2009 at 11:38 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank
During the past couple weeks I’ve been reflecting on what I consider to be one of the most pragmatic statements, on record, addressing the subject of state campaign finance. This candid declaration by Commissioner and former state representative Frank Pignanelli was recorded in the minutes of the Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Utah’s Democracy, on Thursday, September 10, 2009. One of the Commission’s primary charges is to identify ways to increase Utah citizens’ interest and participation in the democratic process. The following is that statement:
Thursday, September 10, 2009, 3-6 pm, State of Utah Office Building
Commissioner Frank Pignanelli congratulated Commissioner Dryer on his work in preparing this proposal. Mr. Pignanelli then stated, “Transparency is a great idea. There are some good things in here. I’ve been around this game a long, long time. As a candidate, as a lobbyist, and as a campaign worker for more than 30 years.” Mr. Pignanelli continued, “Not long ago, we were one of the highest states in voter turnout. I often hear that people don’t vote because there aren’t competitive races. Let me tell you what it’s like to be a democrat in the (19)80’s. As much as I love to dump on Republicans, it’s not their fault that people aren’t voting. If campaign contributions are an issue, Orrin Hatch would have lost long ago. So why people may say they hate money, they don’t vote that way. Something deeper is happening. I’ll argue that it’s not the Republicans; it’s not the money; it’s something deeper. We’re building this premise that money is bad. The overwhelming majority of candidates are good people.”
Mr. Pignanelli added, “Who is the most powerful woman in this state? Her name is Gayle Ruzicka. How much does she give candidates? Nothing. She organizes, she gets out and she shows up. Her power is not money, it’s her organization. This proposal will have unintended ill-consequences. We cannot make a general statement that money is bad. We must build around transparency. There are a lot of people who run for the Legislature that cannot afford to run unless they can go out and get donations. So I would ask that we step back and remember that our charge is to get at the root of why people don’t participate.”
A vote was taken with 17 members of the Commission present on Commissioner Dryer’s proposal. The vote was 10-7 in favor of adoption. This proposal as it stands, provides that Political Parties, Political Action Committees (PAC), and Labor Unions may only contribute a total amount of $25,000 during any two-year election cycle.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 9-11:50 am, House Building Room 30
Chairman Kirk Jowers, of the Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Utah’s Democracy, appeared before the legislature’s Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee, and explained the actions of the Commission in adopting the “Dryer” plan for campaign finance limits. The Interim Committee met five days after the Commission’s action.
Concerned about specific contribution requirements contained in the “Dryer” proposal, Representative Janice Fisher (D-West Valley City) expressed her reluctance to Chair Jowers regarding Union, PAC (Political Action Committee), and Corporate campaign contribution limitations. [the recording starts at marker 45:50, click on agenda Item #4] Rep. Fisher explains, “In this proposal…ties the hands of the labor unions and the PAC’s. These people, I don’t like this at all, because these people come together as groups to talk about and support candidates and I agree with what Representative Ferry is saying, he’s saying exactly the same thing…I have 15 people that might be in a PAC sending me $100 instead of the PAC giving me $1500, but that does not make any sense to me and, in fact, it seems to me that it discriminates against Labor Unions and PAC’s being involved in elections where large companies don’t have these kind of limits.” Continuing, Representative Fisher stated [marker 47:05], “I prefer that they are put on the same playing ground as everyone else, why do we say companies can do this, labor unions can do this, PAC’s can do something else, I think contributions should be contributions…”
Thursday, September 24, 2009, 3-6 pm, Weber State University
Commissioner Jower’s substitutes proposals for substantially increasing aggregate spending limits by Unions and PAC’s failed to be adopted by the Commission at its September 24th meeting at Weber State University. The current “Dryer” proposal, adopted by the Commission (10-7) at its 9/10/09 meeting, remains at an aggregate limit of $25,000 (from Parties, Labor Unions, and PAC’s).
Bi-Partisan Concerns
Serious concerns regarding the “Dryer” plan on campaign finance and campaign contribution limits have been raised by both liberals and conservatives. Is there a correlation between certain limits on campaign contributions and corruption levels of our elected officials? Will lower contribution levels decrease public corruption? And, do higher contribution limits really decrease voter participation?
A recent study released by the Center for Competitive Politics places Utah near the bottom of the “corruption index.” [Issue Analysis, No. 5] The study suggests that although Utah currently has no contribution limits, Utah also has a very low corruption ranking (seventh lowest out of 50 states). Or, conversely stated in the study: “Low limits on contributions to candidates do not have an effect on reducing corruption by public officials.”
If, as some have suggested, campaign contribution levels directly correlate with public corruption levels, and, when contribution levels are set high discourage voter participation during elections, the Center for Competitive Politics’ study supports a contrary conclusion. Commissioner Pignanelli stated he believes voter apathy is the result of “something deeper” than money. And, the Center for Competitive Politics’ findings would support Pignanelli’s viewpoint.
