Taxpayer money should match Chicago campaign donations, alderman proposes

Chicago elections could soon be rewired by a new bucket of cash: taxpayer-funded matching money that multiplies small-dollar campaign contributions.

City Council candidates would get as much as $200,000 in public funds linked to small contributions if a new ordinance proposed by Ald. Matt Martin, 47th, passes. The legislation aims to dampen the oversized influence of wealthy donors, he said at a news conference Tuesday.

“Our current campaign finance system is broken,” said Martin, chair of the council’s Ethics Committee. “Too often it forces candidates to rely heavily on a few big special interest donors to fund their campaigns.”

The public campaign financing plan would cost the city an estimated $9.5 million in every four-year election cycle, Martin said. Candidates would need to qualify and opt into the program and abide by a series of fundraising-restricting rules to receive the public money.

Similar plans have long been in place in cities such as New York and Los Angeles, Martin said. Chicagoans overwhelmingly supported the idea of candidates relying on limited public money and small contributions when it appeared on the February 2015 ballot as a non-binding advisory question. Nearly 80% of the electorate voted “yes” on the reform.

“Elected officials should be accountable to all of us, not just the wealthy,” Martin said.

The ordinance faces an uphill battle: It was sent to the council’s Rules Committee when it was introduced last week, a delay tactic that often leaves legislation in limbo. While the public financing option would in lots of races help level the financial playing field for challengers, sitting aldermen in many wards get big donations from local businesses and wealthy residents who want to curry their favor, so have less incentive to support such a plan.

Under Martin’s proposal, candidates for City Council would get a $50,000 base payment after filing and qualifying as a candidate. To qualify, they would need to raise $17,500 in contributions under $150 — including from at least 60 ward residents — and commit to participating in two non-partisan debates.

Candidates could then get another $150,000 from the city based on how much they raise in small contributions. For contributions smaller than $25, the city would match every $1 with $12 more. For contributions amounts between $25 and $150, the city would match every $1 with $9 more.

The public funding would also come with rules forcing candidates to shirk big-dollar donors and restrict spending. Candidates would not be allowed to accept more than $500 in contributions from individual donors and would be limited to $12,000 each election from any political committee or “membership organization.”

Candidates would not be allowed to donate more than $5,000 to their campaigns. They would also not be allowed to use their campaign funds to pay companies they or their family members own.

The ordinance calls for the city to bolster the public campaign financing fund with no less than .1% of the city’s annual budget. In 2024, that would come out to $16.7 million.

“We’re talking about a modest investment that can really have huge dividends,” Martin said.

Martin hopes the ordinance will go into place for the 2027 municipal election, but said he is willing to push the start date back if needed.

Mayor Brandon Johnson and Martin butted heads over other ethics legislation at the same City Council meeting. An ordinance to codify long-standing restrictions on lobbyist donations to mayoral candidates — sponsored by Martin and opposed by Johnson — was set to face a vote, but that vote was delayed when two aldermen used a parliamentary maneuver.

Afterward, Johnson backed up his opposition to the lobbyist donation restrictions by saying Martin should instead push forward his “full, comprehensive ethics package,” including public campaign financing.

“The best way to ensure parity and to remove the dollars, if you will, or the interests of a handful of people out of politics is through public financing of campaigns,” Johnson said. “I support that. I believe it should apply to every single level of government.”

Martin’s proposal, however, would not currently apply to every level of government. Instead, only City Council candidates could opt in to the program. The aldermen described the limited scope as a starting point.

When asked if Johnson supports the proposal, Martin pulled out a past quote from the mayor declaring support for public campaign financing and cited the mayor’s campaign trail stances, but said he has not heard from the mayor on the new ordinance.

A Johnson spokesperson declined to comment on the ordinance Tuesday.

The reform is backed by a wide array of progressive groups and government accountability organizations, including the League of Women Voters Illinois and Reform for Illinois. Representatives from nearly a dozen organizations and several aldermen joined Martin on Tuesday to mark their support.

As Ald. Maria Hadden, 49th, praised the proposal Tuesday, she recalled her 2019 campaign against seven-term incumbent Joe Moore. She got $135,000 in contributions, but was still outraised 8-to-1, she said. Still, she won with 63% of the vote. Her path to the City Council — through direct contact with would-be voters — gives residents more sway in politics, she argued.

A public campaign financing plan would make such door-to-door politics more common and “amplify the voice of everyday people,” she said.

“This is how we improve democracy in our city. This is how we get new candidates a chance. This is how we make accessible what can previously seem inaccessible and daunting,” Hadden said.

jsheridan@chicagotribune.com