Editor’s note:This is the first installment of a three-part series examining campaign finance reform in the state of Illinois.

Pay country club dues.

How about season tickets to the Bears game?

Under Illinois law, candidates can do any of the above with their campaign finances as long as they pay federal taxes on the purchase.

Campaign finance reform promises to be a important issue in the 1998 election.

Former Sen. Frank Savickas, D-Chicago, used his campaign finance money to do all of the above. In fact, Savickas used $164,000 of his $200,000 campaign fund for non-election purposes from January 1991 to December 1995. Savickas left office January 1993.

Savickas paid himself $41,500 for services rendered, $20,000 for a new automobile, $1,360 for Chicago Bears tickets, $1,498 for dues at a country club in Florida as well as spending thousands more campaign dollars on other personal expenses.

Savickas could not be reached for comment.

Campaign finance regulations in Illinois are some of the least restrictive in the nation and it is no coincidence that Illinois has not seen a reform of campaign finance in 23 years, says Michael Lawrence, a former press secretary for Gov. Jim Edgar and SIUC instructor.

There are a lot of philosophical and political issues that still have to be dealt with, Lawrence said. The officials in office tend to support the status quo and are reluctant to make any changes.

The last major reform of campaign finance came in 1974 after the Watergate scandal when some serious issues arose regarding campaign financing. Until this time candidates for public office in Illinois did not have to disclose where contributions came from or how those contributions were spent.

As a result of the scandal, the Illinois legislature enacted the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act, which required candidates for public office to disclose where campaign contributions came from and how they were spent.

That was a major reform at the time because before that time there was no disclosure, Lawrence said. However, there is still plenty of room for improvement in disclosure.

There are several different suggested reforms for campaign finance. Some of the most common reforms are the elimination of direct contributions to the political party, or soft money, strengthened disclosure requirements, which would require a timely and detailed documentation of who the source of the contribution is and the amount of the contribution. Reductions in special interest contributions and curtailing the overall cost of campaigns also are being considered.

The main issue of reform in Illinois right now deals with disclosure of campaign contributions. Many individuals in support of reform say there should be stricter regulations as to who can donate and how much they can donate. There is also a desire to require a more timely, electronic disclosure through the State Board of Elections.

Disclosure, in terms of electronic disclosure with the State Board of Elections, needs to be made required, not just voluntary, said Kent Redfield, a campaign finance reform expert at University of Illinois. As long as you have a report-based paper system, there will be contributions that are not reported in a timely manner.

Meaningful disclosure has to be available to the press.

Lawrence said there are big contributions to campaigns that come in the last few days before the elections, and under the current system are not disclosed to the public before election day.

There are serious ethical concerns with the state of campaign finance in Illinois, Redfield said.

Redfield, principal researcher for the Illinois Campaign Finance Project, said a major concern is there is nothing to prohibit candidates from using campaign finances for personal use as long as they pay federal taxes on them.

While most use these funds for electoral purposes, there are still some that use them to pay country club dues, buy cars and stuff like that, as in the case of Savickas, Redfield said.

The other concern expressed by Redfield deals with the use of campaign funds after the candidates leaves office.

When a official leaves office in Illinois they do not have to close out his or her campaign fund, Redfield said. He or she can continue to use that money long after he or she leaves office.

According to Redfield, former Gov. Jim Thompson left office with $1 million in his campaign account and spent it down to $100,00 before closing out the account. Edgar’s fund has $2.9 million. Former state Sen. Greg Fiddo, who is now a lobbyist, loaned himself $250,000.

Once the account is closed out the remaining money will go to a charity, another campaign or another committee. A candidate is prohibited from using the money for personal use once the account is closed, but there is no law saying the candidates must close the account. The law is silent about whether the money can be converted to personal use while the account is active, Redfield said.

The idea of banning personal use and having public officials close out their funds are two proposals that speak to the area of ethics, Redfield said.

Lawrence said there is also a concern about large contributions by individuals or special interest groups. He said the public believes large contributors have measurable influence over policy makers. Some of the proposed reforms would limit the size of contributions and eliminate contributions by special interest groups.

Redfield said some candidates, such as Sen. Dave Luechtefeld, R-Okawville, and Barb Brown, an SIUC political science lecturer and Luechtefeld’s Democratic Party opponent, receive 70 percent of their money from the leadership of their party.

Of the $758,000 Luechtefeld spent in the last election, $640,000 came from Senate leader Pate Philip, R-Addison, and Senate Republicans. Of the $625,000 Brown spent on her last campaign, $419,000 came from Senate minority leader Emil Jones, D-Chicago, and the Senate Democrats.

One of the proposed reforms of campaign finance suggests public financing of campaigns. They propose to limit the spending on campaigns and then fund them with taxpayer’s money.

The cost of elections in Illinois continue to set new records with each coming election cycle. The record for statewide and legislative candidates in 1994 was $63 million. The record for state Senate belongs to the 29th District race in which Republican Kathleen Parker defeated Democratic incumbent Grace Mary Stern. The House record became $701,000 in the 103rd District, in which Republican Rick Winkel defeated Democratic incumbent Laurel Prussing.

General election spending for all legislative races almost doubled between 1990 to 1994, from $9.5 million to $18.5 million.

Trend suggests the increases continue with even higher records for spending, more groups contributing more money, more legislative leader control, more expensive races and less competition for incumbents not targeted by legislative leaders.

There are several different initiatives in Illinois and across the nation to reform campaign finance.

The SIUC Public Policy Institute is sponsoring a series of unofficial meetings with select members of the Illinois legislature to discuss possible legislation for campaign finance reform.

Paul Simon, director of the institute, is co-chairman of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform with Lt. Gov. Bob Kustra.

The group is attempting to generate grassroots interest in campaign finance reform as well as put pressure on legislators to enact reform.

I think there are some abuses, but I also believe that many public officials are honest and try to do a good job and are not influenced unduly by those who contribute to their campaign, Lawrence said. However, the main thing is that the public believes that money has too large an influence in government, and it is an issue that should be addressed.

We need to ensure that people are confident in their government.