From political contributions to baby-sitting expenses, almost all of the legislators spent some of their campaign money on items that may not directly relate to running for office.

That is according to Common Cause of Utah, an open-government advocacy group that compiled a report of "questionable" expenditures by legislators from the 2002 and 2004 campaigns. All told, only two legislators — Rep. Kerry Gibson, R-Ogden, and Rep. Roger Barrus, R-Centerville — did not spend any money on such expenditures.

The group broke down the "questionable" expenditures into seven categories that potentially were not connected to the campaign. Those included political contributions, food purchases not for campaign events, personal items, travel, gifts and payments to relatives.

"We are not saying these are not legitimate expenditures — all of them may very well be legitimate," said Luke Peterson, the director of Utah Students for Clean Elections, who compiled the report for Common Cause. "But at least one other state has found a problem with these types of expenditures" and prohibited them.

They also included an "other" category intended to capture those expenses that were not detailed — an often large portion of campaign expenses, and a category that demonstrates the biggest failing of Utah's campaign expense law: "a lack of clarity," Peterson said.

"When I look at a person's campaign report, I want to know how the contributions are being used," he said. "But the forms don't provide a clear picture, and as long as the expenses are not spelled out, there will be a lingering doubt."

In an attempt to solve part of the problem, Sen. Karen Hale, D-Salt Lake, is running SB73, which would prohibit personal use of campaign funds. Instead, the money that was not used to run a campaign or that was raised by an elected official who decided not to run would have to be donated or placed in an escrow account for use on a later campaign.

Under current Utah law, there are no restrictions on the use of campaign funds. And when a campaign account is closed, the money can be pocketed by the candidate.

"This allows any expense that is reasonably related to their duties as an office holder," Hale said. "But anything that cannot be tied to their job as an office holder should not be allowed."

The bill also would institute a $1,000 penalty for anyone using campaign funds illegally. While it does not have much of a chance — Hale admitted it is a "perennial bill" that didn't even get heard in committee last year — Anthony Musci, chairman of the board for Common Cause, said it would be a strong statement.

"It's not likely that there are widespread abuses, or anything that would run afoul of the law," he said. "At a basic level, there should some common-sense rules about what campaign funds should be spent on."

---

E-mail: jloftin@desnews.com