In the recent article, “Shurtleff, Swallow and now Reyes. Why so much Utah A.G. turmoil? Is there a solution?,” Robert Gehrke centered the issue of integrity in the A.G.’s office on the problem of oversight and the possibility of switching to an appointment-based system.
But there is a third option: publicly fund elections. If not for every government office, then at least for the top law enforcement position in Utah. If we want to “alleviate conflicts that arise when [attorneys general] solicit money from people they may have to investigate or prosecute,” then one obvious solution is cutting out the “solicit money from people” part of the office.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 tried to limit the influence of money in politics. It was mostly blown apart by Citizens United v. FEC in 2010. Since then, spending on campaigns has spiked upward. Spending in 2020 topped $14 billion, a sum that outstrips the 2024 budget request for the National Science Foundation. Millions are being poured into state elections from out-of-state interests. The Citizens United ruling explicitly protects the anonymous free speech of donating to — or even underwriting — political campaigns. The ruling allows unlimited spending on political ads by advocacy groups (which can be a couple of wealthy individuals).
It’s naive to think our officials will not be beholden to donors in this system we’ve created. Government for the people depends on oversight, yes, but we can go further: We can set aside public election funds for the top law enforcement candidate so that they are far less likely to be swayed or corrupted. We need oversight. We need ethical standards. But we also need a better election system. Write to your representative if you agree.
Matthew Ivan Bennett, Midvale