Sep 27
Campaign Finance…Voter Participation & Corruption
2009 at 11:38 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 15 comments
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.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:24 am
It is not about corruption Craig, it is about accountability. To whom should the legislator be accountable, the voting public, or the corporations who make the largest donations?
It is not about corruption Craig, it is about representation. Who should the legislator represent, the citizens of the state, or the corporations who make the largest donations?
You can dress it up any way you like and rationalize till the cows come home, but it boils down to accountability and representation. In that regard the “system” has been broken for a long time in this one party state and needs to be corrected.
Why not become part of the solution rather than the problem, and get on board with the true ethics reform movement represented by the citizen’s initiative?
September 28th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Corporations are people too (or at least are comprised of people).
September 28th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Still in the “discovery phase,” JohnB.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
“Corporations are people too”. Wow! John Dougal, that says more about the Republican Party than any single statement I have ever read. May I quote you?
September 29th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Campaign contribution limits are clearly a violation of free speech. I don’t know if I would say corporations are people (I know you meant it kind of tongue in cheek, John.), but they are owned by people. They aren’t some evil entity unto themselves intent on bringing destruction to the people.
As to John’s statement, “To whom should the legislator be accountable, the voting public, or the corporations who make the largest donations?” they are accountable to the voting public, including the ones that own corporations. That aside, your statement implies that campaign contributions buy votes. If you believe this, then I guess you should be opposed to contributions all together, in any amount, by any person or entity.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:58 am
But I guess my point is that campaign contributions don’t buy the vote of the honest politician, so it’s up to the voters (corporations don’t get to vote) to elect the politician that will represent them.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“Campaign contribution limits are clearly a violation of free speech.”
Only if you are so naive to believe that money is equal to speech.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
JJL9 it is naive to think that the average citizen has as much influence over the decisions made by our legislators as those corporations that donate thousands of dollars to their election campaigns. In the first place the average citizen does not have a team of high paid professional lobbyists to schmooze the lawmakers, taking them to sporting events and out to dine at expensive restaurants like the corporations and special interests do.
Have you ever tried to get “fact time” with your representative when the legislature is in session? They most certainly find the time for those lobbyists who showed up at the legislator’s fundraiser paying thousands of dollars at the door. If the legislator doesn’t listen to them, they might not be so willing to step up when next year’s fundraiser comes around. It is the old “quid pro quo” and “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. That is why we need campaign contribution limits so the legislator will have to go to the grass roots level and get lots of small donations from the voters instead of a few large donations from special interests.
There are many examples of why this is a problem that needs to be addressed in Utah. Take Energy Solutions for instance. There are those who think that Utah should not be known as the “outhouse” for the world’s nuclear waste. Obviously the management at Energy Solutions thinks otherwise. That corporation in Utah has perhaps a few hundred employees and just a hand full of well paid people in management at the top of the food chain. Now compare the few hundred voters associated with the company with the tens of thousands of average citizens who do not have the same money and clout. Corporate donations need to be banned outright and limits put on all other political contributions in order to LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.
It is not about honesty, dishonesty, or corruption. It is about the legislator being responsible and accountable to the electorate. “Whoever pays the piper calls the tune” is a fact of human nature. You can feel “beholden” to your largest contributor without being dishonest.
If campaign contributions are indeed free speech, then one could use the same logic justify bribery, extortion, and paying a prostitute on the same grounds. “Your honor, I was just exercising my right of free speech by offering the young lady $50. It was my way of saying how nice she looked in that mini skirt with the high top boots”.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:04 am
John, your obsession with ES puzzles me. I think if you look through my campaign contributions over the years you’ll find that I’ve never recieved more than a couple hundred dollars from ES in any given year. (That’s less than a Coke-a-day.) Frankly, they’re one of the smallest contributors to my campaign efforts. Also, I’ve never solicited a single donation in over six years. And, I’ve never taken a donation I wasn’t willing to give back because I felt the donor was looking for something from me. In fact, I’ve returned a number of donations over the years when I have felt there was a conflict or a certain expectation (i.e. Envirocare, “Big” tobacco, Senator Bob Bennett…). And, check my record, I haven’t always voted for the issue of my contributors, yet they still seem to support my efforts.
I believe most Utah state candidates and legislators have generally this same philosophy. However, the Ethics Initiative assumes the worst in people and works from that point. I prefer to start from a more optimistic stance (and faith in good people) and work from there. Naive?! Perhaps. I’m one of those guys who wakes up in the morning takes a look around and thanks God for all my blessings. People are inherently good. At least the people I represent. They are my neighbors, friends, associates, and family. They are part of me and I am part of them.
The people who elect their representatives are the ones who create the level of accountability they expect from their representatives. It happens every two (or four) years at the ballot box. Here’s an example: There’s a guy I used to serve with in the Legislature, Aaron Tilton (you may know him). His electorate decided a couple years back that they preferred to have someone else represent them, and by a majority margin elected Francis Gibson to represent them, instead. I’d have to check, but I think Aaron had significantly more campaign capital (mingled with “special interest” money) in his account than Francis–yet Francis was the victor. There you have it. Our system of government, our representative republic, works. And, it works every time. The People decide. If the people decide to be apathetic…the People decide.
(John, I’d ask that you be careful with your elicit illustrations on this blog. I’m aware of a number of young people who read this blog on a regular basis, and, we as responsible adults wouldn’t want to be responsible for putting salacious images in their heads. I respect people’s first amandment rights…but I will disapprove further comments with content like your last paragraph…you’ve been warned.)
September 30th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Oh, John, one quick note. JJL9, is a constituent. He and I discuss political issues all the time via phone, FB, and regular face-to-face visits…You’ll be happy to know I listen to him much more than I listen to you. I’m accountable to him…I need his vote.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Rep Frank. The Republican leadership in the Utah Legislature has had over thirty years to pass meaningful ethics rules and it has failed to do so. There have been far too many instances where an ethics complaint has been made against a legislator and it has been conveniently swept under the rug or just a token hand slap was given.
My question to you and your colleagues who oppose the ethics reform initiative is “What are you afraid of?” An independent and impartial citizen’s ethics commission will shine the light of day on ethics charges that are found to have merit, unlike now when they are dealt with in back room closed door meetings of the Republican power brokers. You folks keep bringing up the value of “transparency”. What is more transparent than a citizens commission that is truly independent of any branch of the government having oversight on the practices of the members in the legislature?
I beg to disagree with your last statement Rep. Frank. As an elected public official in the State of Utah you are ACCOUNTABLE to all of us, not just your constituents. You are in public service to the State of Utah, not just to a small group of people in your district who get out and vote. I’m surprised you don’t know this already. You may not “represent” me or my views Craig but you are accountable to every citizen, including me.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“John your obsession with ES puzzles me”. Rep Frank, your affinity for and promotion of ES puzzles me as well.
http://underthedome.org/?p=538
October 1st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Ohh yes John B your position on ES is so enlightened, perhaps you would care to continue our previous argument on the issue? Do you have a good educated argument or are you all rhetoric?
http://underthedome.org/?p=870
I will also note that I am in favor of the green river nuclear plant that has been proposed, I do wish they would choose a design that was better at conserving water however.
On the issue of campaign finance reform however do agree with you that we need a bit.
October 1st, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Oh yes Ronald I remember you telling me how absolutely harmless the waste from Italy really is—even less than the yellow bricks in my elementary school and my asking you if it is that harmless why then is Italy spending millions of dollars to ship it all the way to Utah? I don’t recall your enlightened response to that logical question. Would you care to repeat it for the benefit of the other readers of this blog?
My “enlightened opinion” as you call it Ronald is that like the majority of Utah’s citizens, I do not want my state to become the dumping ground for the world’s nuclear waste. Once that door is opened to Italy, then it will be harder to refuse other country’s waste. Energy Solutions has a history of trying to up the ante for hotter and hotter waste once it becomes “established” in an area. In Utah we need to draw a line, regardless of how many millions they dangle in front of our elected officials.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Italy ships all types of waste out due to lack to good storage locations, everything from normal garbage to chemical, industrial and nuclear waste. So first off your question is loaded, just because a private company wants to handle their waste storage needs by shipping it somewhere cheaper/better doesn’t automatically mean their looking to push off something that is dangerous.
Second you have ignored what LLW actually is, I detailed what it is, I named Household items that you find in all houses(BY LAW) that are considered LLW. I named what items off of the nuclear facility’s are considering LLW.
I will post the link again just in case you need to reread a bit.
http://underthedome.org/?p=870