Dec. 06--On Oct. 13, conservative gadfly and mayoral hopeful William Kelly filed paperwork with the Illinois State Board of Elections disclosing that he'd lent his campaign fund -- Friends of William J. Kelly -- the generous sum of $100,000.
It seemed futile and extravagant. No one gave Kelly any chance against incumbent Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his campaign was all but inert: The quarterly report he'd filed at the end of September listed no contributions of any kind and only $1,200 in expenses, paid to Kelly's own company.
But, in accordance with state law, the loan was just large enough to lift the cap on outside donations in the mayor's race.
That law, designed to limit the power of self-funded candidates, says that the moment a pol puts $100,000 of his or her own money into a local race (or $250,000 into a statewide race), the $5,300 individual contributionlimit no longer applies to any of the candidates in that race.
The law does not distinguish, however, between serious, sustained bids for office and frivolous stunt candidacies that end, as Kelly's ended last month, without even filing petitions.
Nor does the law require candidates to prove with bank statements or other official documents that the funds exist and have been transferred into a campaign account.
They simply file a one-page "notification of state funding" with the state, and the state never investigates, said Ken Menzel, deputy general counsel for the Illinois State Board of Elections.
Therefore, the contribution cap is voluntary for all practical purposes. Candidates who want the cap lifted for any reason have only to claim having made generous loans to themselves -- or to find friends willing to declare a mock candidacy and make that claim.
"The statute, as drafted, does look like it's open to that kind of abuse," said Menzel. "Maybe now that we've seen (what happened with Kelly), the legislature will make some changes."
He noted that one obvious reform -- removing the contribution cap only after self-funded candidates have established their legitimacy by filing enough valid signatures to earn a spot on the ballot -- would confer an additional advantage on wealthy candidates early in the campaign cycle.
My suggested reform: Just dump the contribution cap. The William Kelly story reminds us of what decades of legislative fussing trying to choke off the flow of campaign cash has taught us: Money always finds a way.
Holiday advice
I have three words for you, flummoxed and stymied would-be giver of seasonal gifts:
Custom photo books.
For nearly a decade now I've been counseling readers who don't know what to buy their loved ones for Christmas to hop online and create an album of personal memories using all those digital photos stored on your devices.
Dozens of companies offer drag-and-drop interfaces that allow you to customize an album and add captions. They will then print the album and ship it to you.
I've had good luck with Shutterfly, Blurb and Apple, but I've posted an updated list of more than 40 such services along with an assortment of product reviews at chicagotribune.com/photobooks.
The cost is in the neighborhood of $50 but depends on how long the book is and what kind of cover you choose. (Pro tip: Hardcover says "I care.")
As I've noted before, you can't beat a photo book for originality. And because it requires two or three hours of creative fussing to make one, you also can't beat it for evidence that you truly put thought and effort into the present. Thus it's the antithesis of the soulless retail gift card, which has become the chilling metaphor for our increasingly transactional holidays.
I've found that turnaround time is about a week, so you still have time.
Let's have a conversation about this
Like many others, I'm tired of the suggestion that we have a national conversation about race and crime and police bias. Not that there aren't important things to say, but that too often these conversations involve lots of talking and not much listening, followed by a return to the status quo.
How about action? A suggestion I really like in the wake of the national controversy stirred up by grand juries declining to hand up charges against two white police officers who killed two unarmed black men in separate incidents this year is the creation of an independent prosecutorial authority tasked with addressing alleged criminal conduct by members of law enforcement.
As a Tribune editorial pointed out Friday, the relationship between police and local prosecutors is traditionally and understandably cozy. They play for the same team. They rely on one another day in and day out in performing the vital job of defending public safety and order.
Whether or not the grand juries in Ferguson, Mo., and New York City erred -- and we all have our opinions on that, don't we? -- giving local prosecutors oversight of those and many other, similar cases creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
That appearance erodes the confidence that the justice system needs in order to make it work.
Re: Tweets
Two weeks ago, my online click poll for funniest tweet of the week ended in a tie for the first time. So to break the deadlock I deputized former touring stand-up comedian Bill Leff to choose the winner. He and Wendy Snyder host the WGN-AM 720 afternoon drive show that invites me into the studio Mondays at 3:30 p.m. for free-form banter.
Leff chose @BizMichaels observation that "Any magazine can be an in-flight magazine if you throw it at someone" over "What do we want? An iPhone for fat fingers! When do we want it? BOW!" from @Jobless4eyes.
Last week's winner: "I can count on one hand the number of times I've visited Chernobyl ... it's 14" by @DanMentos.
Enjoy all the finalists at chicagotribune.com/zorn and check in every Wednesday to vote on a new batch.
