Who benefits from the lifting of contribution caps in the Supreme Court race?

On July 12, Supreme Court candidate Daniel Epstein dropped $285,000 into his campaign and filed his Notification of Self-Funding with the Illinois State Board of Elections.

Under §9-8.5(h) of the Election Code, 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(h), this one act eliminated all contribution limits in the race to succeed Justice Charles Freeman on the Illinois Supreme Court.

It's easy enough to understand why Epstein made the splashy gesture: Epstein has only been licensed in Illinois since 2015. He won't be rated qualified or recommended by any bar group; he falls well short of the 10-12 years' experience that the bar groups require before even thinking about awarding a favorable rating. So it took the big contribution to give Epstein some sort of credibility, at least in some circles.

Thus, three days after the mega-contribution, Epstein got a nice profile from Greg Hinz in his On Politics page on Crain's Chicago Business. (Do you really think Hinz would write about Epstein without the donation? Hinz mentioned it in the opening paragraph of his piece.)

But... while it gets some buzz for Mr. Epstein, at least in the short term, the contribution is nowhere near big enough to clear the crowded field of Supreme Court hopefuls.

When Richard C. Cooke loaned his judicial campaign $500,000 in June 2016, he was not committed to any particular race -- and the giant warchest surely helped him wind up unopposed for a 6th Subcircuit vacancy.

But Epstein was just one of eight candidates presenting their credentials last month at the Cook County Democratic Party's "Pre-Slating" Meeting. The other seven, in alphabetical order, were:

• Appellate Court Justice Cynthia Cobbs
• Appellate Court Justice Shelly Harris
• Appellate Court Justice Nathaniel R. Howse, Jr.
• Appellate Court Justice Margaret McBride
• Supreme Court Justice P. Scott Neville, Jr.
• Circuit Court Judge Sandra Ramos
• Appellate Court Justice Jesse Reyes

The Pre-Slating Meeting took place three weeks before Epstein made his donation; none of these candidates are going to fold because of it. (And these may not be the only candidates for the vacancy. These are just the ones who were willing to ask the Democratic Party about possible slating.)

And, though $285,000 is surely a lot of money in most contexts, it will not be decisive in this race -- and perhaps even less so now.

That's not to say that the candidate who garners the most dollars will also win the most votes. If I had to bet today, I'd guess that the eventual winner will not raise or spend the most money. But the winner will likely spend more than $285,000.

So who benefits the caps being blown in this race? Not Epstein surely. Because of his relative youth and inexperience, he is not likely to get any serious traction in the legal community or, ultimately, with the voters.

I don't see any particular benefit to any of the other candidates either.

The removal of contribution caps might create significant discomfort for some well-heeled donors. Many of Chicago's leading law firms had already donated $11,600 to each of several Supreme Court candidates before Epstein's gesture -- now some may be pressed to contribute even more.

Epstein told Hinz that he wanted to discuss policy. Epstein correctly noted that Supreme Court justices do more than hear cases. Among other things, they determine the procedural rules that govern all our courts. They also set standards for continuing legal education and oversee the lawyer discipline process.

But, thanks to Epstein's donation, a lot of the conversation that might have taken place on those important topics may be elbowed aside in favor of stories about fundraising....