Editorial: Senate President Harmon's sly legislative maneuver exemplifies the need for campaign finance reform

Chicago Tribune

a day ago

Even lawmakers who've been around Springfield a long time were taken aback at the audacity of Senate President Don Harmon slipping a provision into a broader elections reform bill that would have gotten his campaign off the hook for a potential penalty well into the millions.
The Senate president's problem stems from a March ruling by the Illinois State Board of Elections that his campaign had improperly accepted more than $4 million in donations in 2024 — a finding that stemmed from this newspaper's questions about the campaign's fundraising. If Harmon's appeal of that determination is unsuccessful, his campaign could be subject to a penalty as steep as $6.1 million.
Harmon's language in the broader reform bill would have deemed the grounds for his campaign's appeal correct, both going forward . House Democrats concluded the provision would have ended the board's enforcement action, wiping the slate clean for the Harmon campaign.
The Senate president's attempted slick move only confirmed what many voters already believe about Springfield — that those in power regularly speak in support of good government and clean campaigns but, when push comes to shove, do what they feel is necessary to preserve their authority. The maneuver deserved the condemnation it received — including from members of Harmon's own party. Thankfully, there was no vote on that elections reform package in the most recent session of the General Assembly.
Beyond the unseemly legislative maneuvering, the Harmon story to our minds underscores how Springfield's past efforts at campaign finance have failed so miserably. The issue at the heart of Harmon's woes is a provision in the state's 2009 campaign finance reform law that was meant to neutralize the effect of big money on Illinois politics. Back then, worries about independently wealthy candidates effectively buying elections led state lawmakers to lift donation limits when 'self-funding' got to a certain level so that opponents could compete.
Instead, that safeguard mainly has enabled party leaders like Harmon to collect sums well above the law's ordinary caps on individual contributions from politically connected, big-money donors like unions and other special interests.
The law says that candidates who contribute their own money above a certain threshold — in the case of state lawmakers, it's $100,000 — no longer must abide by the donation limits (and neither must their opponents). The loophole is so flimsy that it permits those candidates to provide that cash as a loan and get repaid by the sizable sums that flow from the lifting of the caps.
In this manner, Harmon uses the so-called millionaire's exemption in election cycle after election cycle, the Tribune reported. He's not alone. House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch has taken advantage of the same loophole, Alisa Kaplan, executive director of campaign watchdog Reform for Illinois, tells us. Republican leaders in the House and Senate have done so in the past as well.
Before scandal forced him to retire in 2021, Michael Madigan routinely employed the same strategy as House speaker. Madigan awaits sentencing this coming Friday after being convicted in February of bribery and corruption charges.
As broad as the exemption is, there are some limits. Harmon ran afoul of the law when his campaign collected amounts above the caps during a period of time it allegedly couldn't, according to the Board of Elections. Harmon says the board is misinterpreting the statute and has appealed.
However the Harmon campaign affair is concluded, the bigger issue here is the loophole itself. It allows legislative leaders to evade campaign limits routinely and enables special interests to amass far too much influence over state policy through exorbitant donations. As Madigan so skillfully proved over his decades in power, caucus leaders exert immense influence over members by doling out funds in their campaign war chests, bankrolled by those special interests.
This unholy alliance between the leaders and donors gives those deep-pocketed interests effective veto power over legislation they don't like. Why do so many problems facing the state seem so intractable? Look no further than this dynamic.
Potential fixes don't come without tradeoffs. Eliminating the millionaire's exemption altogether would open the door again to uber-wealthy candidates (or super PACs controlled by rich individuals) gaining an unfair advantage.
But there are some obvious steps Springfield should take. At the very least, an end should be put to making cap-busting donations in the form of loans. And the amount self-funders should have to front ought to be raised substantially from the $100,000 threshold currently applied to state legislative races.
Reform for Illinois set forth other constructive suggestions — . They're no less relevant today.
The Harmon campaign controversy will have done the urgent cause of campaign finance reform an unintended favor if it puts the millionaire's exemption on Springfield's agenda.