A common frustration is encountering people – from low-information social media posters to high-ranking elected officials – ranting about policies or proposals with no chance of being enacted or, in some cases, not actually on the General Assembly’s table.

But just like the adage holding jazz is about the notes that don’t get played, sometimes ire is properly directed at legislation no one is discussing. Call it the “there oughta be a law” corollary. Put another way: when everyone agrees there’s a loophole, why isn’t anyone tightening that string?

On Thursday, Capitol News Illinois covered the ongoing dispute between Senate President Don Harmon and the State Board of Elections. The issue dates to March, when state officials responded to a Chicago Tribune inquiry into the Oak Park Democrat’s fundraising by sending a certified letter accusing Harmon of improperly accepting donations after the March 2024 primary.

There are undisputed facts: Harmon gave his own campaign $100,001 in January 2023. That meant he or anyone else running for the seat could accept contributions from individuals and political action committees.

Harmon did just that – openly – believing he understood the rules based in large part on his role in writing them. But the elections board disagrees, saying the “self-funded” cap extended only through the end of the primary cycle, so he should not have accepted $4 million and as such is subject to a $9.8 million fine.

Harmon’s attorney, Mike Kasper, argued a candidate shouldn’t need “to make another $100,001 loan to reactivate the self-funding exemption when the primary season concluded,” according to CNI’s Ben Szalinski. “And it should still be in effect through the 2026 election, he argued.”

While Kasper said the limit should stay off until Harmon’s seat is contested in November 2026, he also allowed for a minimum cap of the November 2024 cycle.

“If it’s unfair to have the caps reattached after the primary when there’s a self-funder, it seems even more unfair to apply it halfway through the election,” Kasper said. “I don’t think anyone ever intended for the caps to be put back on in the middle of an election.”

The board contends Harmon’s reading undercuts the broader importance of the statutory concept of “election cycles,” regardless of the fact Senators serve tagged two- and four-year terms.

According to CNI, the board may render a decision on Sept. 16, and that “ruling is likely to set a precedent for future campaigns.”

Absent from the arguing is meaningful legislation clarifying unanswered questions. Rather than let appointed bureaucrats essentially settle a legal question, this could’ve been solved in the spring session or addressed in the fall veto session.

Guesswork, even reasoned, serves no one. This is a job for the General Assembly.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.