A Supreme Court Speed Bump for Ethics Reform

I have been a proponent of the legislative ethics initiative by Utahns for Ethical Government, which is in the petition stage this winter. It is a slow process going door to door because each signature usually involves a lengthy explanation. I do not begrudge the time; it shows that the voters want to be informed.

The voice of opposition to this petition has been coming primarily from the incumbent politicians. They fear the changes it would require. Its provisions for campaign finance reform, for example, prohibit individual donors from contributing more than $2500 and prohibits contributions in any amount from businesses.

Now, however, the ruling of the Supreme Court (January 21, 2010) has driven a hole into the initiative in just this area. Political contributions are seen as "free speech" and cannot be prohibited or limited and business entities are seen as having the same rights of free speech as individuals.

The UEG initiative has strong support among the voters in Utah and while the limits on campaign funding will be stripped by the severability clause, the rest of the bill, if passed in the November election, would still stand.

Although campaign contributions will be unlimited, whether from individuals or from special interest groups—including businesses, voters can learn much about the sort of representation they can expect from a political candidate by examining the sources of their campaign funds.

If he is aware of the Supreme Court ruling, my own representative is understandably relieved by this ruling. Every one of his contributions came from businesses, Political Action Committees, or other candidates’ campaign funds. These are the interests he can be expected to represent.