'Loophole' leaves curbs on contractor contributions in doubt

SPRINGFIELD -- Legislation to combat ''pay to play'' politics in Illinois advanced to the Senate floor Thursday, where its future is uncertain because of what the Senate president calls a ''gaping loophole.''

The bill prohibits those who get state contracts of $50,000 or more from giving campaign contributions to the officeholder awarding the deal -- or to that politician's opponent in an election year. It would be the first major campaign finance revision in nearly a decade.

But Senate President Emil Jones, a Chicago Democrat, complained that the money ban would simply consolidate power and influence of state parties, to which contractors would direct their checks.

"They'd in turn give it to the political party, and it's the political party that finances statewide officials,'' Jones said. ''It's a gaping loophole.''

He proposed amending the bill to bar contractor donations to any statewide officeholder, whether they're responsible for awarding a contract or not. That move could kill the measure entirely.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Don Harmon (D-Oak Park), acknowledged Jones' concern but said the bill focuses on a specific problem.

''It is a risk that we need to be watchful of,'' Harmon said. ''The immediate issue is the appearance that contracts and campaign contributions are directly related.''

That appearance is fed by scandals such as the one involving Antoin ''Tony'' Rezko. A fund-raiser for Gov. Blagojevich, Rezko is on federal trial in Chicago for allegedly scheming to get kickbacks and campaign donations from companies seeking state business or regulatory approval. Blagojevich is not charged with wrongdoing.

Jones conceded some ground when he held back the threatened change that might kill the bill. He filed an amendment Thursday that would extend the contribution ban to any officeholder.

Under Jones' proposal, a business getting a $50,000 contract from the governor couldn't give money to the attorney general or the treasurer, either. Supporters later said they questioned whether such an idea is constitutional.