Comments about ‘GOP leaders OK contribution limits’

Everyone knows that incumbents have a tremendous advantage on election day. One major reason is money.

$50,000 contributions to Governor Herbert is only possible because political donors and corporations know that the incumbent will probably win. So they donate to gain influence. The tremendous fundraising abilities of incumbents, not just Gov. Herbert, makes it extremely difficult for challengers to campaign and have a chance to win.

But a healthy democracy requires honesty, transparency, and TURNOVER. Entrenched politicians serve "because they can serve in ways that others cannot". At least that is what they will tell you. Do we really believe that there is nobody else able to perform these duties? We have a Senator that has served longer than some European kings! I thought we fought a war and created a new form of government to get away from that type of rule and power and incumbency!

Ethics reform is needed so badly. A cap should only be the beginning. How about term limits. How about independent commissions, more transparency...there is so much more that needs to happen in our state to make the legislature really listen to the people they serve.

So restricting campaign contributions is going to help ensure greater ethics and give Utahns more confidence in their government. Puhleeez. If you want me to have more confidence in government, then stop pushing laws like this one that restrict citizens (yes, that includes rich ones... not like me) in what they can do with their own money. This sort of legislation shouts that politicians are more interested in so-called "fairness" than in freedom, as if fairness were just as legitimate a premise as freedom. Cannot even Utah find a politician who'll hold freedom as their governing premise even with politically hot issues like campaign financing? Don't tell me this is to fight "purchased legislation". Fight that evil by instilling freedom as the premise for all legislation in the first place. Two wrongs (purchased legislation and contributions restrictions) won't make a right.

Freedom is exercised through the vote. Restricting campaign contributions does not restrict speech. So much is made of the notion that free speech is restricted when campaign contributions are restricted. Not so!

Capping campaign contributions simply levels the playing field for challengers and incumbents. If you do not believe that money entrenches and solidifies politicians then this discussion is restricted in its scope. Incumbents have a tremendous advantage at fundraising, which in turn allows them the ability to successfully campaign and stay in power.

Turnover in office is a good thing!

The Governor's Commission has done great work. If the legislature will enact its recommendations, Utah may be on its way to a far more ethical and representative government. OR, can we trade the legislature for the Commission (Boozer for LeBron . . . .)

What is the purpose of campaign contribution limitations?

It seems the purpose in this article is to improve ethics. Does capping contributions really improve the ethics of politicians?

Why are there caps on federal elections (one cannot donate more than $2000 per year in a presidential election, I believe). Is this to "level the playing field" or to "improve ethics"?

Perhaps a better solution to improving ethics would be to have term limits. Then the incumbent has a definite time limit. He or she, hopefully, works hard in their current office and then makes way for the next occupier of the office. Perhaps with term limits a politician would not be as influenced by lobbyists and would instead be more inclined to "do the right thing" for the sake of the voter, rather than what the lobbyists want?

Yet another way to prevent the average person from serving in public office. Restrict what challengers can raise and incumbents get to stay in office forever. Just like the "ethics" initiative, campaign contribution limits has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with giving power to a small group of people. Only with ethics, its the 12 signatories. With campaign contribution limits, its incumbents.

Placing a cap on contributions only makes running for office a rich man's game. Some extremely qualified citizen that only makes $60,000 a year has no chance against a multi-millionaire with a name who can self fund his own campaign. Leveling the playing field? The opposite in fact. If this passes, the next election will be a bunch a millionaires trying to outspend each other.

How does this level the playing field? There are ABSOLUTELY NO restrictions on how much money an individual may donate to his or her own campaign. Essentially, what this means is that wealthy folks will have a decisive advantage over those of average or poor financial situations.

Instead of leveling the playing field, as you claim it does, this completely skews the playing field to favor those with personal wealth.

These contribution limitations are only the beginning. After all, one can donate a lot of money to a candidate "through" the political party. Essentially, this becomes "soft money" donations. After this loophole is exploited, you will have the same people pushing for more restrictions until the only people who can afford to run for office are the extremely wealthy.

Utah has a great legislative structure. For 45 days, individual citizens work as legislators (at least in the regular session) and then return to live and work under the laws they've created. With these contribution limitations, we will end up only with the wealthy in office creating laws that do not take into account the average citizen's experience.

Along with other wealthy individuals who could self-fund their campaigns.

This commission is populated by political insiders whose voting record shows that they want to keep access to power all to themselves.

They've done nothing to strengthen democracy, but weaken the ability of the people -- the "demos" -- to share power.

Campaign contribution limits benefit incumbents and the independently wealthy, and disadvantage challengers.

Democracy is truly the god that failed.

Campaign contribution limits always favor the incumbent, or the rich dude...and the media who gets to decide what (and who) is newsworthy. Look at Congress. We've had strict campaign contribution limits for as long as I can remember. And try to defeat an incumbent.

An incumbent gets lots of free press. He sponsors a bill, or calls a press conference, or files FEC reports, or says something wild and the press shows up, repeats his name about a thousand times, and calls it news. A challenger does the same thing and gets ignored. A challenger needs to raise money in order to BUY the airtime that an incumbent gets for free. A challenger needs money to PAY for postage that an incumbent gets for free with franking privileges.

Full and timely disclosure of who contributed what is needed so we can see who is supporting a campaign and by how much. Term limits are also a "bad idea whose time has come."

But limits on donations simply protect the incumbent, increase the power of the media to control elections, and favor those with personal or family money.

Did these GOP leader's also add in off shore bank-accounts, Swiss bank account's, perks, kick-backs, faviors, under the table campaign contrabution's, etc?. Separation of powers, checks and balances, enumerated powers, independent state governments, frequent elections, impeachment processes, the right to bear arms, an independent private sector, property rights, the right to petition government for redress of grievances, freedoms of speech and press etc, was all created through Judicial Activist Judge's, and, Special Interest groups plus bureaucrats, for control of power, through these people. A fine example, of this, is in a new DVD, that just came out, titled "FOOD, Inc.", a Robert Kenner film. In it, you'll see the few GIANT's that control everything we do, how we live and what we are forced to eat etc., these same people have powerful seats, and are in Congress also, apointed by the President as well, both on the GOP and Democrat side, and, with these people running the show, we can't and will not be able to limit government ever, until they are all gone from those seats, no matter how long we all whine about a smaller government. Why not?.

Have any of these elected officials read the Declaration of Independence or The US Constitution? Our rights are given to us by God, not by government. Government should be securing these God given rights, not infringing on them. How do campaign contribution limits enhance life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness? Heres a hint: They don't. Stop this madness.

In Utah 90% of incumbents win re-election, and that is with no cap on donations. Does 90% incumbency success make for good government? NO! It breeds corruption and power.

I think everyone here is arguing for good government. Some argue that uncapped donations are good. Well, that is what we currently have!

Wealthy donors and corporations will not donate to a challenger because the hurdle is so great for them to win their campaign. The politicians raking in the money are the incumbents because corporations and wealthy individuals donate to them, knowing that is where their money can buy influence.

Some state that capping contributions will ensure only the wealthy can run for office. That is what we have now! Only the wealthy, who can afford to fund their own campaign (because they certainly cannot raise funds sufficiently to compete with incumbents) are running.

The answer is not necessarily capping contributions. The answer is term limits, with perhaps capping limits.

For those on this comment board to say that no caps ensure normal people can gain office are not seeing clearly.