Home Search
 

Search the Blog

 

 

Browse Blog Category

 
 

Twitter


 

Tell Your Story

Share your experience with campaign finance and First Amendment regulation. Enter your e-mail below.

 

 

Blog Roll

Ballot Access News

Citizens in Charge

Electionline.org

Election Law Blog

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law Center

Express Advocacy

First Amendment Center

HoltzmanVogel blog

Make No Law

National Journal's Under the Influence

Nonprofit & Foundation Advocacy Blog

Pay to Play Law Blog

Political Activity Law

Public Affairs Perspective

Public Participation Project

Save Our States

The Volokh Conspiracy

Votelaw

 
printPrint Page

BLOG

Another day, another dramatic overreach by campaign finance “reformers”

Published on April 1, 2009 10:40 AM

Sean Parnell

Category: Contributions & Limits, Pay to Play

We at the Center for Competitive Politics are used to seeing broad sweeping claims by the self-anointed campaign finance "reform" community, and equally expansive proposals to wipe away core First Amendment political rights in an effort to somehow deal with real or imagined "corruption." Just yesterday, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois proposed taxpayer handouts for politicians to run their campaigns, because apparently it's tiring and time consuming having to ask for contributions from people (coming soon, the Free Binky's, Milk, and Cookies for Weary Candidates Act). But even we were surprised to find buried in the report of Governor Pat Quinn's Illinois Reform Commission, released yesterday, a recommendation for "reform" that would strip huge numbers of citizens of the right to contribute to candidates they support.

Under the Campaign Finance section, recommendation #4 stood out. It reads:

4. Extend Pay-to-Play Ban. Ban contributions to state constitutional or legislative campaigns from contractors who have obtained or are seeking state contracts of more than $50,000 during the election cycle and companies engaged in regulated practices. (emphasis mine)

Companies engaged in regulated practices? What does that mean? In the most expansive reading, that's every company in Illinois, all of which are subject to various health, occupational, and safety regulations. A more likely but hardly less troubling reading would mean any company that requires a state license to operate.

So, any doctor or attorney in private practice or who owns a portion of their practice, would be unable to contribute to candidates. Many building contractors, whether they do government work or not, have state licenses.  The Illinois Department of Professional Regulation lists more than 250 distinct professions that would presumably fall under the "regulated practices" definition. This includes:

Accountants

Architects

Barbers

Dentists

Funeral Director

Hair Dresser

Locksmith

Marriage/Family Therapist

Real Estate Broker

Roofing Contractor

These are occupations, of course, where it is fairly common to see professionals who own their business and would be barred from contributing to candidates. In addition to the individuals who must have a state license, certain businesses must also have state licenses to operate. These include businesses in the following industries:

Alchohol sales

Contractors

Finance

Insurance

Landscaping

Pet shop

Trucking

Vehicle sales

The scope of this proposal is staggering, and would fundamentally disenfranchise nearly every business owner in the state who requires a business license to operate (which appears to be most of them - there are also licenses required just to be in any sort of business and collect sales taxes).

Dramatic over-reach by "reformers" is nothing new, but this proposal breaks new ground in the effort to strip select citizens of their First Amendment rights.

 

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/trackback/another-day-another-dramatic-overreach-by-campaign-finance-reformers

Login or Sign-Up to Comment

Bookmark and Share