Beware of Simple Solutions to Complex Problems

By Todd Taylor

(Guest Expert blogger Todd Taylor is executive director of the Utah Democratic Party) 

Campaign financing is the most heavily regulated industry in America per dollar of financial activity. Private financing of campaigns creates an ethical schism that pits the concept of a "public office is a public trust" against "those who pay the piper call the tune."

Yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune editorial "Lawmakers for Sale" correctly points out that Utah has not found an appropriate balance of those concerns. Unfortunately, it concluded with the silly prescription that, "Limiting donations by individuals or corporations to $1,000 for each candidate, political party or political action committee per election cycle seems reasonable."

There is nothing reasonable about a $1,000 across the board limit for each of these entities. They each have different functions with different resulting costs. We have seen what happens when these limits are set too low. There simply becomes an unending morass of entities created to funnel funds into the important contests. This results in making campaign finances less transparent. Or in the alternative it reduces public discourse because these entities cannot afford the tools of communication.

The more difficult the regulatory scheme the less likely citizens are to participate since the knowledge barrier to keep on the right side of the law is raised too high leaving only the professionals to participate in the contest.

Such limits are slightly effective only with five other major reforms: 1) An aggressive watch-dog agency like the Federal Election Commission; 2) A limit on total political contributions for an individual entity. So, for Utah that would mean creating and funding a State Election Commission and capping any entity from giving more than $20,000 total to all candidates, parties and PACs; 3) A method for coordinating expenditures that allows these entities to take advantage of economies of scale through joint purchasing (i.e. the FEC allows unlimited transfers between party committees and some coordination for candidate services and allows for the limits to be relaxed for "building funds"); 4) A prohibition against giving in the name of another; and, 5) An exemption for certain "grassroots" activities that encourage public participation (i.e. at the federal level there are exemptions for house parties, internet communications, friend-to-friend mail campaigns, slate cards, lawnsigns, bumperstickers, and a host of other activities).

Utah campaign finance laws cry out for some limits to prevent corruption of public officials. But a $1,000 limit for all entities is far too low for some of these entities like statewide campaigns and state party committees and Utah lacks an appropriate regulator with sufficient resources to fairly enforce such limits in a timely manner.

Before limits are contemplated, Utah first needs an independent State Election Commission and an independent Ethics Commission to oversee all public officials and candidates (these could be one and the same). Then, with experience and professional guidance, we can craft rules that work for Utah.