This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2010, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
To many Utah legislators, local is better — except when it comes to campaign donations. One-third of the lawmakers who will take their seats on Capitol Hill in the next general session didn't raise a dime in campaign donations from their own district. Half raised less than 1 percent from constituents.
Overall, only $1 of every $20 in campaign donations came from the folks in the district. That means all the rest came from corporations, labor unions, political action committees, individuals outside the district, political parties, lobbyists, other politicians. In other words, special interests.
This is worrisome because these contributors don't give money out of the goodness of their hearts. They give it to buy influence.
Of course, a donor from the district also could buy influence. But at least that contributor could make the argument that he was throwing money the candidate's way because he or she was the best man or woman to represent the donor and others in the constituency. You would hope that a candidate could persuade at least a few folks in the neighborhood to kick in some bucks for the campaign.
Utah is one of the few states with no campaign finance limits. Any donor can give any amount to any candidate. No holds barred.
Assuming that the Legislature, in a wanton frenzy of reform, decided to encourage local financial support of candidates, it could pass a law that candidates had to raise all or a substantial portion of their donations from the district they hope to represent. That sounds good, but it might have unintended consequences. Districts that were homes to big companies or rich individuals might become cash cows for the entire system unless other restrictions were imposed, such as limits on contributions and bans on candidates in one district funneling money to those in others.
At a minimum, Utah should impose individual contribution limits. The national median for those limits in other states is $4,000 per election cycle for statewide offices such as governor and $2,000 per candidate for state legislature. Contribution limits encourage candidates to raise money from more sources, making them less beholden to any one.
Another possibility is public financing. Such a system could encourage small local donations by offering to match them at a 4-1 or higher ratio with public dollars.
Giving small donors an incentive to put their skin in the game might encourage broader political participation, and it would make candidates beholden to their constituents. What a concept.