Generally a good article. But Kelly Patterson of BYU doesn't make much sense. He says that the reports don't tell you who is trying to influence the legislature, but the irony is that is exactly what the reports tell you.

Maybe not much else, but they do tell you who is trying to influence the legislature. Each lobbyist's name is listed and how much they spend and how often they spend.

What we don't know is which legislators are being lobbied, but then the answer is simple: the important ones. If you legislator isn't getting lobbied, you probably don't have a very good one.

To Shelly:

Actually, if your legislator isn't getting lobbied, and accepting the "gifts" they supply... (oh, why sugarcoat it - a bribe by any other name is still a bribe).... it wouldn't mean they're no good. It'd mean they're honest. And looking out for OUR interests, rather than those of the corporate hogs.

Only in Utah would someone try to defend this blatant corruption by trying to spin influence-peddling as a sign of importance.

Being offered a bribe may be a sign that someone thinks you're important, but taking it makes you a crook. Maybe not by the letter of the law, but then again, in Utah, the crooks on the take write those laws.

Is it any wonder we don't have more disclosure? I'm amazed we have what little we do.

Only the ignorant will call a meal a bribe. A bribe is a quid pro quo. Show me one case where a legislator actually traded a lunch for a vote and I'll buy you lunch.

The reality is that our legislature is part time. Many have full time jobs, so the only time they can meet is before work, lunchtime and after work. Mornings are often inconvenient, after hours belong to the family, so lunch makes the most sense.

You cannot expect as a simple matter of manners to ask someone to lunch and then expect them to pay.

So lighten up people. Its not a bribe, its a lunch.