You are here
Big Questions Arise from Cook County Assessor's Refusal to Abide by Campaign Finance Ordinance
Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Cook County assessor Joseph Berrios is becoming a regular character in
this blog (see below for prior posts on him). This time he is declaring
unconstitutional a law passed by the county to limit his fundraising
from lawyers who appeal property tax assessments. And he has the
support of a questionable opinion from the local state's attorney, according to an
article in the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday.
The ordinance placed a campaign contribution limit of $750 per election and $1500 per election cycle on those doing business with the county, which expressly includes those who represent in land use matters and make at least $10,000 a year doing so (see the ethics board's brochure on this; the ordinance is nowhere to be found online). As I said in a September 2010 blog post, it is not a good idea to have so focused an ethics ordinance. But is it legal?
State Authority Over Local Campaign Finance?
According to the article, the state's attorney said that state campaign finance law prevails. State law sets the following election cycle contribution limits: $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for businesses, unions and other associations. State authority over local campaign finance is a problem in many states, even those with home-rule laws. Some states allow local governments to set stricter campaign finance limits, but most want to keep that power to themselves.
I think that states should allow local governments to establish stricter campaign contribution limits. One, some local governments may have had serious appearance problems with limits as high as these. After all, these limits are designed for cities, not for towns or rural counties. A $5,000 contribution is very large for a city. For a town, a $5,000 contribution is ridiculously huge. One contribution can make the difference in an election. And everyone will assume the contributor is trying to buy the candidate.
Can Counties Impose Ethics Requirements on Attorneys?
What really gets me going, however, is the other part of the state's attorney's opinion: "[T]he [c]ounty’s attempt to impose ethics requirements upon attorneys violates the separation of powers doctrine established in ... the Illinois Constitution." What powers is he talking about separating? No, not a local legislative body and an executive position such as assessor. He's talking about a local legislative body and the court system.
Say what? "The ordinance could intrude, he opines, on the state Supreme court’s rule governing attorney conduct." In other words, attorneys can give any contribution they want to those they appear before because the state supreme court has not prohibited this? Does the state supreme court really want to get involved in campaign finance laws for attorneys?
In any event, I always thought attorneys had more responsibilities than they had rights. I thought that they should be leading the way toward making government worthy of the public's trust. I must be wrong. I suppose they should be showing the public that if you want good treatment of your clients by an assessor, you should give the assessor whatever amount of money he requests. That way the public will understand why they're being charged so much to be represented in property tax appeals.
The fact is that the Cook County ethics board has no jurisdiction over attorneys, only over assessor candidates. Attorneys can give any amount they want, and all the ethics board can do is let them know they went over the limit. The attorneys don't have to do anything at all. They still have all their rights.
Can an Attorney Order a County Ethics Board to Cease and Desist?
Meanwhile, the county ethics board feels it has to uphold the law. As it turns out, fifteen property tax appealing attorneys gave Berrios a contribution over the $750 limit. I suppose each of them felt that the law was unconstitutional, so they just ignored it, because that's what it says to do in the rules governing attorney conduct. I'll bet each of them is also a civil rights activist representing gay couples who insist on equal treatment before tax laws, even though such equal treatment is not legally required.
But, based on the state's attorney's opinion, Berrios's attorney has ordered the ethics board to cease and desist. Talk about separation of powers! I thought only a court could do that. But I suppose that since attorneys are regulated by courts, they have a court's powers. Hmmm...
It will be interesting to see if this case is pursued, or if the ethics board simply backs off. But whatever the constitutionality of the ordinance, lawyers with business before an official should be the last people to ignore a law limiting their contributions to that official. They cannot argue that such a law is wrong, only that a court might find it unconstitutional. But one hasn't.
Other blog posts on Assessor Joseph Berrios:
Berrios' Nepotism (he hired his son and sister)
Ethics Board Chair Resigns (he was one of the property tax appealing lawyers who gave thousands to Berrios)
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The ordinance placed a campaign contribution limit of $750 per election and $1500 per election cycle on those doing business with the county, which expressly includes those who represent in land use matters and make at least $10,000 a year doing so (see the ethics board's brochure on this; the ordinance is nowhere to be found online). As I said in a September 2010 blog post, it is not a good idea to have so focused an ethics ordinance. But is it legal?
State Authority Over Local Campaign Finance?
According to the article, the state's attorney said that state campaign finance law prevails. State law sets the following election cycle contribution limits: $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for businesses, unions and other associations. State authority over local campaign finance is a problem in many states, even those with home-rule laws. Some states allow local governments to set stricter campaign finance limits, but most want to keep that power to themselves.
I think that states should allow local governments to establish stricter campaign contribution limits. One, some local governments may have had serious appearance problems with limits as high as these. After all, these limits are designed for cities, not for towns or rural counties. A $5,000 contribution is very large for a city. For a town, a $5,000 contribution is ridiculously huge. One contribution can make the difference in an election. And everyone will assume the contributor is trying to buy the candidate.
Can Counties Impose Ethics Requirements on Attorneys?
What really gets me going, however, is the other part of the state's attorney's opinion: "[T]he [c]ounty’s attempt to impose ethics requirements upon attorneys violates the separation of powers doctrine established in ... the Illinois Constitution." What powers is he talking about separating? No, not a local legislative body and an executive position such as assessor. He's talking about a local legislative body and the court system.
Say what? "The ordinance could intrude, he opines, on the state Supreme court’s rule governing attorney conduct." In other words, attorneys can give any contribution they want to those they appear before because the state supreme court has not prohibited this? Does the state supreme court really want to get involved in campaign finance laws for attorneys?
In any event, I always thought attorneys had more responsibilities than they had rights. I thought that they should be leading the way toward making government worthy of the public's trust. I must be wrong. I suppose they should be showing the public that if you want good treatment of your clients by an assessor, you should give the assessor whatever amount of money he requests. That way the public will understand why they're being charged so much to be represented in property tax appeals.
The fact is that the Cook County ethics board has no jurisdiction over attorneys, only over assessor candidates. Attorneys can give any amount they want, and all the ethics board can do is let them know they went over the limit. The attorneys don't have to do anything at all. They still have all their rights.
Can an Attorney Order a County Ethics Board to Cease and Desist?
Meanwhile, the county ethics board feels it has to uphold the law. As it turns out, fifteen property tax appealing attorneys gave Berrios a contribution over the $750 limit. I suppose each of them felt that the law was unconstitutional, so they just ignored it, because that's what it says to do in the rules governing attorney conduct. I'll bet each of them is also a civil rights activist representing gay couples who insist on equal treatment before tax laws, even though such equal treatment is not legally required.
But, based on the state's attorney's opinion, Berrios's attorney has ordered the ethics board to cease and desist. Talk about separation of powers! I thought only a court could do that. But I suppose that since attorneys are regulated by courts, they have a court's powers. Hmmm...
It will be interesting to see if this case is pursued, or if the ethics board simply backs off. But whatever the constitutionality of the ordinance, lawyers with business before an official should be the last people to ignore a law limiting their contributions to that official. They cannot argue that such a law is wrong, only that a court might find it unconstitutional. But one hasn't.
Other blog posts on Assessor Joseph Berrios:
Berrios' Nepotism (he hired his son and sister)
Ethics Board Chair Resigns (he was one of the property tax appealing lawyers who gave thousands to Berrios)
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
