Under the light: Individual contributions to the campaign fund of Lake County Board member Brent Paxton of Zion
Why this news is important to you: Money buys influence in privately-funded elections. To cast informed votes for public servants, taxpayers need to know what special interests and corporations are bankrolling the campaigns of candidates for public office.
For Paxton, nothing to report — yet
From Jan. 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, there has been no activity reported in the campaign fund of Lake County Board member Brent Paxton of Zion. The lack of activity begs the question: With his current term expiring next year, is the County Board’s current finance chairman going to run for reelection?
Paxton confirmed to The Public Investigator that he will seek reelection in 2010, adding that the lack activity in his campaign fund up to this point is primarily the result of his distaste for political fund raising.
He said that in the past, he’s returned checks for as much as $1,000 to individual supporters because he wanted to avoid the perception of being influenced by contributors. This time around, however, he said he might have to reconsider that practice, as County Board elections have all become more competitive due to the rise of the opposition Democratic party. Several Democrats well-funded by unions and other political special interests defeated Republican incumbents in the previous election, leaving Republicans with a slim 13-10 majority on the board.
In another instance, Paxton said he returned a check from a Rosemont engineering firm that recently was awarded a road project design contract for Lake County. That same firm showed up as a contributor to County Board Chairman Suzi Schmidt, as reported by The Public Investigator earlier this week.
Facing probable Democratic opponents next fall, Paxton indicated he might have to start accepting some of these contributions and risk the negative perception that they have bought influence in government business.
The perception of influence peddling is one of the natural consequences of privately-financed election systems. In most instances, it’s merely an inaccurate perception; in some cases, it’s the truth. Only in extremely rare instances is the perception proven true.
