Utah is one of only four states in the country allowing unlimited campaign contributions from unlimited sources in statewide races. If reasonable limits were in place, the political landscape would be far different, and far less corrupt, than under Utah's system of government for sale to the highest bidders.
Consider this glaring example: What would the attorney general's race currently look like if contributions were limited to less than $3,000, as in U.S. House races? In fundraising, Charles Stormont would be leading Sean Reyes, the acting attorney general. Excluding five mega-donors to the Reyes campaign (one of them a PAC that has contributed an obscene $100,000), Reyes would have raised only $25,605 (42 percent from Utah), compared to $28,979 for Stormont (76 percent from Utah). Reyes has received contributions from 34 donors, while Stormont's campaign has received contributions from 174 donors, more than five times the Reyes campaign.
However, under Utah's corruption-inducing campaign laws, Reyes is able to report $167,775 in campaign donations (more than half from one out-of-state source, a PAC financed almost entirely by large corporations). The lopsided campaign receipts convey the message that Reyes is clobbering Stormont and that anyone wanting to back the winner should contribute to Reyes when, in fact, Stormont has received far more Utah support and would be leading in fundraising if Utah had reasonable limits to prevent the kind of corruption that recently led to 21 felonies being charged, collectively, against two former Utah attorneys general.