Eye On Illinois: Will lawmakers act to restrict campaign money expenditures?

State lawmakers could choose to thread a delicate needle next week.

In August, Minority Leader Tony McCombie, of Savanna, filed House Bill 4119, an attempt to amend the state Election Code to bar political committees from spending money on a candidate’s legal bills. It was virtually identical to HB 2929, from the previous General Assembly session, which ultimately died in the Rules Committee.

With the fall veto session beginning Tuesday, McCombie’s bill is unlikely to pass as written. As I wrote Aug. 22, HB 2929 didn’t delineate between defenses of provable federal crimes and spurious personal allegations, and while most elected officials agree with the broad concept that campaign contributions should fund politics and not legal bills, they won’t put themselves in a position of being unable to afford defense from meritless litigation.

They could, however, amend HB 4119 to make themselves exempt. It’s not an uncommon approach. Consider the sweeping Open Meetings Act, which covers “all legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the state, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this state, and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue, except the General Assembly and committees or commissions thereof.”

The pacing issue is Monday’s Chicago Board of Ethics decision to fine an alderman $20,000 for abusing his position by assessing a $600 meritless overgrown weeds and rodents fine on an openly critical constituent. Ambiguity in current state law would allow the alderman to pay the fine from campaign funds. Although anyone could ask the State Board of Elections to determine doing so would violate campaign finance law, precedent shows the likely outcome.

In March 2022, a 4-0 Illinois Supreme Court opinion affirmed a state appeals panel’s ruling in an elections board dispute with a different alderman. There, the alderman alleged his predecessor’s campaign committee paid $220,000 to a law firm connected to a federal investigation over taking donations from real estate developers in exchange for favorable outcomes from the zoning committee he chaired.

The ISBE dismissed the complaint because the Campaign Disclosure Act – which bans spending campaign money on personal debts – lets politicians “defray the customary and reasonable expenses of an officeholder in connection with the performance of governmental and public service functions.”

Absent further legislation, Justice David Overstreet wrote, “the issue requires the (Elections) Board’s consideration on a case-by-case basis.”

The General Assembly could draw bright lines while shielding itself. It’s not the ideal solution, but clearing up a little ambiguity and offering slight protections might be nice.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media. Follow him on Twitter @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.