This case presents question as to whether respondent-Board of Elections erred in dismissing complaint of petitioner-current Chicago alderman, alleging that respondent-Committee formed to support former Chicago alderman (Daniel Solis) violated section 9-8.10(a)(3) of Campaign Disclosure Act by paying Solis’s legal fees of $220,000 that were generated in criminal defense of Solis against federal allegations of corruption. While petitioner asserted that said payment was for personal debt that was neither campaign-related nor for governmental or political purpose directly related to candidate’s or public official’s duties and responsibilities, Appellate Court found no violation of section 9-8.10(a)(3) because payment of legal fees for criminal defense against charges or investigations of political corruption are not personal in nature. In his petition for leave to appeal, petitioner argued that Appellate Court improperly adopted Federal Election Commission’s “irrespective test” from section 113.1(g) of Title 11 of Code of Federal Regulations, because, according to petitioner, only state legislature can adopt existing federal law or regulations.
Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Civil Court
Campaign Disclosure Act