Reader comments
Race tight for House seat

Wait a minute | 2:46 a.m. Sept. 28, 2008

So much for Seegmiller's claim that he is somehow more ethical than Curtis.

The democratic state party is paying for his campaign manager, but that donation does not show up? The law clearly states that if you pay somneone to work on a campaign, even as a "volunteer," you have to report it as a donation. Its already been reported in the papers. So why Seegmiller trying to hide it from us?

He identifies himself as a "legislative liason" which is just another word for "lobbyist." Why won't he openly admit he is a lobbyist, and even more importantly, why isn't he registered as a lobbyist? How can we believe he wants to tighten up ethic laws when he is openly breaking the very lobbyist laws he claims he wants to tighten up?

And finally, he criticizes Curtis for too many ties to "special interests" and yet he is bought and paid for by the unions, one of the biggest special interests in the country. He's taking 27% from that special interest alone.

So much for his self-proclaimed ethical superiority. He is just another politician who will say whatever he needs in order to dupe us.

Zadruga Guy | 4:17 a.m. Sept. 28, 2008

Greg Curtis is trying to reframe what the debate about the soccer stadium was about. He would have you think it was solely about the cost of the stadium -- if so, then his argument about the money coming from hotel taxes makes some sense although, even then, you still have the fact that hotel tax money spent to build a stadium is money no longer available for some other, more worthy, purpose.

But that is a red herring. What Curtis wants us to forget is that the county did an in-depth examination of Real's financial plans and found that they were too risky to justify spending public funds on -- the perceived risk outweighed the perceived reward. What Curtis REALLY wants us to forget is that he forced the county, via the state legislature, to agree to fund the stadium anyway.

Anonymous | 7:11 a.m. Sept. 28, 2008

Don't forget that Salt Lake County promise Real funding. Real started construction on the stadium and was several million dollars into the project when Salt Lake County reneged on the promise. If it was such a bad deal then Mayor Caroon never should have promised funding for the stadium in the first place. The Governor felt like Salt Lake County should follow through with their promise and that's what he asked the legislature to do.

Zadruga should learn the facts before spouting.

Comments continue below

JMT | 8:12 a.m. Sept. 28, 2008

Right now our nation is in a small, little financial crisis typified by Congress' inability and unwillingness to control spending.

And the best examples of service Greg Curtis can giv us the 'bacon' he brought home to Sandy?

Was he not able to brag about great legislation he sponsored? Just the money thing? Sounds like the kind of Republican that this nation kicked out in 2006.

I don't know the other guy at all. What I do know is that I'm sick and tired of Republicans who brag about how much pork they bring home. If that is all he can talk about after 14 years of being a legislator maybe he needs to be defeated.

I'm a Republican.

CorruptRepublicanWatch | 10:27 a.m. Sept. 28, 2008

If you're a volunteer on a campaign, your work doesn't have to be disclosed on campaign finance reports.

If you lobby the legislature as a volunteer, you do not need to register as a lobbyist.

Amazing how Curtis is selling his district on riding free and living large at the new stadium on the backs of others.

Critical work? | 5:46 p.m. Sept. 28, 2008

I love how a politician's work becomes critical when they face defeat in an election. Apparently, many voters don't see Curtis' work as being too critical.

Please | 8:26 p.m. Sept. 28, 2008

we need new blood in the state legislature! Speaker Curtis has been a huge disappointment.

4 wait a minute | 2:40 a.m. Sept. 29, 2008

If I am not mistaken Mr. Seegmiller works for Amtrak which is federal, in fact, the railroad industry is federally regulated and Amtrak is federally funded. Mr. Seegmiller would have no reason to lobby the Utah State Legislature.

Now let's seeï¿½ Mr. Seegmiller is taking money from labor, this is working people who want safe working conditions and a living wage, Mr. Curtis takes money from Pharmaceutical Companies, Insurance Companies, Energy solutions, 10K form Parents for Choice (no wonder he voted for vouchers when his district was against it 2 to 1), 5K from Utah Soccer/Stadium (sounds like a kickback), 5K from Walmart. Who is the better choice?

Seegmiller is best choice | 2:44 a.m. Sept. 29, 2008

Mr. Seegmiller will fight for changes that will limit campaign contributions and gifts (letï¿½s call it what it really isï¿½ bribery) in state politics. I havenï¿½t seen Curtis fighting for this in all his 14 years on the hill.

Letï¿½s see what Curtis does with the money he has raised and hasnï¿½t spent, when Seegmiller beats him. Will it vanish? Under current state law no one will know what happens to it.

Seegmiller wants to change that too.

No one believed Seegmiller would have a chance at beating Curtis, myself included. I now believe that he will win. Few believe he can get the changes he wants, but I am beginning to believe he will do that too. Become a believer with me and join me in voting for Seegmiller on November 4th.

New Voter | 3:50 p.m. Sept. 29, 2008

After the financial disaster at the national level and the attempt to bail out those responsible for the fiasco, I have lost total confidence in either party. Wayne Crawford of the Constitution Party will receive my vote. I am just grateful I will not have to throw away my vote to the lesser or two politicians this year.

sandyvoter | 5:03 p.m. Sept. 29, 2008

Greg Curtis is one of the dirtiest of the dirty. He tops the list of people receiving lobbyist perks. He stands for good old mormon boy politics at it's worst. You would have gotten a clue after his slim margin of victory last time, but you'd be wrong. We all need to get out and vote for Seegmiller and not waste our vote on some 3rd party candidate. Does anyone remember Ross Perrot?????

4 4 Wait a Minute | 12:46 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

Pay attention to the article, Seegmiller himself says that he is a "legislative liason" for the union, which is a euphemism for union lobbyist.

He is a union member lobbying the Utah legislature, even if he works for Amtrack.

The only reason he is interested in increasing funding for transportation is because it will let him take money out of your pocket and mine and put it in the pockets of his union buddies.

He is not being altruistic, he is serving his special interest.

He is a walking, talking conflict of interest, but too many fools in our district don't even realize it because they can't read a simple newspaper article, or a candidate's own material, and understand what he really is and what his real agenda is.

Primarily because they don't understand anything about politics. But their ignorance sure doesn't stop them from having adamant opinions.

Even really naive opinions that Seegmiller would be able to accomplish something in the legislature. He will be a nobody doing nothing.

Even if you don't necessarily agree with everything Curtis does, and I don't, it is more than Seegmiller would ever be able to do as a democrat.

2 CorruptRepublicanWatch | 12:55 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

You are only correct that volunteer work need not be reported if a person is truly "volunteering."

But if someone is paying you to "volunteeer," (as the Democratic party is in Seegmiller's case) that entity must report that it is paying for you to "volunteer" or it is breaking the very same campaign disclosure laws that Seegmiller wants to make tougher.

If Seegmiller does not know this, then he is either a fool or a shill for the Democratic party.

If he does know this, then he is being knowingly dishonest and unethical in accepting an unreported benefit from a lobbying entity. The very thing he is accusing others of doing.

He is either a hypocrite or a fool. Either way, he is not fit for office.

cap1 | 6:48 a.m. Oct. 26, 2008

Hmmm, Greg's years on the hill equals ZERO ethics reform, supporting education by the rich for the rich (under the disguise of school voucher "scholarships") and gas-gate. It's time for this "good old boy" to go.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.