It doesn't matter whether the debate is taking place online in the comments accompanying a news story or in a debate at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics.

When the topic under discussion is an initiative that would reform ethics rules for the Utah Legislature, both sides throw off heat and passion.

The initiative, a 21-page handbook of behavior being put forth by a group called Utahns for Ethical Government — which includes some former lawmakers among its ranks — has opponents saying that it goes too far and pries too deeply into lawmakers' business.

The group, which hopes to gather enough signatures to put the measure to voters in the 2010 election cycle, counters most of the criticisms at Utahethics.org, where you can also read the proposal for yourself. I hope people will do precisely that.

The crux of the initiative is establishing an independent commission that would look at allegations of ethical impropriety by lawmakers and make recommendations to the Legislature as to what action should be taken against a lawmaker who seems to have committed an ethical breach. Its membership would be five people chosen at random from a pool of 20 candidates who are acceptable to both political parties, in order to make the commission a nonpartisan entity. It's an advisory body, so it won't mete out actual punishment.

The initiative also establishes rules regarding political contributions and from whom and how much a lawmaker can accept, as well as how that money can be spent. Corporations would not be allowed to donate to campaigns. Disclosure would be a must. And campaign cash would have to be used for actual campaigns or given to charity after a certain amount of time, rather than letting the candidate treat it like a personal piggy bank.

The proposal says lawmakers must wait for two years to become lobbyists once they leave office, and it beefs up disclosure of anything that might turn into a conflict of interest. Further, legislators could not serve on corporate boards if the only qualification they had for it was the fact that they are lawmakers and have clout the corporation might desire.

Some of the measure's critics have had harsh things to say about citizen initiatives in general. Critics say that once a citizen initiative is passed, it's hard to change or improve, even when doing so is important, because it can be portrayed as going against the public's will.