Champaign Co. (ECWd) –
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CHAMPAIGN STATE’S ATTORNEY OFFICE CLAIMS PROHIBITION ON SPENDING TAX DOLLARS TO ADVOCATE FOR REFERENDA ON BALLOT IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE
October 21, 2024
MAHOMET, IL – Today Mahomet Resident John Bambenek released the following statement on the State’s Attorneys office filing an answer to a board of elections complaint alleging $60,000 in public funds were used to advocate for a tax hike referendum that called the prohibition in the statute “unconstitutionally vague”.
“It’s highly ironic that in a board of elections complaint alleging the misuse of public funds, the publicly funded state’s attorney using publicly funded resources is advancing an argument that state law prohibiting said use of public funds for campaign purposes is ‘unconstitutionally vague’. The prosecutor should be prosecuting alleged crimes, not providing free criminal defense arguments to the County Executive,” said Bambenek. “Instead, we have yet another case of elected officials dissembling potential and alleged misconduct by wordplays and deflections depending on what the definition of “is” is.”
The state’s attorney’s office in a recent filings to the board of elections wrote: “Should this matter proceed, Respondent assets that 10 ILCS 5/9-25.1 is unconstitutionally vague as a statute which carries potentially criminal penalties as “factual information” is not defined and anyone could argue that factual information constitutions information offered for personal persuasion or advocacy rather than for information and education.”
“This line of argument shows that even the State’s Attorney’s office knows I am right; they got caught misusing public funds in an attempt to sway the vote of a referendum on the ballot. They know this road could end with a special prosecutor and potential criminal liabilities. I would have rather they been more mindful of using public funds properly instead of desperately trying to avoid the consequences on the backend. It shows they really don’t know how to handle the resources they already have,” said Bambenek.
The case is 24CD014 on file with the Illinois State Board of Elections. The case will have a closed preliminary hearing in tomorrow and then move on to open hearings thereafter.
The cited law is here:
(10 ILCS 5/9-25.1) (from Ch. 46, par. 9-25.1; formerly Ch. 46, pars. 102, 103 and 104)
Sec. 9-25.1. Election interference.
(a) As used in this Section, “public funds” means any funds appropriated by the Illinois General Assembly or by any political subdivision of the State of Illinois.
(b) No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated for political or campaign purposes to any candidate or political organization. This Section shall not prohibit the use of public funds for dissemination of factual information relative to any proposition appearing on an election ballot, or for dissemination of information and arguments published and distributed under law in connection with a proposition to amend the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
(c) The first time any person violates any provision of this Section, that person shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. Upon the second or any subsequent violation of any provision of this Section, the person violating any provision of this Section shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
No Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.