Big Questions Arise from Cook County Assessor's Refusal to Abide by Campaign Finance Ordinance
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 <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4062819-418/county-legal-opinion-cam…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Chicago <i>Sun-Times</i> yesterday</a>.<br>
<br>
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 <a href="http://www.cookcountygov.com/Taxonomy/Ethics/GeneralInformation/CC_Ethi…; target="”_blank”">ethics
board's brochure</a> on this; the ordinance is nowhere to be found
online). As I said in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/miscellany-5" target="”_blank”">a September 2010
blog post</a>, it is not a good idea to have so focused an ethics ordinance. But
is it legal?<br>
<br>
<b>State Authority Over Local Campaign Finance?</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>Can Counties Impose Ethics Requirements on Attorneys?</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>Can an Attorney Order a County Ethics Board to Cease and Desist?</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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...<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Other blog posts on Assessor Joseph Berrios:<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/miscellany-11" target="”_blank”">Berrios'
Nepotism</a> (he hired his son and sister)<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/ethics-board-chair-who-should-not-hav…; target="”_blank”">Ethics
Board Chair Resigns</a> (he was one of the property tax appealing lawyers who gave
thousands to Berrios)<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---