Chicago Tax Official’s Campaign Donations Raise Eyebrows

As Larry Rogers Jr. seeks his sixth term on the Cook County Board of Review, scrutiny is intensifying over his campaign funding sources, primarily from property tax interests and individuals with business before the board.

Rogers, the board’s longest-serving member, has raised eyebrows by amassing $135,000 in contributions over the past year from professionals linked to property tax appeals, the Chicago Tribune reported.

This influx of funding has sparked controversy amid a proxy battle between Rogers and Cook County Assessor Fritz Kaegi, who is supporting Rogers’ main opponent, Larecia Tucker, in the March 19 Democratic primary.

Critics argue that Rogers’ acceptance of campaign contributions from those with interests in appealing property taxes poses a significant conflict of interest.

Rogers defended his actions, stating that his donor pool naturally includes fellow attorneys.

“We don’t apply any pressure to anyone, exhibit any favoritism to anyone,” he told the outlet. “I believe as long as I’m in compliance with the law and the limits in terms of what can be contributed and accepted, we welcome the support.”

A Tribune analysis revealed that the majority of Rogers’ campaign contributions since 2014 originated from individuals and entities involved in the property tax appeal industry.

One notable contributor to Rogers’ campaign is Matthew Tully, the attorney representing the Chicago Bears in a contentious dispute over the valuation of their potential stadium site in Arlington Heights. Rogers previously agreed with Tully that Kaegi’s $197 million assessment of the former Arlington International Racecourse was too high, although the Board of Review just rejected the Bears’ appeal.

The Board of Review, a quasi-judicial body, plays a pivotal role in addressing taxpayer grievances regarding property assessments. While Rogers asserts that his decisions remain independent and unaffected by campaign contributions, some argue that the appearance of impropriety persists. The board’s refusal to adopt recommendations banning such contributions exacerbates those concerns.

—Quinn Donoghue