2018 IL App (1st) 180654
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- In 2016 Cook County amended its Ethics Ordinance to cap contributions from persons who do business with, seek to do business with, register as lobbyists for, or have sought “official action” from the County at $750 to any county candidate/official (with certain annual aggregation rules).
- Assessor Joseph Berrios and attorney John K. Norris challenged the ordinance after the Cook County Board of Ethics identified and fined contributions to Berrios’s campaign committees as exceeding the $750 limit; notices and fines were issued after Berrios’s committees declined to return the excess contributions.
- Plaintiffs brought a facial constitutional challenge seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing vagueness (especially of “official action”), First Amendment violations (contribution limits not narrowly tailored), and that the county lacked home‑rule authority because state election law preempted local regulation.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Cook County; it stayed enforcement of the notices pending decision, rejected plaintiffs’ constitutional and preemption claims, and plaintiffs appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, treated the challenge as facial (so did not rely on agency affidavits about enforcement practice), and affirmed the circuit court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness / Due process ("official action") | Term "official action" is too indefinite; could cover trivial ministerial acts and does not clearly reach attorneys acting for clients. | Term is commonly used in ethics statutes, is understandable in context, and the ordinance targets discretionary acts tied to quid‑pro quo concerns. | Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague on its face; "official action" reasonably read to cover discretionary acts that create corruption risks. |
| Selective enforcement / due process | Ethics Board may arbitrarily target high‑risk agencies (e.g., assessor) and single out officials. | Prosecutorial discretion to prioritize investigations is permissible so long as not based on impermissible criteria. | Allegations insufficient to overcome presumption of good‑faith enforcement; prioritization is legitimate. |
| First Amendment (contribution limits) | $750 cap (and county’s restriction post‑request for action) is not narrowly tailored and impedes political association, especially when caps are "lifted" by self‑funding opponents. | Contribution limits are subject to intermediate review and are permissible when closely drawn to prevent quid‑pro‑quo or its appearance; local limits may be stricter than state law. | $750 limit is constitutional under Buckley/Nixon framework; it is closely drawn to prevent corruption/appearance of corruption and does not impermissibly burden speech. |
| Home‑rule / Preemption by Election Code | State Election Code (and constitutional uniformity provisions) occupies the field of campaign regulation; county lacks authority to further restrict contributions or to revoke benefits of state cap‑lifting. | Home‑rule allows Cook County to enact regulations pertaining to its government/affairs; local rules can be stricter and the State Ethics Act contemplates local ordinances at least as restrictive. | Cook County acted within home‑rule authority; local contribution limits are not impliedly preempted and do not conflict with Election Code cap‑lifting provision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (established differing scrutiny for contribution limits and spending limits; contribution limits reviewed under "closely drawn" test)
- Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000) (upheld state contribution limits under closely drawn standard)
- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (invalidated aggregate limits; recognized anti‑corruption/appearance interests)
- City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) (vagueness doctrine; struck down nebulous loitering ordinance)
- Wilson v. County of Cook, 2012 IL 112026 (Illinois Supreme Court) (vagueness analysis and permissible degree of imprecision)
- Pooh‑Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Cook, 232 Ill. 2d 463 (2009) (facial invalidation of ordinance is strong medicine; courts favor validity)
- Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296 (2008) (statutes presumed constitutional; resolve doubts in favor of validity)
- Blanchard v. Berrios, 2016 IL 120315 (2016) (upheld Cook County’s inspector general authority; recognized county interest in policing corruption in county offices)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006) (struck down very low contribution limits as not narrowly tailored)
- Wagner v. Federal Election Comm’n, 793 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (upheld ban on federal contractors’ contributions to prevent corruption risks)