Research

Following the money in Illinois’ Supreme Court races

October 20th, 2022

While the race for governor is attracting the lion’s share of attention this election season, two of the most important elections in Illinois are for the state Supreme Court. With a rare pair of open seats and the Republican party struggling to get a foothold in statewide politics, these contests could shape the partisan balance of power for years to come. 

Why follow the money in judicial races?

The legitimacy of our judiciary depends on people seeing judges as independent arbiters of the law. But the growing impact of megadonors can create the perception – or the reality – of judges indebted to billionaires, party leaders, or special interests. Even if judges don’t allow donors to influence them, big contributors can have an outsized role in selecting who gets to represent the rest of us. A system that requires judicial candidates to tap their personal wealth for campaign funds isn’t healthy either, reserving the bench for those who can afford to run but may not reflect the diversity of the people they serve.   

We’re just getting started

The biggest campaign spending often comes right before Election Day, but an October surprise means we may see an even larger wave of cash than we originally anticipated. Last Friday night, a federal judge temporarily blocked two new campaign finance measures aimed at state judicial elections, finding there was a good chance the provisions were unconstitutional. The parties challenging the laws include two groups funded by conservative billionaire Illinoisan Dick Uihlein, Restoration PAC and Fair Courts America.

The legislation had prohibited out-of-state donors from contributing to state judicial candidates and banned all donors from giving more than $500,000 to independent expenditure committees, also known as super PACs, involved in judicial elections. With those restrictions gone for now, and given the increased importance of state courts on issues like abortion this year, we may see out-of-state donations and super PAC spending rise while the case works its way through the courts.

Key takeaways

  • Billionaires have had their say. Gov. JB Pritzker, hedge fund tycoon Ken Griffin, and shipping supplies magnate Dick Uihlein have all spent at least $1 million on judicial races in the last two years. 
  • Democratic candidates have a big cash advantage going into the home stretch. As of this writing, Judge Elizabeth Rochford (D) has $1.3 million more on hand than Mark Curran (R), and Justice Mary Kay O’Brien (D) has over $600,000 more than Justice Michael Burke (R). 
  • The usual suspects dominate Democratic fundraising. Gov. Pritzker, labor organizations, and IL House Speaker Chris Welch top Rochford and O’Brien’s contribution rosters, while IL Sen. Pres. Don Harmon has given half a million dollars (the maximum allowed at the time) to a pro-Democrat judicial super PAC.  
  • Conservative and liberal groups are fighting fire with fire. Early spending by the Griffin- and Uihlein-backed super PAC Citizens for Judicial Fairness has been met with spending from reproductive rights group Personal PAC Independent Committee and a new PAC called All for Justice, whose funders include Sen. Pres. Harmon, labor organizations, and a group called Fair Fight that may or may not be linked to Stacey Abrams (more on that below). 
  • Griffin and Uihlein’s future roles remain unclear. Ken Griffin donated $6.25 million to Citizens for Judicial Fairness back in April, but has not weighed in on Illinois’ Supreme Court races since he declared his intention to move to Florida. Dick Uihlein’s last donation to that group was in 2020. However, he is a major donor to a national group that funds a conservative super PAC involved in state judicial races. While neither of those groups have spent in Illinois yet, they were parties to the abovementioned lawsuit that suspended two new restrictions on state judicial fundraising. 
  • Personal and family wealth are key sources of campaign funds. Three of the four Supreme Court candidates or their spouses have contributed at least $89,000 to their own candidacies. Only Justice O’Brien did not come close to that sum. 
  • Small donors have a tiny role. Mark Curran (R) and Justice Burke (R) led the field in small-dollar (up to $150) contributions in the last quarter at a measly 2.3% and 2.6% of their fundraising totals, respectively. Judge Rochford (D) reported receiving just 0.63% of her total contributions from small donations, while Justice O’Brien (D) fared slightly better at 0.79%.

Avenues of reform

We are not powerless to change the role of money in judicial elections. Public campaign financing would diversify the judicial candidate pool and make it easier to finance a race without personal wealth or support from billionaires, party leaders, and special interests. Reform for Illinois has long supported public campaign financing, and we applauded the state legislature’s recent legislation to create a task force to explore the possibility for judicial elections. We’ve also proposed ways to reform our self-funding or “millionaire’s exemption” provision. This unique Illinois law lifts contribution limits when a candidate puts more than a given amount into their own campaign, opening the floodgates to megadonations. While new state rules limit judicial campaign contributions to $500,000 when caps are lifted (instead of getting rid of the limit entirely), more can be done to prevent abuse of the provision. 

Finally, we would like to see the state legislature enact effective, constitutional reforms that address dark money and increase transparency so voters can know who is paying to influence them. California, Rhode Island, and other states have laws that help voters trace campaign money back to its original source. We hope Illinois will join them. 

Election background

Illinois has not had two competitive Supreme Court elections since 2000, and many of our current Supreme Court justices were originally appointed to the court, making vacancies and competitive elections uncommon. 

Democrats currently have a 4-3 majority on the Illinois Supreme Court. The two seats up for election this year, in the 2nd and 3rd Districts, are the “swing” districts under Illinois’ recently redrawn judicial map. This means that either party’s nominee has a reasonable chance of winning the seat. Prior to last year’s redistricting, Illinois Supreme Court boundaries had not been redrawn since 1964. 

Republicans have not controlled Illinois’ highest court since 1969, but they view this year’s elections as a rare opportunity to flip its partisan balance. And they’ve had some reason to be optimistic: in 2020, Republicans and conservative donors successfully opposed Justice Kilbride’s (D) retention on the Illinois Supreme Court. Justice Kilbride was the first justice to lose a retention vote in the history of the Illinois Supreme Court. His former seat (now in a redrawn district) is one of the seats up for election this year. 

Justice Kilbride’s failed retention vote has another important legacy: it is the most expensive retention election in U.S. history, coming in at just under $10 million spent in total by pro- and anti-Kilbride groups. Citizens for Judicial Fairness, a super PAC created to oppose Kilbride, raised $6.2 million during that cycle, with billionaire Republican megadonors Ken Griffin and Dick Uihlein providing 88.3% of the super PAC’s total fundraising. With two seats up for election this year and control of the court up for grabs, Illinois could very well shatter spending records again this year. 

 

The candidates

Takeaways:

  • Gov. Pritzker’s contribution blitz is particularly important in these Supreme Court races. Notice how Pritzker’s campaign committee is now the top donor for both Judge Rochford and Justice O’Brien.
  • Democratic candidates have a big cash advantage going into the home stretch. As of this writing, Judge Elizabeth Rochford (D) has $1.3 million more on hand than Mark Curran (R), and Justice Mary Kay O’Brien (D) has over $600,000 more than Justice Michael J, Burke (R). 
  • Personal and family wealth are key sources of campaign funds. Mark Curran (R) and Justice Burke (R) both have contributions from family members in their top three donors. Judge Rochford’s (D) husband is her fifth largest donor. 
  • All candidates are subject to $500,000 contribution caps under Illinois’ new campaign finance measures. Candidates in both races have triggered Illinois’ unique “self-funding loophole,” which lifts contribution caps if a candidate or their family contributes at least $100,000 to their own campaign ($250,000 for statewide races). A new law applying only to judicial races means that the cap isn’t lifted entirely as it is in non-judicial races, but goes to a (still whopping) $500,000. 
  • Consulting services were one of the largest expenses for all four candidates in the third quarter. Democrats also spent heavily on media buys, while both Republican candidates spent far less overall. 
  • A tiny role for small donors. Mark Curran (R) and Justice Burke (R) led the field in small-dollar (up to $150) contributions in the last quarter at a measly 2.3% and 2.6% of their fundraising totals, respectively. Judge Rochford (D) reported receiving just 0.63% of her total contributions from small donations, while Justice O’Brien (D) fared slightly better at 0.79%.

 

2nd District: Mark Curran (R) and Elizabeth M. Rochford (D)

Friends of Mark Curran

Supporting: Mark Curran (R, 2nd District)

Type: Candidate committee

$ Available: $285,541.82

Top Donors: 

  • Irene Curran (Mark Curran’s wife): $100,000 (exactly enough to reach the self-funding threshold)
  • Mark Curran: $41,189.40
  • Patrick Ryan, founder of Aon Corporation and longtime Republican donor: $40,000

Q3 Spending Highlights: 

  • $90,000 to Irene Curran for principal repayment (of $100,000 loan)
  • Over $25,000 spent on signs
  • Over $10,000 spent on consulting

 

Elizabeth M. Rochford For Illinois Supreme Court 2022

Supporting: Elizabeth M. Rochford (D, 2nd District)

Type: Candidate committee

$ Available: $1,588,721.72

Top Donors: 

  • JB for Governor: $500,000
  • Illinois Federation of Teachers COPE: $159,900
  • Democratic Party of Illinois: $150,871.63 (in-kind contribution for mailing)
  • The People for Emanuel Chris Welch: $150,000

Q3 Spending Highlights:

  • $307,600 to Buying Time LLC for a digital media buy
  • $45,500 to Global Strategy Group for polling
  • Over $80,000 spent on consulting and fundraising consulting

 

3rd District: Michael J. Burke (R) and Mary Kay O’Brien (D)

Citizens to Elect Justice Michael J. Burke

Supporting: Michael J. Burke (R, 3rd District)

Type: Candidate committee

$ Available: $539,308.41

Top Donors: 

  • Michael & Mary Ann Burke: $100,000 (exactly enough to reach the self-funding threshold)
  • Patrick Ryan, founder of Aon Corporation and longtime Republican donor: $40,000
  • Craig Duchossois, CEO of the Duchossois Group and longtime Republican donor: $38,000

Q3 Spending Highlights:

  • $22,850 to Coattail Digital Media for media consulting
  • $11,734 to Joe Promotions for promotional items
  • $7,319 to Angeli’s for fundraiser food

 

O’Brien for Supreme Court Judge

Supporting: Mary Kay O’Brien (D, 3rd District)

Type: Candidate committee

$ Available: $1,141,623.84

Top Donors: 

  • JB for Governor: $500,000
  • Illinois Federation of Teachers COPE: $309,900
  • The People for Emanuel Chris Welch: $250,000

Q3 Spending Highlights:

  • $1,383,250 to Adlestein & Associates LLC for TV ads
  • $42,500 to Hart Research Associates for survey research
  • $8,500 to Shield Research for self and opposition research

 

PACs and super PACs

As mentioned above, a judge recently blocked two new campaign finance measures affecting judicial elections in Illinois. One of those provisions had prevented super PACs from accepting more than $500,000 from a single donor in an election cycle. With last week’s ruling temporarily blocking that provision, super PACs are now free to accept unlimited contributions once more, at least while the case works its way through the courts.

PACs and super PACs have a few key differences worth mentioning here. Political action committees (or PACs) are committees that are subject to contribution limits and can contribute directly to political parties or candidates. In contrast, super PACs (or independent expenditure-only committees) can raise unlimited amounts of money but cannot contribute directly to parties or candidates. Any election spending by a super PAC to support or oppose a candidate cannot be coordinated with that candidate, hence the term “independent” expenditure. Check out OpenSecrets to learn more about both types of PACs. 

Takeaways:

  • Conservative and liberal groups are fighting fire with fire. Early spending by the Griffin- and Uihlein-backed super PAC Citizens for Judicial Fairness has been met with spending from reproductive rights group Personal PAC Independent Committee and a new PAC called All for Justice, whose funders include Sen. Pres. Harmon, labor organizations, and a group called Fair Fight, which may or may not be linked to Stacey Abrams (more on that below). 
  • The Firewall Project and Fair Courts America are wild cards. Both PACs are well-connected to longtime Republican megadonors like Dick Uihlein. It’s still unclear how they plan to use some of that firepower. But given their recent big fundraising, we expect to see some spending soon. 
  • How will last week’s court ruling affect spending? With the $500,000 cap on contributions to super PACs lifted, the groups may smash spending records again this year. 

 

The Firewall Project

Supporting: Mark Curran (R) and Michael J. Burke (R)

Type: Political action committee

Ties to other committees: Families for a Safer Illinois (new super PAC)

New?: Yes, created in June 2022

$ Available: $1,092,278.20 (including $241,000 from a report filed last night)

Top Donors: 

Any spending so far?: None, but we can expect some soon.

 

All for Justice

Supporting: Elizabeth M. Rochford (D) and Mary Kay O’Brien (D)

Type: Super PAC

Ties to other committees: N/A

New?: Yes, created in August 2022

$ Available: $4,514,720

Top Donors: 

  • Fair Fight (see below): $500,000
  • Mid America Carpenters Regional Council: $500,000
  • Illinois Pipe Trades PAC Account: $500,000
  • Friends of Don Harmon: $500,000

Any spending so far?: $1.5 million in reported spending on ads, though Politico reported that the group has already spent $3 million on ads opposing Curran and Justice Burke. 

 

Citizens for Judicial Fairness

Supporting: Mark Curran (R) and Michael J. Burke (R)

Type: Super PAC

Ties to other committees: N/A

New?: No, created in September 2020

$ Available: $5,504,786.95

Top Donors: 

Any spending so far?: $1,358,750 on ads opposing Judge Rochford and Justice O’Brien and supporting Curran and Justice Burke on October 3rd. Citizens for Judicial Fairness spent another $226,250 on ads on October 7th. On October 19th, Citizens for Judicial Fairness reported spending $1,403,807.44 on October 17th to oppose Justice O’Brien and support Justice Burke via ads and text marketing. 

 

Fair Courts America

Supporting: Mark Curran (R) and Michael J. Burke (R)

Type: Super PAC

Ties to other committees: Restoration PAC 

New?: Yes, created in February 2022

$ Available: $327,251.68*

Top Donors**:

Any spending so far?: No, though Illinois is identified as one of Fair Courts America’s target states this cycle. Fair Courts America (along with Restoration PAC) is also one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging Illinois’ new campaign finance measures in state judicial elections. Now that a federal judge has temporarily blocked two of those provisions, Fair Courts America can accept contributions in excess of $500,000 from a single source. According to the lawsuit, Fair Courts America plans to accept contributions larger than $500,000 from donors (including Restoration PAC) this cycle. 

*Note: As of 9/30/22, according to FEC data. 

**Note: Top Donors covers donations from 1/01/22-6/30/22.

 

Personal PAC Independent Committee

Supporting: Elizabeth M. Rochford (D) and Mary Kay O’Brien (D)

Type: Super PAC

Ties to other committees: Personal PAC Inc (segregated PAC)

New?: No, created in 2012

$ Available: $1,031,011.70

Top Donors:

Any spending so far?: $19,359.50 on voter contact for Judge Rochford and Justice O’Brien on October 3rd. Personal PAC Independent Committee spent $170,154.96 on mailings for both candidates on October 6th, and another $171,019.89 on mailings on October 17th.

 

Dark money groups

“Dark money” refers to money spent to influence the outcome of elections when the actual source of that money is not disclosed. 501(c)(4)s, or “social welfare organizations,” are a type of politically active nonprofit included in this “dark money” definition. 501(c)(4)s do not have to disclose their donors, but they can spend money to influence the outcome of elections. For more information about dark money in American politics, visit Open Secrets. 

Dark money groups are required to disclose some information about how they spend their money through a Form 990, which is filed with the IRS each tax year. Unfortunately, IRS processing delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic mean that the most recent publicly available Forms 990 are from the tax year ending in December 2020. And there’s always some delay, meaning that timely information about election spending may not always be available to the public. 

We can also follow dark money in two other ways: 1) if a dark money group contributes to a covered entity (i.e. that is subject to disclosure requirements) like a political action committee (PAC) or a candidate committee, or 2) if a dark money group spends money explicitly advocating for or against a candidate (known as an independent expenditure). In the first case, contributions by a dark money group are reported as part of that covered entity’s financial disclosures; in the second case, the dark money group must report that spending. However, we still may not know who contributed the funds that went into that spending.

A dark money mystery: Is it Stacey Abrams or not?

Here’s an example of the difficulty of tracing some donations. A group called Fair Fight recently contributed $500,000 to the pro-Democrat All for Justice super PAC. The only information about Fair Fight available from All for Justice’s campaign disclosure report is its address, listed as a post office box in LaGrange, IL. 

Politico cited a report in the Madison-St. Clair Record stating that the donor is connected to the Fair Fight voting rights organization headed by Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. The founding publisher of the Madison-St. Clair Record is conservative activist Brian Timpone, who has worked with conservative pundit Dan Proft on similar publications. 

While it is possible that the Fair Fight group that made the donation is associated with Georgia-based Stacey Abrams, it’s also possible that it’s a different group with a similar name. The donor’s listed address is not in Georgia but in Illinois, and the same post office box has been associated with the Illinois labor-related Fight Back Fund 501(c)(4) organization as recently as 2019. We could not find an organization called Fair Fight with the LaGrange address in the Secretary of State’s corporate directory (though we did find another Georgia-based organization called “Fair Fight Initiative”). 

Stacey Abrams’s Fair Fight organization did not immediately get back to us about the donation, and the author of the Madison-St. Clair Record article did not respond to our inquiries about his piece. With the information we’ve been able to find, it is simply not clear where this half a million dollars came from. And even if we did find out something about the organization, we wouldn’t necessarily know who all its donors are because it may not have to disclose them.

The confusion highlights the weakness of our current disclosure rules and the difficulty of tracking some campaign contributions to their original source, making it hard for voters to know who’s trying to influence them. 

Dark money groups active in 2020 who may still become active this cycle

There are two known groups with unknown donors that are worth watching this year. The Illinois Opportunity Project and the Judicial Fairness Project are both 501(c)(4)s that contributed $350,000 and $200,000, respectively, to the Citizens for Judicial Fairness super PAC in 2020, which was one of the biggest spenders in the anti-Kilbride campaign. Given the importance of this year’s races, one or both of these dark money groups may become active again this cycle. One of the Illinois Opportunity Project’s donations was in late October 2020, which could suggest that the group will spend in these races closer to Election Day. If either 501(c)(4) chooses to contribute directly to Citizens for Judicial Fairness again (or another covered entity), we’ll be able to track that money in real time. We may not, however, be able to know who all the donors are behind that money. 

Takeaways:

  • We haven’t seen spending from two key groups that were active in 2020 – yet. 
  • We may be able to tell when dark money groups jump into these races. If dark money groups contribute directly to a covered entity (like a super PAC or candidate committee), we’ll find out via that entity’s required financial disclosures. But since dark money groups are not required to disclose their donors, we still may not know exactly where that money comes from.

 

Illinois Opportunity Project (IOP)

History: The group opposed Justice Kilbride’s (D) retention vote in 2020 by contributing to the Griffin- and Uihlein-backed Citizens for Judicial Fairness super PAC. From 2018 through today, it has given more than $2.6 million to Illinois political committees — but the original sources of those contributions are unknown. When pressed about the source of their funds in 2017, the group said “Our donors – like anyone who uses their constitutional rights to support a cause – aren’t ‘Dark’, they’re free.” The group has also brought lawsuits in states across the country aimed at overturning policies designed to increase public transparency of political spending.

Matthew Besler, the Chairman and CEO of the group, has ties to both former Gov. Bruce Rauner’s (R) administration and the successful campaign against the Fair Tax Amendment in 2020. Patrick Hughes, a co-founder of the Illinois Opportunity Project, also co-founded the Liberty Justice Center and was the Center’s lead strategist in the Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court case. Janus held that public sector unions cannot require non-member employees to pay agency fees covering the costs of non-political union activities. 

Type: 501(c)(4)

Any spending so far?: Not that we’ve seen, but there’s still time. 

 

Judicial Fairness Project

History: The Judicial Fairness Project opposed Justice Kilbride’s (D) retention vote in 2020 by contributing to the Citizens for Judicial Fairness super PAC. Nick Klitzing, the Executive Director of the Judicial Fairness Project, is the former Executive Director and Special Counsel for the Illinois Republican Party and has ties to former Gov. Bruce Rauner’s (R) administration. Tony Esposito, the Deputy Executive Director, was formerly the Illinois State Director for the Republican National Committee (RNC). Jim Nowlan, a senior advisor to the Judicial Fairness Project, is the former chairman of the Citizens for Judicial Fairness super PAC. 

Type: 501(c)(4)

Any spending so far?: Not that we’ve seen, but there’s still time. 

 

We’ll continue keeping an eye on the big money in these races, but it’s always good to do your own research, too. Check out our easy-to-use database, Reform for Illinois’ Sunshine Campaign Finance Tracker, to see who’s funding –- and influencing – your candidates and elected officials.


  Back

© 2024 Reform for Illinois
Reform for Illinois is a research and advocacy organization that empowers the public to participate in government, addresses the role of money in politics, and promotes integrity, accountability, and transparency in our political system.

Reform for Illinois
1658 N. Milwaukee Ave
#100-7279
Chicago, IL 60647
(312) 436-1274
Contact Us