The proposed Campaign limits appears to be a great start and it only highlights the potential conflict of interest that Gov. Herbert has as being one of the few potential candidates that would be significantly impacted by this reform. He might be wise to avoid voting on the issue and just allow the law to go into effect without his signature, otherwise a "veto" could easily be used against him.

What this article is leaving out and omitting is that the small number of donations exceeding a cap was the majority of the dollar they receive. It's very easy to average out a million dollar donation when you split it up with 2 million residents and make it look small. The eludes the point of putting limits on donations and who can donate.

Not only should there be a cap on state wide elections it should be limited to state residents and businesses like many other states. Why should business and special interest groups in New York be allowed to buy our elected officials in Utah? There only interest is influence and control of Utah government for financial gain.

Another thing to remember is that these campaign accounts and donations to them become the personal and private funds for the candidate as tax free incomes. These campaign accounts are the account of choice to hide bribery funds throughout the years they are in office. PAC's and special interest groups, national and local, love these accounts and to donate to them. Obligating a candidate has a lot of power over government decisions made after elections.

If people want a candidate who won't accept any large contributions how do they know they're a candidate? Without campaign funds there will be no advertising..Much has been said about the depth of "war chests", but little about how the "poor but honest" individual can be elected.

Are nothing but an attack on freedom of speech. Individuals should be able to donate however much of their own money they would like, down to the last dime to support a politician they believe in. Whether they have $5 or $5 Million to donate is irrelevant. One reason John McCain was never supported by most Republicans was the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which is an affront on freedom of speech. Repeal McCain - Feingold and allow people to spend their money how they would like.

What are you talking about? The article did too talk about how the very few are giving so very much.

They were clear that less than half a percent of donors were giving a little more than 16 percent of all donations. How is that not making that point?

In fact, the article even went into detail that it was a small percentage of races that it even effected.

I would suggest a much more thorough re-read of the article and come back with a greater understanding.

Exactly--the article points out that these contribution limits would not stop, but potentially enhance, reasonable giving. The limits would slow down the potentially corrupting giving. The recommendation is a great start.

The one place the article falls short is an analysis of how much corporate giving would be eliminated with the aggregate cap.

The Commission deserves our thanks.

I hope the Commission does things to encourage financial participation by the public to the candidates of their choice.

But don't forget about disclosure. Voters need to know whom is giving to whom. And it needs to be timely. Make campaigns file donation reports that can be viewed on the Internet every month, for instance.

Campaigns need money to operate, and voters should know where that money is coming from. The donation information needs to be available prior to the election.