Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Republicans ramp up attacks over DCFS, crime - ILGOP calls out “Pritzker’s state-sponsored child abuse”
Next Post: Pritzker, DPI challenge statewide Republican candidates to face reporters, answer questions
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
Elected officials in the crosshairs of federal investigators shouldn’t be able to dip into their campaign funds to pay defense attorneys, a freshman alderman says — but a lawyer for his maligned predecessor’s ward organization says there’d have to be a change in state law to cut off politicians’ legal piggy banks.
Illinois’ highest court is now deliberating that contentious issue — or most of the court, that is. Two jurists have recused themselves from the case, including [Justice Mary Jane Theis and] Chief Justice Anne Burke, whose indicted husband Ald. Ed Burke (14th) has shelled out about $2 million in campaign cash to lawyers involved in his public corruption case.
The five remaining state Supreme Court justices heard arguments Wednesday hinging on whether the high-priced criminal defenses that so many Illinois officials have had to pony up for amount to “personal” expenses prohibited by campaign finance law.
* Center Square…
The case was brought to the court by Chicago Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez in an effort to stop elected officials from using campaign funds to pay lawyers for personal matters. He’s seeking to overturn an earlier State Board of Elections decision to reject the Sigcho-Lopez case.
Sigcho-Lopez is represented by Adolfo Mondragon. Mondragon told the justices the case is to stop elected officials from using donor money to pay for their legal problems.
“The purpose of the Campaign Disclosure Act of the Illinois Election Code is to deter and mitigate public corruption,” Mondragon said.
The case comes after Sigcho-Lopez filed a complaint against former 25th Ward Alderman Danny Solis and his decision to use $220,000 of campaign funds to pay his lawyers to defend himself from accusations of wrongdoing.
Mondragon argued that what Solis did is exactly what they are trying to prevent from happening again.
“Let’s be clear here, the $220,000 Danny Solis owed the law firm of Foley and Lardner is what is normally considered a personal debt,” Mondragon said. “It was not a campaign debt because he was not running for office.”
* WTTW…
“What a slap in the face” it is to allow politicians accused of political corruption to use funds contributed by supporters of their campaigns to defend themselves from accusations of wrongdoing while in office, Mondragon told the justices. […]
Michael Dorf, the attorney for the 25th Ward Regular Democratic Organization, urged the court to defer to the Illinois State Board of Elections, which voted 8-0 to reject Sigcho-Lopez’s complaint. Allowing politicians to use campaign funds to pay legal fees associated with corruption probes has been “policy for a very long time” and should not be changed.
State law allows campaign funds to be used to pay for expenses incurred by elected officials that are “customary and reasonable” — but not for purely personal expenses, such as clothes, haircuts and club memberships.
Justice Michael Burke asked Dorf how it is not the “antithesis” of laws designed to prevent corruption and encourage good government policy to allow campaign funds to cover legal fees associated with legal probes.
In response, Dorf acknowledged that Solis had been contacted by federal prosecutors, and had cooperated with their probe.
* WCIA…
The State Board of Elections said if the General Assembly wanted to enact a specific prohibition on the use of campaign funds for legal fees, they could write that into the law.
Justice Michael Burke referred to a similar case that came before the Supreme Court in New Jersey.
The court in New Jersey “looked at this exact issue,” Burke said. “It said this: ‘We have yet to reach the point where it can be said that defending against federal or state criminal indictment alleging corrupt practices is an ordinary expense of holding public office.’”
Burke asked, “Are we at that point in Illinois where we’re going to say that that’s an ordinary expense of holding public office?”
“The legislature knows how to deal with that,” election attorney Michael Dorf replied. “That’s a legislative solution, and Illinois knows how to do that if they wanted to do it. And the Illinois legislature hasn’t.”
* More from Dorf’s presentation…
The appellant lives in a world where everybody is guilty. And everybody is not guilty. People are investigated and they are not charged. People are charged and they are not convicted. It’s not just the individual who may be under suspicion who is at risk here. People who are public officials who have no connection with a person may be under investigation, may have had an email from that person. And suddenly they are the subject of a subpoena for thousands of records or perhaps hours of deposition testimony. And the legal fees in those situations are oppressive and unfair for someone who just happened to be the the recipient of an email, email or a phone call. […]
Would this expenditure have occurred irrespective of the person’s status as a candidate or a public office holder? And it is absolutely clear that the FBI would not have come to Ald. Soliz and said, ‘We want you to cooperate and wear a wire on members of the city council and members of state legislatures’ if this person had not been a public official able to be in those those types of dealings. So the irrespective test sets a good standard for that. And the courts have acknowledged this. It’s an interesting logic, but how can you be accused of, or involved in public corruption if you’re not a public official somehow?
* Meanwhile, former House Speaker Michael Madigan’s latest D-2 filing shows he paid the Baltimore law firm of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP just $18K for legal work during the fourth quarter. He paid the firm, which bills itself as having “World-class regulatory, litigation and transactional solutions for your most complex challenges,” $12K in the third quarter, along with $50K to DC law firm O’Melveny & Myers, which does white collar defense and corporate investigations. His 13th Ward organization had no legal fees in the fourth quarter.
However, he gave Katten Muchin Rosenman $2 million almost a year ago, which looked like a prepayment.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 10:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Republicans ramp up attacks over DCFS, crime - ILGOP calls out “Pritzker’s state-sponsored child abuse”
Next Post: Pritzker, DPI challenge statewide Republican candidates to face reporters, answer questions
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Someone needs to tell Sigcho that Danny Solis isn’t running anymore….or maybe they shouldn’t.
Comment by huh Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 10:43 am
Dorf’s “see no evil” approach is the best hope for campaign fund/election reform…
“That’s a legislative solution, and Illinois knows how to do that if they wanted to do it. And the Illinois legislature hasn’t.”
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 10:53 am
Will this age well?
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 11:04 am
Pondering whether a ruling that campaign funds can’t be used for legal expenses may have more of a deterrent effect on corruption than longer prison terms.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 11:04 am
@Donnie - except it did, Donnie. Cleaned up the Mautino/vehicle items, added the child care piece to the statute. Dorf’s argument stated that very thing.
Comment by Eloy Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 11:05 am
I think Norseman is absolutely right a great deterrent. Allowing contributions to be used for legal defense should be void as against
Public policy
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 11:17 am
Dorf, such a good guy.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 11:31 am
who is the chief justice of the illinois supreme court, and is her husband tapping into a massive campaign war chest to pay legal fees?
Comment by moving forward Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 11:36 am
People gave me money to do a public thing for them, but I want to use those dollars to cover a personal expense to me. ‘That equation does not balance’ said my high school chemistry teacher.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 11:36 am
===who is the chief justice of the illinois supreme court, and is her husband tapping into a massive campaign war chest to pay legal fees?===
Maybe read the post before commenting. It’s in the second paragraph.
Comment by Leslie K Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 11:47 am
===Maybe read the post before commenting===
We’re getting a lot of that lately. This isn’t Twitter, people. Read beyond the headlines or you’ll be gone.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 11:50 am
Dorf’s argument is nonsense. taking it to its logical conclusion then the governmental entities they represent should indemnify these individuals if they are investigated for public corruption–that already been declared improper.
Comment by Publius Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 1:27 pm
So when the tables turn a DSA member/ally goes broke fighting a corruption probe, I imagine there will be a substantial 180 on whether or not one can use their campaign funds for legal expenses. Not every corruption probe is done in good faith. Does no one remember why Bush the Younger’s DoJ fired certain U.S. Attorneys?
Comment by Nuke The Whales Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 1:30 pm
Did Theis give a reason why she’s recused, anyone know?
Comment by ? Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 1:35 pm
=== “We believe it is critical, especially during these trying times in our city, that these practices are addressed,” Sigcho-Lopez said. ===
Yes - because this is the most important issue facing the City of Chicago. Never mind the over 800 homicides last year, or the increase in the number of carjackings and other violent crimes. Never mind the real problems that families face everyday such as finding a job that pays a living wage, good schools for our children, or ensuring that seniors can retire with dignity. No, I want to ensure that my political opponent and predecessor in office cannot use campaign funds (distinguishable from taxpayer or other state funds) to pay legal bills.
Im glad to see BSL has his priorities straight.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 2:05 pm
@- DuPage Saint - Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 11:17 am:
===I think Norseman is absolutely right a great deterrent. Allowing contributions to be used for legal defense should be void as against
Public policy===
It depends if the person is found guilty or not. If someone is innocent and being accused for political reasons, they should be able to use their political funds to hire a legal defense.
That being said, Rauner was openly sending checks out to legislators before votes on bills he wanted them to vote for. Nobody did anything about it.
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 2:28 pm
How about an opt in. That is at the point of the campaign someone has to check a box stating that it is OK to use the donation as personal legal funds?
Most of your large donors won’t care (I believe these donations are more likely to trigger corruption charges anyway) but the small donors might.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 2:35 pm
===Im glad to see BSL has his priorities straight.==
Ever stop to think that corruption and failed public policy might be interrelated?
Comment by Resident Pessimist Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 4:21 pm
The IL Supreme Court is made up of lawyers, right? No way will the Court not allow the use of campaign funds to pay legal fees. The court wants its brethren defense lawyers to continue drawing those high legal fees from politicians. Anybody want to bet me I’m wrong?
Comment by Old Lobster Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 4:24 pm
=== Ever stop to think that corruption and failed public policy might be interrelated? ===
So this fight is actually about reducing the amount of crime that has exploded in Chicago and suburbs? I don’t think so. This is about punishing a political opponent.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Jan 20, 22 @ 5:29 pm