Comments about ‘Rechanneling gifts: Legislators shift cash donations’

Uh, "rechanneling?" Is that German? But, seriously folks, gifts are the grease that make the machine hum. Oh, and hum it does. Oh baby.

Thanks so much for this report.

I would love to write an op-ed about my appreciation for Utah via the Church of the LDS for low tobacco addiction and deaths vs. our southern protestant churches.

Fatherless by tobacco at age 11.

With compassion,
Mike Sawyer
Birmingham, Alabama

Politicians say recieving money and gifts doesn't influence them? Well let's show them it influences us and vote them out of office.

So Mr. Valentine gets all that money in an off-year cycle? The only conclusion I can reach is: Mr. Valentine must truly be someone's sweetheart. No?

Who was it that said, "We have the best legislature that money can buy"? Well, Utah certainly is not for sale: it has already been sold.

Oh how sad. How utterly sad.

Yawn. My legislator is not rich. If he didn't accept campaign contributions, he wouldn't be able to afford to run for office. I certainly don't want the wealthy to be the only people who can run for office. The "check" on all legislators is disclosure -- obviously that is working. I like my legislator, he does a great job, but I cannot figure out why he or anyone else would subject themselves to such misery . . . oh yeah, civic duty.

The system is about as corrupt as it could possibly be.

It is clearly unethical and the legislators know it. The more "gifts" they are willing to receive the more they are willing to lean toward voting for what the person giving the "gift" wants. "Gifts" will always have some strings attached. You can bet that if they don't vote for what the lobbyists want they probably won't receive the gifts the next time. Just follow the money.

Amazing that the reddest states have the most wide open laws regarding gifts. Darn near all of the big dollar legislators have an R after their names. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm This is disgusting.

The out-in-the-open gifts are just the tip of the iceberg.
We will NEVER know what our legislators have accepted under the table will we?
Until it is 100% illegal to accept one penny - the system we have will be a corrupt one.

I worked as a journalist for 21 years in Utah and other states. One of my early mentors emphasized that his reporters must "accept nothing of value" from any news contact or potential news contact. He did away with the free season tickets from ski resorts and prohibited any staff member from accepting gifts of any value from such sources.

His policies were sound and effective. Even if, as some reporters and photographers argued, "we can't be bought," the anti-payola policy kept us above reproach.

Today's excellent Deseret Morning News report emphasizes the need for Utahns to demand legislators who will likewise "avoid the appearance of evil." If that doesn't happen, the electorate is responsible to find and vote for people who will shun graft rather that embrace it.

Has anyone of you ever considered running for office? If you would like to reform this corrupt system, this would probably be the best way for you to go. I am quite sure that you could gain enough interest from friends, community, family and supporters that they would be willing to cover the expenses of running for office. So, don't worry you don't have to be wealthy, and you don't have to accept money from lobbyists, you just need enough money to solicit supporters for money. It should be easy enough. You you want to make a change---do it yourself.

The legislature should follow the lead of the executive branch in Utah and ban ALL GIFTS. Period. Why is bribery wrong in every other field except for law making?

You say: "It would be impossible to run for office without lobbyist donations because I could not, financially, compete against my Rep. who recieves those donations unless we put a cap of spending on a campaign" So, I say: "Then you would have to spend your entire campaign soliciting supporters for contributions while your 'wealthy' running mate has his own cash to spend and can get directly to the issues portion of the campaign." Then, you say: "we should make it mandatory that everyone in this state pays into a pot where all candidates draws equal amounts from." I say "socialism." So what's the best solution? We already know who the money is coming from and where it is going. Maybe we should just base our votes on that, for now, until you think of another marvelous idea.

Utah politics is a passive agressive cult. While we see 'sweetness and light' on the surface from the 'brethern' underneath we have the philosophy of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' carried to the ultimate. (See the unfriendiness toward the education establishment.) Those who are willing to 'play the game' are rewarded. (See banks, IHC and RLS soccer.)

Only when Utah voters are willing to balance our legislature with lawmakers from at least one more party besides the republicans will we see any meaningful change. That is unfortunate as I do not support national policies of many left leaning dems. Politics is a dirty and ugly business. I can understand why most honest folks do not wish to become participants.

God bless us to survive this annual circus that is the legislature.

There is an unholy marriage between our governmental and corporate behemoths that controls our airways, educates our children and runs every facet of our lives.
All we really can do is declare our personal independence and move on.

Go, go Bobby go! Don't let up, or they will think this to will pass. The press need to keep this under the lights, so the citizens of this state have an opportunity to adjust their voting patterns to make it go away.

cliff

I guess I'm just a pessimist but this will never change. They can pass the laws that allow themselves to get gifts.

Funny, the legislature put some stringent limits on state employees (who are public servants just like legislators) when it comes to this sort of thing but somehow exempted themselves. How does that make sense? I wrote my Representative and Senator about this and, as expected, neither responded. They must have been too busy having lunches with some lobbyist with money - you know, the real people they represent.

What people forget is they are assuming law-of-the-land people will monitor (or change the gift-receiving laws) of the other law-of-the-land people.
I think John Q. Public expects too much from the legal system.

The annual article that uses sensationalized headlines and stats to sell newspapers.

Reading these comments makes me wonder, "how many of these comments are by the named legislators or their families?"

They seem suspicious to me, is all.