Managing campaign/slush funds
Text 
No comments [ Add Comment ]It's good to be the ones making the laws. That way, you can look out for yourself and codify that favorable view into state statute.
Today's example of this sweet, self-serving reality is campaign contributions. Most Utahns probably assume campaign money donated to candidates is reserved for spending on narrowly defined items related to campaigning for office. That seems logical, doesn't it? But this is politics, and therefore logic doesn't always apply.
In fact, elected officials in state government can sit on huge, unspent sums of money -- tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars -- and take it with them when they leave office. Or, along the way, they can spend it on just about anything they choose, whether related to the campaign or not: clothes, gifts (to friends, family or themselves), travel, you name it.
Primarily, we're talking about the state's 104 part-time representatives and senators -- those politicians who can raise a lot more money than they actually need to mount a campaign.
One among them, Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, has authored Senate Bill 195, which in its original form would have limited the uses of campaign money to those things which are directly related to campaigns.
Also, it would have prohibited politicians from pocketing their campaign war chests on their way out of office; instead, they would have to pay off campaign-related debts, give the money to another campaign -- whether for local, county, state or federal office -- give it to a political party or political action committee, or donate it to a tax-exempt, nonprofit charity.
Naturally, there were skeptical lawmakers who sit on the Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee -- the body the bill had to clear if it is even to have a chance of being debated on the Senate floor. Those senators seemed especially to dislike the fact that the bill would affect sitting lawmakers, such as themselves, who might have tidy campaign accounts they'd like to spend on whatever strikes their fancy. Bell decided to pull back the bill in order to apply to all lawmakers going forward; it was, he explained, the only way to have a hope of making incremental progress on this slice of ethics reform.
Because that's what we're really talking about here: ethics. Individuals and lobbyists donate this money to politicians to help them fund campaigns.
If they're donating money for something else, that's highly inappropriate. So, if the money's intended to fund political campaigns, that's the only thing it should be used for -- they should not be able to take the basket of leftover money home with them when they leave office. Public service should be just that: service, not a profit center for those looking to build retirement nest eggs.
We'll see how far Bell's revised bill gets. Not far, is our wager. Either way it means lawmakers have been unable to turn their backs on excess cash for their personal use. Once again, our Legislature has set a low standard for public expectation.
