Deseret News | Retiring politicos can leave with cash

Reader comments
Retiring politicos can leave with cash

Are you ready for this? | 1:54 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

Perhaps you will want to not read this comment.

The title of the aritlce is "Retiring politicos can leave with cash."

How about our two U.S. Senators.

What happens to their campaign and political action committee accounts when they retire or die?

Perhaps I am wrong but I believe it is the same. Are you happy?

Bob G | 3:50 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

Haven't all these legislators received tax funded campaign funds? Shouldn't all these unused funds be returned to the state campaign funds office? The unknown amounts should be disclosed before cashing them in, its public funding and the public has a right to know. Disclosing this account will also disclose how much our (honest?) public employees have been bribed over the years. Giving a pittance to charity is a front to take public pressure off the issue as they rake in the many millions of undisclosed amounts. These accounts is where our elected officials are hiding their wealth gained by dishonest actions while in office. Lifer politicians are not good for a democracy and perpetuates greed and bribery for decades of corruption in public representation.

WOW | 5:21 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

Aren't there federal laws to prevent Utah elected officials from using their campaign money personally?

Comments continue below

samhill | 6:38 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

It would seem most fair to require that the excess cash either be donated to the party to which the person belongs, or to the state/county/city/etc. to which the office is part (governor, AG, mayor, etc.).

Leaving it to the discretion of the person is just too prone to abuse.

Albert Johnson | 6:58 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

Once again, the Deseret News is advocating for campaign finance reforms rather than just reporting the news. Note to Joe Cannon: we already have the SL Tribune filling the leftist advocacy role. Find a reason for existence before the DNews is totally irrelevant (its very close).

Utah Citizen | 7:22 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

These despots disgust me to no end. We demand reform!

Milo P Otis | 7:25 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

This is money donated for the purpose of a campaign by contributors. I doubt that they would want to see the defeated or retired candidates keep the money but rather give it to their party or candidate of their choice. It could also be given to charity ï¿½ what kind of tax deduction would that make if given in the candidates name? ï¿½ just donï¿½t go over the I.R.S. threshold.

If kept, it needs to be treated as income and taxed accordingly.

Grant M. | 7:49 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

Good article. With new leadership in both the House and Senate, now is probably the best time for many years to have real ethics reform. Dave Clark, the new speaker of the House, has stated that ethics reform is a top priority. Let's all support him in this task. And let's remember those who oppose menaingful reform and vote accordingly wlhen they come up for relection. For two years I tried to get a "non-binding" resolution presented and voted upon in the State GOP convwention. Both times I failed and was not even given a chance to present it, let alone vote on it. I am thrilled with how things are changing.
Grant Misbach

Just Plain Wrong | 9:09 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

How is this legal? Any money that remains in campaign coffers should be transferred to the party coffers. It shouldn't be allowed to be transferred to fellow politicians--that could certainly motivate some less than honest back door deals. It goes to the party, a pre-approved charity, or a local school district.

Why Reform? | 9:13 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

The U.S. Congress changed the law years ago allowing themselves to take their campaign money with them when they retired or were voted out. It was simply a matter of ethics and appearances, neither of which the Utah Legislature cares much about. Evidently in Utah, exampled by the propensity for corruption via money, from mortgage fraud to legislative practices, we don't care much. Utahans are quick to judge Democrats as corrupt and immoral. Now, let's see, which party is most represented here?

Further, Utah is seen by outsiders as a State with a controversial religion and a State where money schemes run rampant. The practices of our legislature doesn't do much to help our image. Perhaps outsiders are not far off in their views.

TED | 9:13 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

AFTER READING THIS STORY, HOW CAN ANYONE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT? IF IT'S NOT VOTING THEMSELVES THESE TYPES OF GIFTS OR GETTING PAID TO DO SOMEONE A FAVOR,NOW THERE STEALING MONEY FROM THOSE THAT TRUSTED IN THEM ENOUGH TO DONATE MONEY. WHAT DIRECTION DO YOU THINK CONSUMER COINFIDENCE GOING?

DR Don | 10:03 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

"Haven't all these legislators received tax funded campaign funds?"
No.
"Aren't there federal laws to prevent Utah elected officials from using their campaign money personally?"
No.
"These despots disgust me to no end. We demand reform!"
You, Utah Citizen, need to do something other than whine on a comment board if you want change!

You had your chance | 10:30 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

If the voters of Utah would ever vote in a third party candidate who understands this problem and has vowed to remedy it, the problem would be gone. There was just such a candidate this year and you missed your chance.

Matt Connelly | 11:04 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

Money raised for the purpose of public service should not be given to the candidate to do "whatever he or she wants." These are special funds raised by private citizens for the purposes of the public good. They should be given to the state or political party for purposes of taxpayer relief, re-election, or any other effort for the public good. Or perhaps it is better that they be returned to the original donor. Under no circumstances whatsoever should the candidate be able to keep the funds for private use.

If I recall. . . | 11:22 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

In a previous article it stated that the new Speaker was changing this practice. Also, if the candidates have declared their contributions as income and paid taxes on it by the end of this year there is no way to criminalize such activity in the next year's session. It is known as Ex Post Facto and it is prohibited. If they still have campaign cash that they havenï¿½t claimed, then such cash will be disallowed for personal use.

SEVERANCE | 11:37 a.m. Nov. 15, 2008

A local business closed down the other day. They just told the employees they had no jobs.

Another man who had worked for a different company for 15 years was told he no longer had a job. The issue of a SEVERANCE PACKAGE was moot. The company was out of money.

Now I read the "pillars" of society have arranged a nice severance package for themselves. Should they take advantage of this "LOOPHOLE"? Will they take advantage of this "LOOPHOLE"? I don't know what they will do, but the whole thing makes me want to BARF!

Not by accident | 1:20 p.m. Nov. 15, 2008

I think the current system works exactly as it was designed to do. You have special interest groups that want favors from those in power but know they can't just bribe the official outright. The official wants something in return for the favor granted, so here is the "legal" solution. Allow special interests to donate to the "campaign fund" and let the official keep anything they don't use. Cash transfered, favor granted, no "bribe" reported in the newspaper. Mission accomplished.

Anonymous | 3:51 p.m. Nov. 15, 2008

This story is pointless. You are using numbers that were reported before the election. Much of this money was used at the end of the campaign and the numbers will be significantly less. I'm so tired of reporters telling stories using half-truths (lies) in order to make politicians look bad. How about ethics reform for journalists too?!?!

Yeah for Anonymous above! | 9:53 p.m. Nov. 15, 2008

"The rest of the story" is yet to be told.

Frankly, the only people who should have a say in what the candidates do with any surplus is the PEOPLE WHO DONATED THE MONEY!

If you don't like wht they do (or don't do) with YOUR contribution, then DON'T CONTRIBUTE!

Everyone else should forget about this and take a look at what is being done with our TAX dollars, both here and in Washington (especially Washington)!

What the candidates do with the leftover campaign contributions will tell you a lot about them, unfortunately too late to be much use. Applaud those who give it to charity, or their party, or other candidates. Criticize those who squander it wastefully. But, it is legally and morally THEIR CHOICE.

Please ask again after final reports are done.

Ethically challenged | 10:14 p.m. Nov. 15, 2008

We need to remove the temptation and restrict how these funds can be used.

Unfortunately, our political leaders are too weak to be ethical when it comes to bribes, I mean contributions.

(I know they are the ones that decide how the state spends money)

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.