Introduction

As Governor Rod Blagojevich made his rounds on television talk shows, including The Late Night Show with David Letterman, following his impeachment in early 2009, the illicit practices of "Rod" and other politicians in Illinois were considered a national joke. The worldwide image of Illinois and Chicago as a playground for crooks returned in full force.

However, as former Chicago alderman and University of Illinois at Chicago political science professor Dick Simpson asserted, corruption is no joke. It costs Illinois residents a "corruption tax" of more than $500 million a year - $120 million more than Cook County draws in from a 1 percent sales tax increase. Simpson arrived at his conclusion by analyzing testimony given before the Illinois Reform Commission stating that about 5 percent of state government contracts are given out to political cronies and campaign contributors, as well as Simpson's own ongoing research showing that more than 1500 individuals have been convicted of one type or another of public corruption in the state since 1970.2

According to "Anti Corruption Report Number Two" published in May of 2009, the cost of the prolonged investigation and prosecution of former Chicago police commander Jon Burge reached over $33.2 million dollars. The city paid nearly $20 million to settle lawsuits by four men who were tortured by police operating under Burge. Unused hired trucks cost the city $42 million. Another $12 million was spent on settling claims arising from violations of the Shakman Decree's ban on politically motivated hiring. The pay-for-play schemes linked to Blagojevich cost taxpayers $22 million, in addition to lowering the state's bond rating and costing more than $20 million more for the last state bond issue. "In a time of deep recession," said the report, "we are wasting taxpayer money and raising taxes and fees on citizens who cannot afford to pay for corruption any longer."3

Following the appointment of Governor Pat Quinn, the Illinois Reform Commission presented a raft of recommendations to the Illinois legislature. The reforms precipitated some encouraging developments. In the spring of 2009, the legislature voted to improve procurement laws following an amendatory veto by Quinn that included such provisions as establishing an oversight office to monitor state contracting.1 Additionally, the state increased transparency by voting for upgrades in the Freedom of Information Act legislation. These upgrades included shortening the amount of time public bodies have to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from seven business days to five and allowing courts to impose civil penalties for public bodies that intentionally disregard the law.5

However, hopes of meaningful reform in campaign financing, the most crucial area linked to corruption, were threatened by the passage of a diluted bill "built on cynicism and fraud."6One provision placed $5,000 and $10,000 caps on political contributions from individuals, political action committees, businesses, and unions, but allowed so-called multi-candidate committees like those operated by House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton to donate up to $90,000 a year to any given candidate. The groups were additionally permitted to spend an unlimited amount on a candidate's behalf. Governor Quinn, who had been a supporter of the bill, vetoed it, acknowledging its flaws, and vowed to bring about a better option.

On December 9, 2000, Governor Quinn signed the first campaign finance bill to put a cap on campaign contributions.7 Among the provisions, the bill:8

1. Limits individuals to contributions of $5,000, corporations/labor organizations to $10,000, political candidates to $50,000, political action committees to $50,000 and political parties to an amount between $50,000 and $200,0000.
2. Provides greater transparency by requiring quarterly reports for campaign donations and expenditures along with year-round reporting within 5 days of all contributions of $1,000 or more.
3. Creates accountability for campaigns by requiring random audits and audits for cause of campaign committees and increase fines for violations.
4. Establishes a task force to evaluate the new campaign finance system and the needs for additional limits in general elections and public financing. While this is not a perfect legislative solution to corruption, it will begin to place new limits on the sources of campaign financing and provide a framework for meaningful regulation.