Illinois Supreme Court weighing officials’ use of campaign funds for
lawyers
Send a link to a friend
[January 27, 2022]
By PETER HANCOCK
Capitol News Illinois
phancock@capitolnewsillinois.com
SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois Supreme Court is
being asked to decide whether public officials who are under
investigation or charged with crimes may use their campaign funds to pay
for their legal defense.
The court heard oral arguments last week in a case involving a former
Chicago city alderman, Daniel Solis, then chairman of the City Council’s
Zoning Committee, who was being investigated by the FBI for allegedly
taking campaign donations from developers in exchange for official
action.
Solis did not run for re-election in 2019 and was succeeded by Byron
Sigcho-Lopez, who filed a complaint over the matter with the Illinois
State Board of Elections.
On May 21, 2019, the day after Sigcho-Lopez was sworn into office, the
25th Ward Regular Democratic Organization, which Solis chaired, used
$220,000 to pay the law firm Foley & Lardner, LLP, for defending him.
The purpose of the payment was first reported by local media.
Solis was not prosecuted in the case. Instead, he entered a deferred
prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in exchange for
agreeing to wear a wire and aid in the investigation of another Chicago
city alderman, Ed Burke, who is the husband of Supreme Court Chief
Justice Anne Burke.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2022/Jan/27/images/ads/current/2021_lda_Businessdirectory.png)
Anne Burke has recused herself from the case, as has Justice Mary Jane
Theis. Neither gave an official reason for their recusal.
That leaves only five justices left to decide the case, but the Illinois
Constitution still requires four justices to agree on a decision.
ISBE dismissed the complaint, saying the Illinois Campaign Disclosure
Act prohibits the use of campaign funds to satisfy personal debts, but
it specifically permits the use of campaign funds “to defray the
customary and reasonable expenses of an officeholder in connection with
the performance of governmental and public service functions.”
The question before the court is whether the cost of a criminal defense
lawyer is a personal expense or an expense directly related to Solis’
governmental or public service functions.
“Are we at that point in Illinois where we're going to say that that's
an ordinary expense of holding public office?” Justice Michael Burke
asked during oral arguments. Michael Burke is not related to Anne or Ed
Burke.
The Illinois statute itself does not define the difference between
personal and official expenses. But Adolfo Mondragon, the attorney for
Sigcho-Lopez, argued that criminal defense costs cannot be considered
part of an elected official’s governmental functions.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/012722pics/news_a55.jpg)
Illinois Supreme Court Justice Michael Burke asks
questions Jan. 19 during oral arguments in a case challenging
whether elected officials can use campaign funds to pay legal
expenses stemming from public corruption charges or investigations.
(Credit: Blueroomstream.com)
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2022/Jan/27/images/ads/current/rohlfs_lda_072017.png)
“The purpose of the campaign Disclosure Act of the Illinois election
code is to deter and mitigate public corruption,” he said.
“Consequently, any interpretation of the Campaign Disclosure Act that
allows for the use of campaign funds to pay for public office holders’
criminal defense against investigations or charges of public corruption,
the very evil the law was designed to combat, is antithetical to the
legislative intent.”
But Michael Dorf, attorney for the 25th Ward committee, argued that
public corruption investigations are, by definition, directly tied to an
officeholder’s official duties, so attorney fees should be considered an
allowable use.
“The expenditure was not for strictly personal use and would not have
occurred if Alderman Solis we're not a public official,” he said.
Most political campaigns routinely incur legal expenses, and payments to
attorneys frequently appear on campaign finance statements without any
specific explanation of the type of legal work being performed.
Modregon conceded that it was through only news reports that the public
learned of the purpose of the 25th Ward committee’s payment to Foley &
Lardner, but he said that assertion was uncontested at the
administrative hearing before the State Board of Elections.
Dorf, meanwhile, argued that if lawmakers want to ban the use of
campaign funds to pay for criminal defense attorneys, they could write
that into the statute, and he noted there are two bills pending in the
General Assembly to do just that.
One of those is House Bill 2929, by Rep. Deanne Mazzochi, R-Elmhurst,
who called on Democrats to consider the bill in light of the Supreme
Court case.
"This shouldn't be a matter of ambiguity in Illinois state law,” she
said in a news release Tuesday. “Regardless of how the court eventually
interprets current campaign law, this shouldn't remain a statutory
loophole. Letting this continue sends the wrong message: that literally,
corrupt and unethical public officials who abused their office don't
have to pay for their misdeeds, they can just continue to abuse their
office to troll for campaign funds and keep the insider game going.”
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.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2022/Jan/27/images/ads/current/stclara_lda_SPONSOR_090519.png) |