Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Campaign roundup: Duckworth backs Valencia; SoS poll; Bost stands behind overturning legit results; No, Martwick ain’t running
Next Post: Pritzker filming TV ads in small-town Illinois
Posted in:
* Hmm…
We love seeing successful public campaign financing programs. Connecticut is demonstrating that #publicfinancing can lead to better governance. https://t.co/4LDh6sXhRW
— Reform for Illinois (@Reform4Illinois) July 6, 2021
* The details are interesting…
Connecticut grabbed national headlines in 2005 and 2006 when the legislature and then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell enacted a sweeping campaign finance reform package that not only established public funding for state races, but also:
• Barred campaign committees from selling ad books to raise business and other special interest funds.
• Dramatically limited political action committees’ abilities to transfer funds.
• And restricted contributions by lobbyists and state contractors.The Citizens’ Election Fund receives most of its funding from the sale of abandoned property. Candidates qualify for public funds by first raising seed money in small increments, between $5 and $250, from individuals. […]
The $27 million in public funds spent on state elections in 2018 — $12.8 million on legislative races and $14.2 million on gubernatorial and other statewide contests — represents 1/7th of 1% of all General Fund spending that year.
More importantly, advocates of the system say, as lobbyists’ influence over campaigns has dropped, legislators and governors have been more willing to revisit corporate and other business tax breaks.
An equivalent amount for Illinois would be a little over $60 million for all legislative and statewide races.
* The Question: Should Illinois adopt a similar campaign finance system? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 1:35 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Campaign roundup: Duckworth backs Valencia; SoS poll; Bost stands behind overturning legit results; No, Martwick ain’t running
Next Post: Pritzker filming TV ads in small-town Illinois
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I voted yes because transferring money from one campaign account to another is unseemly. It’s just a way to funnel money to where the pols want it to go.
Comment by Just Me 2 Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 1:51 pm
We voted “no” cause you forgot to’splain how the dark money from Uline/Griffin Mob would be blocked?
For instance, Trump DOJ sends convicted Ex-Congressman to attack Tom Kilbride and announce his sudden hatred of govt pensions and insider remap deals. How does CN cuts that off?
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 1:51 pm
BTW did you forget the MOS for Katrina and here departure during your lengthy holiday time out?
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 1:53 pm
I voted yes, but, only because the current system is not working. I’m not sure the Connecticut system is the answer, but I think change is in order.
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 2:03 pm
I like the concept, but Illinois and Connecticut are quite a bit different from a size and media market perspective.
A good statewide media tour in Illinois requires an airplane. In Connecticut, you could do it with an Uber.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 2:06 pm
Voted yes - anything that would limit spending, even if not completely, would be progress.
Comment by OldSmoky2 Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 2:27 pm
Voted yes. If it’s written with the public interest in mind, it should reduce the influence of lobbyists and businesses. It will open the entry level tiers of public office to those who lack special interest financing or personal wealth.
Comment by froganon Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 2:31 pm
No because I do not think government money should be used to fund campaigns at all. I also think that these restrictions would unreasonably restrict First Amendment rights.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 2:39 pm
Yes, but one Rauner too late.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 2:39 pm
Voted no because I got confused while wondering which Chicagoland candidates are still doing ad books?
Comment by ChicagoBars Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 2:47 pm
Private campaign financing is nothing more than legalized bribery.
Comment by Ryan Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 2:55 pm
I voted yes, not because I don’t think it’s a good idea, but because it seems like the only states that enact these good government practices are Democratic states (campaign financing, distracting, etc.). Republican states seem to take every advantage. Their assault on voting rights the latest. I’m mostly venting but it’s frustrating, like Democrats bringing knives to a gunfight.
Comment by Sir Reel Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 3:04 pm
I meant, I voted no.
Comment by Sir Reel Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 3:05 pm
I voted yes because the current system is basically legalized bribery. This would give candidates more independence from party power brokers, too. Also everything froganon said.
Comment by Enough with pay to play Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 3:10 pm
Yes. Similar, perhaps not identical.
If public financing existed Bruce Rauner would never have been Governor of Illinois his nomination and term in office is perhaps the worst thing that has ever happened to the Illinois GOP. It would be nice to have a functional opposition party that actually presented good faith efforts to govern and the only way the GOP gets back to that is by public financing.
Sure, they can let another rich dude buy their party in 2022, but I don’t think that’s good for anyone.
It would also limit the impact lobbyists have on a great number of things and result in fewer moments like we experienced with our state’s effort to create a 21st century energy policy this last session.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 3:39 pm
=== If public financing existed Bruce Rauner would never have been Governor of Illinois===
Speculative, not factual or absolute to any end.
To the post,
Conceptually, I’d like to see it.
Illinois’ own existence in the region and the country, and it’s real diversity within her borders make her far different than Connecticut… as Connecticut can be deemed a suburb of New York, and Illinois is nothing like a suburb of anyone else.
A reasonable look at what a statewide, state house, or congressional seat would need to be reasonable to Illinois, and even to regional Illinois challenges too
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 3:51 pm
Yes.
The current system favors wealthy donors and wealthy candidates. Public financing for campaigns (especially small-donor matching programs) incentivizes people running for office to increase contact with people who are not necessarily mega-wealthy. It could at least begin to dilute the influence of moneyed interests in Illinois and further create opportunities for non-traditional candidates to run for office.
Comment by Elbert Voter Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 3:58 pm
=== If public financing existed Bruce Rauner would never have been Governor of Illinois ===
If Pay Quinn wasn’t such a terrible governor Bruace Rauner would never have been Governor of Illinois.
Fixed it for you.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 4:01 pm
Yes. Something that says in exchange for only accepting contributions under $500 from constituents you get a match or something. The transfers ban is huge too. We have great expenditure and contribution transparency in this state, but the transfers really cancel it out. Senator x didn’t accept any coal money, but the leadership pac did… etc. etc.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 4:56 pm
Yes, as long as it will include fewer required signatures for third party candidates, and making the late June primary election day permanent. And moving off year local elections in odd-numbered years to the regular November Election Day rather than all over the calendar in April.
Comment by EssentialStateEmployeeFromChatham Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 5:40 pm
Voted no. Our legislators waste enough of my tax dollars. I don’t want them wasting anymore.
Comment by Out of Illinois Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 9:51 pm
Yes, with all of the other reforms mentioned by EssentialStateEmployeeFromChatham.
Elections are a function of the state, and we need to break this nonsense idea that private funding == free speech.
Comment by Odysseus Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 10:35 pm
===Speculative, not factual or absolute to any end.===
I don’t think many Republicans in Illinois would have found Bruce Rauner to be especially relevant if he wasn’t associated with them as a GOP donor. While it is speculation I think we’ve all seen the receipts that Bruce got when he bought the GOP.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jul 7, 21 @ 11:45 pm
=== I don’t think…===
Again…
Speculative, not factual or absolute to any end.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 6:08 am
===If Pay Quinn wasn’t such a terrible governor Bruace Rauner would never have been Governor of Illinois.
Fixed it for you.===
Pat Quinn lost two general elections, both National GOP blowouts of the Democrats nationwide - 1994 and 2014.
Fixed it for you.
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 6:55 am
==Yes, as long as it will include fewer required signatures for third party candidates, and making the late June primary election day permanent. ==
I would also eliminate the approval requirement for write-in candidates. If you write in anyone’s name on the ballot, even if it’s Donald Duck or your name, it should count in the tabulated election totals.
Comment by EssentialStateEmployeeFromChatham Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 7:45 am
=== If you write in anyone’s name on the ballot, even if it’s Donald Duck or your name, it should count in the tabulated election totals. ===
I am not sure you realize how difficult that would be to administer. Do you know how many goofy write ins occur in every precinct each election? I think it would significantly delay election certification.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 9:09 am
Comparing Illinois to Connecticut would be like comparing Apples to Oranges. Two different entities. Therefore I voted no.
Comment by Old Sarge Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 9:13 am