New Illinois Supreme Court Justices Got a Boost from Hidden Spending

A political committee, funded in part by Senate President Don Harmon’s campaign that helped expand the Democratic majority on the Illinois Supreme Court, failed to file timely campaign reports as required by state law and didn’t disclose the bulk of its $7.3 million in spending until after the election.

The committee — All for Justice — spent heavily on television ads in support of winning Democratic Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien. The commercials painted Republican opponents as virulent anti-abortion candidates, politically potent attacks given the U.S. Supreme Court decision that sent the issue of abortion rights to the states only months earlier.

The failure of All for Justice to follow the disclosure guidelines mandated by state election law obscured its pro-Democratic spending in the critical months preceding the November races in which the partisan balance of the Illinois Supreme Court was up for grabs.

“It’s amazing,” said Kent Redfield, an Illinois campaign finance expert and professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “It denied the public, the news media and the people who participated in the campaigns full knowledge of what’s going on.”

"While the group faces a potential of thousands of dollars in fines, the board lacks an enforcement mechanism unlike political candidates who cannot appear on a ballot unless fines are paid. Redfield also said any penalty would be little more than a slap on the wrist compared to the political impact of failing to timely report its spending in the closing weeks of the election."

Wonder if this sort of thing goes on in any other states?

In a sane world, being convicted of corruption, and/or election tampering of ANY kind, should be a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison without parole.

On a different note: Because the D party (party of destruction) has taken over, Illinois can expect to deteriorate rapidly.

In a aane world, this would not happen, and any politician/s who destroys a city, (See: San Francisco) or state, (See: California) would be held personally liable for the destruction .

I.e. if a resident of a state (city) is a victim of crime, and crime rates have skyrocketed in the area, primarily because prosecutions are not taking place, the crime victim should be able to sue personally the politicians responsible.

The same should go for those who have had their businesses wrecked, because of rioting/crime.

Don't the above examples sound like negligence on the part of the corrupt politicians presiding over these areas?

Aren't they supposed to be serving/protecting the people of their city/state?

🤔

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.