I actually do support public financing, but probably not for the reasons the reformers do. I support it out of a simple respect for fairness. I also support giving candidates equal amounts of air time on networks, cable, radio, etc. and restricting all outside donations so there is a level playing field. Realistically, I never expect any of these things to happen because the constituencies they threaten (incumbents, media conglomorates, others) are too powerful and will defeat them.
Bonus question - no, it wouldn't have prevented the scandals. They were crooks, plain and simple, and crooks will find a way to be crooks.
Phineas J. Whoopee
· 7 months ago
How can you only publically finance the Governors race and leave out all the others? All races should be publically financed and then all the wackos can be on equal footing with the main stream pols. A veritable free for all every election. Fun for one and all.
Rich Miller
· 7 months ago
Answer the question, please. Thanks.
Wumpus
· 7 months ago
Yes Phinneas, the wacko who won the last 2 times was defintiely not on equal footing. How silly is it that Quinn won largely because we did not have this system in place. He benefitted most from Blago's shady dealings.
I am opposed as I don't trust the govement to administer this fairly. WHo is to say who is in and who is out. Would th epowedered wig guy be allowed to join the debates?
siriusly
· 7 months ago
Public financing may have reduced the crimes committed by George Ryan, perhaps he may have escaped prosecution entirely. He ultimately did get nailed for pocketing cash for personal use too, but the investigations started under pay to play re: licenses for tickets.
No law, no public financing and no reform commission proposal would have stopped Rod Blagojevich. The man was clearly out to enrich himself and his family through illegal and immoral means from day one.
Angry Chicagoan
· 7 months ago
No way. OK, well, if left in place for long enough and enforced rigorously enough you'd likely end up with fewer scandals, but there are far more direct ways of dealing with corruption in this state. Let's start with non-partisan districting, open primaries, a dismantling of the committeeman system, serious limits on targeted tax breaks at the state and local level (this includes TIF), and limits on the size of donations.
Princess
· 7 months ago
Absolutely not in favor of public financed runs. In a perfect state with overflowing revenues, I might reconsider, but I don't see how it would level any playing field. So Runner A thru Z gets X amount of funding from taxpayers, how does that level things when what we'd see is also Runner A thru Z then has ads, robocalls, mass mailings whatever funded by private supports of the candidate? Would they ban funds and attempts by Friends Of Whatever and private interest groups from campanigning for their favorites with their own money?
Bacon
· 7 months ago
Oppose. A gubernatorial candidate's ability to raise $ is still a good, though imperfect, measure of their support within the state. Creating contribution caps, limiting intra-party contributions and the like will be more effective in curbing improper influence.
No way public financing would have stopped Blago, or a number of other like minded crooks. Politics and government is about personal gain for these people, plain and simple. Whether through a publicly recorded contribution or an envelope full of cash, they are going to get theirs.
VanillaMan
· 7 months ago
When corrupted politicians claim they had to collect millions illegally due to campaign needs, they are justifying unjustifiable behavior and presenting themselves not as leaders, but as victims of a system they designed, regulated and controlled. It is, at it's base, a grand lie.
So while there is no harm in publically financing campaigns for public office with campaign laws designed to fit that kind of political environment, money really isn't at the root of our political corruption. Candidates and their party's low standards for winning nominations, is more at the root of our political corruption.
So no, public financing would not have spared us the previous governors. Ryan and Blagojevich could only have been prevented by their own political party leadership exposing these crooks to public scrutiny before they were nominated, so that their nominations would have gone to better candidates. When Speaker Madigan became co-chair of Rod Blagojevich's Re-election Committee, the corruption and lies within the political party became obvious.
wordslinger
· 7 months ago
No, I think efforts to limit money in politics -- of which public financing is one of many -- infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of both individuals and legitimate interests.
Plus, how you can limit one side of the equation without limiting the other -- expenditures, especially for TV and radio spots on the public airwaves.
It should be noted that the origin of public financing in the U.S. might have been dressed up as "reform," but was in reality a money grab by national Dems.
In '68 and '72, the Dems were greatly outraised and outspent by the Nixon campaigns. The Dem-controlled Congress for years proposed public financing as a way to get their guys money -- and they finally rammed the law down Jerry Ford's throat as a post-Watergate "reform."
I doubt if the "reform" supporters of the $700 million man -- Obama -- believe it's a necessity on the presidential level anymore.
To the bonus question, I find it hard to link Ryan and Blago when it comes to corruption. The deeds Ryan was convicted of and those Blago are accused of are day and night.
When it comes to Blago, I think he would have been corrupt whatever laws were on the books. In fact, I think he would have been corrupt whatever office or even job he held. It seems to be his nature.
Based on his own statements before and after his trial, I doubt if Ryan would have done anything differently if there had been public financing. He doesn't think he did anything wrong.
Fed Up
· 7 months ago
I do support having these races publicly financed. But I do get the feeling this is all about Quinn having no money in the bank and little lisa having somewhere around 3 mil already raised. So no Mr. Quinn I dont think papa Mike is going to take away little lisa huge fundraising advantage.
Bill
· 7 months ago
No, campaigns shouldn't be publicly financed. I would support spending limits simply because of the tremendous amounts being spent (wasted) even for the most obscure offices. Unlimited spending gives special interests an unfair advantage. I would also support mandated free airtime to every candidate on the ballot. Fed Up is right about Quinn. He knows he is a loser so he is supporting anything which will give him even a slight chance. No regulation would have stopped Rod and Ol' George from doing whatever it is that they did. Where there is a will, there is a way.
train111
· 7 months ago
I do not support publoc financing for 1 reason and 1 reason alone.
Just like McCain-Feingold spawned a bunch of 'independent' 527 groups that spend millions running 'issue' adds come election time, I feel that publicly financing campaigns in Illinois would produce the same effect. What is to stop some outside 'independent' group from spending its own money producing adds touting this or that candidate's psoition. Since it isn't the campaign itself, it would fall outside the 'publicly financed' sphere. This on top of the fact that the contributions to these outside groups would probably be untraceable. I say that better transparency of where the money is coming from is the best way to go. Right now it can be pretty tough to trace the dollars going from one committee to another.
Also, it wouldn't have changed things with Blago or Ryan. Both were greedy and both would have skirted the system regardless of any public financing that may have been in place.
train111
soccermom
· 7 months ago
Could we please stop saying, "Oh, they'll break any law we pass, so what's the use?" We don't use that line of reasoning for other crimes, thank goodness. Laws against murder don't stop all people from killing other people, but I think we all agree those laws reduce the incidence of murder substantially. If there is a law in place, it may not keep a bad guy (viz Rod) from breaking the law, but it does reduce the number of people who are willing to risk their law licenses, freedom, etc., to help him in his illegal pursuits. These guys don't act alone. They need helpers who may not be willing to do time to support their candidate's limitless thirst for money and power.
the Other Anonymous
· 7 months ago
I'm generally in favor of public financing for elections for several reasons: 1) levels the playing field; 2) frees up political campaigns to focus on voter outreach and issues rather than fundraising; 3) reduces the influence of moneyed interests on the campaign debate.
I share the concern that public financing will create new problems, especially as long as independent expenditures are allowed.
As for the bonus, the answer is: Ryan would not have committed criminal acts, Blagojevich would have. The difference for Blagojevich, however, is that he would have been caught sooner because there would be no legal ambiguity over transfers of huge sums of money or favors in exchange for government largesse or positions.
Sacks Romana
· 7 months ago
I actually read the entire 95 page report by the reform comission over the last few days. It's really quite good, although I agree with comments today that there's no way "all" is going to pass, and so we'll probably get "nothing."
To the point of the question, the reform commission proposed an immediate pilot program for public financing in 2010, specifically for judicial races only. The logic being that far too much money is being raised and spent for what should be truly non-partisan seats. It then recommended expanding to include legislative seats by 2012 and statewide offices by 2014. It's a really well thought out plan, that includes proposals for funding, that I think would be supported by most people if they read it.
That being said, public financing of campaigns doesn't do much to stop pay-to-play, and wouldn't have stopped Ryan or Blagojevich. What it does do, is make all races far more competitive. It allows honest people to truly compete with less honest ones. It demonstrates to voters that your money is clean.
Quinn pushing for public financing for the gubernatorial race in 2010 though? Ridiculous.
ConservativeVeteran
· 7 months ago
I oppose public financing of campaigns. I hope that none of my tax money is given to Democrats, and some Democrats hope that none of their tax money is given to Republicans. Each candidate should be responsible for funding his or her campaign, without government help.
Reddbyrd
· 7 months ago
NOPE Let's use the money to pay our bills
Plutocrat03
· 7 months ago
No public financing
I would support some sort of limits on what media charges campaigns. As it stands now the rates the media charges for political advertising do not reflect what commercial advertising pays.
Public financing would be a direct media subsidy.
Doug Dobmeyer
· 7 months ago
The process of reform has to start before it can ever be implemented. I think Pat has the right idea and in the future his ideas may be seen as an extreme form of liberalism.
If you look to the 2008 Presidential campaign you see the Dem rejecting public financing in favor of getting his message out, while the supposed "reformer" abided by public financing laws he helped write and got clobbered.
This would only work if the mentality changed in the state and all sides abided by public financing laws. Given Lisa's $3M edge that probably won't happen.
It would be good to try a public financing law rather then endless proposing and the cynics saying it won't work because its Illinois - oh how tiresome that phrase becomes.
The bonus ? - It would have reduced the severity of what George and Rod did, but probably would not have ended it entirely.
Doug Dobmeyer
Gameplan
· 7 months ago
It should not be opt out. I think it's essential for non pay to play. There are so many social networking outlets. AND BY THE WAY give them only 6 weeks to get it done in.
Boscobud
· 7 months ago
People running for office will always do pay to play.
To answer the question I say yes to both, but the people should have the right to see where the money came from in other words transparency.
Levois
· 7 months ago
If public financing meant using taxpayers funds to finance politcal campaigns I would rather some type of caps than public financing. I think people should be allowed to donate to the candidates of their choice with their own hard earned cash. I say people not special interests or lobbyists.
winco
· 7 months ago
Public financing would have stopped Blago from being re-elected, if there were also some limitation on "independent group" support. He was re-nominated in the primary because no Dems felt they could match his money, and he was re-elected because his opponent could not match his ad budget.
So, yes I support public financing. It is cheaper than prosecuting governor after governor and major fundraiser after major fundraiser. No, it won't solve every problem. There would still be crooks, but, as noted above, every law still has people who break it, but we still keep the laws in place.
SangamoGOP
· 7 months ago
Public financing is a bad idea that doesn't work with the presidential races in that someone can raise so much money they can opt out. The next step, then is to disallow opt-out and everyone gets one lump sum of money and that's it. If no opt-out is the way to go, what is to stop anyone from entering the race and spending the money on a great office with a bunch of cool trinkets and never actually run? Oh, that's right more laws telling each candidate how they have to spend their public money on their political campaign.
Public financing would not have stopped GRyan or Blago from being criminals. The voters of IL had a pretty good guess that Blago was a criminal the second time around and still voted for him overwhelmingly. An 'even playing field' would not have made a difference.
The way to go is to end all campaign finance restrictions but place a 24 hour publishing mandate and provide the SBE with subpoena powers and the ability to pursue civil and criminal penalties of candidates.
Hickory
· 7 months ago
No to public financing. Keep it simple. Only registered voters should be permitted to contribute and limit it to $1,000 each. No bundling.
Mark Thoman
· 7 months ago
Let's see, Taxpayers for Quinn has about $82 thousand in his fund, and Citizens for Lisa Madigan has about $3.4 million in her fund. Leveling that field looks pretty good to a guy down over $3 million to start, and facing Money Machine Mike Madigan.
If he's smart, Quinn will make a formidable senate candidate with the Madigan clan's full support.
Anonymous
· 7 months ago
No to public financing primarily because I think the idea, along with the income tax hike, could result in a few peaceful sit-ins.
All Comments
Bonus question - no, it wouldn't have prevented the scandals. They were crooks, plain and simple, and crooks will find a way to be crooks.
I am opposed as I don't trust the govement to administer this fairly. WHo is to say who is in and who is out. Would th epowedered wig guy be allowed to join the debates?
No law, no public financing and no reform commission proposal would have stopped Rod Blagojevich. The man was clearly out to enrich himself and his family through illegal and immoral means from day one.
No way public financing would have stopped Blago, or a number of other like minded crooks. Politics and government is about personal gain for these people, plain and simple. Whether through a publicly recorded contribution or an envelope full of cash, they are going to get theirs.
So while there is no harm in publically financing campaigns for public office with campaign laws designed to fit that kind of political environment, money really isn't at the root of our political corruption. Candidates and their party's low standards for winning nominations, is more at the root of our political corruption.
So no, public financing would not have spared us the previous governors. Ryan and Blagojevich could only have been prevented by their own political party leadership exposing these crooks to public scrutiny before they were nominated, so that their nominations would have gone to better candidates. When Speaker Madigan became co-chair of Rod Blagojevich's Re-election Committee, the corruption and lies within the political party became obvious.
Plus, how you can limit one side of the equation without limiting the other -- expenditures, especially for TV and radio spots on the public airwaves.
It should be noted that the origin of public financing in the U.S. might have been dressed up as "reform," but was in reality a money grab by national Dems.
In '68 and '72, the Dems were greatly outraised and outspent by the Nixon campaigns. The Dem-controlled Congress for years proposed public financing as a way to get their guys money -- and they finally rammed the law down Jerry Ford's throat as a post-Watergate "reform."
I doubt if the "reform" supporters of the $700 million man -- Obama -- believe it's a necessity on the presidential level anymore.
To the bonus question, I find it hard to link Ryan and Blago when it comes to corruption. The deeds Ryan was convicted of and those Blago are accused of are day and night.
When it comes to Blago, I think he would have been corrupt whatever laws were on the books. In fact, I think he would have been corrupt whatever office or even job he held. It seems to be his nature.
Based on his own statements before and after his trial, I doubt if Ryan would have done anything differently if there had been public financing. He doesn't think he did anything wrong.
No regulation would have stopped Rod and Ol' George from doing whatever it is that they did. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Just like McCain-Feingold spawned a bunch of 'independent' 527 groups that spend millions running 'issue' adds come election time, I feel that publicly financing campaigns in Illinois would produce the same effect. What is to stop some outside 'independent' group from spending its own money producing adds touting this or that candidate's psoition. Since it isn't the campaign itself, it would fall outside the 'publicly financed' sphere. This on top of the fact that the contributions to these outside groups would probably be untraceable.
I say that better transparency of where the money is coming from is the best way to go. Right now it can be pretty tough to trace the dollars going from one committee to another.
Also, it wouldn't have changed things with Blago or Ryan. Both were greedy and both would have skirted the system regardless of any public financing that may have been in place.
train111
I share the concern that public financing will create new problems, especially as long as independent expenditures are allowed.
As for the bonus, the answer is: Ryan would not have committed criminal acts, Blagojevich would have. The difference for Blagojevich, however, is that he would have been caught sooner because there would be no legal ambiguity over transfers of huge sums of money or favors in exchange for government largesse or positions.
To the point of the question, the reform commission proposed an immediate pilot program for public financing in 2010, specifically for judicial races only. The logic being that far too much money is being raised and spent for what should be truly non-partisan seats. It then recommended expanding to include legislative seats by 2012 and statewide offices by 2014. It's a really well thought out plan, that includes proposals for funding, that I think would be supported by most people if they read it.
That being said, public financing of campaigns doesn't do much to stop pay-to-play, and wouldn't have stopped Ryan or Blagojevich. What it does do, is make all races far more competitive. It allows honest people to truly compete with less honest ones. It demonstrates to voters that your money is clean.
Quinn pushing for public financing for the gubernatorial race in 2010 though? Ridiculous.
Let's use the money to pay our bills
I would support some sort of limits on what media charges campaigns. As it stands now the rates the media charges for political advertising do not reflect what commercial advertising pays.
Public financing would be a direct media subsidy.
If you look to the 2008 Presidential campaign you see the Dem rejecting public financing in favor of getting his message out, while the supposed "reformer" abided by public financing laws he helped write and got clobbered.
This would only work if the mentality changed in the state and all sides abided by public financing laws. Given Lisa's $3M edge that probably won't happen.
It would be good to try a public financing law rather then endless proposing and the cynics saying it won't work because its Illinois - oh how tiresome that phrase becomes.
The bonus ? - It would have reduced the severity of what George and Rod did, but probably would not have ended it entirely.
Doug Dobmeyer
To answer the question I say yes to both, but the people should have the right to see where the money came from in other words transparency.
So, yes I support public financing. It is cheaper than prosecuting governor after governor and major fundraiser after major fundraiser.
No, it won't solve every problem. There would still be crooks, but, as noted above, every law still has people who break it, but we still keep the laws in place.
Public financing would not have stopped GRyan or Blago from being criminals. The voters of IL had a pretty good guess that Blago was a criminal the second time around and still voted for him overwhelmingly. An 'even playing field' would not have made a difference.
The way to go is to end all campaign finance restrictions but place a 24 hour publishing mandate and provide the SBE with subpoena powers and the ability to pursue civil and criminal penalties of candidates.
If he's smart, Quinn will make a formidable senate candidate with the Madigan clan's full support.