (On the upside, there was only one legislator who was this crafty). Setting the effective date for contribution limits 7 weeks after the election will likewise allow for more last minute shenanigans, as contributors evaluate incumbents and decide which should get a final outsized donation before the law takes effect.

The other problem with the effective date is that it occurs just 7 weeks prior to the 2011 municipal elections. Candidate petitions will be due in December, objections will be decided and the ballot fixed and then the campaign finance rules will change. Candidates can take huge sums in December, 2010, but after January 1st anyone who didn't get their fundraising ramped up in time will have to comply with new rules. This scenario will play out in localities all over Illinois, including the City of Chicago.

There are serious policy reasons why the date should be moved up to November 3, 2010.

While we're on the subject of dates in the bill, one more bears notice. HB 7 creates a study commission to examine the question of public financing for judicial campaigns. A bill to create public financing for judicial elections has passed the Senate with bi-partisan majorities in each of the last three sessions. (Then-Sen. Barack Obama was the chief sponsor the first time it passed.) But House Speaker Michael Madigan never called the bill for a vote in the House. So it would seem the key issue for a study commission is to figure out what objections the House has to the bill. The study commission is supposed to report back on January 1, 2012 -- two and a half years from now. Will it really take that long to figure out what changes are needed to satisfy the House?

HB 7 in Detail: Calendar year cycles

Contribution limits always come with time limits. In federal elections, a contributor may give $2,400 to a candidate for each election, so that a contributor who maxed out before Election Day can give again after Election Day. HB 7 sets astronomically high limits on giving to campaigns, much higher than in federal elections. And it sets those limits by calendar year, rather than by election. This difference raises some legal and policy questions.

At least one court has declared that calendar year limits are unconstitutional. A federal appeals court ruled in SEIU v. Fair Elections Practice Commission (1992) that the State of California does not have a sufficient interest in calendar years to overcome a person's right to participate in the political process. Courts are divided on this; other courts have approved calendar year limits. But when setting limits, it is fair to ask why giving more than the amount in a given time frame should be prohibited. Both the amount and the time frame have to be justifiable, and it is not at all clear what is so magical about January 1, that limits should restart on that date.

There are also policy concerns. Our state elections include primaries, now in early February, and general elections, in early November. Setting limits by calendar year means that a donor who maxes in January, before the primary, cannot give again to that candidate until long after the general election.

Now, most incumbent legislators are not opposed in the primary, and about half are not opposed in either the primary or the general, so maybe they aren't so concerned about this issue. But how is it in the state's interest to say that if you give the max on December 31, you can give the max again the next day, but if you max out right before the primary, you cannot give again until after the general? How does that time-frame address the fact or appearance of corruption?

Too, setting limits by calendar year allows incumbents to get a leg up on fundraising. This is especially true for officials in four-year terms, who can take in a couple of calendar years’ worth of contributions before a challenger would even consider running for their seats. How is a challenger who sat out the first two years of a four-year term without raising any money to compete against an incumbent who holds regular golf outings?

The better time frame for all offices is to set limits by the election cycle.

HB 7 in Detail: Penalties for violations

Today, ICPR continues its series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Earlier posts are here, here, and here.

Suppose you think the dollar amounts you are allowed to contribute in HB 7 are too low. (Stop laughing, this is a serious blog post!) If you wanted to give more money to a committee than HB 7 would let you, what do you do? Let's consider the consequences of violating HB 7.

The penalty section in HB 7 is here (it starts on page 42 of HB 7):

18 (h) Contributions or transfers in violation of this
19 Section. A political committee that receives a contribution or
20 transfer in violation of this Section shall dispose of the
21 contribution or transfer by returning the contribution or
22 transfer, or an amount equal to the contribution or transfer,
23 to the contributor or transferor or donating the contribution
24 or transfer, or an amount equal to the contribution or
25 transfer, to a charity. A contribution or transfer received in
26 violation of this Section that is not disposed of as provided
1 in this subsection within 30 days after its receipt shall
2 escheat to the General Revenue Fund.

That's it. The committee would have 30 days to give the money back, or the state could lay claim to it. Alternately, the committee could give an equal amount to charity within 30 days. The contributor pays no penalty, even if the contribution was knowingly and intentionally excessive. And other than the loss of the excess amount, the committee pays no penalty, even if the committee plotted and planned with the contributor to violate the law.

So what do you do if you need cash for that final push before Election Day? ICPR would never counsel anyone to break the law. But, strictly hypothetically, what if someone did break the law? Here's what happens: If the candidate wins, the committee would have a few weeks to raise enough money from other donors to refund the excess to those who gave illegal contributions, or make a donation to charity. And winning candidates usually have a comparatively easy time raising money from new donors; from a contributor's point of view, the candidate's a sure thing. And if the candidate loses? So what if the state may lay claim to the money; if the committee is broke, there's no money for the state to seize. Dissolve the committee, and there will be no continuing obligations to worry about.

Real reform laws need real teeth. The penalties section in HB 7 needs to be improved.

HB 7 in Detail: Defining when a committee "receives" a contribution

Today, ICPR continues its series on the problems with HB 7, beyond the astronomical dollar limits. Previous posts are here.

In revisions to the Election Code, HB 7 changes the definition of when a committee "receives" a contribution. The date of receipt determines when a committee must report a contribution, and is especially important during the A-1 reporting period: the final 30 days before an election, when committees are required to report contributions over $500 within two working days of receipt. The date of receipt also becomes a factor around the end of the regular reporting period, in determining when the public is told of a contribution.

Current law uses the word "receipt" but does not define it in statute, relying instead on the common sense of the word. The State Board of Elections has defined the word in regulation, relying again on the common sense meaning of the term.

HB 7 changes the definition to when the "candidate or campaign treasurer" has "actual personal physical possession of the contribution." This greatly narrows the definition in ways that are deeply problematic. When, for instance, would the candidate or treasurer have "actual personal physical possession" of an electronic funds transfer? An on-line contribution? An inter-bank exchange?

But there are deeper problems, and an example will illustrate: In 2006, Todd Stroger, then a candidate for Cook County Board President, missed statutory deadlines to make public reports of more than $250,000 in contributions received in the final weeks before the election. He later claimed that the contributions had been “received” by the committee but were being vetted, and so were not “received” by the officers of the committee. After much haggling, the State Board of Elections disagreed with Stroger's interpretation. Under current law, he was found to have violated the Election Code and was fined just over $25,000. This provision in HB 7 would validate his failure to disclose.

With this change, a committee could receive a contribution without triggering reporting requirements. Until the candidate or treasurer of the committee directed a staff person to hand the contribution to the treasurer or candidate, creating the necessary “actual personal physical possession,” there might be no obligation to report a contribution. There is nothing to require a committee to disclose once a staff person has told the candidate or treasurer of the receipt, so long as the staffer does not deliver "actual personal physical possession" of the contribution. The chair of the committee or other staff could have "actual personal physical possession" of a contribution indefinitely without ever triggering disclosure. Contributions received by the committee before Election Day could, under this proposal, be held until after the voting is over, then delivered to the treasurer, deposited, and used to pay debts incurred before Election Day. This could postpone disclosure for months, completely defeating the purpose of A1 reports.

This is a huge step backward, and one of several reasons why ICPR believes that HB 7 is worse than nothing.

D2 Day Interim Report

Last week we went out on a limb and predicted that today's papers would be full of stories about how much money candidates raised in the first six months of this year. And events have proven us correct. (Although, to be fair, we didn't go all that far from the tree trunk on that one.) Now that the reports are in, there are some interesting tidbits in the numbers. A few stragglers are yet to file, but here are a few observations:

* State Rep. Jack Franks raised more money than anyone. Most of it from relatives, but still, his $1.3M is more than any of the Four Tops, more than any sitting statewide official, more than any known challenger.

* The other surprising name on the list of top fundraisers is Sen. Dale Righter, who reported $353K in receipts; putting him comfortably in the Top Ten.

* State Rep. Julie Hamos is sitting on more money than the entire Democratic Party of Illinois. Combining her cash on hand with her investments, she's got $530K, while the venerable DPI reported $473K available. And she's not alone -- Sen. James DeLeo reports $703K, and Rep. Jay Hoffman has been sitting on a pile for years (it's now at $1.2M). Senate Democratic Leader James Clayborne reports $653K, all of it in cash.

We'll have more analysis in the weeks to come. Check back for more!

Disclosure Update

One week from today the newspapers will be full of stories about how much money candidates have raised in the last six months. That's because one week from yesterday is the deadline for filing semi-annual D2 disclosure reports with the State Board of Elections.

Campaign finance is one form of disclosure that lets the public know about potential (and actual) conflicts of interest that elected officials may have. The other big disclosure form required of office holders is the Statement of Economic Interest. That was due to be filed with the Secretary of State by May 1. The SoS Index Division then scans the documents into PDF format and posts them to the web. As of today, over two months later, most (but, as of yesterday, not all) current legislators' forms are posted. Get their forms here.

Not posted, and not even filed, are forms from candidates for office who are not otherwise required to file. Candidates running in the 2010 elections won't have to file until they submit their petitions (they have to submit the receipt for the SEI along with their petitions). And what's more, they won't have to file again unless they win. In a curious loophole that benefits challengers over incumbents, they do not have to file updates next May 1. So check back for more Statements of Economic Interest, and don't forget D2s next week.

ICPR SAYS MUCH MORE WORK NEEDED ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS LEGISLATION

HOUSE BILL 7 IS FULL OF LOOPHOLES

Over the objections of reform advocates throughout the state, the Illinois Senate on Thursday approved a bill (HOUSE BILL 7) to establish contribution limits but with so many loopholes that the legislation is "limits" in name only.

Cynthia Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR), issued the following statement:

“The disappointing Senate action should not be rubberstamped by the House,” said Cynthia Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR). “This phony reform should be blocked, and reform-minded legislators should insist on filling the loopholes created by the Senate.”

ICPR and the CHANGE Illinois! coalition have advocated real reform modeled after the federal system of campaign limits -- $2,400 limit on individual contributions, $5,000 limit on PAC, business and union contributions and a $30,000 limit on contribution from legislative leadership PACs to legislative candidates.

SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH HOUSE BILL 7

NO LIMIT ON IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS: Not only are the dollar amounts of the limits high but there are no limits on "in-kind" contributions from one candidate's committee to another. That means legislative leaders could use campaign funds to hire staff, pay for commercials and send direct mail on behalf of candidates. None of those would be covered by a contribution limit. It has the potential to exempt millions of dollars from the limits.

ANNUAL (CALENDAR YEAR) vs. ELECTION CYCLE LIMITS: Because the federal system uses election cycles of primary and general elections, officeholders and challengers are treated the same. But the Senate bill would set limits -- $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a PAC, business or union -- on a calendar year basis. That protects incumbents. For example, using the federal system, a governor and challenger could each get no more than two maximum contributions in a four-year period. But under the calendar year system, sitting governors could collect the maximum level in each of the governor's four years in office. Because challengers usually don't gear up for campaigning and fundraising until about two years before the election, a challenger could collect the limit from a contributor only twice before the general election. That's a potential 2-to-1 advantage for an incumbent.

TRANSFERS FROM LEADERS' (AND OTHERS') COMMITTEES: Any candidate for any office in Illinois could transfer up to $90,000 in cash to another candidate's committee. There are so many potential transfers of funds from committee to committee that it would be easy for legislative leaders to maneuver millions of dollars to targeted candidates. The end result would be the same as exists today.

ENFORCEMENT: Enforcement of campaign finance laws would remain extremely weak in Illinois. We had recommended the State Board of Elections be directed to make random audits of campaign committees to determine whether they were disclosing the contributions and expenditures required by law. The Senate bill would only give the State Board of Elections the ability to order an audit when a committee failed to file a quarterly report two times in a calendar year.

Real, Meaningful Contribution Limits

Newspapers around the state have reviewed the Senate Democrats' campaign reform proposals, and found nothing to like. Setting caps that are as much as 6 times what the federal limits are and allowing unfettered transfers from parties and caucuses is not reform. But don't take it from us. The Daily Herald calls their ideas "practically meaningless." The Sun-Times calls it a "ruse." The Peoria Journal Star says it's "a deal breaker." And the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus say "a better proposal is HB 24/SB 1768." Read for youself:

The Daily Herald (May 22, 2009) -- "The anti-corruption groups support donation limits per election cycle of $2,400 from individuals. That means that in a four-year Senate term, someone could give a Senate candidate a total of $4,800 for the primary and general elections. But the Senate plan just unveiled would allow for $10,000 donations every calendar year, or a total of $40,000 to a candidate in a four-year term. Even more alarming, Harmon's plan, so far, has no limit whatsoever on the contributions legislative leaders can make to candidates. That key lack of a limit on leadership contributions makes the Senate plan to cap campaign contributions practically meaningless."

The Peoria Journal Star (May 22, 2009) -- "But ultimately any progress here is undone with no ceilings being imposed on the largesse of legislative leaders, and might be a step backward. If you believe as we do that the speaker of the House and the Senate president have too much muscle now, this arguably would give them more, making rank-and-file members even more dependent on them while tying up the wallets of others. It's tantamount to no reform at all; as such, a deal-breaker."

The Moline Dispatch and The Rock Island Argus (May 21, 2009) -- "To discourage corruption and loosen the four tops" stranglehold, we urge leadership to call for and lawmakers to demand new limits on government corruption with a 'yes' vote on HB24 and SB1768."

The Chicago Sun-Times (May 22, 2009) -- "Madigan, Cullerton, et al, have decided they might be willing to enact campaign contribution limits on individuals, businesses and unions -- but limits that are so high and generous they would be virtually meaningless. And, of course, Madigan, Cullerton, et al, show absolutely no willingness to limit their own ability to shower money on their fellow politicians."

ICPR agrees with these newspapers. Limits must be meaningful and comprehensive. Setting limits that are too high will do nothing to prevent officials from laundering payoffs through their campaign funds -- or from looking like that's what they are doing. Allowing unlimited transfers from parties and caucuses turns them into washing machines for contributors who have maxed out their donations to particular officials. Grousing and grumbling aside, it works at the federal level. It's time Illinois joined the modern world.

If you agree, speak up! Contact your elected representative by calling 1-800-719-3020. Send them an e-mail by going here. Scheduled adjournment is barely a week away. Now is the time to be heard.

New Mexico Sends Contribution Limits Measure to Governor

Bill Richardson Expected to Sign
Soon only 4 States will have Wide-Open Campaign Finance Systems

Late last Friday, the New Mexico House of Representative gave final approval to a bill to create a system of campaign contribution limits. The proposal would prohibit donations to statewide candidates in excess of $5,000 per election from individuals and $10,000 from political committees. Non—statewide candidates would be barred from receiving more than $2,300 per election from individuals and $5,000 from committees.

The measure was filed at the behest of Gov. Bill Richardson, who has indicated that he will sign it.

New Mexico is currently one of only 5 states with no limits at all on campaign donations; Illinois is another. Contribution limits proposal are pending in the Illinois General Assembly: HB 24, SB 1768 and SB 1604. Call your legislator to tell them you don’t want to have to move to New Mexico to find legislators willing to tackle this problem. Call 800-719-3020 today and call for change.

ASK LEGISLATORS TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTONS

DIAL 1-800-719-3020

The CHANGE Illinois coalition on Monday opened a toll-free hotline for Illinoisans to call 1-800-719-3020 and tell their legislators to enact campaign contribution limits.

Callers to the CHANGE Illinois Hotline will be connected directly to their state legislators.

“Large campaign contributions in Illinois are muting the voice of the public and preventing real progress on the issues that matter,” said Bob Gallo, AARP Illinois Senior State Director. “Enough is enough – we need campaign contribution limits now. The people deserve to get their voice back.”

AARP is reaching out to its nearly 2 million members across Illinois asking them to call the hotline and urge their legislators to stop the flow of special interest money into Springfield. The number also will be featured in an upcoming article in the AARP Bulletin publication which is sent to all AARP members in the state.

Launched in late February, CHANGE Illinois is a coalition of civic, business, professional, non-profit and philanthropic organizations aligned to bring government integrity to Illinois. The coalition includes many civic leaders and organizations, including AARP, the Chicago Urban League, The Civic Federation, the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, and the Latino Policy Forum.

“Removing one person from office does not solve the problem,” said Cynthia Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “Unlimited campaign contributions have led to wasteful spending, altered the power structure and distorted the debate of issues in Springfield.”

Canary pointed out that the federal election system limits contributions to candidates and 45 other states have laws limiting contributions.

“Limiting contributions is not all that is needed to make our government fair and honest, but it is a very important step,” Canary said. “Contribution limits will help make state government more representative of Illinoisans and more responsive to all citizens.”

Campaign Finance Reform -- Really

Not one, not two, but three different Chicago newspapers ran opinion pieces recently in favor of campaign finance reform, joining a growing chorus in support of fixing our broken political system.

Crain's took a look at "the corruption that has come to define Illinois" and concluded, "Illinois can reclaim its dignity by curbing the flow of campaign cash that pollutes our politics and government."

The Sun-Times wrote, "with our state in post-impeachment crisis, now is the time for Springfield lawmakers to enact meaningful campaign contribution limits." The Sun-Times also observed, "In theory, public disclosure … discourages dirty dealings. In practice, we've seen how well that has worked."

And in the Tribune, former First Chicago NBD CEO Richard Thomas noted, "illegal practices that are discouraged abroad are tolerated here in Illinois." And he argued "placing limits on campaign contributions would be a good place to start."

Support for campaign finance reform is growing outside of the Capitol. Former Executive Ethics Commission Chairman Scott Turow recently told the legislative Joint Committee on Government Reform, in a hearing on transparency, that he believes that campaign finance reform is "indispensable," even asserting, "our state will continue to be perceived as an ethical swamp, both in Illinois and outside of it, unless we prohibit unlimited campaign donations." A broad coalition of business, civic, and non-profit groups, including ICPR, recently formed, calling itself CHANGE Illinois.

To date, 20 House members have signed on as sponsors of HB 24, a measure to reform campaign finance. Similar legislation in the Senate, SB 1768, has a smaller but growing list of sponsors.

Legislators need to hear your voices. Contact your House and Senate members and tell them what you think of our current political crisis. Now is the time for people to speak up.

Slay the Monster

Today's news is full of stories about Roland Burris and his fundraising efforts on behalf of ex-Gov Rod Blagojevich. Rod's issues always seemed to center around campaign finance -- how he could get as much money as possible from whomever would give it to him -- but he was hardly alone. George Ryan's corruption, too, involved shaking down state employees, contractors, building leasers, and others for campaign donations. Indeed, many of the corruption problems in Illinois have traced back to campaign finance. Former Chicago Alderman Arenda Troutman was sentenced yesterday to 4 years in prison for demanding bribes and campaign cash from developers. Troutman, who memorably was caught on tape declaring "all alderman, all politicians, are hos," offered up another pithy one yesterday, telling Federal Judge Ruben Castillo, “With God as my witness, I am not a monster.”

Troutman is right -- she's not the monster. The monster is Illinois' unregulated campaign finance system, which time and again rewards those who can convince donors to write enormous checks to their campaign fund. Rod Blagojevich won re-election by outspending his Republican opponent by nearly $20 million dollars -- a more than 3:1 advantage. Much of that advantage came from enormous campaign donations from contractors, board and commission appointees, people who wanted state jobs, people who wanted bills signed, people who, in short, wanted something specific in return. And because our unregulated campaign finance system allows unlimited donations, it all looked legal until long after the fact, long after the polls were closed and the winners were sworn in for another term in office.

Last year's Pay-to-Play ban was the first time in state history that Illinois acknowledged that some donations are inherently troubling. Given our culture, donations from state contractors to the official who oversees the contract cannot but give at least the appearance of impropriety, and all too often, we know, those donations stem from outright criminal intentions. But the federal corruption charges now pending against Rod Blagojevich, that he shook down a hospital awaiting a state grant and that he pressured an interest group to "donate" so that he would sign a bill they favored -- show that the problems are more pervasive. The monster is bigger than donations from state contractors.

We could not disagree more with Senate President John Cullerton, who yesterday declared that disclosure was sufficient to clean up state politics. Illinois has tried disclosure alone for the last 34 years, and the experiment has yielded George Ryan, Rod Blagojevich, Arenda Troutman and literally dozens of others. It is now abundantly clear that the problems we face demand more stringent disinfectants. Forty-five other states have campaign contribution limits. Federal candidates face limits. Limits are not perfect; no system among mortals is. But limits is a step in the right direction.

It is high time to slay the monster. The legislature can do that this year by enacting campaign finance reform.

Rod Blagojevich: Alone with his Money?

Today's New York Times includes a profile of Gov. Blagojevich that describes him as "isolated" and "alone." Blago has always raised more money than anyone else and, with his list of campaign contributors, you'd think he'd never be lonely.

But a look at donations to his fund in the last half of 2008, released this week by the House Special Investigative Committee on impeachment, shows that many of his donors are walking away from him. These records are likely incomplete, but they suggest that people who gave to the governor in the past are toning down their support, significantly reducing their donations to his campaign fund.

Consider the utilities. Exelon kicked in $15K during the fall of of '07, but just $3.5K in the fall of '08. Ameren gave $12.5K in the fall of 2007, while fall of 2008 saw just $2K. People's Gas gave $10K in fall '08; half of what they gave a year earlier.

Other previous big donors to the governor appear to be similarly scaling back. Long-time Democratic donors Development Specialists gave $5K in fall 2008; down from $25K in fall 2007. Government Navigation Group, a lobbying firm, gave $500 in fall '08; Paul Rosenfeld, a principal at the firm, gave $5K in fall '07. Mr. & Mrs. James McDonough gave $1K in fall of '08; McDonough's company, state contractor McDonough & Assoc., gave $20K in the fall of '07. Sen. James Deleo's campaign fund gave $5K in fall '08; down from $20K in fall '07.

Even the laborers unions seem to have cut back. In the fall of 2007, three different regional laborers unions combined for $105K to Blago's fund. In the fall of 2008, just one regional, the Southern Central League, gave at all, and its giving totaled only $35K.

It seems that many gave to the governor because they thought he could deliver something. Impeached and facing federal corruption charges, his ability deliver has declined, and his receipts reflect that.

To join the comments on the contents of the list of donors, please visit yesterday's post, here.

Updates to Legislative, Judicial, and Cook County State's Attorney fundraising

59th District Senate Race Likely to Break Record

As the 2008 General Election campaigns head into the final weekend, candidates in hotly contested races have reported record amounts of campaign fundraising. Although most legislative races are uncontested, the top ten legislative races, those that appear winnable to both parties, have reported almost $12 million in receipts to date. And the race for the 59th Senate Seat in far Southern Illinois is posed to break the old record for spending in a state Senate campaign.

The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR) and the Sunshine Project have also examined contributions in state judicial races and the Cook County State's Attorney. This analysis found a handful of trial court races that are likely to see over $100,000 in combined spending. The only seat on the state Supreme Court and all three seats on the appellate courts are uncontested, but several circuit (trial) court races have reported large receipts.

Legislative Races

As usual there have been large infusions of money from political committees controlled by the four legislative leaders. But because Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, will retire soon, several contenders for that position have raised more than $1 Million and they are using that money to make contributions to the campaigns of other Democrats seeking to retain or win seats in the Senate

Top Senate races include:

(1) In the 59th District, Sen. Gary Forby, D-Benton, reported $1,175,600 while his opponent, Republican Ken Burzynsksi of Benton reported $840,400, for combined $2,016,000. This race is well within striking distance of the spending record for a Senate seat. The previous record was set in this same District in 2006, when Sen. Forby and then-challenger Ron Summers combined to spend $2,465,000.

(2) In the 42nd District, Republican Terri Ann Wintermute of Bolingbrook, reported $789,500 while Sen. Linda Holmes, D-Aurora, reported $782,300 while her opponent, for a combined $1,571,700.

(3) In the 26th District, Republican Dan Duffy of Lake Barrington reported $796,800 while Democrat Bill Gentes of Round Lake reported $173,200 for a combined $970,000 in the race for the open seat left by the retiring William Peterson, Republican of Long Grove.

(4) In the 45th District, appointed Republican Sen. Tim Bivins of Dixon reported $760,000 while Democrat Marty Mulcahey of Galena reported $178,700 for a combined $938,700 in the race for the open seat left by the retiring Sen. Todd Sieben, Republican of Geneseo.

(5) In the 33rd District, Sen. Dan Kotowski, D- Park Ridge, reported $658,900 while his opponent, Republican Michael Sweeney of Arlington Heights reported $247,400 for a combined $906,300.

Top House Races include:

(1) In the 85th District, Rep. Brent Hassert, R-Romeoville, reported $778,200 while his opponent, Democrat Emily Klunk-McAsey of Lockport reported $510,100 for a combined $1,288,200.

(2) In the 92nd District, Democrat Jehan Gordon of Peoria reported $636,200 while Republican Joan Gordon Krupa of Peoria Heights reported $584,900 for a combined $1,221,100 in the race for the open seat left by Republican Aaron Schock of Peoria, now a candidate for U.S. Congress.

(3) In the 69th District, Challenger Greg Tuite, D-Rockford, reported $578,700 while incumbent Republican Ron Wait of Hinkley reported $417,000 for a combined $995,700.

(4) In the 96th District, Democrat Dianne McGuire of Naperville reported $534,800 while Republican Darlene Senger of Naperville reported $386,800 for a combined $921,700 in the race for the open seat left by the retiring Republican Joe Dunn of Naperville.

(5) In the 17th District, Rep. Beth Coulson, Republican of Glenview, reported $458,400 while Democrat Daniel Biss of Evanston reported $352,700 for a combined $811,100.

One candidate in one race has reported receipts of more than $1 million. Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Collinsville, reported having $1.7 million available, including $479,400 raised since July 1, and $113,500 of that in the last week alone. Rep. Hoffman's Republican opponent, Dwight Kay of Glen Carbon, reported $305,400. Whether this race sets a record or even crosses the million dollar spending mark depends entirely on Hoffman's assessment of how much he is willing to spend to hold on to the seat.

Judicial Races

Circuit Court races have traditionally seen smaller fundraising than legislative contests. Fewer interest groups have gotten involved, and the size of the districts and number of voters has typically been smaller. Because the size of circuits varies so widely around the state, it is difficult to draw comparisons between one race and another, and it is difficult to say what the record would be for spending in these races. In the 2008 General Election, the Circuit Court races with the most fundraising include:

(1) In the 16th Circuit in Kane, DeKalb and Kendall counties, Republican Patricia Piper Golden of Dundee reported $114,700 while Democrat John Noverini of Carpentersville reported $105,100 for a combined $219,800.

(2) In the 2nd Circuit in southeast Illinois, Republican David Overstreet of Mt. Vernon reported $132,600 while Democrat L. James Hanson of Mt. Vernon reported $40,900 for a combined $173,400.

(3) In the Cook County 12th Subcircuit Devlin vacancy, Democrat Pamela Lora of Mt. Prospect reported $102,500 while Republican Laura Morask of Park Ridge reported $56,800 for a combined $159,400.

(4) In the 1st Circuit in the southernmost part of Illinois, Democrat Steve Stone of Cartersville reported $81,000 while Republican James R. "Randy" Moore of Cartersville reported $33,700 for a combined $114,600.

(5) In the Cook County 4th Subcircuit, Democrat Patrick Rogers of Western Springs reported $87,900 while Republican Maureen Masterson-Pulia of Westchester reported $9,900 for a combined $97,800.

What's striking about judicial races this year is that none of the contests for county-wide seats in Cook County -- one for Supreme Court, two for Appellate Court, and nine for Circuit Court -- are even contested. This tactical retreat by the Republicans (and Greens) recalls the 2000 election, when a similar decision in the Supreme Court race allowed the Democrats to send resources to their candidate in the nominally Republican Third District. The $700,000 infusion, considered massive at the time, helped elect a Supreme Court Justice.

In these 2008 contests, we see the same dynamic playing out, as well-funded Democrats are running strong in the nominally Republican 4th and 12th subcircuits. There are no similarly well-funded Republicans or Greens in largely Democratic subcircuits. A change in campaign finance laws, to offer either public financing options or incentives for small donations, may alter this dynamic, which deprives most voters in Cook County of any real choice when voting for judges.

Cook County State's Attorney

The hottest race in Cook County appears to be for the State's Attorney's office, left open by the retirement of Democrat Dick Devine. Democrat Anita Alvarez of River Forest has reported $736,000 in receipts while Republican Tony Peraica of Riverside has reported $179,400 for a combined $915,400.

This report is the fourth in a series during the final weeks of the 2008 General Election campaign season. Earlier reports covered contribution totals, top donors to legislative races and the constitutional convention referendum, and giving by contenders to the Senate presidency, are all available at www.ilcampaign.org. ICPR and the Sunshine Project do not endorse candidates and have not taken a position on the con-con question.

Contenders to the Senate Presidency Donate Over $1 Million to Democratic Candidates to the State Senate

Belleville's Clayborne, Chicago's Cullerton Lead in Giving

In the weeks since Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, announced he would not seek reelection, contenders to replace him as Senate President have given more than $1 million to the campaigns of the candidates who likely will select the next Senate President -- other Democratic senators running for reelection and Democratic newcomers challenging Republican incumbents.

An analysis by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR) and the Sunshine Project demonstrates the giant leap in campaign contributions by the men seeking to replace Jones. In the 18 months prior to Jones' retirement announcement, these senators transferred just $61,300 to other Senate Democrats.

"While money is easy to quantify, Senate Democrats will likely consider several factors when choosing their next leader," said Cindi Canary, Director of ICPR. "But it looks like they believe supporting other senators now with campaign funds will prompt those same senators to return the favor later by voting one of the benefactors into the top Senate job."

If the contest to succeed Jones turns on money, the top two candidates will be Sen. James Clayborne, D-Belleville, who has given $418,000 to other Senate Democrats, and Sen. John Cullerton, D-Chicago, who has given $336,000.

Illinois has no limits on transfers of funds between candidates and no limits on contributions by special interests to candidates. Many of the donations made by the contenders would be illegal if made between candidates in most other states, or between candidates for federal office.

It will take 30 votes to elect the next Senate president. If neither Clayborne nor Cullerton can put together a coalition of 30 of their colleagues, a compromise candidate may emerge. Based on their transfers to Democratic Senate candidates, this second tier would include Sen. Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, who has transferred $70,000; Sen. Jeff Schoenberg, D-Evanston, who has transferred $60,000, and Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan, who has transferred $58,000. Others giving at least $10,000 include Sen. Ira Silverstein, D-Chicago, Sen. John Sullivan, D-Rushville, and Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi, D- Joliet.

Sen. Clayborne has transferred money from his own political committee, Friends of Clayborne. Top donors to his political committee include the Illinois Education Association, AT&T and Ameren.

Sen. Cullerton has used money from his committee, Citizens for John Cullerton, but he has also formed a new committee, the Senate Democratic Victory Fund. Top donors to his two funds include Chicago Wolves Chairman Don Levin, Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, her husband Leo Smith, and her parents Harrison and Lois Steans; and the Illinois Hospital Association. Of the second tier, only Sen. Schoenberg has created a new committee, Deep Blue Illinois, to augment giving by his own committee.

The show of fundraising prowess comes as the Senate Democrats hold 37 of the 59 seats in the Senate, with hopes that a strong Democratic turnout for their former colleague and current Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama will further bolster their numbers. Giving by the Illinois Senate Democratic Fund (ISDF), the caucus political committee which is still controlled by Senate President Jones, has been down appreciably this year compared to recent cycles (ISDF expenditures are down from $2.4 million in the comparable period in 2004 and $3.6 million in 2006 to $803,000 in 2008), but these presidential contenders have helped to make up some of the decline. Most of funds from contenders have been transferred to incumbents, but a handful of challengers are also benefiting. Top beneficiaries include:

• Sen. Gary Forby, D- Benton: $300,000
• Sen. Linda Holmes, D-Aurora: $241,000
• Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge: $92,000
• Candidate Bill Gentes, a Democrat from Round Lake: $84,500
• Candidate Peter Gutzmer, a Democrat from Hoffman Estates: $76,500

Traditionally, legislative caucuses have looked to their leader to play several important roles. Fundraising is one of these, but other factors are expected to include political acumen in a divisive climate and responsiveness to caucus members. This is the first time a caucus leader has stepped down since 2003, when the new legislative map gave control of both chambers to the Democrats. Sen. Emil Jones has led the Senate Democratic Caucus since the retirement of Sen. Phil Rock in 1993.

This report is the third in a series during the final weeks of the 2008 General Election campaign season. For earlier reports, which covered contribution totals and top donors to legislative races and the constitutional convention question, visit www.ilcampaign.org. ICPR and the Sunshine Project do not endorse candidates and have not taken a position on the con-con question.

TOP 10 DONORS TO LEGISLATIVE CONTESTS GAVE $4.3 MILLION

Same Donors Gave Another $440,000 to Anti-Con-Con Group

With a week to go before Election Day, many candidates for General Assembly are raising campaign money at a furious pace and just 10 contributors account for nearly 20 percent of all funds raised by legislative candidates in recent months.

A dozen legislative races are approaching or have passed the $1 million mark; all told, legislative candidates have raised more than $20 million since July 1.

The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR) and the Sunshine Project examined campaign disclosure reports filed by incumbent legislators and candidates for the General Assembly to compile this list of top donors.

Illinois has no limits on the source or size of campaign contributions. Many of these groups have made contributions to candidates that would be illegal if made to candidates in other states or for federal office. Much of this money is reported as receipts by caucus and party leaders, who in turn transfer funds to individual candidates.

Top Donors to Legislative Incumbents and Candidates, 7/1/08-10/26/08
(1) Illinois Education Association (IEA): $877,000
(2) Illinois State Medical Society (ISMS) $565,000
(3) Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT) and affiliates: $558,000
(4) AFSCME: $410,000
(5) Illinois Health Care Council: $398,000
(6) Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois: $389,000
(7) Illinois Hospital Association: $305,000
(8) Personal PAC: $267,000
(9) Fred Eychaner, founder of Newsweb: $253,000
(10) Illinois Association of Realtors: $251,000
(11) Illinois Chamber of Commerce: $236,000
(12) Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA): $229,000
(13) Altria Group/Philip Morris Tobacco: $228,000
(14) Service Employees International Union (SEIU): $225,000
(15) Ameren: $258,000
(16) Associated Firefighters of Illinois: $194,000
(17) Illinois Dentist Association (Dent-IL PAC): $194,000
(18) AT&T: $180,000
(19) International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150: $161,000
(20) International Union of Operating Engineers Local 399: $153,000


Many of these Top 10 donors have also helped fund the opposition to a referendum to authorize a state constitutional convention. The Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution (APIC), a political organization formed earlier this year to oppose the "con-con" has raised at least $1.2 million since July 1, including $440,000 from these top legislative donors. By contrast, two organizations in support of the con-con, Con Con Yes and Metro Chicago United PAC, have together reported total receipts of just $5,000.

Top Donors to the Alliance to Protect the Constitution
(1) Illinois Federation of Teachers and affiliated: $300,000
(2) Illinois Education Association/National Education Association: $225,000
(3) Exelon: $100,000
(4) Illinois Coalition for Jobs, Growth, and Prosperity: $92,500
(5 - tie) American Insurance Association: $50,000
(5 - tie) Health Care Services Corp: $50,000

ICPR and the Sunshine Project do not endorse candidates and have not taken a stand on the constitutional referendum. ICPR and the Sunshine Project are monitoring reports on those targeted legislative races. For a chart of contribution totals on those races, visit www.ilcampaign.org.

EIGHT GENERAL ASSEMBLY BATTLES HAVE PASSED OR ARE NEAR THE $1 MILLION MARK AND OTHERS LIKELY TO JOIN

Southern Illinois Senate Contest Could Break $$$ Record

Campaign contributions to election battles for four state legislative seats have passed the $1 million mark, and four others should soon reach the $1 million level, according to research by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR) and the Sunshine Project.

One of those campaigns – a contest for state senator from the most southern district in the state – could break the $2.4 million record for most money spent by candidates running for the Illinois General Assembly.

A total of at least $1.89 million in campaign contributions has been reported by the campaigns of Sen. Gary Forby, D-Benton, and Ken W. Burzynski, a Republican also from Benton, and both candidates are still collecting contributions to pay for advertising and other expenses in the final days of the campaign.

In 2004, the combined spending of campaigns by Forby and Ron Summers, his 2004 opponent, established a new spending record of $2.4 million.

The 2008 Forby-Burzynski contribution total stands at $1.89 million. That total, as well as others totals in this report, represents the available balance of funds for each candidate on June 30 and individual contributions reported by the campaigns between July 1 to October 24. The exact amount of spending won’t be made public until next January.

The races reporting the biggest fundraising totals to date follow:

• Senate District 59, total of $1,895,099 -- Forby, $1,112,395; and Burzynski, $782,703.

• Senate District 42, total of $1,381,057 -- Sen. Linda Holmes, D-Aurora, $715,692; and Terri Ann Wintermute, a Republican from Bolingbrook, $665,364.

• House District 85, total $1,156,874 – Rep. Brent Hassert, R-Romeoville, $740,784; and Emily Klunk-McAsey, Democrat from Lockport, $416,090.

• House District 92, total $1,050,014 – Jehan Gordon, Democrat from Peoria, $531,156; and Joan Gore Krupa, Republican from Peoria Heights, $518,857.

• Senate District 26, total of $894,306 – Dan Duffy, Republican from Lake Barrington, $732,099; and Bill Gentes, Democrat from Round Lake. $162,207.

• Senate District 45, total of $874,464 – Sen. Tim Bivins, R-Dixon, $712,721; and Marty Mulcahey, Democrat from Galena, $161,742.

• Senate District 33, total of $866,042 – Sen. Daniel W. Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, $628,285; and Michael H. Sweeney, Republican from Arlington Heights, $237,757.

• House District 69, total of $833,583 – Greg Tuite, Democrat from Rockford, $538,151; and Rep. Ronald A. Waite, R-Belvidere, $295,432.

• House District 17, total of $797,872 – Rep. Elizabeth Coulson, Republican from Glenview, $447,195; and Daniel Biss, D-Evanston, $350,676.

• House District 96, total of $701,086 – Dianne A. McGuire, Democrat from Naperville, $497,659; and Darlene J. Senger, Republican from Naperville, $203,427.


Because such large sums are being contributed to these candidates, most of these races appear to be competitive or were considered to be winnable by both parties at some time during the campaign season. However, the vast majority of legislative races are dominated by one candidate, and some incumbents don’t even have an opponent on the ballot.

All 118 House seats and 39 of the 59 Senate seats are at stake this year, but many of them are uncontested. Only 21 Senate seats and 60 House seats have two or more candidates on the ballot, and of those, only about 18 total appear to be attracting substantial contributions.

ICPR and the Sunshine Project are monitoring reports on those targeted races. For a chart of contribution totals on those races, visit www.ilcampaign.org.

YOU CAN BE A CANDIDATE AND NEVER FILE AN ACCURATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE REPORT!

Ever run up a bill for tens of thousands of dollars and not give it a second thought?

No, neither have we.

But Sen. Iris Martinez, D-Chicago, apparently wasn’t giving much thought to the $190,000 that her campaign committee owed to a company sending out campaign mailings for her campaign.

In July, the Friends of Iris Y. Martinez committee filed its semi-annual disclosure report with the State Board of Elections. This is the report that would have included receipts, expenditures and debts from her primary contest in March.

Martinez is not the only candidate filing incomplete disclosure reports, but her absentmindedness (if that’s what it was) points up yet again the need for the State Board of Elections to crack down on erroneous disclosure reports. If committees thought they might be audited and punished for failure to disclose information required by law, there would be far fewer mistakes and omissions.

None of the Martinez campaign’s reports to the State Board of Elections list the debt, and apparently we only know about it now because Rich Miller, owner of the Capital Fax newsletter and popular blogger (thecapitolfaxblog.com) thought something looked fishy.

When Rich Miller reported Tuesday in his must-read Capital Fax newsletter that the Illinois Senate Democratic Fund, controlled by Senate President Emil Jones, had given “a whopping $190,000 check” to the Martinez committee, it must have triggered some alarm bells in the Martinez campaign headquarters.

Miller and his readers were wondering why Jones would deliver such a big check after she had won a tough primary fight and her Republican opponent withdrew from the ballot back in May.

Miller reported her explanation in today’s editions. Martinez told Miller that she needed the money to pay the debt, which she had failed to report on her earlier public disclosure reports.

This all raises a few questions. What if the Senate Democratic committee had not reported the transfer of the $190,000 and Martinez had not reported receiving it? Quite likely, we never would not have known until long after Election Day. If then!

The State Board Elections doesn’t audit campaign finance reports. The Illinois campaign disclosure laws operate on the “honor system.” Even the most casual observers of Illinois politics knows that’s a mistake.

Some 3,600 campaign committees are active in Illinois. When it comes to filing accurate and complete disclosure reports, all of them operate on the honor system.

Earlier this year, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform reached a settlement with Rep. Annazette Collins, D-Chicago, who agreed to issue an apology for filing inaccurate and incomplete disclosure of contributions to her election campaigns from 2005 through 2007. Her campaign committee agreed to pay a fine of $20,000. We got to that point only because ICPR questioned why the Collins committee reported no contributions or expenditures for three years running. Collins acknowledged that her campaigns had received more than $110,000 in contributions and had spent more than $120,000 during those three years.

Maybe all that campaigning makes you forgetful.


But it reminds us of a classic Steve Martin routine.

From a 1/21/78 Saturday Night Live transcript, here’s Martin:

You.. can be a millionaire and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes! You say: "Steve, how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?"

First, get a million dollars.

Now, you say: "Steve, what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You have never paid taxes'?"

Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: "I forgot!" How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say "I forgot"?

We hope Sen. Martinez and Rep. Collins don’t forget again and that the General Assembly directs the State Board of Elections to begin conducting random audits of campaign disclosure reports.

Amerigroup giving

Today's Sun-Times reports that Buffalo Grove resident Cleveland Tyson is due to receive $56.25 million for information leading to the federal fraud conviction of Amerigroup, a Medicaid provider. Based largely on evidence provided by Tyson, an employee of Amerigroup, federal prosecutors proved that the company billed state and federal authorities for coverage they did not provide. An October, 2006 jury trial concluded that the company, under contract to insure tens of thousands of people, in fact refused to provide care for pregnant women and people with serious illnesses. After the jury found Amerigroup guilty, the company settled with federal prosecutors for $225 million.

Amerigroup is no stranger to the campaign finance records; they have given more than $140,000 to candidates for statewide and legislative office in Illinois. If you're looking for another angle on this story, here's a list of their top recipients, and how much they gave to each:

(1) Gov. Rod Blagojevich: $37,500
(2) Senate President Emil Jones: $16,400
(3) House Speaker Michael J. Madigan: $10,000
(4) State Sen. Rickey Hendon: $9,500
(5) U.S. Rep. Danny K. Davis (State committee only): $8,500