Comments about ‘Utah House votes for limit on anonymous campaign contributions’

That certainly sounds ethical. Not!!!

whatever happened to the whole "ethics" movement? What have they got to hide?

Every year they just give themselves more favors.

what a shock! tell me again why they think they have the right to wag their collective finger at washington?

This I'm sure will boost transparency

The result of one party rule.

How about reporting the whole purpose of the bill to remove a loophole of receiving anonymous donations and not knowing what to do with them. Most Legislators don't get any anonymous donations, but if you get one, what do you do with it? Current law is silent. This solves it by making sure anything over $100 goes to charity or the government.

Pagan: "The result of one party rule."

Look at the voting. The bill passed the house 64 to 7 with 13 of 14 democrats voting for the bill. 6 of those voting against it were republicans.

The article is a little hard to understand, but it sounds like a good idea.

Maybe there is hope for at least some degree of sanity in the legislature this year.

I wonder how much of the current attention to ethics being driven by the shame some GOP members may be feeling over the John Swallow mess?

You people have no one to blame but your selves, because you keep voteing them back in. So stop crying over what you and you alone can control.

The bill passed the house 64 to 7 with 13 of 14 democrats voting for the bill. 6 of those voting against it were republicans. - Utah_1

?

So that means 50 Republicans....

voted for this bill.

When Democrats are a factual minority in Utah legislature, how can you claim they are responsible for Republican legislation?

FYI? If your logic is that anyone who voted for this bill is 'bad'...?

By your own logic, the Republican majority in Utah voted 3 times more than Democrats in favor, of it.

Facts only, please. :)

Pagan,

Say what? You are not making any sense.

The vote was:

64 Yeas – (51 Republicans, 13 Democrats)
7 Nays – (6 Republicans, 1 Democrat)
4 Not Voting – (All Republicans)

This has nothing to do about WHO sponsored the legislation. It has everything to do about WHO supports the legislation. This bill is all about "closing a (silent) loophole" in the existing law – nothing more, nothing less.

In my book, one Democrat and seven Republicans are "out to lunch" on this one.

For the first few posters: What are you beefing about? Those dastardly Republicans finally make a move to do something to close a loophole in campaign finance law and you want to moan about it? Did you read the article?

And Pagan: I'm with VST. Neither of your posts make ANY sense.

Thanks for revising the story to make it more accurate.