Giving Without Limit

By: Kimbriell KellyIllinois State Board of Elections general counsel Steve Sturm said his colleagues across the country are mystified when he talks about his state's rules that limit who can give political contributions and how much.

"They're surprised there are no limits," Sturm said.

Illinois is among only a handful states nationwide that don't put a cap on contributions or restrict who can make them.

Though many states have laws restricting contributions in some way, Sturm warns that they're not all strong laws.

"Illinois is on the far end of the very wide open," said Kent Redfield, interim director of the Institute for Legislative Studies at the University of Illinois in Springfield.

Redfield said several states, like Connecticut and Arizona, have laws that attempt to deter special-interest campaign funding, and limit corporate and individual giving. In Wisconsin, there are contribution limits, and only the people who vote can give money, not corporations, Redfield said.

He said the perfect system in Illinois would limit individual contributions, transfers between campaign committees, the amount politicians can spend and the items on which they can spend money. Illinois should also prohibit contributions from unions, corporations and government employees, Redfield said.

"[If] you work for the mayor, you probably shouldn't contribute," Redfield said."People are going to connect the dots [and] assume people are buying their jobs, or bosses are shaking them down."

Redfield said there have been some initiatives in the past decade-mandatory electronic filing, a gift ban and prohibitions on soliciting contributions on state property. However, there's still a lot of work left, and much doesn't get done without a scandal, Redfield said. "When things get really bad, the policy- making tends to be,'What can we do to make this go away?' Rather than trying to do the right thing," he said.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich attempted to introduce two campaign finance initiatives two years ago that would set contribution limits and create strict prohibitions for lobbyists. "The governor's lack of credibility [made the initiatives] dead on arrival," Redfield said. "Given Illinois history, it's difficult to convince people that the government is on the up and up. It just adds to the public cynicism."

While the state doesn't regulate contributions much, Illinois is ranked among the top five states in the country for public disclosure of campaign contributions, according to the annual Campaign Disclosure project by the California Voter Foundation. Illinois received particularly high marks for the accessibility of disclosure content and how easy it is to get the data online. But Illinois was ranked in the bottom half of states for the disclosure law's requirements.

In Illinois, disclosure is required for all contributions of at least $150. And contributors giving at least $500 must disclose their occupation and employer. But, in Washington, disclosure is required for all contributions greater than $25, and contributors giving more than $100 must list their employers.

The difference can mean millions of dollars in contributions disclosed without an employer.

But political watchdogs said disclosure is not enough. They said the state's campaign finance laws are weak and insufficient since there are no limits on who can give, how much they can give or oversight if there's any wrongdoing.

"Because there are no limits, we see donors give $1 million," said David Morrison, assistant director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. "There's no way to say who really calls the shots-the candidate or the donor."

Last year, the group proposed that legislators require more frequent filing of campaign disclosure documents and impose a contribution cap of $1,500 for each contributor.

Morrison said most states have adopted restrictions similar to federal laws, which cap contributions to elected federal officials at $2,100 per election cycle. In addition, federal government employees cannot give at all to their bosses.Violators can be fined or incarcerated.

Even states without contribution limits don't allow elected officials to take contributions from corporations they regulate or with whom they otherwise do business, Morrison said. For example, the secretary of state in Florida regulates convenience stores and therefore cannot take contributions from their owners.

Voter outrage could help change the minds of Illinois politicians, Morrison said. But voters have become cynical about reform after politicians weathered corruption charges and remained in office. "The people doing wrong are still doing wrong," he said.

Illinois legislators would have to vote on any changes. But whatever they decide would affect how they personally raise money for their campaigns.

"Their perspective is,'Why do I want to limit myself in how I get money?'" Morrison said about legislators.

Chicago politicians have enacted some restrictions. The city has capped contributions at $1,500 during a 12-month period for those doing business with the city or wanting to do so in the future.

Political consultant Don Rose thinks the city's campaign finance ordinance should be amended to prevent city employees from making contributions of more than $150 to any one candidate or political committee per election cycle. That kind of money, he said, is not enough to influence a politician.

But Rose doesn't believe change is imminent without a mayor strong on ethics reform, like the late Mayor Harold Washington. "I'm not sure it'll occur in this millennium," he said.