The Illinois State Board of Elections split evenly along party lines Tuesday on state Senate President Don Harmon’s appeal of a recommendation that he violated state campaign finance laws, making it unlikely that it has the legal authority to impose a nearly $10 million fine against him for accepting campaign contributions in excess of state campaign finance limits.
The tie vote of the eight-member board — comprising four Democrats and four Republicans — left the issue of a $9.8 million fine levied against Harmon in limbo as his attorney, veteran Democratic Party attorney Michael Kasper, said state election law requires a majority of five votes to issue a final order. Such an order was required to make a finding that Harmon violated the law and to impose a fine, he said.
Deadlocked board members ultimately agreed to hold the issue over until the board’s scheduled November meeting at the latest, as its legal staff and Kasper explored what, if any, past precedents provide guidance on the situation.
“We have not had this kind of exact experience with this kind of fine before the board,” said the agency’s legal counsel, Jordan Andrew.
The board on Tuesday was asked to vote on the decision of Harmon’s appeal by a hearing officer, Northbrook attorney Barbara Goodman, who found Harmon’s campaign committee “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was in error or that no actual violation of (the law) occurred.” Goodman recommended that the $9.8 million fine assessed by the board’s campaign finance staff be adopted by the full board.
At issue is Illinois’ election law, which limits campaign contributions, a measure Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, co-sponsored. While the law sought to curb the influence of big money in political campaigns, it contained a provision lifting contribution limits for all candidates in a contest, ostensibly to ensure lesser-funded candidates weren’t disadvantaged by the contribution limits when running against wealthy political rivals who self-fund their campaigns or receive support from independent expenditure groups.
But that provision soon became a means for powerful incumbents, including Harmon, to accept unlimited contributions, thereby enhancing their own electability and fostering loyalty by distributing money to allies. The candidates would simply give their campaign funds just enough money to trigger the lifting of the limits, which are $250,000 for statewide races and $100,000 in other races.
Complicating the issue in Harmon’s case was what constitutes an “election cycle” and whether it applies differently for House and Senate members. House lawmakers run in two-year terms while Senate terms are staggered between two- and four-year cycles.
Harmon argued that the time limit for accepting unlimited campaign contributions lasted until he was up for reelection in 2026, even after he broke the campaign caps in 2023. But the board staff said Harmon’s time for collecting unlimited contributions ended after the March 2024 primary and that his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign committee accepted more than $4 million above the contribution limits between the end of the 2024 primary and the end of 2024. Harmon was in the midst of serving a four-year term, and his seat was not on the 2024 ballot.
In her 15-page recommendation, Goodman noted that on five previous occasions in lifting the contribution cap, Harmon’s political committee had followed what the election board staff had considered to be “election cycles.” But in 2024, she wrote, “the evidence establishes that the committee did, in fact, exceed the contribution limits and the assessment of civil penalties was appropriate.”
Adding to the concerns around the issue is a state law that prevents anyone who has not paid a civil penalty imposed against their political committee from appearing on the ballot. Monday marks the first day of filing for the state’s March 17 primary ballot.
Some Democratic members pushed to have the case immediately closed on Tuesday.
“The statute clearly says that a final order has to have five votes. So the question really is, in the absence of five votes, you want a roadmap. But that is the roadmap. You need five votes for this board to do anything because that’s the law,” Democratic member Casanda Watson told Republican members.
“We stay at four-four, we never have five votes. Therefore, this board cannot issue any kind of order, and (board staff) cannot possess the authority from the board (to fine Harmon) because the board will not have given any authority in a final order. So it should be over with,” Watson said.
But Republican member Catherine McCrory said she thought that board members should take some time to review past decisions and see if any guidance existed for the panel to move forward on the case.
“Maybe you feel differently. Member Watson, but for myself, I’d like some more information before I make that decision,” McCrory said. Asked by Watson what information she needed, McCrory said, “I will decide that when I find the information that I’m looking for or when I’m given that communication by our deputy general counsel or our general counsel.”
Board members, even Republicans, said that whatever action the panel ultimately takes, they want to make sure Kasper has time to appeal any adverse decision in court. But Kasper also said that, absent a final order from the board, there was nothing to appeal in court.
“Give us a menu of options and let the board decide at a later date,” Republican board member Jack Vrett said to the board’s legal counsel and Kasper. “So let’s come up with a roadmap for them to move it on to the next level, whatever that is.”
