Deseret News | Time for lawmakers to get themselves ethics

Reader comments
John Florez: Time for lawmakers to get themselves ethics

Ban Gifts | 7:18 a.m. March 3, 2008

I've heard lawmakers say on more than one occasion that gifts do not influence votes, they merely buy access. Well it is wrong to give access based upon the ability to give a gift. Access should be upon merit of the cause, with equal opportunity for all to have access. Also gift giving to lawmakers pays so well for those who give, it is doubtful that gift giving doesn't influence votes anyway.

Gift giving, should be banned.

Anonymous | 8:09 a.m. March 3, 2008

Ethics in government?
Where have YOU been?
This is the 21st Century.
There are no more statesmen.
Only business people.

Compassion | 8:37 a.m. March 3, 2008

John, you need to have compassion for these legislators. There are families involved here. They're just trying to get ahead without committing any crime.

Compassion should always trump ethics.

Comments continue below

Organized Banditry | 8:53 a.m. March 3, 2008

If the State gives the largest gift to legislators, in terms of a salary, then the State will be getting the largest legislative benefits in return.

Ever wonder why so many state government department heads crowd the Capitol's halls and committee hearing rooms?

Anonymous | 11:23 a.m. March 3, 2008

Until it is against the law to accept anything. ANYTHING. The system we have in place will be a corrupt one.

Anonymous | 1:08 p.m. March 3, 2008

The sad truth is that Utah legislators do not care if they get caught. They can do anything they want with impunity as long as they belong to the right party.

re Compassion | 8:37 a.m. | 1:05 p.m. March 3, 2008

Legislators are from the middle of the economic scale to the well to do. If compassion is warranted there are government and church programs to help them.

Gifts shouldn't be allowed. It dilutes representation for the rest of us.

So far as campaign contributions, this should be done anonymously, so there can be no favors.

How about $30,975? | 1:25 p.m. March 3, 2008

I take issue with "if compassion is warranted there are government and church programs to help them." I have a problem with people wanting to pass off the responsibility to care for the needy to Churches and charities. If a legislator who get a $12,000 check at the beginning of the 45 day legislative session needs "compassion" than the state should increase their salary so that they can represent us without having to take money from lobbyists, Churches or government programs. Our legislators should be beholden to no one except for the people and that includes Churches, government and lobbyists.

I think that state legislators should receive an annual salary, and be provided with a staff to assist them in representing their district so that they can focus on earning an income for their families. I also think that the salary of a state legislator should be set at 150% of the poverty level. This means the following salaries should exist for legislators by family size:

1 - $15,315
2 - $20,535
3 - $25,755
4 - $30,975
5 - $36,195
6 - $41,415
7 - $46,635
8 - $51,855

If we pay legislators well it won't be a hobby.

Reason | 2:57 p.m. March 3, 2008

This seems like a milder repeat of John Florezï¿½s column last week, where he went off the deep end about Senator Buttars. In last weekï¿½s column he called Buttarsï¿½ comment a civil rights violation; now heï¿½s calling it an ethics violation. It was neither. It was a foolishly worded remark made during a lively debate about a bill. To Florez and the teacher: Please turn down the sensitivity adjustment on your racism meters. Calm down a bit, and teach others to not be so sensitive to words that might appear racial. Your overreactions trivialize the injustice of REAL racism.

To Reason | 3:54 p.m. March 3, 2008

My mother just came back from a mission to Tanzania. She showed us pictures of the children there. They are incredibly cute. I would like to see you step up to the parents of those children and repeat Buttars's remarks, and then tell them not to be so sensitive. It might be interesting to watch.

Turn down your meter on our reac | 5:09 p.m. March 3, 2008

Reason, "This seems like a milder repeat of John Florez's colum last week, where he went off the deep end about Senator Buttars." The reaction is going off the deep end while the comment was "a foolishly worded remark made during a lively debate about a bill."

But of course black people and their children are simply to sit there in the gallery as Mr. Buttars, also known as Chris by the "ordinary people" whom he associates with, makes a "foolishly worded remark" that implies that black babies are dark and ugly. Then you have the audacity to tell others to "turn down the sensitivity adjustment on your racism meters" and imply that they are wrong to be offended and that you and this guy "Chris" have the right to make racist comments on the floor of the Senate while they are wrong to object off of the floor of the Senate.

That this guy Chris who none of us knows has the right to insult people without consequence while idiots who over-react to our condemnations get to turn up their sensitivity meters over our reactions. Why don't go cry about how unfair it is for us to condemn him.

Anonymous | 5:13 p.m. March 3, 2008

It is no secret that Utah is known for its racist history.
This sort of thing merely perpetuates the observation of a backwards, backwoods people.

Yes Masters, I won't be offended | 5:16 p.m. March 3, 2008

To "To Reason" (3:54 p.m.): I would like to see you step up to the parents of those children and repeat Buttar's remarks, and then tell them not to be so sensitive. It might be interesting to watch." Of course, if they react poorly, he would blame them and tell them to "turn down the sensitivity adjustment on [their] racism meters."

It's seems to be okay for Chris and those like him to make racist comments during a debate on the floor of the Senate but it's wrong for everyone who is condemning him to comment about what he said. It is an over-reaction to be upset about the comments even though no black person would want their children to hear a member of our legislature imply that their little brothers and sisters are "dark" and "ugly." They are simply to brush it off and to sit there as Chris gets to insult them and then vote on laws that affect them. They are supposed to have faith in our democracy when a racist can insult them without any consequences and then continue to vote on laws that affect them while they are to sit at home without offense.

drake | 5:17 p.m. March 3, 2008

I don't care if gifts influence votes. Why do they need the gifts in the first place?

Anonymous | 6:08 p.m. March 3, 2008

Today's lawmakers feel they have a God-given right to do whatever they want in master-slave system.
Hey, the founding fathers had slaves, didn't they?

No Incumbents!! | 7:41 p.m. March 3, 2008

Vote out these self serving buffoons. Either they are corrupt or they are ineffective in fighting the corrupt ones. Join the movement and vote out all incumbents!!

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.