When you donate to a political candidate’s campaign fund, it’s reasonable to expect that the money will be used to pay for a television ad blitz, or stacks of campaign signs or batches of mailings. In Illinois politics, however, what’s reasonable rarely equates with what actually happens.
We’ve seen politicians spend campaign funds on flat screen televisions, stuffed elk heads and a Michael Jackson fedora (former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Chicago), on Soldier Field skybox tickets and a congressional office remodeling in the style of the British television series “Downton Abbey,” (former U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Peoria), and even deluxe stays at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in the Cayman Islands (state Sen. Kimberly Lightford, D-Maywood).
Of course, one of the most common ways Illinois politicians use — or misuse — campaign cash is to spend it on defense lawyers to stave off guilty verdicts or help them cope with federal scrutiny. A recent example is former Ald. Daniel Solis, and a challenge to the way he has spent campaign funds has made its way to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez, 25th, says Solis improperly spent $220,000 from his campaign coffers on criminal defense lawyers helping him through an ongoing FBI probe at City Hall. Solis is Sigcho-Lopez’s predecessor in the 25th Ward. He’s also the government mole who wore a wire during conversations with Ald. Edward Burke, 14th, who faces federal charges that he used his clout in City Hall to extort work for his law firm, along with other favors from companies and people doing business with the city. Solis agreed to secretly record conversations with Burke and others in city government after he came under federal scrutiny for his own alleged improprieties, including taking hefty personal loans and payouts from a 25th Ward campaign fund.
The practice of using campaign funds for criminal defense expenses “is illegal and disgraceful, but it exists because it goes unchallenged,” Sigcho-Lopez’s complaint states.
The Illinois State Board of Elections rejected Sigcho-Lopez’s complaint in 2020. Sigcho-Lopez appealed, lost at the Illinois Appellate Court level and has now brought the case before the Illinois Supreme Court. The gist of Sigcho-Lopez’s argument is that any politician’s use of campaign money for criminal defense lawyers amounts to personal use of the money, and therefore is not allowed under Illinois law.
We think Sigcho-Lopez has a strong case, and we hope the Illinois Supreme Court agrees.
In the meantime, however, cases like Solis’ show that the current law in Illinois governing use of campaign funds needs immediate, meaningful reform. The law prohibits using campaign money for personal use, but its definition of “personal use” is as clear as mud. Lawmakers should clarify that valid uses of campaign funds don’t include personal perks. And the General Assembly should amend the law to include a specific prohibition on using campaign funds for legal defense in a federal or state criminal case.
Solis is far from the only politician exploiting this loophole.
Burke’s tab for legal fees tops $2.7 million, and he’s been able to dive deep into his trove of campaign funds to pay for his defense ahead of an upcoming trial on charges of bribery, attempted extortion and racketeering. Former House Speaker Michael Madigan has spent nearly $6.8 million to defend himself against implications of his involvement in the ComEd bribery scheme. Former south suburban Crestwood Mayor Lou Presta used $25,000 of campaign cash on lawyers who defended him against bribery charges connected with the investigation into the red light camera scandal. Presta pleaded guilty and left office last November.
Politicians may argue, hey, what’s all the fuss? After all, this isn’t taxpayer money we’re talking about. True, but this is money politicians receive from fellow citizens because they’re elected officials gearing up for campaigns. It’s not money meant to enrich politicians’ lives with trips to the Caribbean and taxidermic extravagances like mounted animal heads. And it certainly shouldn’t be spent on fighting off criminal indictments.
Of course, expecting lawmakers to cut themselves off from their personal cash pipelines requires an expectation that they’ll finally do the right thing. We’re not holding our breath.
Still, we’re heading into another election cycle, and voters should take a hard look at incumbents who have routinely exploited use of campaign funds for personal use. Perhaps the ouster by the electorateof these fiscal abusers would send a message to the General Assembly — campaign funds are meant for campaign expenditures, and nothing else.
Join the discussion on Twitter @chitribopinions and on Facebook.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].