In the final hours of its spring session, the Illinois General Assembly approved a campaign contribution limits bill that, at best, is reform in name only.

At worst, it makes an unlevel playing field even more unfair and places more power in the hands of legislative leaders.

The measure, House Bill 7, has been approved by the House and Senate and awaits Gov. Pat Quinn's signature. Quinn, who has supported ethical reforms this session, has to realize this bill is the weakest kind of reform.

The bill does limit campaign contributions from an individual to $5,000 a year. But that's the only redeeming quality.

Reform-minded organizations, including the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, lobbied against the bill in the waning hours of the session. But House Speaker Michael Madigan wanted this bill approved, and in Springfield, Madigan usually gets what Madigan wants.

One of the reasons for his power is that he controls millions of dollars in campaign funds. A loyal legislator facing a tough election campaign can expect an infusion of cash controlled by Madigan.

The bill on the governor's desk does nothing to stop this practice. In fact, the bill will make political leaders such as Madigan even more powerful because it includes no limits on in-kind contributions from one candidate's committee to another.

That means a legislative leader could use campaign funds to hire staff, pay for commercials and send direct mail on behalf of a local candidate. The bill does set a $90,000 per year limit on actual money that is transferred from one campaign to another. But no limits on in-kind contributions means there really are no limits.

Even the $90,000 limit from committee to committee is open to all kinds of shenanigans. There are no limits on how many transfers can be made from committee to committee. So a legislative leader could make 10 contributions of $90,000 to 10 candidates. Those 10 candidates could then each make a $90,000 contribution to a single candidate, in effect evading the limits.

The bill also puts the contribution limits on a calendar year instead of an election cycle. That is a clear advantage to incumbents, who will be able to receive years worth of donations while challengers will have less opportunity to raise money.

The bill also doesn't include any real enforcement of campaign committees or the increased oversight many reform groups preferred.

This clearly is reform dressed in sheep's clothing. If enacted, this bill will increase the power of legislative leaders and give incumbents another advantage in gaining re-election.

Quinn should veto this bill and send it back with a strong message that the General Assembly should do better.