The following is from ksl.com
"Money Raised by Greg Curtis (Source: Deseret Morning News):
- Health-care Industry: $50,410
- Financial Industry: $47,050
- Real Estate: $20,881
- Lobbyists/Lawyers: $12,400
- Beer/Alcohol: $4,000
- Oil Industry: $3,200
Almost all of his money came from special interests, more than any other lawmaker from health care, financial services, real estate, lobbyists alcohol and oil.Individual Sandy ContributorsI (Source: Utah.gov)
He got money from 31 states, most of it from big corporations like Annheuser Busch, Wal-Mart and PhrMA. Out-of-state cash added up to 95 thousand dollars, 31% of his total.
17 people, $4,135, 1.3%" (Thanks KSL)
Can you imagine how difficult it must be when you are representing 17 people and 31 states?
What a constituency!
Hat tip to Ethan at SLCspin.
10 comments:
True representation is impossible. Whenever there is "representation" of more than just a small group, such representation will necessarily favor some of those 'represented' and disfavor others. In any but a small group, the interests of some are naturally opposed to the interests of others. No Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Constitution, Independent can honestly fairly represent all of his/her constitutents. It's as impossible as a husband and wife both hiring the same attorney to represent them each fairly in court in their divorce proceedings. Their interests are opposed -- he cannot represent the interests of both fairly.
The solution, of course, being to not represent people or parties or factions or, but to represent principles. Fundamental principles that you aren't swayed from by campaign contributions. And, of course, since different people place different principles than others, you've got to get to the core, few fundamental principles which (most) everyone can agree on. And since those are so few (perhaps only one -- the rule of reciprocity or 'golden rule'), it is best that the scope of government be severely restricted and not allowed to regulate many areas of our lives at all, thereby avoided areas where people are widely in disagreement on principles or their interests.
How much did you give to political candidates last year? If business and special interest groups dont donate to candidates and those candidates are not independently wealthy how do you expect them to get their message out? I have a sneaking suspicion you would knock him for self financing his campaign as well.
As speaker of the house he has the ability ti raise a lot of money. But he also donates a considerable amounts of money to other candidates who are not as well financed. I’m guessing you don’t like his donations going to help fellow candidates either, even though he is an individual.
Campaigns cost money. Some of the best candidates are not big money candidates and your philosophy would immediately count them out of contention.
If you are donating large amounts of your personal funds to these candidates then you have a license to whine. Otherwise do us all a favor and suck it up.
One candidate cannot represent all of his or her constituents, that is obvious. However, he should be trying to represent the majority of his constituents without any influence from outside sources.
Taking so much money from so many special interest groups makes it difficult to fairly represent anyone but the people giving you the cash.
Campaigns should not cost so much. What happened to candidates getting out and meeting the people in their district? If there were regulations in place to ensure a fair playing field, no one would need to waste thousands of dollars to finance their campaigns.
Hey I ran for Utah Senate this year and I raised $20,000... most of it from private donors.
Why does a campaign have to cost $300,000????
Money runs the show, folks.
At the state and local levels, elected representatives should represent more for what their constituents want and less on what special interest groups want. By the way, other states have laws and rules about candidates using their campaign money to support other candidates. Utah is very lax on campaign ethics. But I'm sure Greg Curtis is thankful that our state is soft on campaign ethics.
Every person in a representative district is a special interest.
Think about it. Where do you stand on abortion, education, crime and punishment, taxes, health insurance etc. Each of us have our own opinions and those special interests you’re talking about represent your interests. There are people on both sides of the issue and each side of an issue has organized to make sure the needs and wants of their group are met.
Yes some candidates can go overboard in spending money. They can buy 2000 signs when they only need 1000 or they might mail to every constituent in their district or they might choose to only communicate with the 30% that are likely to vote. Special interests might donate but they also provide a major public service to forward interests of people like you and me.
I would challenge everyone who reads this post to step up and run for office and see how easy it is to run a campaign with no money or no help from organized groups of likeminded people (special interests).
By the way every volunteer that helps a campaign is donating something of value to the candidate. It may not be money, but hard work in invaluable. If you are going to strip money out of the equation then lets strip unpaid help out as well. Put regulations in place that every volunteer must be paid $10 an hour; Candidates are limited to 100 signs; each candidate must send 3 mailers limited to 500 words, and each candidate can only speak at 3public events. Oh yeah lets also make sure each candidate mails to all homes and not just those of registered voters. (Unfortunately this would cause them to spend substantially more money)
All of this may seem extreme but the point is simple. Our electoral process has survived 200 plus years because it works. Let me also remind you that Greg Curtis narrowly survived his race even though he raised huge amounts of money. If he actually lost what kind of influence would that money have had?
The thing that needs to change is the public’s attitudes toward politics. Money is not crippling the process Apathy is.
Every person certainly HAS their own special interests, but "every person" does not have the ability to influence political candidates by throwing thousands of dollars into their campaign.
The electoral process has survived for 200 years, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been corrupted.
It's a good thing Greg Curtis had so much money for his campaign, otherwise we might have ended up with a candidate who would actually represent the people...
My representative, friend and flopper, Roger Barrus received, as near as I can tell, only one donation from a single individual within his legislative district. The individual was his brother in law.
What does that tell us about our system? Other states including Arizona, to the south of us, have adopted clean election laws. We cannot do that here because it it too difficult, so they tell us. We rank among the worst in the United States with respect to campaign limits and reforms. As others have noted we have 'the finest legislature money can buy.'
I agree with Allie. It's nice (and convenient) to laud out-of-state and corporate donors as somehow doing Curtis's constituents a favor, but it defies reality to assume that Curtis's "representation" is unaffected by the fact that the money he needed to get reelected -- barely -- came not from his own constituents, but rather from special interest outsiders.
It seems a bit silly to cite Curtis's narrow margin of victory as proving otherwise. The corporations that donated to him assumed, as Curtis did, that he would easily be reelected. It's well known that corporate donations are tied to perceived electability. What they underestimated was Curtis's unpopularity in his own district. (See? People really do pay attention!) If if hadn't been for his corporate buddies, Curtis would not have been able to spend that $7-1 at the last minute to cling to his office. Don't think he's grateful? Right.
P.S. I give $ to a lot of candidates, so I guess I'm allowed to whine under the first Anonymous's theory. (Apparently Curtis's non-donating constituents are allowed to "benefit" from corporate donations, but not to question them.) In 2008, though, I plan to concentrate on one Sandy race...
Congratulations to the cold-hearted voucher proponents(if they even have a heart). Today's narrow House vote on HB148, now moves to the Senate. Chalk up another blow to the middle class families as we have to pay more taxpayer money to the rich.
Also, this will end up in court, but voucher supporters don't care if we waste more taxpayer money in lawsuits.
Post a Comment