logo
Illinois Senate President Don Harmon appeals potential $9.8 million fine for improperly accepting campaign cash

Illinois Senate President Don Harmon appeals potential $9.8 million fine for improperly accepting campaign cash

Chicago Tribune08-07-2025
An attorney for Illinois Senate President Don Harmon's political operation says state election authorities reached an 'absurd' conclusion earlier this year in issuing nearly $10 million in penalties against Harmon's campaign fund after determining he violated campaign fundraising limits.
In an 11-page appeal filed late last week with the Illinois State Board of Elections, attorney Michael Kasper also laid out what amounted to a legal justification for Harmon's unsuccessful attempt in the closing hours of this spring's legislative session to pass a measure that could have negated the case and the $9.8 million potential penalty.
At issue is whether Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park, improperly accepted $4 million more in campaign contributions after the March 2024 primary than permitted under limits established in a state law he co-sponsored. The elections board leveled the charges this spring after a Chicago Tribune inquiry about the fundraising activities of his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign fund.
Using a frequently used loophole in a law purportedly designed to help candidates compete with wealthy opponents, Harmon contributed $100,001 to his own campaign in January 2023. It was precisely one dollar over the contribution limit threshold that allowed him or anyone else running for his Senate seat to accept unlimited funds for that race. In campaign paperwork, Harmon indicated he thought the move allowed him to collect unlimited cash through the November 2024 election cycle. But board officials informed him that the loophole would only be open through the March 2024 primary, meaning they viewed the campaign cash Harmon collected above campaign restrictions between the March primary and the end of the year was not allowed.
Responding to a June 5 letter in which elections board staff notified Harmon's campaign of the impending fine, his attorney argued that the January 2023 contribution should have lifted the contribution limits at least through the end of 2024, if not through the March 2026 primary, when Harmon's seat will next appear on the ballot.
'The staff's analysis would create an absurd system that unfairly benefits self-funding candidates and also turns campaign finance compliance into simple accounting gimmicks,' Kasper wrote.
The state elections board had no comment on Harmon's appeal, spokesperson Matt Dietrich said Monday.
Harmon campaign spokespersonTom Bowen said the appeal 'speaks for itself.'
The next step is for a hearing officer to hold a hearing with both sides and make a recommendation to be reviewed by the board's general counsel before the board issues a final ruling, possibly as soon as its August meeting.
In the filing, Harmon's campaign argued the elections board's interpretation would allow a candidate in his position to accept unlimited contributions during a period well before an election when no opponent has entered the race and then have limits put back in place closer to when voting begins. Conversely, a candidate in Harmon's position could also simply lift the limits again by refunding his own cap-busting contribution the day after a primary and depositing it back into the campaign fund 'on the same day — the same hour — the same minute,' the campaign said in its appeal.
'Does the money even have to move accounts, or can it just be an accounting entry?' Kasper wrote. 'According to the Board's staff, (due to) the fact that Mr. Harmon did not go through this, frankly, silly exercise, he now faces almost $10,000,000 in fines and penalties.
'The General Assembly did not enact the thorough and time-tested campaign finance regime that we have today by requiring candidates to jump through accounting hoops simply for the purpose of jumping through the hoop.'
In arguing that the contribution cap should have been off through at least the end of 2024, Harmon's filing also calls attention to how the board's determination treated his situation differently than it would a member of the Illinois House, where each seat is up for election every two years. Senate seats, by contrast, have two four-year terms and one two-year term each decade.
This issue was at the heart of Harmon's controversial attempt to add language into elections legislation on the final day of the spring session that would have declared it 'existing law' that senators halfway through a four-year term 'shall be deemed to have been nominated at the next general primary election, regardless of whether the candidate's name appeared on the general primary election ballot.'
Defending the move to the Tribune days after backlash to the provision tanked the broader elections bill, Harmon said: 'A fundamental notion of campaign finance law is that House candidates and Senate candidates be treated the same. The state board staff's interpretation treats House candidates and Senate candidates fundamentally differently.'
In the recent filing, Harmon's attorney points out that a section on contribution limits in the board's own campaign disclosure guide notes, 'Candidates seeking office in the General Assembly have their election cycle reset every general election regardless of participation.'
'It makes little sense that the Board would treat Senate and House candidates the same for purposes of applying contribution limitations, but differently for removing contribution limitations after a primary election,' Kasper wrote. 'Instead, the General Assembly structured election cycles so that all legislative candidates are treated the same.'
Calling the board's penalty — a payment to the state's general fund equal to the more than $4 million it says Harmon raised in excess of the limits, plus a nearly $5.8 million fine calculated based on 150% of that same amount — 'excessive' and 'unconstitutional,' Harmon's campaign asked for the matter to be dismissed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ex-Governor Switches Back to Eric Adams in New York City Mayor's Race
Ex-Governor Switches Back to Eric Adams in New York City Mayor's Race

New York Times

time19 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Ex-Governor Switches Back to Eric Adams in New York City Mayor's Race

Former Gov. David A. Paterson endorsed Eric Adams's bid for a second term as mayor of New York City on Tuesday, switching loyalties to become the highest-profile Democrat to back the underdog incumbent. In an interview, Mr. Paterson sounded skeptical of Mr. Adams's electoral chances after a federal corruption indictment and accusations that he had conspired with the Trump administration to dismiss the charges. But he said the mayor had been there for him when it counted — and he would do the same. 'There are certain times when, you know what, it's a friend, you're not hurting anyone by endorsing him,' Mr. Paterson said. 'He's the candidate who I think, if he did win, would run the city the best.' He added: 'He almost dropped the phone when I told him that about a week ago.' Mr. Paterson, the state's first Black governor, could help persuade other Democratic leaders and some voters to give Mr. Adams, the city's second Black mayor, another look. But polls suggest most voters are tuning the mayor out less than three months before Election Day. The contest is looking increasingly like a two-man rematch between Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee and front-runner, and former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the runner-up in June's primary. Mr. Adams skipped that race and is running as an independent, as is Mr. Cuomo. Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee, is currently ahead of Mr. Adams in most polls. Mr. Adams and Mr. Paterson, who hosts a radio show and works for the casino company Las Vegas Sands, were set to appear together on the steps of City Hall on Wednesday afternoon. Mr. Paterson's support for Mr. Adams had not been a given. Though he backed the mayor four years ago, Mr. Paterson endorsed Mr. Cuomo, his successor as governor, during the Democratic primary. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Paterson lent his support to a proposal to consolidate the field of candidates running against Mr. Mamdani: Whoever was polling best in September would stay in the race, while other rivals to Mr. Mamdani would end their campaigns in an effort to stop his rise. In the interview, Mr. Paterson said he still believed that those opposed to the Democratic nominee should unite behind a single candidate, but that Mr. Adams deserved a shot. 'I think the only way that Mamdani loses is in a one-on-one match,' he said. Mr. Paterson said that aides to Mr. Cuomo had called his own staff members in recent days to ask why he was switching loyalties. In the interview, he said he had been put off by Mr. Cuomo's initial refusal to take blame for his primary defeat. (Mr. Cuomo later took some responsibility for the loss and is attempting to reboot his campaign.) A spokesman for Mr. Cuomo declined to comment. Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Adams have each called on the other to leave the race. Mr. Adams rejected the idea in a radio interview on WABC earlier Wednesday. 'I'm moving straight ahead,' he said. 'The voters will decide who's going to be the next mayor.' When the host, Sid Rosenberg, asked who would be the next mayor, Mr. Adams responded, 'Eric Adams.' Mr. Paterson, for his part, dismissed concerns about the former legal case against the mayor, which included charges that he had taken free travel perks in exchange for favors and collected campaign cash from straw donors, suggesting he had trusted the wrong people. He said he thought the mayor had 'recaptured his mojo.' Mr. Paterson said he found some of Mr. Mamdani's promises to make the city more affordable appealing, but unrealistic. 'He's got a base who's younger and idealistic, and somebody who sounds convincing is going to have to tell them that if he cleaned up a few things, maybe he will be a viable candidate in a few years,' he said. 'But right now, we cannot afford someone coming in talking about free bus rides and having the city run the supermarkets.' Dana Rubinstein contributed reporting.

Dems finally lacing up their gloves, settle on midterm strategy?
Dems finally lacing up their gloves, settle on midterm strategy?

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Dems finally lacing up their gloves, settle on midterm strategy?

Most people are soaking up the last days of summer — barbecues, beach trips, a little bit of 'out of office' energy. But Democrats? They're in no mood for lawn chairs and lemonade. They're finally lacing up their gloves. Take California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who decided to fight fire with fire this week. He took to X and trolled President Trump in a post that looked like it could have come straight from Trump's own Truth Social feed — caps lock and all — warning about Texas redistricting while mocking Trump's style: DONALD TRUMP, THE LOWEST POLLING PRESIDENT IN RECENT HISTORY, THIS IS YOUR SECOND-TO-LAST WARNING!!! (THE NEXT ONE IS THE LAST ONE!). STAND DOWN NOW OR CALIFORNIA WILL COUNTER-STRIKE (LEGALLY!) TO DESTROY YOUR ILLEGAL CROOKED MAPS IN RED STATES. PRESS CONFERENCE COMING — HOSTED BY AMERICA'S FAVORITE GOVERNOR, GAVIN NEWSOM. FINAL WARNING NEXT. YOU WON'T LIKE IT!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. And then there's former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, who put it— well, a little less delicately: 'We're in basketball game right now, if you'll excuse the metaphor, where the refs have left the arena and the other side is just clobbering the s–t out of us, punching us in the face, kicking us in the n—ts, and we're kind of throwing our hands up and we're asking the crowd, the people of America, 'hey do you see what's going on here?! This is unfair, this isn't the rules we agreed to play by,' well who cares about the f–king rules right now? Punch back, kick back, dunk over their heads and win some f–king power!' So, yeah — Democrats are starting to fight back. And a lot of people are saying, 'finally!' Don't just take my word for it. A recent Associated Press poll found that about 15 percent of Democrats describe their leaders as 'weak' or 'apathetic.' After years of warning that Trump was 'assaulting democracy,' some Democrats have decided the warning labels aren't enough — it's time for action. Axios reports Senate Democrats held more than 100 events in the first week of summer recess — town halls, hospital visits, small-business roundtables, food bank tours — all aimed at hammering Republican policies before the 2026 midterms. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wants to localize the impact of what Trump and the GOP Congress are pushing: cuts to health care, tariffs, rising energy costs, and tax breaks for the wealthy. It's exactly the kind of retail politics voters have been begging for — less D.C. bubble, more Main Street reality. Meanwhile, Republicans have been steering clear of town halls. Earlier this year, Rep. Richard Hudson, who runs the GOP's House campaign arm, advised members to skip them entirely. Maybe that's because when they do show up, the reception isn't exactly warm. Just ask Nebraska Congressman Mike Flood, who got heckled last week when he tried to tout 'the big beautiful bill' as the room screamed back at him, 'Tax the rich! Tax the rich!' A Wall Street Journal poll shows 52 percent of Americans oppose that bill, a warning sign for Republicans heading into the midterms. So here's the bottom line: If Democrats keep showing backbone, meeting voters where they are, and making the case that Trump's policies hurt everyday Americans, they might actually turn 2026 into a comeback season. And if they don't? Well, they'll be back on the sidelines, wondering why the refs left the game in the first place.

Chuck Todd warns that Dems are falling into Trump's trap, 'taking the bait' on redistricting
Chuck Todd warns that Dems are falling into Trump's trap, 'taking the bait' on redistricting

Fox News

time2 hours ago

  • Fox News

Chuck Todd warns that Dems are falling into Trump's trap, 'taking the bait' on redistricting

Former NBC News host Chuck Todd called out Democrats on Tuesday and accused them of "taking the bait" in their response to the Republican redistricting efforts. "They're taking the bait. They've decided the only way to fight is to act just as ruthlessly. Revenge redistricting in Illinois, New York, California. And they tell themselves it's self-defense. But in reality, it's exactly what Trump wants, to make his opponents play his illegal and immoral game by his rules in his universe," Todd said during his show, "The Chuck ToddCast." The journalist also suggested Tuesday that the U.S. was headed toward a "cold civil war" amid the ongoing redistricting battles. "And here we are. It's the political version of the old saying, when you get into the mud with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it. Replacing, and don't give me this crap, rationalize that, you know, he's a bad mob boss, you've got to do whatever you say, 'We'll be a good mob boss.' The answer is no mob bosses at all," he said. Beto O'Rourke, a former Democratic Texas Senate candidate, called for the Democratic Party to be "ruthless" in their pursuit of power and endorsed partisan gerrymandering last month. Todd also rejected comparisons to 1930s Germany. "Look, I don't like the lazy comparisons to 1930s Germany. I hate the quote second civil war predictions. I'd like to believe that we're a lot better than that," he said during his podcast. He also referenced Godwin's Law and summarized it by saying: "If you can't make your point without invoking the Nazis, then you're probably not very good at debating and making your point." Democratic lawmakers and members of the media have repeatedly compared Trump and his administration to 1930s Germany. Todd went on to argue that it was "uncomfortable" to see mistakes being made "from the 1850s." "But let's be honest, it's a bit uncomfortable seeing how many mistakes from the 1850s, from 1850s America or pre-war Europe in the early 1930s are happening again right here. The normalization of the unacceptable. The rationalizing of 'just this once will breach our principle.' 'Just this once we'll do this because it's in the name of something bigger and better,'" he said. "The founders gave us these tools to prevent this. They feared a king. They feared a united majority trampling on the rest of us. They didn't imagine leaders who would just refuse to use the tools. They didn't. They'd come back here and be appalled," Todd continued.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store