Back when the reformers demanded that state campaign contributions be capped, they said it would limit the dollars flowing into Illinois political funds.

But, overall, contributions have only barely decreased from four years ago, according to a search of the State Board of Elections' database. That may have as much to do with the economy these days compared to what it was back then, when Illinois' unemployment rate was half what it is now. According to the search, about $55.6 million was contributed to campaigns during the last six months of 2011, while about $57.3 million went to campaigns during the same period four years earlier.

Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan raised a total of $2.6 million for the three campaign funds he controls in just the last three months. Madigan now has a total of $4 million in cash, which puts him far ahead of anybody else in politics. Four years ago at this time (the same point in our national and state election cycles), Madigan had $1.3 million in cash reserves. There were no contribution caps four years ago.

And a whole bunch of money is avoiding the new contribution limits by being spread around to newly formed political action committees and to some little local committees that have never before seen much, if any, activity.

He didn't come out and say it, but Governor Pat Quinn has apparently abandoned his promise to allow the "temporary" income-tax hikes to expire three years from now.

The governor submitted a three-year revenue and spending projection last week as he's required to do by a new Illinois law. The bottom line of Quinn's projection is that revenues are simply not high enough to match what Quinn wants to spend. According to the governor's projections, the state will finish this fiscal year with a $507-million deficit, despite the recent tax hikes.

A massive turnaround in the Illinois House may have whetted political appetites for even more corporate tax relief. But don't count on it just yet.

As you may recall, a tax-cut plan for corporations and individuals failed miserably in the House a few weeks ago, getting eight votes - comically short of the 60 needed for passage.

So the House went home for two weeks and some intense lobbying began. When state representatives came back to Springfield, a slightly revised version of the corporate-tax-cut plan passed with a whopping 81 votes. The bill will grant large tax breaks to CME Group and Sears to keep them from leaving the state, as well as a few broad-based provisions.

It's a fairly common Statehouse phenomenon that bills will zoom out of the Senate or the House and then flame out in the other chamber. People in the other chamber don't always care as much as the people who first sponsor the bills. Often, they also don't want to be pushed around by the other chamber.

That explains part of what happened last week, when the Senate passed a major tax-cut package with a super-majority of 36 votes and then the bill received only eight votes in the House, despite the fact that the Senate bill would cost just a few million dollars more than the House's plan.

There's far more to this failure than the usual House-versus-Senate dynamic, of course. House Speaker Michael Madigan has declared neutrality on the bill, apparently because of a conflict of interest. Without the "Velvet Hammer" pushing hard for what is obviously a hugely controversial measure, the House just couldn't get it done.