Reader comments
Huntsman names his PAC donors

It looks like the Dnew's crack Calculator Reporters are at it again. I get soooo breathless everytime Davidson and Bernick team up for such brilliant copyrighted news. Wow, you guys can add!!! Just watch out, some day the Trib will get ahold of an equally effective calculator. Oh gee, and we'll get to learn for the 7 hundreth time that lobbyists and CEOs give money to politicians.

Who says our politicians aren't bought? Follow the money, follow the paybacks. Campaign fund accounts and PAC accounts should be abolished after every election and any remaing funds turned over to the state, county, or city that the candidates office they are running for. After all, it bleongs to the office the candidates are running for and he owes his soul to the people, not CEO's. Then these accounts should only be reestablished 3 months before an election and limit the accumulated maximum that can be in an account during its lifespan of an election. Running for public office needs more than reform, it needs laws, restrictions, and controls.

The news here is that Mr. Ethics (Huntsman) utilized a loophole to hide his pre-convention fund raising.

This data also provides a service; it actually translates the unintelligible campaign finance disclosures into easily digestible data. Go and try to read a disclosure report sometime. By making this data accessible it at least creates a modicum of accountability that would otherwise be missing.

Some of us like to know who is buying our 'public' representatives; OK Dumb?

Too much Bernick and Davidson. Too little news and information.

Doesn't sound like a loophole. It sounds like how the financial reporting was designed.

Huntsman, being the consummate politician, used it accordingly. Why would we expect otherwise?

Typical Huntsman

But why the loophole? For what purpose does the law allow such an exception to the general rule requiring reporting and limits on amounts donated? This is a real travesty of justice, one that should not go unnoticed. So, my thanks to the newspaper and its reporters for this valuable information. Otherwise, I would not have known.

Comeon why are we surprised. Huntsman is as dirty as any other politician. Just because he is popular everyone buys into what he says. Utah is just a droppping off point for him. He has bigger and better things in mind. He will probably succeed. With that kind of money behind him, he will pull it off.

Your report on contributions to Bob Springmeyer's campaign was thousands of dollars off. Please correct your erroneous reporting.

To Robert "Why the loophole?"

Don't think for a minute that the politicians who wrote the law didn't know about this "loophole". Isn't it obvious that politicians' number one goal is to be elected or reelected? Politicians have designed the election laws to favor themselves. If you doubt this, just look at the mess they've made of the campaign "reform" process. Once in office they buy off their constituents with so-called tax rebates, welfare checks, porkbarrel spending ("earmarks"), etc., so that they can get reelected.

I know little about Gov. Huntsman, but what I have read about him in Michigan indicates he is a good man. In this present case, he has done nothing illegal or dirty. He is just doing what the laws allow.

One thing they failed to report is that Huntsman received zero dollars from other PACs and refuses any such donations. Anybody familiar with campaign financing knows that big money donations don't come from individuals, lobbyists, CEO's etc, but rather from their PACs.

I admire Huntsman for revealing his PAC contributions three months early.

Robert, this is not news. Anyone can go to the Lt Gov's website for this information. It's all public information.

When you see that Huntsman takes so much from his own PAC, you don't need to know where the PAC money came from, rather you just need to see that he has money which isn't adequately disclosed. That is sufficient to make your informed decision, specifically whether he favors transparency in government or not.

How many of the state delegates attending the convention on Saturday will bother to find out who is donating to which campaign? Most of the delegates focus on specific issues when they decide who to vote for--and this isn't one of those issues. I would be concerned if a connection could be drawn between a campaign donation and favoritism shown by the governor towards the one who donated.

Craig:

Why do you think they donate of they don't expect a favor? Of course there is favoritism...at all levels of government. It isn't illegal, some will even argue that it's ethical. Regardless, it's the system, and the people are the only ones who can change it. Look at the number of eligible voters who participate in the political process, let alone vote. We deserve what we get.

By the way, I'll bet a drink of your choice that the posts castigating the D News for this story came from the governor's office or campaign. Thanks to Bernick and Davidson for bringing it to light.

To Craig: "I would be concerned if a connection could be drawn between a campaign donation and favoritism shown by the governor towards the one who donated."

Most people vote for (and in some cases even contribute money to) the candidate whose views they support on a diverse range of issues (abortion, taxes, military, welfare, etc.) This could be construed as "favoritism". While the donor may benefit from certain political actions, they generally are broad enough that the entire population is effected. What evokes concern is when the donor reaps a specific benefit, such as a contract, or is the recipient of a so-called earmark. A lot of wasted money might be saved if all such benefits or earmarks were made public and the politicians could be shamed into foregoing the practice. Unfortunately, many politicians have already demonstrated nothing can shame them.

I told Chuck Smith that I doubted he was capable of running the state, but that would vote for him anyway as a protest vote. In my opinion Huntsman is the worst governor we have had in my memory. I must be missing something since he seems so popular.

We "hate" Curtis because he stands for something. We "love" Huntsman because he stands for nothing. Popularity is often of measure of not taking a stand and therefore not making an enemy.

As they say in politics: "friends come and go, but enemies accumulate."

I'll try again, because my comments rarely seem to make it past the censors. Jonny Huntsman Jr. has done anything of consequence in his life. Had he not been born to someone who has accomplished many good things I'm not sure that he would even have a job. Many people in Utah seem to think that because his name is the same as his father, that he must be accomplished. We have our own deadbeats in New York, but I would expect better from the citizens of Utah.Everything that he has done is because of his father. Jonny Jr., please find a job that neither the state, the federal government or your father doesn't have to support you. McCain will probably have something that you could do, but then again you remain on the government dole. Jonny Jr. needs to grow up and do something on his own,

Yes, the DNews censors are some of the tightest around.

Really? Top Fold?

For all those complaining, the Governor did disclose at the request of the media. That's about all you can ask for. I sincerely doubt, knowing the Governor, that he would ever try to hide donations. Huntsman is many things: Scheming politician is simply not one of them.

He's not been perfect from my perspective, but I do believe he's the best candidate this year, and was in 2004. The state is in great shape: Let's re-elect the Governor.