Session Recap: Lawmakers pass limits on campaign contributions in
judicial races
Send a link to a friend
[April 13, 2022]
By PETER HANCOCK
Capitol News Illinois
phancock@capitolnewsillinois.com
SPRINGFIELD – This year’s races for seats
on the Illinois Supreme Court, as well as other judicial races, could
come under a new set of campaign finance rules aimed at limiting how
much money candidates could raise from so-called “dark money” sources
and from individual donors.
In the final hours of the legislative session that wrapped up Saturday
morning, state lawmakers approved a bill that limits how much those
candidates can raise from nonprofit entities that are not required to
disclose the identities of their donors.
The measure still needs approval from Gov. JB Pritzker. It would take
effect immediately, meaning it would be in effect for the 2022 election
cycle, upon his signature.
The bill also makes a change to “self-funded” campaigns, limiting how
much any individual, other than candidates and their immediate family
members, may give to a judicial campaign. Current state law allows
unlimited contributions if a candidate spends enough to be considered
“self-funded.”
Dark money sources played a sizeable role in the 2020 elections when
Democrat Thomas Kilbride became the first Illinois Supreme Court justice
to lose a retention election since the state adopted the process in
1964.
The Chicago Tribune reported at the time that a record $10.7 million had
been poured into the retention campaign between the two sides. Much of
the anti-retention funding came from conservative billionaires Ken
Griffin and Richard Uihlein, with another $200,000 coming from a dark
money group, the Judicial Fairness Project.
“It's critically important that we know who is contributing to
campaigns, all the more so for judicial campaigns,” Senate President Don
Harmon, D-Oak Park, said during a committee hearing Thursday. “People or
entities should not be able to mask their contributions by making it
through another entity. A quote unquote not-for-profit corporation
shouldn't be allowed to amass resources from undisclosed contributors,
and then pass that through to candidates, especially in a judicial
race.”
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the controversial case Citizens
United vs. FEC that corporations and other outside groups could spend
unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. But Harmon noted that
judicial elections have long been held to a different standard, and that
states have more leeway to regulate campaign donations and spending in
those races than in legislative or gubernatorial races.
Under the bill, House Bill 716, candidates for judicial offices would
not be allowed to receive more than $500 during an election cycle from
any committee, association, organization or group of people that is not
required to disclose its contributors.
[to top of second column]
|
Members of the Illinois Supreme Court are pictured in
Springfield. (Credit: Blueroomstream.com)
The bill adds an enforcement mechanism to a dark-money ban in judicial
races that lawmakers passed last year. Under this year’s bill, any
contributions above $500 from a source that is not required to disclose
its donors would be considered an “anonymous contribution” and would be
forfeited to the state.
The bill also exempts judicial races from what is often called the
“self-funding” rule in Illinois law that says if a candidate or a member
of the candidate’s immediate family contributes or makes a loan to the
candidate’s campaign above certain thresholds – $250,000 for statewide
offices and $100,000 for all other offices – then all contribution
limits are lifted for all candidates in that race.
Under the bill, outside contributions in those races would be subject to
a $500,000 limit per a single donor per election cycle.
Additionally, the bill calls for setting up an eight-member Public
Financing of Judicial Elections Task Force to study the feasibility of
allowing the use of public funds to subsidize judicial campaigns to
candidates who agree to adhere to voluntary spending limits. The task
force would complete its study by June 30, 2023, and report its findings
to the governor and General Assembly.
Former Justice Kilbride’s 3rd District seat was filled by the temporary
appointment of Justice Robert Carter, but the seat is up for election to
a full 10-year term this year and Carter is not running for it.
Last year, however, the Democratic-controlled General Assembly took the
additional step of redrawing Supreme Court and appellate court district
lines – the first judicial redistricting since the current constitution
was adopted in 1970.
The new district was drawn in a way that takes in Republican Justice
Michael J. Burke’s residence. Burke was appointed in 2020 to fill the
vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Robert Thomas. He will face
Democrat Mary K. O’Brien, the only other candidate to file in the race,
in the Nov. 8 general election.
That will be a race that could tip the partisan balance on the Supreme
Court, where Democrats hold a slim 4-3 majority, and Republicans in the
General Assembly accused Democrats of trying to tip the odds in that
election in their own favor with the redistricting and campaign finance
changes.
Rep. Deanne Mazzochi, R-Elmhurst, said during debate in the House that
the “only reason” voters were able to unseat Kilbride is because the
outside funds “could actually outweigh, for the first time, the power of
the political machine.”
“So what does the political machine here in Illinois decide they want to
do? They're going to say, ‘forget that, we're not going to allow that to
happen again,’” she said.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering
state government and distributed to more than 400 newspapers statewide.
It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert
R. McCormick Foundation. |