The Electoral Commission advised to close the dispute regarding the use of tax funds

Oct. 25 – CHAMPAIGN – A hearing specialist has recommended the state Board of Elections dismiss a citizen complaint that Champaign County Executive Steve Summers’ office is illegally spending tax money to promote a proposed sales tax increase.

John Hinds, an Illinois State Board of Elections official who reviewed the evidence Tuesday, concluded that the board did not have the authority “to make findings and impose sanctions on the basis that any violation would be a criminal offense.”

“Therefore, I recommend that the board dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction,” Hinds wrote. “If the applicant wishes to pursue this alleged violation further, I suggest contacting the appropriate county ethics board, state attorney or attorney general.”

Champaign County officials are backing a proposed quarter-cent sales tax increase and using taxpayer dollars to fund a multifaceted ad campaign. The latest tabulation shows county officials spent $68,638 on their campaign.

They claim that their advertisements are “purely informational” and therefore legal under Illinois law. But Mahomet resident John Bambenek says the ad, which touts the supposed benefits of the tax increase and targets different groups with different messages, is illegal propaganda.

The election commission is scheduled to meet on Wednesday, and it’s hard to imagine the eight-member commission — four Democrats, four Republicans — doing anything other than following legal guidelines.

Hinds’ report quotes Assistant State’s Attorney Andrew Beckett as saying the district’s ad complies with state law because it “does not urge voters to vote ‘for’ or ‘no'” and “instead provides factual information” as required by law.

Hinds noted that Bambenek provided photographs of various forms of advertising, arguing that because the language in them was “speculative” of benefits, they were “propaganda.”

In addition, he quoted Bambenek as arguing that “discrepancies in the number of parties printing newsletters” indicated that “the mailings were targeted at certain demographics to further encourage them to vote in the referendum.”

The statute in question specifically states, “no public funds shall be used to induce voters to vote for or against any candidate or proposition.”

Hinds, after reviewing Bambenek’s reports, said they “do not appear to directly advocate a yes or no referendum vote”.

Instead of recommending dismissal on the matter, however, Hinds said the board “has jurisdiction to conduct a hearing” on the statute, but does not have the authority to pursue it as a criminal matter.

Bambenek complained that the recommendation allows for “unlimited propaganda at taxpayer expense” unless “the government says ‘vote yes/no.’

He noted that he would look for a court-appointed special prosecutor. But it’s also, like the election commission complaint, another legal shot, given that State Attorney Julia Ritz, who approved the spending in question, is likely to oppose the measure.