Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: S&P: Chicago’s migrant spending pressure ‘could have a longer-term effect on its credit quality’
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* HGOP press release…
Last week at a news conference in Springfield, Leader McCombie noted ethics reform as a priority for House Republicans this year. “We sound like a broken record with our continuous calls for ethics reform, but we will not stop until it is passed: we cannot continue to rely on federal prosecution to hold elected officials to a higher standard,” said McCombie.
McCombie is sponsoring HB 4119, which will prevent defendants from utilizing campaign contributions to fund their legal defense. To date, Madigan himself has paid millions from his campaign fund to the legal firm defending him.
* The Question: Should the state prohibit campaign funds from being used for criminal defense attorney’s fees? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 1:44 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: S&P: Chicago’s migrant spending pressure ‘could have a longer-term effect on its credit quality’
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I voted yes. I guess I would think a campaign donation would be meant to help a candidate you like get elected and pass laws you favor I don’t think donations should be an insurance policy for you to break law and afford high price legal talent. And as soon as convicted any pension you earn d should by law automatically stop. Assuming your crime has something to do with your office
Comment by DuPage Saint Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 1:52 pm
I said yes but I would allow for some process that would permit reimbursement if there was an acquittal.
Comment by What's in a name? Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 1:52 pm
Can I ask for a refund?
Comment by Joe Schmoe Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 1:56 pm
Yes, but with a distinction. If the criminal charges are related to government activity, yes. If the charges are related to the campaign, no.
Comment by King Louis XVI Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:04 pm
She may regret this if she ever gets charged with anything lol.
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:04 pm
Yes, this seems close to general personal use, which I understand is prohibited.
It seems strange that it might be the case that you can use campaign funds to defend yourself from a bribery charge but can’t use it to defend yourself from a DUI.
It seems like criminal defence should be off limits for those funds and this seems like a logical rule to have.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:04 pm
I think you should have to payback if found guilty but can use to defend if found innocent. Public figures oftentimes are subject to unwarranted accusations and should be able to pay for their defence out of campaign funds.
Comment by just because Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:08 pm
I can see using campaign funds for civil lawsuits, but I just don’t see how fighting a criminal case is in any way an appropriate use of funds. Crime isn’t a part of getting elected or holding office. At a minimum I would want it to somehow be a separate fund, so the donors know what that money is going to be used for. I doubt that’s practical, so just prohibit it then.
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:10 pm
Voted yes because there’s too little correlation between campaign activities and criminal-defense activities (or at least there should be).
On the other hand, this is Illinois. Don’t we expect at least a portion of our contributions to go to the candidate’s defense costs?
Comment by Duck Duck Goose Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:10 pm
Would have voted yes but voted no because Republicans are totally performative and hypocritical. The former president has allegedly used millions of campaign dollars to pay legal fees. He can do it but not Illinoisans? Not fair. Republicans absolutely can’t be taken seriously on ethics reform when they fully back someone with 91 criminal indictments and multiple civil judgments against him.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:12 pm
This is a genuine question, I’m not trying to be snarky: If a regular state employee commits a fraudulent act in the course of their employment (ie takes a bribe), what support if any do they get from the State or Union to represent themselves?
If the answer is none, then the answer should be yes to the above question.
Comment by Just Me 2 Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:18 pm
Voted YES
Nothing encourages unethical/illegal behavior as much as knowing you’re not going to have to pay the lawyers with your own money…See Madigan…
Comment by CubsWin Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:33 pm
No. Not until SCOTUS figures out “honest services fraud” … . Then the issue can be revisited.
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:34 pm
Yes. I would do further and make it apply to all non-election related legal expenses.
I’m glad the Illinois MAGA GOP is bothered by their corrupt presidential candidate’s spending of $55 million in donations for legal fees.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:51 pm
Yes. Really no question here
Comment by Central Illinois Centrist Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:52 pm
When is it too corrupt to fix?
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 2:58 pm
Voted yes. Campaign donations should be restricted in usage to support the campaign only. If the person needs funds for personal reasons then they can set up a GoFund me account targeted to that expense.
Comment by illinifan Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:02 pm
I voted yes, but I think it should count as personal income and be taxed accordingly.
The former president is now about to tap into the RNC to pay his legal bills, on top of the millions he’s conned donors out of to pay his many lawyers (except for America’s Mayor). That should be taxed as income in my opinion.
Same for Madigan. If he used his political fund, let him be taxed on whatever he uses for legal fees to defend him in the process.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:05 pm
Sorry, meant to vote no, it should not be prohibited. Just taxed.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:06 pm
Had an old law partner who was in the GA. He introduced a bill to have all unused political contributions turned over to the state general fund.
Needless to say it was not well received by his colleagues as many considered these funds as a “retirement” supplement.
Voted Yes. Just another example of the unethical culture in Springfield that should be stopped.
Comment by Back to the Future Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:18 pm
47th - the republican’ts stopped paying tramps legal fees when he declared his candidacy for president. Since then he has been milking his super pac for the money.
What happens now his daughter in law is rnc chair is anyone’s guess.
I voted yes. The thought that a politician is using donations for a personal expense, unrelated to their official duties, is repugnant. The fast and loose character of political donations is one reason I don’t give money to a politician.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:19 pm
I agree with 47th ward. Make it taxable not criminal.
Comment by Joand315 Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:22 pm
Yes, because people who are making donations intend their money to be used to support a campaign, not discretionary spending by the candidate.
Comment by Near Westside Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:33 pm
I voted no but would like a mechanism where if the candidate checks a box saying campaign funds will not be used for such legal costs, it’s legally binding.
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:36 pm
I voted yes. However, if found not guilty, I believe the legal fees of the accused should not be paid by the accused. In the absence of culpability, it would be easy and pragmatic to routinely accuse each other of ethics violations, so as to bankrupt each other. If the accused cannot rely on campaign funds, then what limits should be placed on the accused so as to balance the equation?
Again, I vote yes to the general question. But balance is essential lest politics intervene in legal cases, creating a race to the bottom.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:41 pm
The last sentence in my first paragraph should have read, “If the accused cannot rely on campaign funds, then what limits should be placed on the accuser so as to balance the equation?”
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:43 pm
I vote no on the general principle that a person can be accused of anything. Especially in elections this can happen and really hopefully the donors figure it out quickly and stop. I realize it is after the fact but know the person you want to win.
Comment by clec dcn Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:49 pm
No, with caveats (as shared by other commenters).
1) If guilty, it has to be paid back.
2) Counted as income and taxed.
Running for and holding office puts a person in a high profile position that could result in charges that may appear warranted but, upon adjudication, are found to be not so. If we want people who are not personally wealthy running for and holding office, they need access to funds for legal defense. Like it or not, the best defense comes at a pretty high price; many people plead guilty because they cannot afford adequate defense.
I also agree that the whole Trump defense (not just the funding source, but the claims of and promises to engage in politicization of the Justice Dept.) renders the Republicans’ position as hypocritical.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:54 pm
No.
The foundation of our society’s criminal justice system is built on the presumption of innocence. In this state we also elect our judges, our prosecutors, and some of our law enforcement setting the stage for criminal proceedings that are politically motivated.
A minority of people participate in our political system by giving campaign contributions. Let them absorb the risk associated with backing a corrupt politician.
No one should have been caught off guard by the discovery that Madigan was corrupt.
Donor beware. Support better candidates. Don’t support questionable political practices.
I don’t like Mike Madigan, but if he used any of your money to fund his defense you’re part of the reason why he was around for so long.
The GOP has no platform to lecture on ethics reform while they openly support Donald Trump. None. Their own party has paid millions to support the criminals behind their coup attempt. They should take a moment to look inward.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 3:54 pm
I voted no. I think it should not be used in clear cases of corruption, but for vague allegations that come about as a part of the job I would say yes.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 4:11 pm
===Just taxed.
47th Ward hits the sweet spot for me-everyone else has to pay income taxes (or capital gains) on the money they use and so should politicians.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 4:13 pm
I held my nose and voted no. Politics has descended into lots of phony accusations as well as legitimate ones. This would punish the innocent, because if they can’t afford an expert legal team, they are likely to be found guilty. Perhaps a blanket notice on all ads for donations that funds donated could be used for numerous purposes including legal fees.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 4:29 pm
Voted Yes, but Candy Dogood, as always, makes a good argument for her position.
Comment by Back to the Future Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 4:34 pm
I don’t think the issue comes down to presumption of innocence. To me it’s about the distinction between campaign funds obtained to fund help a candidate get elected, and the possibly criminal behavior of an individual.
Of course an individual is presumed innocent and entitled to defend any charges made. But I can’t see how that process relates to campaigns and elections.
I think a public official is charged with a crime should be allowed to raise funds from the public specifically for criminal defense, a “go fund me” type process. Then the purpose of the fundraising is clear to all.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 5:05 pm
Voted no; and agree with most of what Candy Dogood has said. If such funds are to be used in this manner - then most certainly believe it should be taxed as income.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 5:43 pm