For real reform, Illinois should repeal campaign contribution limits

Illinois’ limits on campaign contributions are anticompetitive and unconstitutional – and the bill Gov. Pat Quinn just signed enacting sweeping changes to the state’s election code only makes the system more arbitrary and unfair. The biggest problem with Illinois’ existing campaign finance law is that it limits how much money a person can give to candidates for state office...

Illinois’ limits on campaign contributions are anticompetitive and unconstitutional – and the bill Gov. Pat Quinn just signed enacting sweeping changes to the state’s election code only makes the system more arbitrary and unfair.

The biggest problem with Illinois’ existing campaign finance law is that it limits how much money a person can give to candidates for state office – but these limits do not apply to political party leaders. That means, for example, that House Speaker Mike Madigan can give as much money as he wants to the candidates he prefers, but ordinary citizens can’t.

The result: more power for politicians who are already powerful and a deck that’s stacked against citizens who would challenge the status quo.

The bill Quinn just signed only adds more arbitrary exceptions to the rules.

Under the revised law, if independent individuals or groups (including so-called “Super PACs”) collectively spend more than $250,000 in a statewide race or $100,000 in any other race, the contribution limits for all candidates in that race are automatically removed. The same thing happens if a candidate spends his own money on his own campaign above those amounts in a primary race – the usual contribution limits for other candidates go away, not only in the primary but also in the general election.

This is yet another example of politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they tell us we need contribution limits to stop corruption. But on the other hand, they now say that if there’s “too much” independent spending in a race, or a candidate spends too much of his own money, then the limits should just disappear.

So which is it? Are limits essential to prevent corruption or not?

I think most politicians in Springfield know the answer; in fact, contribution limits do not stop corruption. Instead, they enhance incumbent officeholders’ power, make the political donation process more convoluted and help to hide the flow of money from special interests to candidates.

Why did the General Assembly enact these latest exceptions to the rules? As usual, it’s not about fighting corruption; it’s about protecting incumbents.

In general, contribution limits benefit incumbent officeholders. Incumbents enjoy a natural advantage at the ballot box; other things being equal, they are likely to be re-elected. To unseat an incumbent, a challenger needs a lot of money – and contribution limits make it harder to raise that money. Sometimes, though, contribution limits might not be enough to stifle a challenger – for example, if independent groups spend a lot on the challenger’s behalf, or if the challenger can afford to fund his own campaign. When that happens, the incumbent needs a way to fight back, and that’s where the new limit-lifting provisions conveniently come into play and allow the incumbent to raise more money.

In short, contribution limits now stay in place as long as they help incumbents – and they disappear when that’s better for incumbents.

By protecting incumbents from competition, contribution limits make established politicians more secure and help them get away with bad behavior. If anything, then, limits tend to make politics more corrupt, not less.

To really reform Illinois’ election laws, we should remove all contribution limits all the time, not just under arbitrary circumstances. That would make Illinois politics more competitive and less corrupt – and, importantly, it would increase individual liberty, too.

The Liberty Justice Center has challenged Illinois’ campaign finance limits under the First Amendment in a federal lawsuit, Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan. Learn more here, and read our expert’s report on why Illinois’ contribution limits don’t fight corruption.