No accord as lawmakers, backers of ethics initiative debate at UVU

OREM — Picking up where they left off just days ago in the midst of the legislative session, a pair of Utah lawmakers went head-to-head with backers of a statewide citizens' ethics initiative Tuesday and came to the same conclusion that was reached on the Hill — ne'er the twain shall meet.

Initiative sponsors say the state is a veritable "Dodge City," a political wild West where lack of control in the areas of conduct and finance gives the most power to those with the biggest bank accounts.

Lawmakers from both parties, who passed a dozen new, ethics-focused proposals this past session, argue the initiative is poorly written, could result in a wave of negative unintended consequences and employs no oversight.

At issue Tuesday was how the Utahns for Ethical Government proposal stacks up against a package of legislation passed this year. The proposal aims to create a 20-member independent ethics commission to administer ethics complaints against lawmakers, as well as to institute new limits on campaign donations.

Legislation passed during the just-completed session includes a proposed constitutional amendment to create a five-member independent commission to screen complaints. The Legislature declined, however, to institute any caps on campaign contributions, opting instead for new electronic reporting requirements. The lack of new controls on donations leaves Utah among only five states that do not have any statutory limitations in place for political campaign spending.

Attorney and former GOP House member David Irvine was among the drafters of the proposal sponsored by Utahns for Ethical Government. Irvine and Utah County attorney and initiative supporter Caralyn Hill faced off Tuesday against Rep. Lori Fowlke, R-Orem, and Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, on the campus of Utah Valley University.

Irvine said it was a conversation with a lobbyist in spring 2009 at the state Capitol that motivated his involvement with a call for a complete re-tooling of the ethics process for lawmakers.

"This lobbyist said, 'You know, we really have a sweet deal here,' " Irvine said, " 'because we pretty much decide who's going to be elected to office. We put our money behind the candidates we want to win and they usually win. And then we put all the money behind those who we want to elect as leaders.' "

Irvine said the "influence of unregulated, unlimited, wide-open money" was the biggest ethical issue facing the state, and the Legislature's failure to address it leaves Utah residents with only his group's proposal as a solution.