More rubber stamping at Arlington Heights Board meeting

August 20, 2018, Arlington Heights village board meeting:

The following comment was to Arlington Heights village board of Trustees, regarding the 100% increase in campaign contributions to local candidates during local elections and removing the prohibition on liquor license holders to contribute to board candidates.

Background:

The Board at the Committee-of-the-Whole (COTW) on August 13, 2018 approved the increase and then recommended to the board for approval, at the August 20, 2018 regular board meeting. The board usually rubber-stamps all recommendations coming from the COTW.

Following is the text from my address to the board, just before the rubber stamp approval of the new limits and to remove the prohibition of campaign contributions from liquor license holders to local candidates. The village president is the local liquor license control officer.

Board address:

Before the board approves the 100% increase in campaign contribution limits, that was recommended by the board, at the COTW last Monday, I would like to make a brief comment:

To my understanding the issue is: do limits on local campaign contributions violate home rule or not. If they do violate home rule, then the village must revert to state limits of $5,600/individual and $11,000/organization. 

It seems the board runs a much greater risk of violating home rule, by having limits, than being challenged on limits being too low. I am not sure how just raising the limits 100% protects against challenges to home rule in this issue.

If they do not violate home rule,.... then what exactly is the reason for increasing our local limits? In my opinion, we have had no problems with the existing limits. Also, it appears that the new limits $500/individual and $1,000/organization, 100% increase, will hamper lesser financially connected candidates from competing in local elections.

Although, I do understand that since 1994, when these limits were last considered, campaign expenses have substantially increased. The reason that is given, the increase is necessary for candidates today to meet the expenses to run a competitive campaign.

I would like to add:

However, not being able to meet expenses is exactly the same reason that many residents stood in this very board-room in May of last year, asked this board for an increase in the minimum wage necessary to meet their rising expenses, this board denied that, but could have approved.

It looks as though we have a bit of an ideological contradiction here, President Hayes. It is ok to raise limits necessary to meet campaign expenses just prior to an election on April 2, 2019. But it is not ok to allow the minimum wage to increase to meet our working residents' expenses, right now. The reason for the increases in both cases is exactly the same; it is necessary to meet expenses. In my opinion, this is not an apples and oranges comparison.

I ask that the board vote against their own recommendation from the COTW and not increase limits in campaign contributions.