It Took Two Barrells for Lockhart to Buy the Speakers Spot
Published: November 13, 2010 01:01AM
Updated: November 13, 2010 01:01AM
In politics, as in life, money talks. Consider the race for speaker of the Utah House of Representatives.
In that election earlier this month, Rep. Rebecca Lockhart, R-Provo, unseated the incumbent, Rep. David Clark, R-Santa Clara. The 30-28 defeat for Clark raised eyebrows, because nothing like that had happened to a sitting speaker in Utah for at least three decades.
The ostensible reason for Lockhart’s victory was her promise to be a more inclusive leader, one who would communicate better with the rank and file and consider their views. But some people wondered about the role that money, that is campaign contributions, played in the race.
The Utahns for Ethical Government Initiative includes a clause that prohibits legislators from contributing to the campaigns of other legislators for this very reason.
This year the Republican legislators were faced with a more difficult problem, two would-be speakers donating to them. That made it more complicated, but Lockhart won the money chase because her husband provided an extra barrell full.
Politics stinks because of money. That’s the reason so many good people won’t run for office. The stink sticks.
Lockhart’s husband, Stan, is a lobbyist for two sister companies, Micron and IM Flash, that donated campaign funds to 49 of the 58 Republicans elected to the House majority this month. Clark donated campaign money to 16 House members, but 11 of them also received contributions from the firms Stan Lockhart represents.
Clark actually donated more money, $26,000. The two firms Lockhart represents donated $24,700.
Both Rebecca Lockhart and Clark say the donations were not made with the intent of influencing the speaker’s race. But the election raises the question of whether legislative leaders or aspiring leaders should be allowed to direct campaign contributions to other members or aspiring members of the chamber, potentially buying their loyalty.
We believe the answer to that question should be “No.” Donations by legislative leaders to other candidates should be banned. The reason is simple. Money buys influence. It’s human nature that a person who receives a gift from another, no matter how small, feels beholden to the giver. It’s a fact of life.
Under Utah’s Wild West system of political donations, there are no limits on contributions to candidates, even by corporations or labor unions. Naturally, there also are no limits on contributions by legislative leaders to other political candidates. There should be.
The most prominent people to put forward such a suggestion are the folks at Utahns For Ethical Government. They are the sponsors of the initiative petition on legislative ethics who fell short of the required number of signatures to place their initiative on this month’s ballot. They are attempting to keep the initiative alive for the 2012 ballot, though their chances are dubious.
Regardless, this is one idea from that petition that should be enacted, along with campaign donation limits to individual candidates. Why? Because money talks.