Should Illinois do more to regulate campaign fundraising? If so, what?

Corruption

Today it is impossible to track most donations from the donor to the recipient. Overwhelming amounts of donated money are moved from account to account and then finally end up with a specific candidate and the voters of Illinois have no knowledge of where this money came from originally. I would support legislation that clarifies who is supporting whom by limiting the amount of money that can be redistributed by party leaders.

I'd rather raise and spend money on education and infrastructure or research, etc., but that's not how our system works unfortunately. I am generally supportive of efforts to make the playing field level for all candidates.

Increased transparency, rather than limits on free speech, is where lawmakers should focus. Illinois voters should have increased access into the specifics of what a political committee actually spends their money on. For example, reporting rules do not require committees to disclose receipts and other expenses. Regulations should also be enacted to ensure that political committees are not being used to finance lavish lifestyles of public officials.

The last major change in campaign finance law in Illinois took the power away from the people and gave that power to Michael Madigan, and the two establishment State Parties. The change limited how much individuals could give grassroots organizations, candidates, and policy groups. In short, Michael Madigan limited any challenge to him. This silenced many voices on the right and the left. The results were quick and drastic. Today it appears only self-funded billionaires can run for governor of Illinois. This is wrong. Today, we need more voices in politics, not less — more choices, not fewer. By eliminating the Madigan fundraising rules, we can level the playing field and give voters more choices.

Illinois should do far more to regulate campaign fundraising. Our present governor race in 2018 (as of the beginning of the year) has attracted multi-millionaire candidates in both parties. Our electoral system is biased in favor of wealthy candidates. What we should do is to establish public funding of election activities and a rule that no other money be spent on campaigning. The reason for this is that, as things stand now, candidates have a task of winning an election and have resources that include their own personal fortunes to demonstrate their ability to achieve this goal. But the people that live here never get to see how candidates for office act when they are limited in their resources, as they will be when they get into office. I think that I echo a good deal of Illinois voters in saying that I want to see what candidates do when they are limited, as they ought to be when they are entrusted with spending other peoples' money.

Yes. I'd like to see local funding of campaigns; i.e., all (or at least most) of the money raised for a particular race should come from the race's district. Each district should be allowed to pick its representatives without undue influences of outside interests.

Yes, I support public financing of campaigns and open primaries.

I do not feel that this is a top priority at this time.

I do not feel that this is a top priority at this time.

No, not at this time.

I am not a supporter of big government, but when we have candidates that are raising millions and - in some cases even billions of dollars - to be elected at the national level, there is the chance that potential candidates at the grassroots level will not be able to effectively compete. However, as a Freedom of Speech issue, campaign donation limitations would violate our Constitutional Amendment and I would not support any effort that does not support our Constitution. We need campaign fundraising regulation that is fairly applied to all parties and allows for candidates and groups true freedom of speech.

The politicians have set up a system in which political leaders---including my opponent---are at a fundraising advantage over everyone else. Everyone should be able to participate in the political process equally so there is more competition for elected office. I favor less campaign finance regulation and an even playing field, but those currently in power in Springfield don't want the competition.

Yes. Contributions must be disclosed by campaigns, but I believe there should be limits on what outside groups can do to simply run a candidate's campaign. All around the state this spring, there is a group that is running all paid media for candidates they support. Many of those candidates have disclosed publicly that they have pledged their support for that group's agenda. It gives those candidates "cover" to claim they had nothing to do with ads when the group begins to attack an opponent. If groups or people give money to a candidate, that is their right. But to have pseudo-candidates running ads from a dark office somewhere violates the spirit of campaign finance reform and takes choices and information away from voters.

The problem in Illinois is not money in politics. No law is going to prevent money from finding its way into political campaigns. The politicians make the laws and we are surprised that they find the loopholes in the campaign finance laws? The answer is not more laws that career politicians can jailbreak. The answer is simplicity and transparency

make it more equitable for all candidates.

The rules that Illinois' State Board of Elections have in place are good and transparent for our citizens. Campaign Disclosure is highly regulated in Illinois to the citizen's advantage. Therefore, I don't believe that campaign fundraising should be further regulated. I might support lowering the A-1 filings to $500 and require a monthly campaign D-1 report 1 and 2 months prior to any election, in addition to the quarterly reports. It should also be noted that the State Board of Elections are very good at providing guidance and information to anyone that might be interested in learning more about campaign donations and expenditures.

I'm a strong believer in the 1st Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court has provided clear guidelines on the limits surrounding campaign finance regulations. Overall, I am open to measures that could improve transparency in our campaign finance system.

I support transparency in campaign finance and if there is any additional measures that Illinois State Board of Elections can take to achieve that they should be encouraged to do so.

I am a strong believer in the First Amendment. Illinois should not regulate campaign fundraising if it limits free speech, as defined by U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Lets see, we have two billionaires that will battle it out. Pretty self explanatory! Something has to be done because there are too many special interests driving the message. My opponent here in West Central Illinois has taken thousands of dollars from Chicagoland Operators Union - why? Therefore reform is necessary.

It costs money to inform the voters, but it isn't a level playing field if we don't regulate campaign finances. I would support a campaign fundraising cap and further regulations with regard to campaign ads.

Certain efforts can be made to bring more transparency to the way campaigns are financed in Illinois. Sunshine laws and increased disclosure requirements would be a good first step in helping voters know about the interests behind the messages they are exposed to. The rise of political action committees and independent expenditures also warrants the special attention of any committee considering campaign finance reform.

Campaign fundraising reform should be addressed in an acceptable manner that does not inhibit an individual's freedom of speech.

I do not believe that the state of Illinois should do more to regulate campaign fundraising. The reason I feel this way is that it will add more government and more burden on the taxpayer.

No. Onerous fundraising rules protect the insiders and the elite. We need to make the political process more accessible to political novices. The whole process is designed to make it easier for political leaders to control who gets on the ballot and who gets elected. Being a political office holder does not make you royalty.

Yes. Our campaign finance system is broken. It is very difficult for anyone but the extremely wealthy to run for office. This is simply unacceptable. We need to end the loophole that allows unlimited money to flow from PACs to PACs. We need a small donor matching program that allows non-millionaire/billionaire candidates to compete against big money.

Yes, we should more closely regulate campaign finance in Illinois. We should require campaigns to report all expenditures on an accrual basis two week before an election. We should expand the definition of in-kind contributions. Further, we should limit independent expenditure committee spending and fundraising and force greater discloser. No independent expenditure committee should be an alter ego for one person or a small number of persons.

Yes. Political party committees should not be able to give unlimited amounts to candidates. In addition, people who are running for judge currently make contributions to party leaders; they should be prohibited from contributing before and after their election. Also, Illinois' contribution limits are more than twice the federal limits, and the corporation limits are four times higher than the federal individual limits, whereas corporate contributions to candidate committees are banned. Given the prevalence of self-financed candidates, it is difficult to recommend cutting those limits dramatically because those who are not self-financed need to be able to compete, but this is a matter that deserves more attention.

In light of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, I think Illinois is very limited on what it can do to regulate campaign fundraising unless it wants to bring certain litigation over the issue. Our Illinois Constitution already provides that elections are free and equal. Even though money talks, it is the PEOPLE that vote. Instead, Illinois should do more to create opportunity for platforms and mediums for people to go and assess the candidates in their respective districts or races in an unbiased manner. I encourage all those who take issue with how money and special interest group fund elections to recognize who is and isn't driven by it, and use the power of their votes accordingly.

Financing campaigns in Illinois has gotten out of hand. My preference is to see Illinois establish a mechanism for public financing of campaigns. However, without a reversal of Citizens United, it's unlikely that much will change, since private entities that are regulated on the federal level would still be able to make unlimited contributions. I would support any reasonable bill that demonstrates it can correct the problem. To truly address the root cause of the fundraising problem, we need to reduce the need for the funds. Shortening the time frame for campaigns to a statutorily specified period (an approach taken in England and most other world democracies) significantly lessens the need for excessive spending.

Illinois should adopt a public financing model for its campaigns. I'd support something similar to the plan Daniel Biss has proposed. This plan is used for elections in New York City. https://www.danielbiss.com/campaign-finance-reform/

We will never have honest government, that being a government that has no motivation other than to provide fairly and justly for our people, until we take the money out of politics. We all know this, and yet nothing gets done. We know that obscene amounts of money are now contributed to candidates by all sorts of special interests: corporations, PAC's (political action committees) trade associations, political parties, unions, as well as some individuals. It cannot be more obvious that these special interests are not motivated by public charity, but that instead they expect things in return. They expect a big return on that investment, and they have found that political donations are a very wise investment. At the very least they receive access to our leaders that the rest of us don't have, but they are after much more. They want legislation and special favors that directly benefit them, and which are to the disadvantage of their competitors or the public at large.

MY PERSONAL (AND COMPLETELY UNIQUE) SOLUTION IS TO SET THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS FOR MY CAMPAIGN:

I will talk no money from any entity of any type. Only people can contribute to my campaign. To be absolutely clear I will not take a single dollar from a business, a corporation, a trade association, a political party, a union, a political party, or any other type of entity. It doesn't matter if it is the Red Cross, I will refund it. It is not right for me to pick and choose the entities that I think are "good ones" as the point is that no one except people should have influence over our government.
I will accept contributions from people (in fact I really need some) but they must be LESS THAN $1,000 from that person in any one calendar year. Even though my opponent may well have ten or twenty times as much to spend on their campaign than I will have, I would not allow myself to run any other way. We need to take a stand so that we will all know that at least this State Senator is not beholden to anyone except the good people of the 20th District. If I am elected, I will advocate for campaign finance reform. I don't have the space to go into all the details here but in part I support a matching program where the State would match small individual contributions (no more than $100 per contribution), in a one to one match, so long as the candidate agreed not to accept large contibutions. I would also push for heightened disclosure requirements on advertising being paid for by third parties. Such supposedly "uncoordinated" spending is of course very common, and there are no financial limits on it since the Citizens United decision. With such disclosure being made more prominent, it is my hope that the average voter will soon learn to disregard such ads.

In this country people should be able to spend what they want to support their candidate, as long as it is done in a legal and fair fashion.

It is obvious that there is too much money in politics and there is always more that can be done to regulate campaign financing and make our elections more transparent. I have never been someone who is interested in stockpiling campaign cash. I am supportive of lowering caps on certain types of donations.

No. The current system is necessary, but cumbersome. Adding more regulation would increase costs to administer and oversee the regulation, which we cannot afford. We need to make the process of running for office less complicated. Adding more burdensome regulations is only going to make it more difficult for the average citizen to get involved.

I do not support campaign contribution limits. Time and time again, complex restrictions and layers of control have been shown to hamper outsiders and advantage incumbents who not only enacted the rules, but know how to effectively skirt them.

No. The current system is necessary, but cumbersome. Adding more regulation would increase costs to administer and oversee the regulation, which we cannot afford. We need to make the process of running for office less complicated. Adding more burdensome regulations is only going to make it more difficult for the average citizen to get involved.

I do not support campaign contribution limits. Time and time again, complex restrictions and layers of control have been shown to hamper outsiders and advantage incumbents who not only enacted the rules, but know how to effectively skirt them.

Yes. Off the record - I was told by IOP "Do not run! We have $37 million and we are trying to get to $50 million. Your opponent has a million, and if he needs more we will give it to him". I was told to run for the House and I would have a punchers chance. I said, why can't a guy pick a lane and run, and "It does come down to a vote you know". On the record - I was told I need $400K to run a campaign to defeat my opponent. I am a DIII University Men's Basketball Coach, and Professor, and my wife is a part time children's and family minister at our church. We have raised 5 children in our district. In her staff meeting the other day it was brought up that there are people in our church that are going without basic needs this holiday (food, shelter, and transportation). Collectively my wife and I agreed that raising and spending $400K on a primary is wrong when there are those who don't have basic needs met in our community. Our conscience would not allow us to ask for, or spend that kind of money on a political campaign w those kinds of needs in our community.

If we don't have campaign finance reform, the little guy, who may be the best voice for the people, may get boxed out (sorry for using a basketball rebounding term). I am running to give the people a choice and a voice. We should set limits on campaign finance fundraising and spending. It keeps the process of running for office a democratic exercise.

Yes. Off the record - I was told by IOP "Do not run! We have $37 million and we are trying to get to $50 million. Your opponent has a million, and if he needs more we will give it to him". I was told to run for the House and I would have a punchers chance. I said, why can't a guy pick a lane and run, and "It does come down to a vote you know". On the record - I was told I need $400K to run a campaign to defeat my opponent. I am a DIII University Men's Basketball Coach, and Professor, and my wife is a part time children's and family minister at our church. We have raised 5 children in our district. In her staff meeting the other day it was brought up that there are people in our church that are going without basic needs this holiday (food, shelter, and transportation). Collectively my wife and I agreed that raising and spending $400K on a primary is wrong when there are those who don't have basic needs met in our community. Our conscience would not allow us to ask for, or spend that kind of money on a political campaign w those kinds of needs in our community.

If we don't have campaign finance reform, the little guy, who may be the best voice for the people, may get boxed out (sorry for using a basketball rebounding term). I am running to give the people a choice and a voice. We should set limits on campaign finance fundraising and spending. It keeps the process of running for office a democratic exercise.

Illinois should begin to provide some level of public financing for campaigns as has been proposed in Chicago and State legislation.

Illinois should begin to provide some level of public financing for campaigns as has been proposed in Chicago and State legislation.

There's too much money in politics, and it's unfairly distributed. As a result, candidates for office spend entirely too much time talking with donors and potential donors rather than listening to voters. As a result, I would like to see a system of public financing of elections. I don't expect such a system to pass easily or soon, so in the interim I support a small income tax credit for political contributions to increase the number of small dollar contributions.

The campaign finance reforms in Illinois in 2009 were a step in the right direction. However, wealthy candidates are still able to circumvent limits by self-funding their campaigns. Today, 13 states provide some form of public financing option for campaigns. Illinois should join them. While at Common Cause, I worked to advance the public financing measure SB 1424, which was passed by the Illinois Senate in the previous session. As state representative I would continue to support such a plan.

I think Illinois law should track federal law and federal limits. Those limits, both on amount and source, are eminently reasonable and workable.

Yes, I support full public financing in campaigns where low dollar donors can win public funds if contribution levels are reached. I also believe a more robust and strict cap system should be in place as the current system is too easy to bypass.

There's too much money in politics, and it's unfairly distributed. As a result, candidates for office spend entirely too much time talking with donors and potential donors rather than listening to voters. As a result, I would like to see a system of public financing of elections. I don't expect such a system to pass easily or soon, so in the interim I support a small income tax credit for political contributions to increase the number of small dollar contributions.

The campaign finance reforms in Illinois in 2009 were a step in the right direction. However, wealthy candidates are still able to circumvent limits by self-funding their campaigns. Today, 13 states provide some form of public financing option for campaigns. Illinois should join them. While at Common Cause, I worked to advance the public financing measure SB 1424, which was passed by the Illinois Senate in the previous session. As state representative I would continue to support such a plan.

I think Illinois law should track federal law and federal limits. Those limits, both on amount and source, are eminently reasonable and workable.

Yes, I support full public financing in campaigns where low dollar donors can win public funds if contribution levels are reached. I also believe a more robust and strict cap system should be in place as the current system is too easy to bypass.

Yes, when you look at the current gubernatorial race, I think you realize more than ever that campaign finance reform is needed. The race is on track to be one of the most expensive races in the history of the nation, and we haven't even gotten to the primary. When you allow candidates to spend ridiculous amounts of money; it is no longer about who the best candidate is, but who can spend the most money. That is a slippery slope to go down and doesn't represent the true spirit of democracy.

Illinois should consider two main campaign finance reforms. The first is removing the loophole that allows for dark money to flood in through 501c(4) and 501c(6) non-profits. Unlike PACs, these nonprofits are allowed to keep their donors hidden. When non-profits behave like PACs they should be required to register and report like them. The second reform is public financing of elections through a small donor matching system. I would support SB 1424 if it is voted upon in the house.

I am in favor of public financing for campaign fundraising. If the current trends continue, people who do not have millions of dollars at their disposal will be locked out of the process.

Illinois should consider two main campaign finance reforms. The first is removing the loophole that allows for dark money to flood in through 501c(4) and 501c(6) non-profits. Unlike PACs, these nonprofits are allowed to keep their donors hidden. When non-profits behave like PACs they should be required to register and report like them. The second reform is public financing of elections through a small donor matching system. I would support SB 1424 if it is voted upon in the house.

1. Nomination papers State Board election verifies them
2. No more direct donations to candidates or campaigns.
3. No more primary elections

Democracy is supposed to be the rule of the people. The era of billionaire self-funders has called that notion into question. I'm sponsoring a bill in the house to create a small-donor matching program in Illinois that would amplify the everyday residents, many of whom can't afford to give their favorite candidate more than $25. With this system in place, running a modern campaign without a wealthy backer, party or PAC would be more realistic. If we want a democracy in which the elected officials are representative of their constituents, we must empower Illinoisans without personal wealth or party connections to run.

Absolutely, I think we should move towards some kind of public financing for campaigns. Now some will say how can we do this when the state is in such a dire financial state to begin with? Well my response would be that the lack of proper campaign finance reform is one of the root causes of the corruption and financial problems in our state that is draining the budget in the first place. So the question really is can we afford not to do something about campaign finance reform?

Absolutely, I think we should move towards some kind of public financing for campaigns. Now some will say how can we do this when the state is in such a dire financial state to begin with? Well my response would be that the lack of proper campaign finance reform is one of the root causes of the corruption and financial problems in our state that is draining the budget in the first place. So the question really is can we afford not to do something about campaign finance reform?

My party is hurting from revelations that Hillary Clinton essestionaly rigged our presidential primary because she had the money to purchase our national party. This is the reason we lost the election for President and it is just a scratching of the surface, if we continue to allow money to hold such the determining power it currently holds in our elections. Campaigns have become too expensive and leaves candidates beholden to wealthy donors and residents increasingly vulnerable to representation in theory only.

In the General Assembly, I would like to work with my counterparts and the Governor to stand up a commission to study and bring forth recommendations on how to responsibly adopt and implement a donor matching program that candidates can opt into that would cap the amounts of money that can be raised and spent in elections. This wouldn't go far enough however, ultimately, we will need our Federal Government to take some leadership on this issue that is surely apart of the killing of our democracy.

My party is hurting from revelations that Hillary Clinton essestionaly rigged our presidential primary because she had the money to purchase our national party. This is the reason we lost the election for President and it is just a scratching of the surface, if we continue to allow money to hold such the determining power it currently holds in our elections. Campaigns have become too expensive and leaves candidates beholden to wealthy donors and residents increasingly vulnerable to representation in theory only.

In the General Assembly, I would like to work with my counterparts and the Governor to stand up a commission to study and bring forth recommendations on how to responsibly adopt and implement a donor matching program that candidates can opt into that would cap the amounts of money that can be raised and spent in elections. This wouldn't go far enough however, ultimately, we will need our Federal Government to take some leadership on this issue that is surely apart of the killing of our democracy.

I need to study this issue more, but from what I have read, the national courts have the final say on this issue.

Our elections have equal or bigger problems than fundraising. Ballot access is hindered by unethical tactics such as putting up "ghost" candidates to confuse voters and challenging signatures on petitions in election court. We need more women and minorities in Illinois government. I want to see campaign regulations that support their efforts.

I think there are more pressing issues at this time.

I support SB 1424 which would set up matching funds for small donor campaign contributions.

I worry that big money and the wealthy are dominating the election process which will make it less possible for ordinary citizens to run for and hold office. I also worry that the influence of big money is skewing issues to the extremes (both left and right) making compromise and cooperation unlikely. Since the court has made it near impossible to reduce contributions and spending, total disclosure is the option that we should aggressively pursue. We should as much as possible eliminate "dark money". I support full transparency and disclosure of the source of all money spent to influence election results.

Not at this time.

Yes, we should have public financing of campaigns. Funding from special interests carries too much weight in elections. In addition limits should be placed on the amount of contributions made. Stricter accounting of time volunteered by groups should be kept and newspapers should publish weekly lists of large contributors.

The creation of a public fund for elections would be a great step towards fair elections and fall in line with the will of the people.

Illinois needs to establish a system for publicly financing elections, or at least move to a hybrid system that draws on both public and private funds. The current system substitutes a candidate's fundraising ability for experience and commitment to public service. I am appalled by the amount of money spent on elections, in general. Illinois has a limit on the amount an individual can give to a campaign, but that cap can be lifted if a candidate in a particular race contributes $100,000 or more to his/her own campaign. Illinois also has strict reporting requirements that I support. I would extend mandatory immediate reporting to contributions of $500 or more, now set at $1,000, immediately.
The cost of campaigns is driven in large part by the candidates' challenge of getting their message out to people in their districts and the length of the campaign cycle. To that end, I favor shortening the election cycle — holding primaries in May or June in presidential primary years and in September in non-presidential years. Other countries prohibit campaigning more than six weeks before an election. I would support such a restriction as a reasonable time, place, manner restriction on protected speech.
The status quo advantages people with wealth or access to wealth and people with strong ties to established parties. For that reason, I favor SB 1424, the law proposed by Sen. Daniel Biss, and supported by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, to create a small donor matching fund for political campaigns for state offices. Candidates who agree to participate in the fund would voluntarily agree to accept a limited amount of money from any individual donor in order to receive matching public funds. I support an Illinois referendum calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. However, until Citizens United is overturned or the U.S. Constitution amended, reform of Illinois funding of state elections may be the best we can hope to achieve.

We are seeing millions of dollars that can be used in our communities spent on campaigns. We have to create campaign limits to even the playing field for candidates but more so to stop wasting resources that can be spent directly in our community. I do not support limiting where money comes from but instead the volume of which is allowed in races.

End contributions from state parties and corporations. Have the investigative and enforcement arms of the state go after political patronage workers who receive promotions and increased pay based on their political activity. Remove Mike Madigan and Joe Berrios from their party chairmanships. They act more like the heads of crime families than political parties. Invite the Federal government to investigate, prosecute, and convict these unethical and financially illiterate lawmakers.

The easiest and most effective campaign finance reform would be to cap spending by office sought. The spending limits could be set by an independent body and grow at the pace of inflation only. This would include lowering individual contribution limits, donations from PACs, and other political committees. Additionally, I believe that campaign time frames should be limited because the extension of campaigns to roughly two years is unnecessary and leads to increased expense by design.

Illinois needs to establish a system for publicly financing elections, or at least move to a hybrid system that draws on both public and private funds. The current system substitutes a candidate's fundraising ability for experience and commitment to public service. I am appalled by the amount of money spent on elections, in general. Illinois has a limit on the amount an individual can give to a campaign, but that cap can be lifted if a candidate in a particular race contributes $100,000 or more to his/her own campaign. Illinois also has strict reporting requirements that I support. I would extend mandatory immediate reporting to contributions of $500 or more, now set at $1,000, immediately.
The cost of campaigns is driven in large part by the candidates' challenge of getting their message out to people in their districts and the length of the campaign cycle. To that end, I favor shortening the election cycle — holding primaries in May or June in presidential primary years and in September in non-presidential years. Other countries prohibit campaigning more than six weeks before an election. I would support such a restriction as a reasonable time, place, manner restriction on protected speech.
The status quo advantages people with wealth or access to wealth and people with strong ties to established parties. For that reason, I favor SB 1424, the law proposed by Sen. Daniel Biss, and supported by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, to create a small donor matching fund for political campaigns for state offices. Candidates who agree to participate in the fund would voluntarily agree to accept a limited amount of money from any individual donor in order to receive matching public funds. I support an Illinois referendum calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. However, until Citizens United is overturned or the U.S. Constitution amended, reform of Illinois funding of state elections may be the best we can hope to achieve.

Citizens United changed campaign finance forever. We need to reign in the influence of special interests who can keep their donors a secret while supporting or opposing candidates. Transparency is critical.

We are seeing millions of dollars that can be used in our communities spent on campaigns. We have to create campaign limits to even the playing field for candidates but more so to stop wasting resources that can be spent directly in our community. I do not support limiting where money comes from but instead the volume of which is allowed in races.

End contributions from state parties and corporations. Have the investigative and enforcement arms of the state go after political patronage workers who receive promotions and increased pay based on their political activity. Remove Mike Madigan and Joe Berrios from their party chairmanships. They act more like the heads of crime families than political parties. Invite the Federal government to investigate, prosecute, and convict these unethical and financially illiterate lawmakers.

The easiest and most effective campaign finance reform would be to cap spending by office sought. The spending limits could be set by an independent body and grow at the pace of inflation only. This would include lowering individual contribution limits, donations from PACs, and other political committees. Additionally, I believe that campaign time frames should be limited because the extension of campaigns to roughly two years is unnecessary and leads to increased expense by design.

Yes. We should eliminate the caps on individual donations to candidates, since that only further consolidates the power into the hands of leadership and gives wealthy self funders an advantage over regular middle class people. We should also pass public funding of campaigns to reduce the influence of money in campaigns. Finally, I would support uniform limit on campaign fundraising so that leadership is subject to the same limits as rank and file legislators.

Absolutely! The amount of money spent on campaigns makes it hard for "Joe Citizen" to get involved. I'm doing it, and I realize this will be an uphill battle. But not many are willing to throw their hat in the ring because of the crazy amount of money spent on campaigns.

Yes. We should eliminate the caps on individual donations to candidates, since that only further consolidates the power into the hands of leadership and gives wealthy self funders an advantage over regular middle class people. We should also pass public funding of campaigns to reduce the influence of money in campaigns. Finally, I would support uniform limit on campaign fundraising so that leadership is subject to the same limits as rank and file legislators.

Absolutely! The amount of money spent on campaigns makes it hard for "Joe Citizen" to get involved. I'm doing it, and I realize this will be an uphill battle. But not many are willing to throw their hat in the ring because of the crazy amount of money spent on campaigns.

Show the public where candidates are getting their campaign contributions from and ask why groups are contributing to them. It would be great if the government, a watch dog group or the media would follow-up on an elected officials voting record and how it correlated with who they received money from.

Yes! As I am running my campaign, I am not being helped by any PAC. One of my opponents is getting all their mailings and television ads paid for by a PAC that is worth up-to $200,000. The election is no longer about the best candidate, but who can be the most popular by multi-media sources. I feel campaign funding should be limited by race to specified limits. For State Representative races a suggested limit would be $50,000. For State Senate races $100,000. We need a level playing field.

Party contributions should be subject to the same limitations as PACs. The fact that a party can throw unlimited funds behind an opponent undermines an individual's ability to effectively support his or her desired candidate financially.

I believe we should make campaign finance disclosures more transparent so voters have more information on candidates for public office, but I do not support limiting the 1st Amendment rights of Illinois voters.

Show the public where candidates are getting their campaign contributions from and ask why groups are contributing to them. It would be great if the government, a watch dog group or the media would follow-up on an elected officials voting record and how it correlated with who they received money from.

SB 1466 regulated the influence of all parties interested in campaign finance except for legislative leaders and political parties. This legislation was more of an incumbent protection tool for Speaker Madigan, who serves both as the leader of the House Democratic Caucus and as the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois. This kind of Campaign fundraising should be regulated. Voters should know where money is coming from and what interests are supporting which candidates. I'd be a lot more interested in ensuring that the finances are transparent.

I believe we should make campaign finance disclosures more transparent so voters have more information on candidates for public office, but I do not support limiting the 1st Amendment rights of Illinois voters.

Yes! As I am running my campaign, I am not being helped by any PAC. One of my opponents is getting all their mailings and television ads paid for by a PAC that is worth up-to $200,000. The election is no longer about the best candidate, but who can be the most popular by multi-media sources. I feel campaign funding should be limited by race to specified limits. For State Representative races a suggested limit would be $50,000. For State Senate races $100,000. We need a level playing field.

Party contributions should be subject to the same limitations as PACs. The fact that a party can throw unlimited funds behind an opponent undermines an individual's ability to effectively support his or her desired candidate financially.

SB 1466 regulated the influence of all parties interested in campaign finance except for legislative leaders and political parties. This legislation was more of an incumbent protection tool for Speaker Madigan, who serves both as the leader of the House Democratic Caucus and as the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois. This kind of Campaign fundraising should be regulated. Voters should know where money is coming from and what interests are supporting which candidates. I'd be a lot more interested in ensuring that the finances are transparent.

Our current system is extremely unfair. While there are caps on donations to individual candidates, there are not caps on donations to caucus leaders — like Mike Madigan. This makes so many rank and file candidates beholden to their leaders. It gives leaders too much power and has contributed to the situation we are in now. Either caps for all or caps for none.

Campaign finance regulation and reform is an area of interest for my campaign. The campaign finance law in our state has been ineffective to date. The influence of political parties, established party leadership, and political action committees is at an all time high. The current law does limit contributions during the primary, but these limits are not applied to party leadership during the general elections. I support limiting campaign contributions on political parties and funds that are controlled by House and Senate leadership. These regulations should be in place for both the Primary and General Election cycles so that we truly have a level playing field for all candidates.

Campaign finance regulation and reform is an area of interest for my campaign. The campaign finance law in our state has been ineffective to date. The influence of political parties, established party leadership, and political action committees is at an all time high. The current law does limit contributions during the primary, but these limits are not applied to party leadership during the general elections. I support limiting campaign contributions on political parties and funds that are controlled by House and Senate leadership. These regulations should be in place for both the Primary and General Election cycles so that we truly have a level playing field for all candidates.

Our current system is extremely unfair. While there are caps on donations to individual candidates, there are not caps on donations to caucus leaders — like Mike Madigan. This makes so many rank and file candidates beholden to their leaders. It gives leaders too much power and has contributed to the situation we are in now. Either caps for all or caps for none.

Yes, there should be efforts made to contain the costs of campaigns because we are quickly moving to cost prohibitive campaigns that will keep good people from participating in the process.

There should be a cap on the amount a campaign can raise and a cap on the amount a candidate can contribute to own campaign. In addition, a cap on company contributions should cover a wide period of time--five years. Part of the problem lately is that the person who raises the most money is the person who usually wins. This shouldn't be the case.

Spending caps!! A State Rep. race should not be for sale to the person who has the most money. Actually NO race should be for sale to the person who has the most money. The money issue is a thing that keeps some of the best and brightest out of the political arena.

There should be a cap on the amount a campaign can raise and a cap on the amount a candidate can contribute to own campaign. In addition, a cap on company contributions should cover a wide period of time--five years. Part of the problem lately is that the person who raises the most money is the person who usually wins. This shouldn't be the case.

Yes, we should set limitation on how much a Political Party Committee can donate to a Candidate's Political Committee. As of right now, a Political Party Committee can give unlimited funds during a general or consolidated election cycle. We should also have a Small Donor Matching System.

No. I believe campaign fundraising is a matter of free speech.

Yes, we should set limitation on how much a Political Party Committee can donate to a Candidate's Political Committee. As of right now, a Political Party Committee can give unlimited funds during a general or consolidated election cycle. We should also have a Small Donor Matching System.

No. I believe campaign fundraising is a matter of free speech.

Yes, there should be efforts made to contain the costs of campaigns because we are quickly moving to cost prohibitive campaigns that will keep good people from participating in the process.

No, the politicians have set up a system where by political leaders are able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money while regular folks running for office have caps.

No, the politicians have set up a system where by political leaders are able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money while regular folks running for office have caps.

I am open to do more regulation of campaign fundraising in Illinois. I think the best, first step is to push back party primaries to August or September like twelve other states do. This change will create shorter campaigns, reduce the amount of money spent on elections, and encourage more cooperation in Springfield. Under the current system, primaries are scheduled for March. By the time you back into the calendar for collecting signatures and verifying paperwork, new campaigns start just eight months after elected officials are sworn in.