Legislative Leaders' Power Limits Electoral Challengers, Researchers Say

U of Ideas in Business & Economics ó August 1998 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Contact: Mark Reutter, Business & Law Editor (217) 333-0568; [email protected]

ILLINOIS POLITICS

Legislative leadersí power limits electoral challengers, researchers say

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. ó The problem of raising money by challengers is a major barrier to electoral competition in Illinois, two University of Illinois political scientists have found. Almost half of all General Assembly races in 1994 and 1996 were not actively contested in the general election.

The winner, usually the incumbent, faced either no opponent or a token opponent who spent less than $1,000. ìFrom the standpoint of a healthy democracy, it is reasonable to expect meaningful competition ñ a challenger with enough resources to mount a visible campaign ñ in most districts,î Kent D. Redfield and Paul J. Quirk wrote in their report, ìReforming Campaign Finance in Illinois: Issues and Prospects.î

The U. of I. researchers take issue with the common complaint that too much money is spent on political campaigns. ìWe believe that the concern with the amount of spending, in itself, is misplaced,î they wrote. ìFor example, if the state were to restrict campaign contributions to reduce the influence of interest groups, that could make it harder for challengers to raise money.î

But what increasingly limits freedom of voter choice is the ìextraordinary controlî exerted by the stateís legislative leaders over campaign funding. Michael J. Madigan and Lee A. Daniels, speaker and minority leader, respectively, of the House, and James ìPateî Philip and Emil Jones Jr., president and minority leader, respectively, of the Senate raise the lionís share of campaign funds, which, in turn, is distributed to targeted races in the General Assembly.

ìThe Four Tops,î as they are called, made $11.6 million in contributions to general-election candidates in 1996, ìa staggering amount by comparison with the contributions from party organizations reported in other states,î Redfield and Quirk report. ìThe cost of leadership-targeted races has gone up dramatically since 1990, more than doubling in both Senate and House elections.î

The power of the purse has enabled the leaders to centralize control over budget and other matters. ìIn private, many rank-and-file legislators complain of being irrelevant.î

Setting limits on the money transfers between leadership campaign funds and candidates could help restore something approaching the traditional independence of individual legislators.

Other recommendations by the U. of I. political scientists include:

--Electronic filing. The state should speed up the reporting of campaign transactions by eliminating the fixed schedule of financial reports and post the data immediately on the Internet.

-- Disclosure. The state should require corporations, unions, professional societies and other campaign contributors to file accurate and complete disclosure statements.

--Personal use. The state should plug loopholes in the ban on personal use of campaign funds contained in a campaign finance measure, House Bill 672, now awaiting Gov. Jim Edgarís signature.

-mr-