Deseret News | Unholy alliance

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Unholy alliance

Anonymous | 7:06 a.m. July 9, 2009

I have to agree. And this goes for campaign contributions. I remember Jake Garn saying that contributions did not affect his decisions or give access. I thought he was full of it then, and I still think that. We need major campaign finance reform to take out any influence but the will of the people. Maybe mandatory public financing is finally in order, which would not only reduce contributor influence, but level the playing field. The status quo has arguments to make no change, but the status quo is the problem. If you don't like this idea, provide some other ideas that will fix this problem.

Anonymous | 7:22 a.m. July 9, 2009

Dennis, I think we have finally found common ground.
We have to reform the corruption of the election and lawmaking process.
Its not difficult to reform the process but there will obstruction of any change by those in power. If you love our country, put aside party politics and work to elect those who will support this change.

Anonymous | 8:30 a.m. July 9, 2009

I agree. If you are going to be one issue voters, at least make this the issue.

Comments continue below

what ethics? | 9:05 a.m. July 9, 2009

I recall my attendance at a City Council Meeting in Salt Lake City.
One of the elected officials admitted that he had accepted many gifts and cash from a lobbyist and declared:
"Sure I took the money - but that doesn't mean that it influenced my decisions in any way!"
I could have puked.

It was then that I realized how corrupt the system really is.

Anonymous | 9:13 a.m. July 9, 2009

Well, I'd like to tell you all that money spent on the pols is considered freedom of speech and that even if you could get enough lawmakers to pass such laws they would not stand a Supreme Court test. Such a dictate would require an amendment, which isn't likely either, but since the editors here routinely ignore my soapbox rants and selectively choose which opinions they want heard you most likely won't be enlightened on this issue, either. If I had lots of money I'd buy this rag and then I'd get to choose which opinions are worthy. Money talks, so the saying goes.

Roland Kayser | 9:29 a.m. July 9, 2009

How about a law that states that you can only contribute to candidates for whom you are actually eligible to vote? My congressman should represent me and the other people in my district, not Wall Street financiers.

Let them take the money | 11:07 a.m. July 9, 2009

And after office holders have the money, just make it illegal to use for personal use, and then when they leave office, the money will have to go towards a fund to elect third party candidates. That is one way to bring some balance into the scene.

Dream #1 | 12:13 p.m. July 9, 2009

Let us dream our way out of this nightmare.

In our dream we have somehow elected a Congress dedicated to the reestablishment of democracy in America. The Supreme Court is no longer the powerful political body of the nation. It has, as was intended, become a judicial body devoted to securing the rights of the people under the Constitution. Given this dream, we might propose the first and most vital piece of legislation: New laws would make it a felony for any person, firm, or corporation, to pay any sum or to provide anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any candidate seeking or holding public office, and at the same time, it would be a felony for any person seeking or holding public office to accept any money or thing of value from any person or thing whatsoever. Contributions to political parties would also be outlawed. Soft money would be but a memory of putrid things past.

Dream #1 (continued) | 12:30 p.m. July 9, 2009

Since campaigning for publi office entails certain minimum expenses in order for the candidate to get his message across fairly, and to ensure that the above laws would not prohibit all but the rich from seeking office, the amount that each candidate could expend in a given campaign, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF THE MONEYS, would be set by law. The people themselves would provide the moneys, for when should we ever ask our citizens to run for office, to contribute their lives to our freedom, and not pay for it?

Hypocrisy | 1:31 p.m. July 9, 2009

Gee what a surprise.

Utah leaders are just as corrupt as any other state.

We need another law? | 4:37 p.m. July 9, 2009

If you need yet another LAW to act with integrity, you have no business being in politics. Problem is... people keep voting for crooks just because they are from their party and they are powerfull, or they keep bringing home the "Bacon".

We don't need another law to force politicians to act with integrity. If you are only ethical IF it's the law... you are not my kind of leader.

What we need is voters who work harder to stay informed on what their leaders are doing, get informed on your elected leader's lack of ethics, get PROOF that the accusations are true or not, then WE THE PEOPLE can decide to remove these crooks!

re: We need another law | 5:18 p.m. July 9, 2009

I think this guy is expecting lawyers to police their fellow lawyers.

Never gonna happen.

Naive | 5:35 p.m. July 9, 2009

"We don't need another law to force politicians to act with integrity" says the 4:37 poster.

So, are we to assume politicians will act with integrity all on their own?

LOL!

Giving to the wealthy | 6:59 p.m. July 9, 2009

An ancient proverb states: he that giveth to the rich shall surely come to want. (Proverbs 22:16)

I have preserved my own resources, not contributing to propaganda wars between people who ar, typically, richer than myself. I feel more than justified when I hear of the large "war chests" of certain politicians and learn that surpluses are sometimes taken legally from these funds by candidates and used for their own private use.

Personally I already have enough junk mail that I do not feel impressed with the expensive blanketing of neighborhoods, cities, towns, hamlets and villages with usually mindless glossy brochures in a propaganda war / popularity contest in which the better, unofficial, candidates often cannot afford to participate equally.

Perhaps TV stations could donate "time" to political discussions between all candidates in elections with all other donations forbidden.

Perhaps a single page statement of the goals, specific promises, etc of each candidate could be available at libraries, post offices etc for scrutiny. These could be cheaply produced on plain paper. All candidates could present themselves for taking questions and giving answers, strictly and fairly moderated, at some public venue at convenient times for the electorate.

Anonymous | 7:19 p.m. July 9, 2009

An alliance between corporate and governmental powers is defined as fascism.

"For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

"Perhaps TV stations could donate "time" to political discussions between all candidates in elections with all other donations forbidden."

In America, the public owns the air waves. They have just been stolen from us by corporate greed and media consolidation.

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.