Utah's Romney super PAC donors find their anonymity challenged

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 23, 2012 8:50 a.m.

    "I don't see anyone questioning the contributions to Super Pacs that support Democrats. Union contributions to campaigns are just as bad."

    I don't see how this comment makes any sense what so ever. The problem people are having now is because the Republicans are in the heat of battle to decide their candidate. If the Democrats had a contested race, you would see the very same things.

    The issue is donations to promote a cause or person where the donor beleives it servers their needs to stay secret. The double bit for Romney on this is he is already shrouded in mystery, his religion and has wealth that doesn't seem logically explainable - such as how he has retirement accounts worth millions when legal maximum donations to these accounts are 5k per year - the math doesn't make sense.

    It is about secrets. We don't trust our government, and we now don't trust where the money comes from that funds these elections. Party has nothing to do with this. It is about secret money sources. If you beleive in your cause, and there is nothing wrong with your stance, why the need for secrecy?

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Feb. 23, 2012 8:35 a.m.

    "I don't see anyone questioning the contributions to Super Pacs that support Democrats. Union contributions to campaigns are just as bad."

    Well, Let me put an end to that statement.

    I think that ALL donations to politicians taint the process. That includes corporate and Union donations.

    The Citizens United ruling will exacerbate the problem. And that holds true whether the money is going to R or D candidates.

    Now, to counter your statement, I will say that " I have seen very FEW on the right denounce the Citizens United ruling."

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 23, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    I don't see anyone questioning the contributions to Super Pacs that support Democrats. Union contributions to campaigns are just as bad. As a former union worker (for a short time) I didn't want my forced contributions to the union to go to democrats. I withdrew from the union and got hounded out of my job because of it, which is why I'm anti-union and have fought them at other jobs that have attempted to unionize.

    You look at the Democrat Super Pacs and I'll bet the Hollywood crowd and George Soros not only gives the majority of the money to them. Soros pulls the strings. Why do you think that there are no more conservatives (moderate?) Democrats any more?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 23, 2012 7:14 a.m.

    A Utah group acting in secret (like Gadianton robbers). At least be open and transparent. Super PACs are as evil as it gets, and I would think Utahns would scream murder over them. BUt I guess if you have your boy running for President, all bets are off when it comes to integrity and honesty. A perfect case of situational ethics. Super PACs are a conservative invention, and it will accelerate our decline. Rationalize all you like, but there is nothing good about this development. And for some of you who get mad about the media reporting on this, shame on you.

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:45 p.m.

    "This is just free speech and nothing more"

    Typical conservative response.

    As if all these donations will not require a payback.

    Do you really believe that Cats?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 22, 2012 8:37 p.m.

    When ever you put the power in the hands of the few, everyone is in peril. Regardless of party affiliation, consolidation of power is not good. The average American is loosing its voice... and nothing good will come from it.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 8:30 p.m.

    We haven't seen anything compared to the Obama's relationship with the Unions and special groups that are more than a super PAC. Case in point, when Obama bailed out the auto industry and gave the UAW more than money which in turn is used in this election by votes with public money which turned to other money for them to use. The Supreme Court's judgement in this case changed the whole election theater. The stage is full of an equation that has not existed for a Presidential election and campaign, especially with an incumbent in power with billions, not millions of dollars. He is using scheduling tactics using government people and facilities to promote his policies and not campaigning. This is a time when donating to campaigns through SuperPACs will become more public since corporations and unions are involved. The money trail will show up, just like the Proposition 8 people that donated in California and the GRAMA and financial documents will be requested through the FEC and other government agencies will use as an open book. Voting was meant to be a individual thing but it is becoming a publicity stunt and money advertising instead of what it was meant to be in the 18th century. Privacy through the Supreme Court's decision will be the next challenge after this election since Congress hasn't done anything to legislate the process the Court has set.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 7:08 p.m.


    President Obama should be very proud to accept money from any Union. I've yet to understand how Repubs think that is a slap in the face to Dems?

    I'll take the guy who gets money from Unions, whose responsibility is to KEEP GOOD JOBS in America. To fight for workers rights.

    As opposed to the guy whose money is coming from Corporations, who constantly take those GOOD jobs and either outsource them overseas, or turn them into low paying jobs, so their shareholders make more money.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 6:54 p.m.

    It is a good thing to be able to see where the money comes from. I know it is way too much to ask from the Washington Post and the NY Times but lets see the details for all the candidates especially the President. He plans on spending a BILLION dollars on his campaign. Let's see where all the money comes from.

  • Old Timer the boonies, mexico
    Feb. 22, 2012 5:52 p.m.

    When oh when is this lying, cheating, stealing by greedy multi wealthy greeds going to be stopped? They are buying their way to massive wealth and at the same time the ruination of this great country. Is it going to take a "MASSIVE" deadly revolt by common citizens to get it done? Maybe just maybe thats what will happen if let go without stopping this continued theft by the priveledged from the commoner's. Lord help this country if it comes to that!

  • dlw7 LOGAN, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 5:11 p.m.

    At least Romney's Super-pac's are not raising fund from a foreign country like Santorum's did. This Super-Pac mess is out of hand. People in this country are out of work and struggling and millions upon millions are being spent to elect one man. Dumb! The candidates should be accountable to raise their on campaign funds and not depend on others. Also, if the media is going to publish those who contribute large sums to one candidate, they should publish the same things for everyone who runs for President--from Ron Paul to President Obama. Fair is Fair

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 4:58 p.m.

    I don't believe in super pacs, I believe less in the media that disclose who is behind one of them, and not all of them.

  • Still Blue after all these years Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 4:17 p.m.

    Lots of assumptions made in this "news" piece. And quite the opinion at the end of the article. Is this really news? or just a shot at NuSkin?

  • Something to think about Ogden, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 2:38 p.m.

    Another great post by Williary! Love reading your thoughts. I'm still laughing about the NFL / AFC West comparison. That was great!

    I guess these Super Pacs will truly make their candidates "The best that money can buy"

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 2:17 p.m.

    This is just free speech and nothing more. Obama doesn't like it because others can now compete with union money and Democrats probably can't raise as much. He has no problem with big union money. I can't think of a bigger threat to our democracy than Barak Obama.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 1:49 p.m.

    These SuperPACs are probably more dangerous to American democracy than the Taliban or AlQueda. ALL political donations should be out front and completely transparent.

    Better yet, reverse Citizens United before eliminating campaign contributions from any source. How about public funding of elections. Each candidate receives the same amount. And cut the time allowed for campaigning from its current eternal status to something like 90 days before an election.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    It's quite another matter with less open donors who cloak their contributions shell corporations and LLCs. We reported previously on links between NuSkin Cofounder Steven Lund and the pro-Romney super PAC Restore our Future. - Article

    ** Firm dissolves after giving pro-Romney PAC $1 million By Ken Thomas AP Published by DSNews 08/04/11

    Seven days later:

    ** Mitt Romney: Corporations are people...my friend By Phillip Elliot AP Published by DSNews 08/11/11

    We need to start having some ACCOUNTABILITY...

    ...with these 'unlimited' donations.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 1:12 p.m.

    It's sad how this decision by the Conservative leaning Supreme Court is now influencing politics. Super Pac's are not only out-earning campaign funds, but also out-spending them by tens of millions. And it will only get worse. And it's not just donors giving to support their preferred candidate. It's donors giving to one candidate, to indirectly help another candidate. Ron Paul getting money so he can attack Santorum, and help Romney.

    Just as President Obama said days after the verdict, that decision sparked a sad day in American politics. Exactly what he said would happen, is happening. Even while the Conservative judges ignore it.