On March 21, the Chicago Board of Ethics posted a summary of its reverse revolving door ruling on the city’s website. The ruling comes from a case brought before the board for the purpose of reviewing the conduct of a department director.

Chicago’s reverse revolving door ordinance prohibits employees or officials from personally participating in a decision-making capacity as to their immediate pre-city employers or clients for a period of two years after joining the city.

The board ruled an employee involved in a procurement process for the city violated the reverse revolving door provision even though he consistently avoided extraneous contact with personnel from his pre-city employer and from its umbrella organization. Simply scoring RFP responses in addition to training or meeting with employees from a pre-city employer or affiliate in the ordinary course of employment constitutes a minor violation.

Contributions limits will likely remain in place for the entire 2014 election cycle as Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan carries on. In July 2012, the Liberty Justice Center filed suit against Attorney General Lisa Madigan, challenging the Illinois Disclosure and Regulation of Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Act on constitutional grounds.

Specifically, Plaintiffs claim the Act violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause by exempting political parties from the contribution limits applicable to PACs and individuals, by lifting contribution limits in races where a self-funding candidate or independent expenditure committee spends more than a particular threshold, and by imposing lower contribution limits on PACs than are imposed on corporations, labor unions, and other organizations.

The complaint also challenges the Act’s constitutionality because it classifies legislative caucus committees as political party committees and thereby treats them more favorable than PACs, corporations, and individuals, without valid reasoning.

On March 3, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to the treatment of legislative caucus committees but granted the motion with respect to all other challenges.

Although the court suspects legislative caucus committees are sufficiently similar to political party committees for purposes of constitutional analysis, the case remains open to give both sides a fair opportunity to address the issue.

The Chicago City Council approved an ordinance introduced by Mayor Emanuel requiring every city contractor to report corrupt activity.

The ordinance requires city contractors to notify the city’s inspector general of bribery, theft, forgery, perjury, and fraud they are aware were committed against the city. Knowingly failing to report such activity is a violation of the ordinance.

The ordinance becomes effective on March 5, 2014.

The Chicago Board of Ethics recently posted two new publications on its website, both of which outline ethics restrictions for city officials.

The first addresses, among other things, general conflicts of interest, lobbying on behalf of others, financial interests in city contracts, financial disclosure requirements, gifts, revolving door provisions, and penalties for ethics violations.

The second addition is a publication delineating what city employees and officials may or may not do in terms of contracting with the city.

Both documents are intended to provide a basic understanding of ethics rules and are not deemed legal advice.

Gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner recently put $500,000 of his own money into his campaign, effectively lifting contribution limits for all candidates in the race. Under state law, candidates may accept no more than $5,300 from individuals and $52,600 from PACs. However, those caps do not apply if any statewide candidate or member of the candidate’s immediate family contributes or loans more than $250,000 to his or her campaign during the 12 months leading up to an election.

Rauner previously donated $249,000 to his campaign, thereby avoiding the threshold. By waiting until now to lift the cap he successfully undermined the ability of his competitors to bring in big-money donors. Rauner’s latest actions allow all three Republican candidates, as well as the Democratic candidate, to accept contributions of any size.

The DuPage County Board repealed its pay-to-play provisions after learning from the state’s attorney’s office the provisions were unenforceable. As a non-home rule county, the county did not have the power to act on limiting campaign contributions because it was not specifically granted that power by the state legislature.

The changes were enacted as part of an otherwise minor update to the county’s ethics code. Provisions requiring disclosure of campaign contributions by contractors remain in place.

Voters in the Chicago area are heading to the polls this morning to choose a new representative to the United States Congress, as well as other local offices. Voters on the south side of the city must pick a successor to former Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. Jackson resigned from Congress earlier this year for personal reasons and has since pleaded guilty to illegally using campaign funds for personal expenses.

The Democratic nominee, Robin Kelly, is the favorite in the heavily Democratic district. Kelly is a former state lawmaker who hails from Matteson, a village in the south suburbs.

Her opponent is the Republican nominee, Paul McKinley. McKinley, who served almost 20 years in prison for armed robbery, burglary, and aggravated battery, is running on a promise to stop the Chicago political machine and put ex-offenders back to work to help turn their lives around.

In another high profile race, former Chicago Bears defensive lineman Steve McMichael will take on incumbent John Noak for Romeoville mayor. Romeoville is about 30 miles southwest of Chicago and has a population of almost 40,000.

Towns throughout the area will also be deciding whether to allow video poker machines and whether to approve multiple bond requests. Polls close at 7 p.m. local time and the weather looks promising for a good turnout.

State Representative Scott Drury has recently introduced two bills that would change the way lobbyists operate within the state. House Bill 2957 would change the definition of lobbying, thus causing more people to register as a lobbyist.

The bill would add communicating with a local government to influence action to the definition of lobbying. Therefore, all people who lobby a local government without a lobbying ordinance, the cities of Rockford and Springfield for example, would have to register as a lobbyist with the state. Also, those who lobby in a city with a lobbying ordinance, such as Chicago, would have to register with the state, in addition to their current city registration.

House Bill 2964 is a bill aimed at the state’s current prohibition on gifts. It would prohibit the relatives of a state officer, legislator, or employee from receiving prohibited gifts from a prohibited source (under state law, a lobbyist is considered a prohibited source). The bill also adds a new exception to the ban, adjusts one of the current exceptions, and abolishes another of the exceptions.

If the bill passes, a state officer, legislator, or employee would be allowed to accept admission to and the cost of food and beverages consumed at a reception, meal, or meeting by an organization before whom the recipient appears to speak or answer questions as part of a scheduled program where all members of the General Assembly were invited. This would replace the current exception for food and beverage, which allows for those to be provided if catered or consumed on the premises.

The bill would also limit the amount of travel expenses provided to $111 per day and the travel must be on a carrier available to the general public.

It remains to be seen whether either one of the bills will pass, but should they pass in their current form, it will change how lobbyists do business in the state.

Photo of the Illinois State Capitol by Daniel Schwen on Wikipedia.

The Chicago City Council approved phase two of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s ethics reform. This time, however, it didn’t come easy and the mayor is not completely satisfied with its outcome. The set of reforms focused mainly on public officials.

Mayor Emanuel’s proposal included a two year ban on lobbying after leaving city council office and allowing citizens to make anonymous complaints against aldermen. The city council was against both of these provisions and eventually passed a watered-down version of the proposal.

The ban on lobbying will only last for one year and does not take effect until January 1, 2014. The idea of anonymous complaints was completely tossed out; as the aldermen were afraid the tactic would be used by political enemies to gain an advantage. Emanuel was not pleased with the changes. He vowed to continue to fight for the anonymous complaints and mentioned the aldermen are just playing into the hands of the cynics.

Following the council’s vote Emanuel said, “I believe all of you work really hard. You don’t get credit for how hard you work. You get an unfair rap. But when you take an action like you just took, it reinforces a cynicism about you.” He added, “I want you all to know that is not the end of the process. I’m going to continue to do it.”

Photo of the Daley Plaza and Chicago City Hall by JeremyA on Wikipedia.

The Illinois State Board of Elections has announced that campaign contributions limits have been increased with the start of the new year. According to statute, on January 1 of every odd-numbered year, the board of elections must adjust the contribution limits due to inflation.

Under the updated limits, a candidate political committee may accept, over the course of an election cycle, no more than $5,300 from an individual, $10,500 form a corporation, labor organization, or association, and $52,600 from a political action committee. A political party committee and a political action committee may accept no more than $10,500 from an individual, $21,100 from a corporation, labor organization, or association, and $52,600 from a political action committee.

Absent any legislation, these contribution limits will remain in place until January 1, 2015 and will be in effect for the next gubernatorial election.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is continuing to overhaul the city’s ethics code by introducing another ordinance based on his ethics task force’s recommendations. While this proposed ordinance deals mostly with governmental employees and elected officials, it would also bring some changes to lobbyist registration and reporting.

The ordinance, if approved, will change the definition of a lobbyist. Currently, volunteers, employees, officers, and directors of a not-for-profit entity are exempted from registering as a lobbyist. However, the proposed ordinance will eliminate that exemption and require those members of a not-for-profit entity who seek to influence legislative or administrative action to register as a lobbyist. The proposal does allow the ethics board to create objective criteria allowing for a reduction or a waiver of the registration fees for not-for-profits lobbyists.

Finally, under the proposal, lobbyists would be required to disclose the actual amount of compensation received from employers. Currently, the compensation needs only to be rounded to the nearest $1,000.

Photo of the Daley Plaza and Chicago City Hall by JeremyA on Wikipedia.

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois’ limits on campaign financing will remain in force at least through the upcoming general election. Illinois Liberty PAC initially sought an injunction to suspend the limits, but its effort was refused by the district court. They appealed and the appellate court ruled that the PAC’s attorneys “have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to contribution limits.”

The case will now go back to the district court, where the actual merits of the case can be decided. The PAC claims that the limits violate their First Amendment right to free speech and their equal protection rights because it allows political parties to spend unlimited amounts of money, while limiting contributions from other sources.

The PAC was not surprised by the ruling saying, “We knew it was going to be an uphill battle.”

A federal court rejected an injunction trying to overturn Illinois’ political contribution law. Illinois Liberty PAC filed for the injunction contending the state law violated its First Amendment right to free speech. Illinois law limits the amount individuals, PACs, unions, and corporations may give to candidates each election. However, the law does not limit what political parties may contribute to a campaign.

Illinois Liberty PAC contended that if it was limited in what it could contribute, everybody should be limited. United State District Judge Gary Feinerman disagreed, holding that the injunction “would create a manifest possibility of actual or apparent corruption” and cause harm to the state’s citizens.

This ruling will not be the end of the case. Illinois Liberty PAC plans on filing an emergency motion with the appellate court in hopes of suspending the limits for the upcoming November election. Also, the courts will eventually have to rule on the constitutionality of Illinois’ contribution limits.

A federal appeals court in Chicago upheld an Illinois state law regarding disclosure related to campaign advertisements. The Center for Individual Freedom, a Virginia based advocacy group, sued the state, claiming that its First Amendment rights were violated by a law that requires all entities, regardless of whether their main purpose is influencing elections, to register and report as a political committee once it spends $3,000 for independent expenditures in a 12-month period.

In dismissing the case, the court ruled this law did not violate the free speech rights of organizations. The case was originally dismissed in district court last year on the same grounds.

This continues an ongoing cycle where groups are suing states, and obtaining mixed results, for the state’s disclosure laws based on the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision in 2010. Most experts believe these cases will eventually end up in Supreme Court, where the nation’s highest court will determine whether states can force groups to disclose donors who wish to remain anonymous.