CHECKS AND IMBALANCES
Bruce Rauner has raised more than $ 75 million for his reelection, mostly by writing checks to himself.
J. B. Pritzker has raised more than $ 70 million, also by throwing money at himself.
And then the bottom drops out.
Chris Kennedy, vanquished by Pritzker on Tuesday, raised only ( only!) $ 6.9 million — a tenth of Pritzker’s campaign funds. Dan Biss, vanquished by Pritzker, raised $ 6.7 million. And Jeanne Ives, edged out by Rauner, raised $ 3.9 million.
What the numbers say is obvious. The Republican and Democratic primaries for governor were not fair elections.
A couple of enormously wealthy men started out with an absurd advantage, and of course they won. What a shock.
We actually endorsed both super- rich guys, Rauner and Pritzker. Not because they’re rich, but despite their wealth.
We thought they were the best candidates in their respective primaries. But as we watched the campaigns play out over the last year, we were as disheartened as anybody by how their enormous wealth overwhelmed all else.
You couldn’t watch a Bulls game or a rerun of “Frasier” on TV in the last few months without being swamped by ads showing Rauner and Pritzker trying to act like regular people. TV ads — and robocalls and relentless social media — are the heart and soul of modern elections,
We favor a system of small matching public donations to make elections at least nominally more competitive.
where there are no longer armies of precinct captains to drive old people to the polls.
To his credit, Pritzker wants to restrain billionaires like himself but says he can’t “unilaterally disarm” before the general election. He says he favors campaign finance reforms that, at the very least, include a more generous system of public funding of elections. It is a travesty that most candidates today, other than the super- wealthy, spend more time courting potential donors than meeting with average voters.
Campaign finance reform is probably too late for November, and plenty of pundits predict Rauner and Pritzker will burn through $ 300 million when all is said and done. They will likely break the national record of $ 280 million set in the 2010 California race for governor.
But something’s got to be done if we are to preserve even a semblance of real democracy.
We favor a system of small matching public donations — say $ 600 in public funds for every $ 100 raised privately — to make elections at least nominally more competitive, financially speaking. That also would encourage candidates to raise money by going out among ordinary voters — and maybe listening to their concerns — rather than hole up in a back office calling union leaders and the rich.
This is not pie- in- the- sky stuff. Public campaign financing, in various forms, has been applied successfully in at least 25 states. In Maine, to take one of the more extreme examples, qualified candidates fund their campaigns entirely with public funds, removing the need for fundraising.
We understand the limits to any such solutions. Truly wealthy candidates, for one, will opt out of the public financing, if allowed, and continue to spend their tens of millions.
But it’s a step in the right direction. It feels a little more like fairness. And it beats just hitting the “mute” button when another campaign commercial for a billionaire comes on.