John Tillman is the president of Americans for Limited Government, a tax-exempt organization in Chicago. He is also the elected president of Golf, a small village in Cook County, Illinois.

Does Americans for Limited Government plan to donate more money to ballot committees supporting regulatory takings initiatives before the November 7 elections?

[Tillman did not respond.]

Why does ALG support these initiatives?

ALG supports these initiatives because they are commonsense reforms that protect property rights. The 2005 Kelo v. [City of] New London decision by the U.S. Supreme Court demonstrated that there is a real threat to homes, businesses, and houses of worship across the country. The Kelo decision, sadly, also showed that local governments are often focused on eroding property rights rather than shoring them up. These initiatives will restore some balance in the process and give property owners, especially those who may not have the resources to defend themselves, stronger protection and better options should a government decide to unjustly use eminent domain or regulate their property out of existence.

Does the vast majority of ALG’s funding come from Howard Rich, or have others contributed to your organization? If the latter is true, who are some of the major donors? What percentage of ALG’s funds would you estimate Mr. Rich has donated this year?

ALG’s funding comes from thousands of Americans all over the country. Mr. Rich has long been a generous supporter to many causes over the years, and he has worked tirelessly to support efforts to put the voters and taxpayers back in charge on the state level. We are very proud to have his support and greatly appreciate his generosity. However, we are also very proud of the fact that our support is broad and deep. It does a real disservice to the thousands of people all over the country who have donated, both to us and to the local campaigns, to portray the funding as having all come from one person. It’s also simply not accurate to do so.

As to specific details, we let our public filings speak for themselves — and as with nonprofits of all stripes, donors are protected by federal law much as the right to a private ballot is protected, and we adhere to that.

Can you provide us with biographical information on yourself and Mr. Rich (e.g., where you were born, schooling, previous political involvement, companies you lead or led, etc.)?

[Tillman did not respond]

Attempts to get regulatory takings measures on the November ballot failed in a number of states (Nevada, Missouri, Oklahoma, and possibly Montana). Does ALG plan to provide financial support in future elections to get such initiatives on the ballot in those and other states?

ALG continues to evaluate the many requests we receive and will make those decisions as events unfold. There is no way I can predict these things — every year is different. The answer to your question will all depend on what happens at the state level with local groups.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported recently that Mr. Rich said his “network is funded by thousands of individual donors from across the country. But that’s impossible to prove without disclosing the donor lists, something Rich refuses to do. Critics say Rich is trying to create the illusion of grass-roots support.” Please comment.

This is somewhat silly when you consider the fact that these measures were put on the ballot by millions of local citizens who exercised their right to be heard — and in November, it is the local state voters who will have the final say on these issues. Protection for homes, churches, and businesses from abuses of government power animates people from all walks of life at the local level. It also inspires local leaders and volunteers. That is why thousands of people all over the country spontaneously stood up to be counted after the Kelo decision. Right now, they are making thousands of phone calls to get the word out. They are putting out yard signs. They are attending meetings and speaking on the issue of property rights . . . it goes on and on.

Records show that ALG has donated more than $2 million this year to America At Its Best, an organization that previously had raised less than $25,000 per year since its inception. Please tell us about America At Its Best and why ALG has so strongly supported it.

We donated to them because we think that their broad agenda focused on the principles of a constitutional, limited government is highly compatible with our own philosophy. We want to do all we can to support more people in the movement to restore freedom as the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Have Charles or David Koch [the owners of Koch Industries, Inc.] been involved, financially or otherwise, in ALG [as some journalists have speculated]? If so, how?

[Tillman did not respond]

How large a staff does ALG have? How would you characterize the organization, politically?

Americans for Limited Government functions as a networking station for activists, donors, volunteers, and local leaders across the country. We have about 25 people working with us. As for political affiliation, we are nonpartisan. The movement to put voters and taxpayers back in charge on the state level — especially when it comes to protecting homes, businesses, and churches from government abuses — crosses party lines.

Did any donor to Americans for Limited Government know, at the time of the donation, that Americans for Limited Government would be making a contribution to the Protect Our Homes Coalition in California?

[Tillman did not respond]

Did Americans for Limited Government know, prior to making its donation to Montanans in Action, that Montanans in Action would be making a contribution to the Protect Our Homes Coalition in California?

[Tillman did not respond]

[Editor’s note: Tillman included these comments in his e-mail to the Center (see below).]

Finally, here’s a more interesting question that you didn’t ask me:

If these measures pass, who benefits and how? The answer is that everyone benefits, not just a chosen few in the political establishment. All property owners and communities, present and future, benefit from better protection and a more fair process. The donors to these initiatives, I can also assure you, have nothing personal to gain.

And here’s an even more interesting question: Who benefits if these measure fail? It’s quite simple. It’s the local municipalities, special interests, and political and business insiders who benefit from the status quo and like making decisions in the closed rooms of the political establishment. This crosses party lines, by the way. These measures are opposed up and down the line by government insiders, because they return decisions to the community as a whole rather than a few bureaucrats and elite political insiders. We think that is a good thing.

I wonder if you have skeptically asked about the motives of those who oppose these measures, where do they get their funding, and how do they benefit if these measures are defeated?