State of the State: Illinois Voters Could Experience a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

NPR Illinois | 91.9 UIS | By Bethany Jaeger

Published February 1, 2009 at 12:00 AM CST

The so-called pay-to-play ban, which was aimed at Gov. Rod Blagojevich and took effect last month, took three years to win legislative approval and barely survived Blagojevich’s veto pen.?

The good news, according to Cynthia Canary, executive director of the
Illinois Campaign for Political Reform in Chicago, is that the next attempt to strengthen the state’s ethics laws could actually be less complicated. But it would be more drastic and widespread.

The pay-to-play ban makes it illegal for the governor and other statewide officers to accept campaign donations from businesses that hold contracts worth more than $50,000, including work on economic development and construction projects.

According to a 76-page criminal complaint, Blagojevich allegedly went into overdrive trying to collect as much campaign cash as he could before the new state law took effect January 1. For instance, he allegedly schemed to withhold $8 million from a children’s hospital in Chicago unless its administrator donated $50,000 to his campaign. Since his 2002 run for governor, he built a $58.3 million campaign chest, one-third of which was funded by individual donations of $25,000 each, according to the Campaign for Political Reform.

Supporters describe the new law as landmark ethics reform. Canary says it was “absolutely essential,” particularly because the law specifically targets the way Blagojevich allegedly decided policy based on who donated money. But the ban did not attempt to reform the way all politicians fund their campaigns.

“It was really much more about public policy than about elections,” Canary says. “It was: How are our tax dollars being spent? How are decisions being made?”

The ban does not apply to state legislators or statewide political parties. Some see that as a gaping loophole, allowing political party chairmen — Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan and Republican businessman Andy McKenna — to funnel significant amounts of money to their legislative candidates who are in tight races.

The party leaders are perceived to be the biggest obstacle to changing state law to cap the amount individuals, unions, businesses and political committees could donate to candidates.

Campaign contribution limits could be the soup du jour of ethics reforms as state legislators consider a menu of anti-Blagojevich measures this year. It’s a big mouthful to swallow, but voters are salivating for change.

In fact, 81 percent of 802 voters surveyed last month said they only trust state government “some of the time” or “almost never,” but 67 percent rejected the idea that “corruption in government will always be a problem, so trying to fix it will not make much difference.”

The study was funded by the Joyce Foundation in Chicago and conducted by Belden Russonello &?Stewart in Washington, D.C.

While those interviewed deemed attempts to change the system as worthwhile, fewer than half of them had confidence in state legislators to make such changes. The Illinois General Assembly’s negative job approval rating has nearly doubled since last spring and tripled since three years ago.

While increasingly pessimistic, more than three-fourths of the survey respondents said they believed that these specific reforms would help government work better: Ban contributions by unions, limit individual donations and publicly fund political campaigns.

Democratic Rep. Harry Osterman of Chicago introduced a measure, House Bill 24, that would limit the amount individuals could donate to $2,300. Unions, businesses and political committees would be limited to $5,000. All candidates, including incumbents, could operate only one campaign committee.

Osterman’s bill resembles a federal law but doesn’t go as far as banning unions or corporations from giving altogether.

Considering Illinois history, lawmakers might need to take smaller portions and accept that it could take repeated attempts to get it done, Canary says. “I get very concerned that we set up the perfect as the enemy of the good here.”

The ultimate goal is to shut down the supply and demand for massive contributions, as well as even the playing field for candidates at all levels.

Rep. Julie Hamos, an Evanston Democrat, tried as a freshman legislator to establish contribution limits 10 years ago, when a $2,300 contribution would have raised eyebrows. Aptly named House Bill 1776, after the founding fathers of the U.S. Constitution, the bill went nowhere.

She says opportunity could be ripe this year, when public awareness is heightened by the international attention on Blagojevich, particularly his alleged attempt to sell to the highest bidder the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.

Forty-seven other states already have campaign contribution limits, according to the Campaign for Political Reform. And the cost of running a political campaign isn’t getting any cheaper.

“Where I think candidates and public officials get in trouble,” says Hamos, “is that they sell their souls for very significant campaign contributions.”

Contribution limits could force candidates to reach out to more voters face to face rather than through their televisions or mailboxes. Hamos cites Obama’s presidential run, which she says proves technology and legwork can engage more voters.

The primary challenge, just as Hamos experienced a decade ago, is to get statewide party leaders aboard.

Even Rep.?Roger Eddy, a Hutsonville Republican co-sponsoring Osterman’s bill, says he doesn’t anticipate success this year.

“The power base likes the way things are,” he says. “The speakers, the minority leaders, they like this. They like the fact that they control the money and the large contributions that are made there.”

Osterman says he spoke to Madigan about his bill. “He is willing to work with me on the legislation. That’s something I think is progress.”

But Madigan’s spokesman, Steve Brown, says the House speaker points to existing laws on the books and has said, “Everybody ought to learn the rules and then live by the rules.”

Canary says she was appalled at Madigan’s comments, heard on a Chicago radio program last month.

“There is a crisis of confidence in this state right now,” she says. And voters recognize that it’s not just a Blagojevich problem. It’s a systemic problem.

“People are making the connection between the utter dysfunctionality of this state — the gridlock, the failure to pay bills, the failure to come up with a capital plan — with a system that is essentially corrupt, controlled by very few, not open.”

Even if political party leaders warmed to the idea of contribution limits, how-ever, Canary says the key ingredient is the state’s ability to enforce the laws.

For instance, the Illinois State?Board of Elections does not have authority to audit political campaigns to see if they are complying with state law.

“If we move to a more regulatory structure, we have to bring enforcement along with it,”?Canary says. “Because it’s not enough to say, ‘OK, here are the new rules. Be good.’”

Voters who were surveyed last month said they recognize the need for more enforcement. Two-thirds said they support the creation of a new state agency to vigorously enforce campaign finance laws, and they support using more tax dollars to do it.

The Joyce Foundation survey also found that a large majority of voters supports additional reforms:

Give the public more access to state government decisions on spending and programs.
Require lobbyists to fully disclose their clients and lobbying activities.
Use tax dollars to fund campaigns for state candidates and judges.
Require judges to step aside when parties involved with cases have contributed to their campaigns.

In a published letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn offered his ideas about how to restore voter confidence, including allowing voters to decide whether to recall elected officials and to directly enact reforms through referenda or petitions. Both would require a change in the Illinois Constitution, which is no easy feat.

But Quinn also said the state could reinforce existing laws such as one that protects people who file lawsuits when they believe they have uncovered government waste or fraud. He also wants to improve the transparency of the way state lawmakers receive pay raises and to “plug holes” in the state’s recent pay-to-play ban.

Hamos also advocates for a follow-up to the pay-to-play ban to help sitting governors stand on equal ground with their potential opponents, who will be able to collect campaign cash from state contractors until they officially file as candidates for governor.

On one hand, Canary says, “anybody who wants to evade any law, be it a gun law or a campaign finance law, will evade that law.”

On the other hand, a commitment from party leaders to “get with the program” and realize that voters are angry and more likely to start spreading the blame for state corruption could be the very thing that prevents a self-fulfilling prophecy that?Illinois politics and government always will be corrupt.

Whether campaign contribution limits or more effective enforcement, it’s time for Illinois to dig its teeth into something convincing.