This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2009, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The Utah governor's office may not exactly be for sale, but it's starting to look like campaign donors can at least buy a time share.
Gov. Gary Herbert's unwillingness to set a limit on donations to his campaign, and his willingness to accept $50,000, or more, from individual contributors to his fundraising gala next week, is the best argument yet for setting legal limits on campaign contributions in Utah.
This is one of a handful of states where there literally are no limits. A wealthy person, corporation or labor union could give $1 million to a candidate for the Legislature or statewide office and it would be perfectly legal.
That's nuts. It is an invitation for people or organizations with big money to buy the political process.
One of the basic laws of human psychology is reciprocity. It underlies both the Golden Rule and the eye-for-an-eye notion of justice. Basically, if someone gives you a gift, you feel an obligation to give something in return. If someone takes something from you, you feel right in taking something of equal value from him. It's subconscious and automatic. People keep score of their relations with others based on reciprocity without even thinking about it.
Politicians who say that donors can't or don't buy influence with campaign contributions are either deluded, are lying or have little knowledge of human behavior.
Herbert opposes limits on campaign contributions, but he does believe in making public who his donors are. Though Utah law does not limit donations, it does require disclosure. Herbert is right that transparency is a good thing. It makes others aware of who is buying influence through donations. But disclosure by itself is no substitute for limits, because the recipient's obligation to the donor remains. You can't repeal the subconscious law of reciprocity.
Herbert also argues that if donations are limited, only the wealthy will be able to campaign for public office. He has a point, but setting a limit of, say, $5,000 on contributions from a single donor to a particular gubernatorial candidate during an election cycle would allow even candidates of modest means to raise sufficient funds to be competitive. That wouldn't prevent donors from influencing candidates, but at least it would limit the size of the inducements. Ideally, public funds could replace today's system of panhandling politicians.
The repeated refusal of Utah legislators to enact laws limiting political contributions is driving an initiative petition that would begin to get the job done. Herbert's campaign suggests that it is coming not a moment too soon.