Yes. $2,000 to a candidate’s committee per individual/corp/pac per election cycle. So one could give $2,000 for the primary and again give $2,000 in the general. While we are talking about election reform, how about non-partisan primaries. Maybe that would encourage some decent candidates. Let’s take a wrecking ball to the combine!
Are you talking about just money? Are you talking just cash or in-kind as well? I like the idea, but I think the rules would be hard to write and enforce. And I like St Obama…teehee
Would that make his wifes missing fur Obama-drama? And speaking of drama,isn’t Levine pleading guilty again today?
- Wumpus the Free - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 11:21 am:
St. Obama is tarnishing his halo of late. If they are capped, people will just have spouses and children giving to candidates to circumvent it, no. IOnly full disclosure.
If you cap things too much (I’m more concerned with PACs), then how do you make sure that someone without a lot of personal wealth can compete with someone who does?
Definitely need caps. But not just the amounts a candidate can take, but cap the amounts a candidate can spend. Also need free air time. Later primary, like June, to shorten campaign season would be nice.
Absolutely, $2000 per election cycle or per year. Something, this no-holds-barred program here is pathetic. Let everyone raise as much as they can, but in $2000 increments. There are limits already on federal candidates and in many states. It’s really not that hard to implement. Long overdue here.
I suggest we look at the British system of electing. It is my understanding they have very low spending caps. They have short election cycles, thus short advertising cycles (free at last). This approach would level the playing field for anyone to run that wants to. It would cut out (hopefully) candidate character assassinations (are they all really bad?) as they would have to talk about their agenda and sell themselves since time would be so short. Then we could go back to watching regular TV again. Politics plays way to large a role in our society. The list of things more important than politics is much longer that should be commanding our attention.
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 12:02 pm:
Contributions should be capped, although this is merely a finger in the dike. I’d say anything between $1,500 and $2,500 is reasonable.
Another good reform — both federally and locally — is some uniform guidance on how to report occupation and employer. Right now, a whole bunch of rich people with very specific interests in government business can get away with calling themselves self-employed “investors” or “entrepenuers.” There needs to be better rules on what a big-time donor has to disclose.
How about a requirement that any person or organization that makes aggregate contributions in excess of a certain amount (say $25,000) has to file a statement of economic interest, disclosing all financial dealings with the state?
Ilinois has been, and continues to be, a total free-for-all. Anyone who doesn’t want us to have some kinds of restrictions is just acting as a schill for the same corrupt BS that we Illinoians have had to deal with for our entire lives. $1,000 per individual I’d favor, per election cycle as suggested above.
The federal example should teach us that caps absolutely do not work. They simply channel political money into other entities to do the same work, but without the transparency or accountability.
Money will find its way into politics. The Illinois system of reporting - but no caps - provides transparency and accountability. We would be worse off with caps, and the rise of a slew of 527 equivilent groups with no transparency or accountability.
No limits! No Caps! Instant reporting on the internet.
That is the only way for people to participate without crawling to the party and not being a millionaire.
You should all go watch the 10-20-2006 PBS program ‘NOW’ titled “Votes For Sale”. It explains how the State of Arizona allows candidates to fund their campaigns on public money. This is the only money they are allowed to use; i.e. they can’t take money from any other source. If it is found that they did, they are either kicked out of the race if it is discovered before election day or kicked out of office if it is discovered after elections. It appears to me that this method is a Democratic system, unlike the system we have in place currently. PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK. IT IS WELL WORTH YOUR TIME.
No. I just want full, easy disclosure of all contributions, who gave the money and what interests they have with the state. I think capping contributions would just result in people figuring out how to do endruns around the legislation.
No Caps! Money finds a way into the race no matter what limitation or regulations you put up. It would be better if there were more accountability, ie 24 Hour Web reporting of donors. I agree with “other anon” that there needs to be more descriptive professions.
One more thing about Caps, they make the candidates spend more time raising money from more people. More time in fundraising means less time for everything else. This of course gives another advantage to self-funded candidates .
- Sister Mary Elephant - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 2:15 pm:
Lift all caps for donations from Illinois resident individuals.
Sharply limit contributions from non-individuals (corporations, PACs and “soft money”) and from all out-of-staters.
The problem that has been highlighted this election is the Blago conundrum.
If there is an extremely corrupt sitting Governor, then he can sell state contracts for campaign contributions, beat the hell out of a non-corrupt opponent, and win re-election to continue this cycle of corruption.
I think if a candidate can raise at least $2,000,000 then they should be eligible for a matching with state funds if necessary.
I don’t think any person should qualify. I think they should demonstrate a minimal threshold of political adeptness.
Ashur Odishoo
Candidate
State Representative 11th District www.voteodishoo.com
No caps on money raising, but outlaw campaign spending. No ads, no flyers. Maybe a couple publicly funded, mandated attendance debates. Instead, make the candidate spend the campaign money he or she raises fulfilling his or her campaign promises.
So if you raise $20 million on a promise to better fund schools, you spend “your” $20 million doing that.
Seems like an easy way to solve everyone’s problems. Plus, if you’ve got enough money to contribute to a campaign then you’ve got too much money and by taking that money and using it to solve the state’s problems, you’ll spare the rest of us those unsightly tax increases.
At a minimum, they should be held to the same limits as federal candidates. There’s no doubt that the interest groups that are most successful are the one with the largest PACS. When people say things like Com Ed’s contributuons to legislative leaders have nothing to do with their opposition to things like extending a rate freeze who do they think they are kidding.
No. We should fully publically fund public elections–no private or corporate sponsorship of public elections; however, while not as good as this option, a cap is better than what we have now.
Yes. $2,000 per person, a limit of $5,000 political contributions allowed for any Business less than 500 employees and $15,000 for any business greater than 500 employees. No PAC money allowed and no business doing business with the state allowed to contribute. Need a system of disclosure with total contributions per candidate not to exceed $1,000,000.00 for the primary and for the general election. No contributions allowed for federal positions. No money from out of state businesses. Also need non-partisan primary.
The problem with capping contributions is that this may inhibit competition. You need money to raise money, so if the contribution limits are too low, you may not be able to get off the ground in the first place.
I think it would be interesting to try a “sliding scale” where challengers are initially allowed to raise money in large increments - $10,000 per contributor, say - and then they must start raising in smaller amounts once they reach a certain threshold of viability. I don’t know what that would be in an Illinois Tier 1 race currently, what you need to have in order for the media and other donors to take you seriously as a candidate. $100,000? $200,000? Whatever it is, we should not make it too hard for challengers to reach that threshold.
The nice thing about a sliding scale is that since you have to gather these large contributions first (presumably from your die-hard believer supporters), there’s plenty of time for the media and your opponent to look at them, and if it looks like you’re a paid subsidiary of the trial lawyers or any other group, they’ll have plenty of time to make that case to the public.
Capping the amount you can spend as a candidate is a very bad idea. It never works. Pols always find a way around it, and since they write the laws, they find ways not to enforce them against themselves. But history has shown us that contribution limits, if reasonable, and strong disclosure laws can provide some benefits. They won’t cure all that’s wrong with Illinois, but they are worth trying.
If such a cap is unconstitutional, then there should never be a cap on contributions ever, or else we basically say working-class individuals will be shut out of holding office.
We have to be real careful here. If you go about limiting advertising of any kind, then you are stepping on first amendment rights of free speech. Do I wish that candidates would spend more time in town hall meetings, debates and knocking on doors, instead of running negative campaign ads? Of course. But we are a free country, and if we start limiting what candidates can or can’t say and how they can say it, then we are denying our own system of freedom and democracy.
I do think we should focus more on campaign contribution limits for corporations and PACs than for individuals, but only with full disclosure of WHO they are and to make sure that all business interests are disclosed. The system will NEVER be corruption-proof. Dishonest crooks will always find a way around a system which relies on honesty. But we can put some reasonable, constitutional, safeguards in place to keep out special interests while not restricting individual’s rights to support the candidate of their choice.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 10:27 pm:
No, absolutely not. It is futile, and will, like with the feds, lead to less, not more, transperancy.
I support full and quick disclosure, particularly with contributions over a certain threshold (maybe $25,000). I also like the suggestion above of requiring filing statements of economic interest for the big givers.
- Pat Hickey - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 9:48 am:
Heck No - Sell more Ice Cream!
- Way Northsider - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 9:53 am:
Yes.
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 10:01 am:
if Saint Obama wills it, yes. His Word is Gospel!
- Hydraulics (Da Pressure of Thangs) - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 10:02 am:
Ask Corruptovich, he’s got a spin for everything!
- Anon Sequitor - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 10:25 am:
Saint Obama! I like that.
For once I agree with something a Ravenswood wingnut says. There is truth even in jest, my friend.
- 105th Blues - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 10:25 am:
Capped for whom Rich? Do you mean cap the amount a person can give, cap the amount a person can receive, or cap the amount that an entity can give?
- Niles Township - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 10:38 am:
Yes. $2,000 to a candidate’s committee per individual/corp/pac per election cycle. So one could give $2,000 for the primary and again give $2,000 in the general. While we are talking about election reform, how about non-partisan primaries. Maybe that would encourage some decent candidates. Let’s take a wrecking ball to the combine!
- LathamPlace - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 10:41 am:
Definately!
- Levois - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 10:55 am:
Yes, you shouldn’t be able to raise more than a million dollars for any race in Illinois.
- Belle - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 11:07 am:
Are you talking about just money? Are you talking just cash or in-kind as well? I like the idea, but I think the rules would be hard to write and enforce. And I like St Obama…teehee
Would that make his wifes missing fur Obama-drama? And speaking of drama,isn’t Levine pleading guilty again today?
- Wumpus the Free - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 11:21 am:
St. Obama is tarnishing his halo of late. If they are capped, people will just have spouses and children giving to candidates to circumvent it, no. IOnly full disclosure.
- HRH Weezer - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 11:36 am:
If you cap things too much (I’m more concerned with PACs), then how do you make sure that someone without a lot of personal wealth can compete with someone who does?
- scoot - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 11:39 am:
CAP all across the board. From individuals all the way to PACs-unions-etc..
- anon - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 11:52 am:
Definitely need caps. But not just the amounts a candidate can take, but cap the amounts a candidate can spend. Also need free air time. Later primary, like June, to shorten campaign season would be nice.
- babs - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 11:54 am:
Absolutely, $2000 per election cycle or per year. Something, this no-holds-barred program here is pathetic. Let everyone raise as much as they can, but in $2000 increments. There are limits already on federal candidates and in many states. It’s really not that hard to implement. Long overdue here.
- Pension Nut - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 12:02 pm:
I suggest we look at the British system of electing. It is my understanding they have very low spending caps. They have short election cycles, thus short advertising cycles (free at last). This approach would level the playing field for anyone to run that wants to. It would cut out (hopefully) candidate character assassinations (are they all really bad?) as they would have to talk about their agenda and sell themselves since time would be so short. Then we could go back to watching regular TV again. Politics plays way to large a role in our society. The list of things more important than politics is much longer that should be commanding our attention.
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 12:02 pm:
Contributions should be capped, although this is merely a finger in the dike. I’d say anything between $1,500 and $2,500 is reasonable.
Another good reform — both federally and locally — is some uniform guidance on how to report occupation and employer. Right now, a whole bunch of rich people with very specific interests in government business can get away with calling themselves self-employed “investors” or “entrepenuers.” There needs to be better rules on what a big-time donor has to disclose.
How about a requirement that any person or organization that makes aggregate contributions in excess of a certain amount (say $25,000) has to file a statement of economic interest, disclosing all financial dealings with the state?
- E-G - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 12:03 pm:
Ilinois has been, and continues to be, a total free-for-all. Anyone who doesn’t want us to have some kinds of restrictions is just acting as a schill for the same corrupt BS that we Illinoians have had to deal with for our entire lives. $1,000 per individual I’d favor, per election cycle as suggested above.
- m - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 12:04 pm:
Caps are a terrible isea.
The federal example should teach us that caps absolutely do not work. They simply channel political money into other entities to do the same work, but without the transparency or accountability.
Money will find its way into politics. The Illinois system of reporting - but no caps - provides transparency and accountability. We would be worse off with caps, and the rise of a slew of 527 equivilent groups with no transparency or accountability.
- RAI - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 12:10 pm:
No limits! No Caps! Instant reporting on the internet.
That is the only way for people to participate without crawling to the party and not being a millionaire.
- Rusty - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 12:24 pm:
You should all go watch the 10-20-2006 PBS program ‘NOW’ titled “Votes For Sale”. It explains how the State of Arizona allows candidates to fund their campaigns on public money. This is the only money they are allowed to use; i.e. they can’t take money from any other source. If it is found that they did, they are either kicked out of the race if it is discovered before election day or kicked out of office if it is discovered after elections. It appears to me that this method is a Democratic system, unlike the system we have in place currently. PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK. IT IS WELL WORTH YOUR TIME.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/242/index.html
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 12:32 pm:
No. I just want full, easy disclosure of all contributions, who gave the money and what interests they have with the state. I think capping contributions would just result in people figuring out how to do endruns around the legislation.
- Lovie's Leather - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 12:41 pm:
Don’t cap contributions. Cap the amount that politicians can spend.
- Captain America - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 12:44 pm:
I’ll second that opinion. The “free-for-all, “anything goes” fundraising environemnt needs needs to end.” “Pay-to-play” politics needs to end.
Illinois is the Wild West of political fundraising. We get the best government that money can buy.
I’ll leave it to Cindy Canary to advise us how to establish reasonable and constitutional limits.
- Jacketpotato - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 1:04 pm:
No Caps! Money finds a way into the race no matter what limitation or regulations you put up. It would be better if there were more accountability, ie 24 Hour Web reporting of donors. I agree with “other anon” that there needs to be more descriptive professions.
One more thing about Caps, they make the candidates spend more time raising money from more people. More time in fundraising means less time for everything else. This of course gives another advantage to self-funded candidates .
- Sister Mary Elephant - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 2:15 pm:
Lift all caps for donations from Illinois resident individuals.
Sharply limit contributions from non-individuals (corporations, PACs and “soft money”) and from all out-of-staters.
Full disclosure for all.
- Ashur Odishoo - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 2:50 pm:
The problem that has been highlighted this election is the Blago conundrum.
If there is an extremely corrupt sitting Governor, then he can sell state contracts for campaign contributions, beat the hell out of a non-corrupt opponent, and win re-election to continue this cycle of corruption.
I think if a candidate can raise at least $2,000,000 then they should be eligible for a matching with state funds if necessary.
I don’t think any person should qualify. I think they should demonstrate a minimal threshold of political adeptness.
Ashur Odishoo
Candidate
State Representative 11th District
www.voteodishoo.com
- Frank Booth - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 3:00 pm:
No caps on money raising, but outlaw campaign spending. No ads, no flyers. Maybe a couple publicly funded, mandated attendance debates. Instead, make the candidate spend the campaign money he or she raises fulfilling his or her campaign promises.
So if you raise $20 million on a promise to better fund schools, you spend “your” $20 million doing that.
Seems like an easy way to solve everyone’s problems. Plus, if you’ve got enough money to contribute to a campaign then you’ve got too much money and by taking that money and using it to solve the state’s problems, you’ll spare the rest of us those unsightly tax increases.
- Downtown - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 3:21 pm:
At a minimum, they should be held to the same limits as federal candidates. There’s no doubt that the interest groups that are most successful are the one with the largest PACS. When people say things like Com Ed’s contributuons to legislative leaders have nothing to do with their opposition to things like extending a rate freeze who do they think they are kidding.
- Squideshi - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 3:24 pm:
No. We should fully publically fund public elections–no private or corporate sponsorship of public elections; however, while not as good as this option, a cap is better than what we have now.
- Angie - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 3:29 pm:
Re: “We get the best government that money can buy.”
Then why can’t the state pay up things like the Medicaid backlog? Good grief.
- Justice - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 3:31 pm:
Yes. $2,000 per person, a limit of $5,000 political contributions allowed for any Business less than 500 employees and $15,000 for any business greater than 500 employees. No PAC money allowed and no business doing business with the state allowed to contribute. Need a system of disclosure with total contributions per candidate not to exceed $1,000,000.00 for the primary and for the general election. No contributions allowed for federal positions. No money from out of state businesses. Also need non-partisan primary.
- ZC - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 3:42 pm:
The problem with capping contributions is that this may inhibit competition. You need money to raise money, so if the contribution limits are too low, you may not be able to get off the ground in the first place.
I think it would be interesting to try a “sliding scale” where challengers are initially allowed to raise money in large increments - $10,000 per contributor, say - and then they must start raising in smaller amounts once they reach a certain threshold of viability. I don’t know what that would be in an Illinois Tier 1 race currently, what you need to have in order for the media and other donors to take you seriously as a candidate. $100,000? $200,000? Whatever it is, we should not make it too hard for challengers to reach that threshold.
The nice thing about a sliding scale is that since you have to gather these large contributions first (presumably from your die-hard believer supporters), there’s plenty of time for the media and your opponent to look at them, and if it looks like you’re a paid subsidiary of the trial lawyers or any other group, they’ll have plenty of time to make that case to the public.
Capping the amount you can spend as a candidate is a very bad idea. It never works. Pols always find a way around it, and since they write the laws, they find ways not to enforce them against themselves. But history has shown us that contribution limits, if reasonable, and strong disclosure laws can provide some benefits. They won’t cure all that’s wrong with Illinois, but they are worth trying.
- Nickname - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 4:14 pm:
ONLY IF THERE IS ALSO A CAP ON SELF-FUNDING!!!
If such a cap is unconstitutional, then there should never be a cap on contributions ever, or else we basically say working-class individuals will be shut out of holding office.
- HRH Weezer - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 6:20 pm:
We have to be real careful here. If you go about limiting advertising of any kind, then you are stepping on first amendment rights of free speech. Do I wish that candidates would spend more time in town hall meetings, debates and knocking on doors, instead of running negative campaign ads? Of course. But we are a free country, and if we start limiting what candidates can or can’t say and how they can say it, then we are denying our own system of freedom and democracy.
I do think we should focus more on campaign contribution limits for corporations and PACs than for individuals, but only with full disclosure of WHO they are and to make sure that all business interests are disclosed. The system will NEVER be corruption-proof. Dishonest crooks will always find a way around a system which relies on honesty. But we can put some reasonable, constitutional, safeguards in place to keep out special interests while not restricting individual’s rights to support the candidate of their choice.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Nov 1, 06 @ 10:27 pm:
No, absolutely not. It is futile, and will, like with the feds, lead to less, not more, transperancy.
I support full and quick disclosure, particularly with contributions over a certain threshold (maybe $25,000). I also like the suggestion above of requiring filing statements of economic interest for the big givers.