For those of you wondering about the spending in the 2006 Myers-Frerichs State Senate race, the reports were filed yesterday.
Mike Frerichs, who won by 517 votes, took in about $1.08 million in the last six months of 2006 in direct and in-kind donations, with about $1.03 million of that coming from Political Action Committees (or PACs), including over $900,000 from the Illinois Senate Democratic Fund (ISDF), the party committee controlled by Senate President Emil Jones of Chicago.
(As an aside, for those of you who said I was wrong to assume that Frerichs' early attack ads were paid for by Jones - the first ISDF contribution came on 9/4, exactly the day that the attack ads began airing on TV and radio. That said, the attack ads worked, so being right is absolutely no consolation.)
Judy Myers took in about $900,000 in direct and in-kind contributions from July through December, with about $800,000 coming from PACs. About $630,000 was from Sen. Frank Watson's two PACs (Citizens for Watson and the Republican Senate Campaign Committee) and the Illinois Republican Party.
The race in the 52nd State Senate district was easily the most expensive legislative race in the state in 2006, and may have been the most expensive in history (although I think there might have been a Chicago-area race in 2002 that was more expensive - Pam Althoff maybe?)
For the 103rd House race, Naomi Jakobsson raised about $215,000, with about 90% of it coming from PACs and Speaker Michael Madigan. Her opponent, Rex Bradfield, raised and spent about $14,000.
Discuss (or gloat) if you want.
UPDATE: Tom Kacich beat me to it, although his numbers don't include the in-kind contributions that make up a significant portion of the Party's support.
Just goes to show how valuable our elections as compared to other alternative funding needs.
I THINK the most expensive Senate race ever was the Gary Forby-Ron Summers race of 2004 in the far south 59th district - the spending there topped $2 million I think.
I would think that a $mart guy like Frerich$ $hould have no problem learning how to $teal at lea$t that much for the taxpayer$ with the help of Emil "The Kingfi$h" Jone$ and hi$ cronie$. What He $hould be doing i$ di$tancing Him$elf from the Blago! He'$ on His$ way to the Federal $lam ju$t like Georgie Ryan!!!
I meant to say "$teal FROM the taxpayer$ . Sorry
Best Senator that money can buy.
Has Emil Jones sent him the "I'm voting how Emil's voting" rubber stamp yet?
In theory, this is exactly how the Illinois campaign finance system is supposed to work. We don't limit contributions or expenditures, we just require near-complete disclosure. In other states, Illinois is seen as "The Wild West" of campaign finance, since our campaigns are so unregulated, comparitively.
Supporters of the Illinois system will counter that we're not "unregulated", but just focused on a different solution to the problem. Illinois' disclosure laws, supporters say, are actually much stricter than most, and our focus is on transparency, not limits. So, in theory, both new and old media play a critical role in policing campaign spending in Illinois.
But in practice, does that really work?
Republican leadership (I think in both the House and Senate, but I could be wrong) tends to pay for media through in-kind contributions, rather than by giving the cash directly to the campaign. Democratic leadership tends to give the money to the campaign, and let the campaign buy the media directly. There may be "good government" reasons one way is better than the other, but my point here is that Tom Kacich didn't pay attention to in-kind contributions, and as a result grossly distorted Myers' spending. I think Kacich is a smart guy and better than most reporters, but even he is somewhat clueless about how campaign finance works. That wouldn't be a problem, except that our entire system in Illinois depends on people like Kacich being able to analyze this stuff and blow the whistle on improper spending or contributions.
Gordy's post gives a much better explanation of what really happened. But Gordy was uniquely situated to understand where Myers' (and Frerichs') money really came from. Few bloggers and fewer reporters are former campaign managers. But even with Gordy's expertise, what do we learn? They both sent what most people think is an obscene amount of money. Frerichs spent more, but not a whole lot more. As Myers supporters claimed during the campaign, most of his money came from PACs and leadership. As Frerichs supporters claimed, the same is true of Myers' money, too.
Does anyone trust the Illinois disclosure system to keep "dirty" money out of politics? Is it time to revamp Illinois campaign finance laws?
"Does anyone trust the Illinois disclosure system to keep "dirty" money out of politics? Is it time to revamp Illinois campaign finance laws? "
I'd be in favor of faster disclosure, so that more people know where the money is coming from during the campaign, instead of 90 days later. I've often advocated for disclosure off all income and expenditures, online, with two business days.
I'm opposed to caps on contributions and expenditures because, quite frankly, they just don't work. They money just flows elsewhere, to be spent by other groups, and it makes it even harder for voters to understand who is funding whom and why.
For a perfect example of this, look at the Federal campaign finance laws: there are hard limits on contributions and massive restrictions on who can spend on campaigns, but the money keeps flowing. It's just harder to track where it's coming from, who it's benefitting, and why.
Sunshine is the answer, and Illinois could certainly use a little more sunshine.
Judy Myers raised almost as much as Frerichs did, and raised most of it from PACs and party leadership, just like Frerichs did.
Those of you who read that and respond by attacking Frerichs are just Party hacks with no sense of perspective. If you don't like leadership funneling money to local races, start by asking Sen. Watson about the $630,000 he gave Judy Myers (or, if you're prefer, "Judy Myer$").
Of course, it would be more productive to look at our crappy campaign finance system, rather than trying to blame Watson or Myers or Frerichs for doing the best they can to work within it.
Myers is just as bad, they all wallow in the same slop ! You can't be around all that manure without some of it rubbing off! A couple of weeks ago I saw something on this blog "If you have sex for a dollar or a million your still a prostitute!" They all pander to someone!
I'm all for faster disclosure, but what good is it if no one in the media understands it?
Our system keeps candidates from accepting a check from NAMBLA, or Phillip-Morris maybe. But other than that, what does our system protect us from?
Rod Blagojevich filed all his disclosure reports, and even with that "transparency" he was re-elected. That either means voters understood where and how he raised his money, approved of it, and cast an informed vote; or, our current system isn't working at all. Which answer makes more sense to you?
"I'm all for faster disclosure, but what good is it if no one in the media understands it?"
Well, presumably the opponent would be checking these things as well, so if there were a large contribution from NAMBLA (to use your example), the opposing campaign could "let everyone know about it."
And, in Tom Kacich's defense, he did something useful that I didn't do - he looked at the fundraising for a 12-month period, and I only looked at the last six months. I think the latter is more useful, but the former (really, a two-year snapshot) certainly gives a more complete picture. He just didn't include the in-kinds.
Most newspapers don't even report on this stuff because it's so far removed from the election.
"Rod Blagojevich filed all his disclosure reports, and even with that "transparency" he was re-elected. That either means voters understood where and how he raised his money, approved of it, and cast an informed vote; or, our current system isn't working at all."
A few responses to this:
Stricter contribution limits wouldn't have prevented Blagojevich from raising money - he would have just found a way to funnel the money through other sources, just as every candidate does on the Federal level. Witness MoveOn, Swift Boats, etc.
Contribution limits don't prevent corruption. Corrupt politicians just get more creative in how to be corrupt - witness all of the Federal corruption we've seen in the past few years, since the enactment of that steaming pile of feces that is McCain-Feingold.
It's hard to argue that disclosure didn't work in Blagojevich's case. The voters clearly knew he was ethically challenged. They supported him anyway, because he used his money advantage to make the other person look even more corrupt. Disclosure worked; the media and the voters just didn't care.
That said, if he had to disclosure all of his income and expenses within two businesses days, rather than how they do it in the current system, the media and voters have cared more.