ILCS » Chapter 10 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

10 ILCS 5/9-1.14 (2026)

Electioneering communication

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(10 ILCS 5/9-1.14)
    Sec. 9-1.14. Electioneering communication.
    (a) "Electioneering communication" means, for the purposes of this Article, any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, including radio, television, or Internet communication, that (1) refers to (i) a clearly identified candidate or candidates who will appear on the ballot for nomination for election, election, or retention, (ii) a clearly identified political party, or (iii) a clearly identified question of public policy that will appear on the ballot, (2) is made within (i) 60 days before a general election or consolidated election or (ii) 30 days before a primary election, (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate, and (4) is susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate for nomination for election, election, or retention, a political party, or a question of public policy.
    (b) "Electioneering communication" does not include:
        (1) A communication, other than an advertisement,
    
appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any legitimate news organization, unless the facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate.
        (2) A communication made solely to promote a
    
candidate debate or forum that is made by or on behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum.
        (3) A communication made as part of a non-partisan
    
activity designed to encourage individuals to vote or to register to vote.
        (4) A communication by an organization operating and
    
remaining in good standing under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
        (5) A communication exclusively between a labor
    
organization, as defined under federal or State law, and its members.
        (6) A communication exclusively between an
    
organization formed under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code and its members.
(Source: P.A. 96-832, eff. 7-1-10.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2010–2012 · leading case: Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 17× “Compare 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14 (the broadcast must be “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate, .”
Sorock v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 2012 IL App (1st) 112740 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “” 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14(a) (West 2010). More specifically, Sorock contends (1) the Web site advocated for the passage of a ballot question on April 5, 2011, (2) the Web site was in operation no later than March 31, 2011, which was within 60 days of the balloting, (3) the Web site was…”
Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 735 F. Supp. 2d 994 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “” 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14(a). See also id. §§ 5/9 — 8.”
— 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14(a) — 3 cases
Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012). “Compare 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14 (the broadcast must be “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate, .”
Sorock v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 2012 IL App (1st) 112740 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “” 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14(a) (West 2010). More specifically, Sorock contends (1) the Web site advocated for the passage of a ballot question on April 5, 2011, (2) the Web site was in operation no later than March 31, 2011, which was within 60 days of the balloting, (3) the Web site was…”
Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 735 F. Supp. 2d 994 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “” 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14(a). See also id. §§ 5/9 — 8.”
— 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14(a)(1) — 1 case
Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012). “Compare 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14 (the broadcast must be “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate, .”
— 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14(a)(3) — 1 case
Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012). “Compare 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14 (the broadcast must be “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate, .”
— 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14(b)(1) — 1 case
Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012). “Compare 10 ILCS 5/9-1.14 (the broadcast must be “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate, .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.