If lawmakers are sincere about ethics reform, the state Supreme Court might well deliver a perfect opportunity.

As Capitol News Illinois reported, the court last week heard oral arguments on a case involving a Chicago alderman under FBI investigation and specifically the legality of a campaign committee spending $220,000 on the alderman’s legal defense.

The Illinois State Board of Elections dismissed a complaint because its members determined the Campaign Disclosure Act, which bans spending campaign money on personal debts, allows politicians to use such funds “to defray the customary and reasonable expenses of an officeholder in connection with the performance of governmental and public service functions.”

During oral arguments, Justice Michael Burke concisely framed the issue, asking: “Are we at that point in Illinois where we’re going to say that that’s an ordinary expense of holding public office?”

Here’s where the lawmakers enter. Because the law doesn’t explicitly distinguish between official and personal expenses, lawyers will argue and infer until judges establish a legal precedent.

Here’s Adolfo Mondragon, a lawyer representing the alderman who filed the complaint: “Any interpretation of the Campaign Disclosure Act that allows for the use of campaign funds to pay for public office holders’ criminal defense against investigations or charges of public corruption, the very evil the law was designed to combat, is antithetical to the legislative intent.”

And here’s Michael Dorf, the campaign committee’s lawyer:

“The expenditure was not for strictly personal use and would not have occurred if (the alderman) were not a public official.”

True, the FBI doesn’t investigate private citizens for taking campaign donations in exchange for favors when elected – because the very act of circulating nominating petitions makes one a public figure.

The situation has echoes of U.S. Rep. Marie Newman, under fire for allegations she tried to buy a political opponent out of a primary by promising a federal job should she win election. Newman says a House committee can’t punish her for something might’ve done as a private citizen.

But when the potential of being an elected official endows the power to offer a shady deal, there’s no reason a politician – if you’re campaigning, you’re a politician, successful or otherwise – should be able to claim the protection of private life.

The good news is already there are two bills the General Assembly could approve to settle the question. CNI highlighted House Bill 2929, from state Rep. Deanne Mazzochi, R-Elmhurst, and her quote is the perfect summary:

“Letting this continue sends the wrong message: that corrupt and unethical public officials who abused their office don’t have to pay for their misdeeds, they can just continue to abuse their office to troll for campaign funds and keep the insider game going.”

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media. Follow him on Twitter @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.