Backlash against Illinois’ incumbent protectionism under the guise of campaign finance “reform”

June 3, 2009   •  By IFS staff
Default Article

A few days ago, we noted our objections to the so-called campaign finance “reform” legislation in Illinois that resulted from a compromise between Gov. Pat Quinn and state House and Senate Democrats.  Our biggest critique of the bill was that it blatantly favored the entrenched political leadership at the expense of the people of Illinois.  We said:

“For all the talk of ‘reform’ and ‘reducing corruption,’ the big winners if this compromise legislation is passed will be the incumbent political leadership in Illinois.  Gov. Quinn will face a less competitive primary, and House and Senate leadership will have more leverage to force rank-and-file legislators to do as they’re told.  The big losers will continue to be the people of Illinois, who will have their own ability to participate in the political process limited — through the imposition of contribution limits on individuals and groups — while entrenched politicians solidify their power and influence.”

We are happy to see that the political newspaper of record in Illinois agrees with us.

On Sunday, the State Journal-Register (Springfield, Ill.) published a scathing editorial headlined “Incumbents Take Care of Themselves.”  Not pulling any punches, the newspaper’s view is that the legislation should have been called the “Incumbent Protection Act of 2009” because, through the so-called “reform” legislation, the legislators go after everyone else’s speech and association rights while making sure they “won’t lay a finger on themselves.”

Most notably, the newspaper points out that the bill “seeks to suffocate independent groups[‘] political action committees by limiting the amount they can collect from their members,” while “also appear[ing] to bar such groups from making independent expenditures.”  In other words, the “reform” bill seeks to silence concerned citizens outside the halls of government not only by limiting their own speech indirectly through contribution limits, but also by restricting that speech directly through targeted restrictions.

The Journal-Register went on to specifically identify a number of other incumbency-protection measures in the bill, suggesting that the “reform” package should have cracked down on everyone:

“The bill passed would leave intact a system where the legislative leaders can dole out unlimited amounts of cash to their candidates via in-kind contributions, thereby keeping a firm chokehold on them…

But the incumbent protection racket created doesn’t stop there. The bill’s contribution limits are $5,000 annually instead of per election cycle.  Unless a challenger starts running three years early, they’ll be at a significant disadvantage…

How could Gov. Pat Quinn look himself in the mirror if he signs this bill? If he does, he has sold out his own reform commission for the equivalent of 30 pieces of silver…

*A provision in the campaign finance bill bars the state Democratic Party, chaired by House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, from making endorsements in primaries.

It means Madigan could not use Democratic Party machinery to help his daughter, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, run against Quinn in 2010.”

Of course, we vehemently disagree with the Journal-Register‘s apparent bent toward restricting — across the board — everyone’s rights to participate in the political process fully and freely as the silver bullet to end corruption in Illinois politics.  Indeed, in testimony before the Governor’s Reform Commission, CCP’s Chairman (and former Federal Election Commission Chairman) Bradley Smith explained:

“The core assumption of most [campaign finance] ‘reform’ is that the public at large all generally share identical perspectives and priorities on important public policy issues, and that absent the campaign contributions of narrow self-interested groups the government would be able to quickly and cleanly implement measures the whole of the general public supports and demands.

As I mentioned previously, academic research does not support the charge that legislators vote their donors’ interests, finding instead that they vote according to their constituent interests, ideology, and party affiliation.

But more than simply being incorrect, the charge is fundamentally anti-democratic. It requires you to believe the United States is a homogenous society, filled with citizens who all share roughly identical ideologies and interests, and that there is no real, honest disagreement among citizens about what constitutes good public policy.

This, obviously, is not the case, as can be seen by the fact that we are well into our third century of competitive politics with two major political parties and several smaller ones, all made up of citizens who strongly differ from one another on basic questions of what government should and should not be doing, and exactly how it should or should not be doing those things. This is the nature of political freedom, and to suggest that much of government action is determined by campaign contributions rather than the best efforts of elected officials is to ignore this reality.

The solutions to curbing corruption can’t be legislated. The best ones are just common sense: enforcing bribery laws, providing transparency and merit-bidding in government contracting, making it easier, not harder, to unseat corrupt incumbents, and encouraging a vigilant press and an engaged citizenry that doesn’t tolerate corruption.”

Despite the misguided nature of the editorial’s seeming endorsement of more, rather than less, regulation of what should be free political speech and association, the Journal-Register did rightly point out just how badly incumbents want to make sure they only up the ante on their own protection.  Specifically, the editorial closed by pointing out threats of political retribution against those who opposed the legislation, with the newspaper vowing to defend those who voted against the “sham legislation.”  Indeed, that would be an awfully good role for the free press.

Unfortunately, the bill has passed both house of the Illinois General Assembly, and awaits Gov. Quinn’s signature.  Since the Governor was necessary to the “reform” compromise — getting the Speaker of the House to agree not to use Democratic Party resources to help his daughter (the state Attorney General) oust Quinn from the Governor’s mansion — it seems all but certain that it will soon become law.  Nevertheless, we applaud the State Journal-Register‘s opposition to incumbents helping themselves at the expense of others’ political rights, and urge the newspaper to watch vigilantly for incumbents exploiting the “reforms.”

IFS staff

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap