Reader comments
The fight for ethics reform

This was a meaningless media stunt that the DNews took hook, line, and sinker. They could have pledged individual ethical behavior, but instead pledged to run a bill about some mostly meaningless items -- it's OK for us to take gifts as long as we say what they are.

You can see the hypocrisy when the self-righteous Pat Jones preaches a complete ban on gifts and then gets busted for taking concert tickets from lobbyists.

I have no problem with my representative having lunch with a lobbyest, however I don't want that lobbyest paying for lunch or giving any other favors.

If that happens then the common folk have to compete for "access". Money or gifts should not buy access.

Assess should be either equal to all, or where there is an important cause that needs more access, that cause should get the increased access because it is important, not because of gifts.

If I had my way, there would be no campaign contributions. The state would provide a web site for all canidates, local media, would provide a forum if they choose to. This way a canidate is beholden only to the common good and what ever biases they broght in, but nothing additional beyong that.

It would be good if gifts were banned period, then if the legislators were given an additional allowance to make up for this.

Regular people should not have to compete for attention with lobbiests who are willing to give gifts.

Ideally the common good should be the only motivation of a legislator.

Every individual legislator I have talked to about this has said that gifts doesn't make a difference how they vote. It may be true for some, or at least they believe it is true, but I doubt is true for all. I believe gifts do make a difference just as advertising does.

I would much prefer that the legislators motives remain as pure as possible and that access to people not able or willing to give a gift does not get crowded out by lobbiests who do give gifts.

Why didn't the D-News point out that Utahns for Public Schools is just a front group for the UEA?

I am not sure why the Editorial Board thinks unethical behavior only benefits the majority - HUH?Funny, it was the dems last session who flipped flopped on a vote because a powerful special interest group threatened to pull campaign contributions. Of course, the editorial board would know that if they actually talked to people to find out what really goes on rather than having others, like Utahns for Public Schools, think for them. You can't legislate ethical behavior. New York has some of the strictest rules in place for legislators and they still have huge ethical problems. It's about the people we as citizens elect.

The ethics Utahns for Public Schools lobby is certainly a good place to start in the quest for ethic reforms. They certainly don't represent me, they certainly have a huge war chest left over from their last fight.

Isn't it more accurate and less inflamitory to describe these "gifts" for what they are: meals. 90% of the money spent on legislators is on meals. Is a meal really a gift?

Words should mean something to a newspaper. Why not just be more accurate. Maybe your shabby reputation among those in the know would improve.

I must not know the right legislators. I have had several refuse to even let me pick up their lunch tab. I think the voters need to find out who those are that take these benefits and do something about it at the convention or primary. Just picking a democrat won't do any good.

We need to send all those in the GOP Leadership packing this fall. They have been bought and paid for with special interest monies. The Speaker of the House has over $500,000 dollars in his campaign fund. This money has come from the nuclear waste, alcohol and tobacco interests, and developers, HMO's, and trial lawyers. There is no way he can represent the voters in his District. The voters in Utah need to send a strong message that we want Ethics Reform and we want it now. This message needs to be sent loud and strong by voting for Democrats this fall!!!