[EL] Illinois Limits

[David Keating]

Someone has brought such a case and it is moving at a glacial pace.  If you want to learn more, much of the info can be found here:
http://libertyjusticecenter.org/cases/illinois-liberty-pac-v-madigan-et-al/#background

David
_________________________________________________
David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
www.campaignfreedom.org<http://www.campaignfreedom.org>

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Schmitt
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:57 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Illinois Limits

I agree with Steve on this, although I would call it Davis II rather than III because Arizona Free Enterprise is quite different. I agree with Steve because:
1. If the primary purpose of contribution limits is to prevent corruption, and the legislature concluded that contributions larger than $X are potentially corrupting, that shouldn't change just because of the actions of another candidate. In fact, it undermines the entire premise of contribution limits to make them variable.
2. Even if you believe that equality of political opportunity is an important value (and I do), and thus some "level the playing field" measures are valid, the Illiniois law and the Millionaire Amendment at issue in Davis don't really level the playing field at all. They level it only for those candidates who have access to mega-donors like Rahm Emanuel's small group. Those will primarily be incumbents or candidates who already have access to big money, like Barack Obama in 2004. (The only notable non-incumbent beneficiary of the Millionaire's Amendment.) For most people who want to run for office, and who don't have access to, say, Laura and John Arnold, the idea that they can now accept contributions of $100,000 or more is just a cruel joke.
Arizona is different because the boost in public financing for candidates who faced non-participating opponents or outside spending clearly benefited all candidates in that situation, and it didn't change contribution limits. It was designed to encourage participation in a system that, on the whole, would reduce dependence on large donors and thus reduce corruption. Whether you agree with the Court or not, it's a wholly different kind of question than Davis or this Illinois provision.
I also think it's outrageous that the Illinois provision can be triggered simply by someone contributing to his own campaign, then deciding not to run and moving the money to a totally different organization, which is the case here. That's just an invitation to fraud. If Kelly didn't seem to actually hate Rahm Emanuel, I'd think the whole thing was a set up.


Mark Schmitt
202/246-2350<tel:202%2F246-2350>
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com<mailto:hoersting at gmail.com>> wrote:
If Davis v. FEC is Davis I,
and Arizona Free Enterprise PAC is Davis II,
someone with standing should challenge the limit-lifting provision in Illinois and create Davis III.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-rahm-emanuel-fundraising-caps-20141127-story.html

Those limits purportedly exist -- in the first instance -- to combat corruption, not foster egalitarianism: Increasing the amount contributors can give an incumbent because a challenger makes a well-financed run gives away the game.

--
Stephen M. Hoersting

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141205/b3f935dc/attachment.html>