That investment was peanuts, however, compared to Wayne Niederhauser's $248,000 campaign, also in Sandy, to succeed Al Mansell in the Utah Senate.

Who paid those bills? Niederhauser threw $139,000 of his own into his campaign kitty. But otherwise, the writers of big checks in these races were campaign donors, that is, developers, Realtors, Intermountain Health Care, Real Salt Lake, Parents for Choice in Education (people for tuition tax credits), to name a few. In short, special interests with an agenda before the Utah Legislature.

Other veteran players in the Utah political money game include the Utah Education Association (public school teachers), EnergySolutions (low-level nuclear waste dump) and labor unions.

If the person who pays the piper calls the tune, Utahns must wonder how campaign donations play on the Legislature's decisions about smart growth, health insurance, public education spending, soccer stadiums, nuclear waste. Especially when Utah has no limits on campaign donations or expenditures by candidates for state offices.

People in other states have had similar qualms. In a few, they have decided it is time to wean candidates from special-interest campaign money. It is called Clean Money Campaign Reform.

The system is voluntary. Candidates agree to forgo private campaign contributions in exchange for a prescribed amount of public money. If a candidate who has taken this pledge is opposed by a privately funded candidate who has not, the state will match the privately funded candidate's resources.

The system isn't flawless. In Arizona, critics say the spending limits are too low in some races to mount an effective campaign. Other critics say that by equalizing spending, the system gives an automatic advantage to incumbents who are already better known to voters.

But at least these candidates spend time campaigning instead of begging donors for funds. And after the ballots are counted, they don't owe their election to anyone else.