Illinois Senate President Don Harmon appeals $4 million dispute with state elections board
Illinois Senate President Don Harmon filed notice Wednesday that he plans to appeal the State Board of Elections' assertion he took millions of dollars more in campaign contributions than allowed under a law designed to reduce the impact of big money in Illinois politics.
The filing by Harmon, a Democrat who championed the law at the heart of the dispute, comes just days after he made clear in a Tribune interview that he disagrees with the state board's interpretation that he accepted nearly $4.1 million above the contribution limits.
Although Harmon didn't have to detail his reasons for appealing, his political committee's attorney, Michael Kasper, checked the box on a state board of elections form stating it 'does not believe' the contributions the board cited violated the limits and said the campaign fund 'will be appealing' the board's allegations. Kasper is a well-known Illinois election attorney who was once the top election lawyer for former House Speaker Michael Madigan's political and state government operations before the longtime Democratic leader's corruption conviction this year.
The filing begins a formal process of challenging the board's position, a move that could lead to hearings and testimony in the coming months.
'I'm more confident now than I was when I got the notice that we have fully complied with the law,' Harmon said when asked about the matter again on Monday.
At the heart of the disagreement is a significant and controversial loophole in state campaign finance law that allows politicians to collect contributions above state limits.
A politician in a race for public office is allowed to open that loophole and collect unlimited funds if any candidate in the race in which they are running — themselves or an opponent — reports reaching a 'self-funding threshold' in which they have given or loaned their campaign funds more than $250,000 for statewide races and more than $100,000 for state lawmaker and local races.
Supporters of the loophole initially said it was a defensive mechanism that allowed candidates to fundraise without limits if they were facing off against wealthy opponents who would have near-unlimited personal resources at their disposal. But it soon became an offensive weapon in which candidates — even those facing no competition whatsoever — purposely broke the self-funding threshold in order to collect as much political cash as possible.
Harmon, who helped write the law, has done that himself.
The Senate president has repeatedly given or loaned his campaign fund more than $100,000 — sometimes by just a single dollar — in order to trigger the loophole, a move political insiders call 'the money bomb.' The effort has been roundly criticized by advocates who want tighter restrictions on state campaign fundraising and was a focus of the Tribune's multipart 'Culture of Corruption' series.
Specifically in the Harmon case, the disagreement between him and the state board hinges on whether the money bomb loophole was in effect between the March 2024 primary and the end of 2024, when the Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign committee collected more than $8.3 million, nearly $4.1 million of which the state board said was over the campaign contribution limits.
State records show Harmon gave his state Senate campaign committee more than $100,000 in January 2023, triggering the money bomb exemption that automatically lifts the caps. Harmon indicated in state election board paperwork that the move allowed him to keep collecting unlimited cash through the November 2024 election, and he continued to do so, taking in contributions as high as $1.2 million from the Chicago Land Operators Joint Labor and Management PAC. He did that even though the board had previously told him the loophole closed after the March 2024 primary.
The board, which recently reviewed the matter following a Tribune inquiry, determined each of the public action committees that gave to Harmon following last year's primary should have been limited to contributions of no more than $68,500. Another group, the Sports Betting Alliance which is supporting an expansion of internet gambling in Illinois, gave $250,000 to Harmon's committee but should have been limited to donating no more than $13,700, according to the board.
Harmon has signaled that legislation to make changes in state election laws could be forthcoming, including during this spring legislative session, but has not said whether any legislation would address the money bomb loophole.
In appealing the board's claims, Harmon's campaign fund acknowledged that, if it loses the case, it could be subject to a penalty of up to $6.1 million — a figure based on the 150% of the amount the board deems a candidate willingly accepted over the limits — as well as a payment of nearly $4.1 million to the state's general operating fund.
Such a massive penalty, however, is unlikely. Politicians frequently challenge the board, and negotiations can result in a fraction of the potential penalty. And if Harmon wins the appeal before the state board of elections, he could end up paying no penalty.
_____
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
30 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Thune's first big test as Senate leader has arrived with Trump's tax bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — Only six months into the job, Senate Majority Leader John Thune faces a massive challenge as he tries to quickly push President Donald Trump's sprawling tax and spending cuts package to passage with the support of a divided GOP conference. While most Republican senators are inclined to vote for the bill, Thune can stand to lose only four votes in the face of united Democratic opposition — and many more Republicans than that are critical of the version sent over by the House. To get it done by July 4 — Trump's deadline — Thune has to figure out how to balance the various, and sometimes conflicting, demands emerging from his members. And he has to do it in a way that doesn't endanger Republican support in the House, which passed the legislation by only one vote last month after weeks of contentious negotiations. It's a complicated and risky undertaking, one that is likely to define the first year of Thune's tenure and make or break his evolving relationship with Trump. 'This is when John's leadership is going to be desperately needed,' said North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, one of the Republican holdouts who is pushing back on the bill's quick phaseout of certain energy tax credits. 'You can say no all you want, as long as you don't say no to the wrong 51 people.' So far, the well-liked South Dakota Republican is in a good place, both with colleagues and the White House. Thune has worked closely with Trump, despite a rockier relationship at the end of Trump's first term. While acknowledging that the Senate will likely change the bill to address concerns about changes to Medicaid and other programs, Thune has repeatedly said that 'failure is not an option.' 'Individual pieces of it people don't like,' Thune said Tuesday. 'But in the end, we have to succeed.' To get there, Thune has been meeting in his office with senators to hear them out, bringing in his colleagues individually and in small groups to discuss portions of the bill. Republican senators say the outreach is a stark change from his predecessor, Mitch McConnell, who was more feared than loved and kept a tight circle of advisers. McConnell stepped down from the leadership post in January after almost two decades amid a series of health episodes and growing criticism from senators on the right flank, who felt that he consolidated power and ignored their concerns. 'It's very much a change,' said North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer. Thune has 'already made a lot of people happier by the listening part,' he said. One happier senator is Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who sparred openly with McConnell and ran against Thune to replace him. Scott, who criticizes the bill as not doing enough to cut federal spending, has also met with the new leader. 'I'd be very surprised if anybody doesn't believe he's receptive to their ideas,' Scott said of Thune. And when people feel heard, Scott said, 'there's a greater chance they will go along with something.' Thune has also carefully navigated his relationship with the president, after sharply criticizing Trump in 2020 for trying to overturn his election defeat. Trump declined to endorse Thune's reelection bid two years later. Thune endorsed South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott over Trump in the presidential primary before eventually endorsing Trump. The two made amends in the final months of Trump's presidential campaign and have since forged a working relationship of mutual benefit. Thune has stayed in close touch with the White House, visiting Trump several times to discuss the bill, including on Wednesday. While the collaborative approach has won favor from Trump and colleagues who were agitating for a change, Thune has a long way to go in a short time. Passing the legislation will require hard choices, and not every demand can be met. Still, Thune's South Dakota colleague, Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, says he has already proved himself a 'winner' with Trump and the conference by quickly moving the president's Cabinet nominations through the Senate mostly without controversy. The Senate also recently blocked California air regulations that Republicans have long opposed after Thune delayed the vote for weeks to assuage procedural concerns from GOP moderates like Maine Sen. Susan Collins. 'Everybody wants to work with John,' Rounds said. 'He's not making anybody mad right now.' Rounds says Thune has also learned how to crack down when he needs to. Since taking power, Thune has shortened Senate vote times that were sometimes stretching for hours to just 15 minutes, in most cases. It was a hard lesson for some senators, but it won him respect from Republicans and, privately, even some Democrats. But as they were adjusting to the change, some senators unexpectedly missed votes because of Thune's new policy, Rounds said. 'Did he get yelled at a little bit? Yeah,' he said. 'But once they got cut off once or twice, pretty soon they realized, if you want to vote, make it on time.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
NYC mayoral candidates see who can promise more than upstart socialist Mamdani — while Cuomo ducks and dodges debate attacks
Zohran Mamdani might or might not win the Dems' mayoral primary, but the first debate showed he's already won the argument. The two-hour showdown turned into a bidding war to see who could promise to deliver more government giveaways than the 33-year-old Queens assemblyman. It's a lost cause when the trend setter is an admitted socialist who promises free everything, from food to rent to bus service. Free except, of course, for the evil top 1 percent, who would be taxed to pay for it all. Unless they pack up and join the huge exodus of people who already have given up on New York ever fixing itself. The debate showed how deeply the rot runs and why pessimism about the city's future is the only sane response. The sickening pandering to the left amounts to a race to the bottom, and re-affirmed for me why I don't have a candidate yet. I didn't see anyone on that stage whom I can envision doing even an average job in City Hall, let alone turning around a declining city the way Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg did. Democratic mayoral candidates Andrew Cuomo, left, shakes hands with Zohran Mamdani, center, as Whitney Tilson reacts after participating in a Democratic mayoral primary debate, Wednesday, June 4, 2025, in New York. AP Mamdani is the flavor of the moment for many young voters, but his socialist ideas are dead-enders. Is he really that ignorant about the history of the world and the countries that have gone full socialist? Additionally, his refusal again to say Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state is disqualifying. If it talks and walks like an antisemite, it's an antisemite. Mayor Adams, whom I supported four years ago, is such a wounded incumbent that he saw no path forward in his party, so he's running as an independent. Targeting Cuo The other major theme of the evening was the gang-up on Andrew Cuomo. Polls have consistently shown him as the clear front-runner, with Mamdani running a solid second and most of the others stuck in single digits. While I expected that Cuomo, the former governor who resigned in August of 2021 before he could be impeached and convicted over a slew of sexual harassment allegations, would be a target, I was surprised at how frequently even the also-rans found a way to attack him in their answers to most questions. They clearly calculated that the only way to pull themselves up is to pull him down. Even more surprising was that Cuomo often appeared unprepared for the onslaught. He hemmed and hawed, cleared his throat and seemed to be trying to run out the clock on the brief time moderators allotted for answers rather than give sharp, clear responses. His hesitancy could be seen as playing it safe with his lead, but I believe it's also possible his heart is really not in the race. His low-energy is a sharp contrast to his past habits, when he was the consummate pugnacious pol. Now he seems to be running on auto pilot, as if he'd rather be in Albany or running for president. Or maybe just home watching TV. One sign I see is that, after all this time, he still doesn't have a clear, credible answer on the nursing home debacle he caused and can't bring himself to acknowledge mistakes. When the topic turned to reports of a federal probe of whether Cuomo lied to Congress about his role in a state report downplaying the number of deaths, Mamdani seized the opening to say bluntly: 'Andrew Cuomo did lie to Congress.' Comptroller Brad Lander seconded the point, saying Cuomo 'lied to nursing home families to get a $5 million book deal.' Cuomo denied the charges, but seemed to get lost in the weeds of his answer. The bottom line is that the exchanges showed that the topic remains a major weak spot for him, as it should be. Similarly, his claim, which he has made in an ad, that New York 'led during COVID' seems like a very dated pitch. While he did receive huge plaudits for his daily briefings during the pandemic, the events that followed and his forced resignation have overshadowed nearly everything that came before. That he hasn't used his time out of office to at least try to repair that damage and express remorse reveals a heartlessness unbecoming of someone who aims to lead America's largest and most important city. A dominant theme of the evening was how to handle the Trump administration, and the four moderators are to blame for making it a consistent, negative focus. They made it their second round of rapid-fire questions and kept stirring the pot by essentially asking who had the toughest plan on how to resist. They got what they asked for, and the answers grew increasingly bizarre. Scott Stringer, the former comptroller, claimed the president is 'hell bent on destroying the social safety net,' while Michael Blake, a former state assemblyman who is black, tried to milk a racial angle. Council Speaker Adrienne Adams declared she would stop Trump, saying 'not in my New York.' The competition to give the most radical answer grew so intense and bitter that some of the responses verged on the bizarre. Two candidates actually suggested New York could withhold federal income taxes from the administration, with state Sen. Zellnor Myrie saying 'that gives us the tax base so we can be independent of the White House.' None dared to suggest cooperation. This is malpractice. The president can be a great help to his hometown, as he has shown with a plan for a new Penn Station. Or, he can be a huge problem to a mayor and governor who think they can hoodwink him. The mayoral candidates uniformly decided that they would show how tough they are by resisting him, which is a fool's errand. Unfortunately, it's becoming typical of the Democratic Party nationally and in deep blue states. Harboring of criminal migrants and refusing to crack down on antisemitism are just two elements of what they call resistance to a president they don't like. The talk is so radical that it sometimes sounds like the beginnings of a secession movement. They can't be that stupid — can they?
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Consultant behind AI-generated robocalls mimicking Biden goes on trial in New Hampshire
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A political consultant who sent voters artificial intelligence-generated robocalls mimicking former President Joe Biden last year goes on trial Thursday in New Hampshire, where jurors may be asked to consider not just his guilt or innocence but whether the state actually held its first-in-the-nation presidential primary. Steven Kramer, who faces decades in prison if convicted of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate, has admitted orchestrating a message sent to thousands of voters two days before the Jan. 23, 2024, primary . The message played an AI-generated voice similar to the Democratic president's that used his phrase 'What a bunch of malarkey' and suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November. 'It's important that you save your vote for the November election,' voters were told. 'Your votes make a difference in November, not this Tuesday.' Kramer, who owns a firm specializing in get-out-the-vote projects, has said he wasn't trying to influence the outcome of the primary election but rather wanted to send a wake-up call about the potential dangers of AI when he paid a New Orleans magician and self-described 'digital nomad' $150 to create the recording. 'Maybe I'm a villain today, but I think in the end we get a better country and better democracy because of what I've done, deliberately,' Kramer told The Associated Press in February 2024. Ahead of the trial in Belknap County Superior Court, state prosecutors sought to prevent Kramer from arguing that the primary was a meaningless straw poll because it wasn't sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. At Biden's request, the DNC dislodged New Hampshire from its traditional early spot in the nominating calendar, but later dropped its threat not to seat the state's national convention delegates. Biden did not put his name on the ballot or campaign there, but won as a write-in. The state argued that such evidence was irrelevant and would risk confusing jurors, but Judge Elizabeth Leonard denied the motion in March, saying the DNC's actions and Kramer's understanding of them were relevant to his motive and intent in sending the calls. She did grant the prosecution's request that the court accept as fact that the state held its presidential primary election as defined by law on Jan. 23, 2024. Jurors will be informed of that conclusion but won't be required to accept it. Kramer faces 11 felony charges, each punishable by up to seven years in prison, alleging he attempted to prevent or deter someone from voting based on 'fraudulent, deceptive, misleading or spurious grounds or information.' He also faces 11 misdemeanor charges that each carry a maximum sentence of a year in jail accusing him of falsely representing himself as a candidate by his own conduct or that of another person. He also has been fined $6 million by the Federal Communications Commission , but it's unclear whether he has paid it, and the FCC did not respond to a request for comment earlier this week. The agency was developing AI-related rules when Donald Trump won the presidency, but has since shown signs of a possible shift toward loosening regulations. In April, it recommended that a telecom company be added back to an industry consortium just weeks after the agency had proposed fining the company for its role in illegal robocalls impersonating the FCC. Half of all U.S. states have enacted legislation regulating AI deepfakes in political campaigns, according to the watchdog organization Public Citizen . But House Republicans in Congress recently added a clause to their party's signature 'big beautiful' tax bill that would ban states and localities from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, though it faces long odds in the Senate. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
