More than $1 million, most of it from special-interest groups, poured into the 1994 campaigns of the Utah legislators who now sit in judgment on hundreds of laws and taxes that affect Utahns' lives, an in-depth study by the Deseret News of the winners' campaign reports shows.
More than 62 percent of that $1 million came from businesses, labor unions, teachers and professional associations with specific agendas - the same groups that now crowd the hallways and committee rooms of the Utah Capitol letting the lawmakers' whose campaigns they funded know how they feel.The special-interest money is dominant. More than two-thirds of the House and Senate members raised more than 50 percent of their money in 1994 from such groups (see chart).
If one adds in Senate and House leadership PACs - which get most of their money from lobbyists and special-interest groups - and political party contributions, a whopping 72 percent of legislators' funds come from special- interest groups. The lawmakers' neighbors, friends and constituents gave less than 30 percent of the money, the study shows.
The glut of special-interest cash has led to calls for reform from various public interest groups. But it's highly unlikely any campaign reform bill will pass in the current session.
Only one of three reform bills would set contribution limits. Its sponsor, Rep. Jordan Tanner, R-Provo, gives it little chance. "This late in the session it's not going anywhere, I know that," said Tanner. However, the bill has been assigned to the committee Tanner chairs, and he promises it will at least get a public hearing, perhaps later this week.
Tanner wants to limit contributions to legislative campaigns to $300 per group and/or individual and have a voluntary limit of $2,500 for House candidates to donate to their own campaigns, a $3,500 limit on self-spending for state Senate candidates.
"I wasn't even going to run (the bill) after what happened (in a failed campaign reform task force). But at least we should have a hearing," said Tanner. He was chairman of the Campaign Finance Reform Task Force this summer, but the group bickered over whether there was any need for such reform at all. After rejecting Tanner's complicated idea of limiting special-interest groups to a certain percent of an individual candidate's campaign contributions, the task force set high individual contribution levels of $1,000 per PAC, business or group. Rarely does any group give $1,000 to a legislative candidate; most donations are in the $100-to-$500 range.
Tanner's bill calls for a $300 limit per contribution. Tanner still wouldn't limit how much a candidate could raise overall or how the campaign money would be spent.
A Deseret News review of the 1994 reports filed by the 75 House winners and 16 Senate winners (only half the Senate was up for election in 1994) shows that the historic trend of more and more legislative campaign money coming from special-interest groups - not individual constituents of the candidates - continued unabated.
The Deseret News examined only the financial reports of the winners. In some races, those who lost raised and spent considerably more money than the eventual winners - their campaigns were even more lopsided with special- interest money. Incumbents won big in 1994, and PACs and other special-interest groups routinely back incumbents, not wanting to waste cash on a possible loser.
In some races, Republican or Democratic candidates had no significant opposition and so raised less money. But other unopposed candidates - most of them incumbents - still raised a lot of cash, sometimes without even asking for it. And in those cases, most if not all of the money came from special-interest groups, the candidates not wishing to tap their neighbors for personal contributions when they didn't really need the money to win in the first place.
Of the $1,022,991 donated to winning candidates, $637,158 came from private businesses; professional associations, like the Utah Medical Association or Utah Petroleum Association; labor unions, like the AFL-CIO; teacher associations, like the Utah Education Association or its local affiliates like the Granite Education Association; lobbyists; or other special-interest groups like the National Rifle Association. The Deseret News considered all such contributions as special-interest money.
Claire Geddes, executive director of United We Stand Utah, Ross Perot's citizen action group, said special-interest money is warping both America's and Utah's political system.
"We have to get special-interest money out of government - it drives bad public policy decisions," said Geddes.
But the chances of that are small - possibly impossible.
For while other so-called "government reform" matters, like opening the rules committees, greater lobbyist disclosure and more detailed legislative conflict of interest, may make good fodder for news stories, the real heart of political reform is campaign finance. For that is how legislators become legislators in the first place - by winning elections.
While some legislators, like Tanner, think change must come, the majority don't feel that way - after all, they were elected and re-elected under the current open system.
And one can't find a system more open than Utah's. Under state law, a legislative candidate can raise any amount of money from any source and spend it any way he wants. Even on himself. And there's plenty of money left over to spend after election night.
"Generally, this is a healthy campaign system," said House budget chairman Marty Stephens, R-Farr West. Stephens raised more money in 1994 than any other House winner, $26,026. He got 91.2 percent of his money from special- interest groups.
Some would argue with the definition of special-interest money, he adds. "Some say a PAC is just individual people banding together, giving money that is then combined to make a greater impact on the system. But it is still individuals giving money," he said.
"I was running for speaker," and prospective leaders usually have no trouble raising campaign money. "Most of the money I got was unsolicited," said Stephens. "I didn't even ask for it, and I didn't even know some of the groups who gave to me had any issue before the Utah Legislature. In most cases, especially with incumbents like myself, a group doesn't give money trying to buy influence. They already know how you vote, and they give money because you already vote in a manner they like."
Stephens admits it's tough raising money from constituents, although he figures he raised about $3,000 from constituents this past year. Special- interest money "is easy money to raise; you just mail out to the lobbyists registered with the lieutenant governor's office; or you don't even have to do that" and incumbents will still get some cash, he said.
Rep. Byron Harward, R-Provo, raised $5,550 in 1994, 100 percent of it from special-interest groups. "I didn't solicit a penny, not from my constituents, not from the (special interest) groups. They just gave to me and I accepted most of it. Although I did return some tobacco (lobbyist) money."
Both Harward and Stephens have toyed with campaign finance reform ideas. But both came up empty. "The problem is, no change would be better," said Harward. "Any change would benefit Republicans over Democrats or the other way around or incumbents over challengers and so on," added Stephens. "Should we take tax money to fund our (candidate) attempts at communicating with voters? I certainly don't think so," said Harward. "Media won't give us free time or space so we have to spend money to get our ideas across."
Rep. Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake, who is also state Democratic Party chairman, said he'd like to see some changes to lower the costs of campaigns. But he can't figure out how to do it, either. "Limit how much money (PACs or businesses) can give to a campaign and you have a rich man's Legislature. Some Democratic areas are so poor you almost can't raise any money from constituents," he said, so Democrats look to labor and education PACs for their campaign cash.
Tanner said the naysayers will have their day, at least this year. The Deseret News review "simply shows once again that large numbers of House and Senate members get disproportionately large sums of cash from special-interest groups. We must have reform to get individuals back into the political system, and get special interests out," said Tanner.
A question of effort
Some legislative candidates appeared to work quite hard at raising individual contributions from their constituents. Stephens said his $3,000 "probably leads the pack" in terms of total individual contributions to a House member, and Jones raised half of his money from individuals.
Others didn't try much at all to get individual contributions, depending mostly on special-interest solicitations. And a few had no individual contributions on their reports at all - they got all of their money from special-interest groups.
Looking at contributions individually, most people probably wouldn't see much of a problem. Many special-interest groups give $100, $200 or $300. Sometimes, a group may give a $100 or $300 contribution twice during the campaign. What impact does $300 have on a House candidate where the average race cost $8,693 or a Senate candidate where the average race cost $22,858? asked Stephens.
The impact comes when several organizations whose goals are often closely related all contribute to the same candidate. That impact can be heightened if the same lobbyist delivers a dozen or more checks from various clients to a candidate.
For example, already in this session newly elected House Speaker Mel Brown, R-Midvale, has been criticized for accepting $1,700 in contributions from Union Pacific Railroad and then sponsoring a bill that, if passed, would significantly reduce the railroad's civil liability for people hurt on railroad property. Brown points out that he ran the same bill last year, before he got railroad money, believes in the measure and would run it again.
That $1,700 was 8 percent of Brown's total contributions of $20,601; and some would argue not a major impact on his campaign. But further examination of Brown's reports shows that the main lobbyist for the railroad holds contracts with a number of other businesses and professional associations. All told, that lobbyist's clients gave Brown $3,250, or 16 percent of his total contributions. Thus, the lobbyist's influence with Brown is enhanced through bundling his contributions.
"Special-interest groups' influence is reinforced when their full-time lobbyists are up here (at the Legislature) working on us," said Tanner. "With their lobbying and campaign money they are dictating what passes and doesn't pass here." Just Tuesday, Tanner lost a bitter House battle over making grocery store owners put cigarette packs behind the counter to stop juveniles from stealing tobacco and smoking. In several floor speeches he blamed the tobacco lobby for the defeat of his bill.
Take another example, this one a Democrat. Rep. Kurt Oscarson, D-Sandy, a teacher, got $4,975 from various education groups like the UEA and Jordan Education Association. He raised $18,703 in total. So teacher groups gave Oscarson 26 percent of his money. But Oscarson, who had a tough fight to keep his seat in 1994, also got $2,054 from labor unions and employee associations. Teacher desires and labor-union wishes may not always coincide. But many times they do. Combine the two groups' giving to Oscarson and he got nearly 40 percent of his money from a major special-interest group - labor.
Money can be used for any purpose
Of the more than $1 million raised in 1994, only $822,454 was spent on the campaigns. More than a quarter of a million dollars - $253,259 - sits in 91 lawmakers' campaign accounts, drawing interest.
The money is there for any purpose - reimbursement for expenses not picked up by the Legislature itself (and there's a lot of that), buying a new computer to keep updated names of constituents and donors, or just keeping a large bank account to act as a very real deterrent to those who may want to challenge a legislator in the next election.
(In fairness, some legislators have negative campaign balances - they spent their own money on their races and haven't yet, and may never, recoup the losses.)
Here are some of the legislative raising/spending campaign leaders:
- Dave Buhler, R-Salt Lake, a former aide to Gov. Norm Bangerter, raised and spent the most money on a winning race in 1994. Buhler, a freshman senator, raised $44,128 and spent $40,171. That's not the most expensive Senate race ever; several have topped $50,000. Despite the large number, Buhler showed special-interest groups don't have to dominate a big campaign. Only 46 percent of his money came from such groups - most came from individuals.
To limit campaign spending "is not a limit on spending but a limit on free speech," said Buhler. "Nothing should be prohibited in giving, but it all should be disclosed." In fact, Buhler has a bill that requires more complete campaign disclosure.
- Stephens raised the most money in the House, $26,026. But he didn't spend the most in a House race. That honor went to Jones, who spent $20,155. Jones, who is also state Democratic Party chairman, had a tough race in his Avenues district, but he also gave a lot of money to other Democratic candidates trying to get them elected.
- Freshman Sen. Eddie Mayne, D-West Valley, has the fattest residual bank account. Mayne, president of the Utah AFL-CIO, raised $42,712, second only to Buhler in overall fund-raising, and spent $28,153. That leaves Mayne with $14,560 in cash. Republicans targeted Mayne for defeat last year, and the $14,560 will come in handy in discouraging Republican challengers in four years.
A side note to Mayne's campaign. Because Mayne is the state's top labor leader, many Republicans complained that he'd tap huge labor PACs for money in his race. Mayne's last report before the Nov. 8 election - which includes monies donated up to 10 days before the election - showed $5,179 from labor unions, about a fifth of his then-total. But his year-end report showed that Mayne collected an additional $8,000 from labor unions in the final days just before the election and soon thereafter, leaving some Republicans grumbling that Mayne side-stepped a potential political hot potato by taking most of his labor money at a time when it wouldn't be seen before the election.
Mayne said he didn't manipulate the system. Labor friends kept calling and asking if he needed cash, said Mayne. "I said no, I didn't," and the $14,000 left over shows he didn't need it, he said. Labor gave him money late in the campaign so he could be the "gatekeeper" and give labor money to other candidates in future years, he said.
Other interesting tidbits that showed up in the reports:
- Sen. John Holmgren, R-Bear River, was unopposed in 1994 yet still raised $12,915. He's been the leader in health-care reform and got 45 percent of his money from medical groups, drug companies and health-care providers.
- Rep. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake, was unopposed in 1994 but still raised $9,385, 62 percent from special interests. He spent $2,480 and has $5,257 in cash on hand. One of his major campaign expenses was a $900 golf tournament, complete with trophies. "I host the `Davis Open' each summer, a way to say thanks to my constituents and those who contribute" to his campaigns, Davis said.
- Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful, a former Davis School District board member, got 18 percent of her money from teacher associations and kicked in 23 percent of her funds herself. So 41 percent of her campaign resources came from teachers and her own pocket.
- Sen. Robert Steiner, D-Salt Lake, continued his tradition of paying for his own campaigns himself. Steiner is a vice president of his family business, Steiner Corp., owns considerable stock in the Salt Lake Tribune and sits on the newspaper's board. He raised $28,073 in 1994, of which $16,882, or 60 percent, came from himself, immediate family members or Steiner Corp.
"Philosophically, it gives me some independence" not to take money from special-interest groups, said Steiner. "I didn't want to take the time to raise money, and there's a certain pool of money out there, and I didn't want to take away from other Democratic candidates," he said.
*****
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Campaign reform?
During the 1994 campaign, the Deseret News asked legislative candidates whether they supported campaign finance reform, including spending limits on so-called "special interest" groups and businesses.
Of those elected, 49 members responded to the question, and all but two of those said they would support reform. Freshman Rep. Ted Bradford, R-Bountiful, said he did not and veteran Rep. Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, specified he would vote for a campaign reform proposal if he likes what he sees but will not vote just to be listed on the side of reform.
In the Senate, 16 of the 29 members were involved in last year's election. Of those, 11 said they would support campaign finance reform. The only senator who said he would not is Sen. Blaze Wharton, D-Murray.
House members who said they support reform are Gerry Adair, Eli Anderson, Kelly Atkinson, Loretta Baca, Steve Barth, Ron Bigelow, Stephen Bodily, Afton Bradshaw, David Bresnahan, Mel Brown, Judy Ann Buffmire, Don Bush, Mary Carlson, Orville Carnahan, Greg Curtis, Marda Dilree, R. Lee Ellertson, Beverly Evans, Mont Evans, Christine Fox, Lloyd Frandsen, Kevin Garn, Byron Harward, Tom Hatch, Bryan Holladay, Fred Hunsaker, Shirley Jensen, Keele Johnson, Dave Jones, Robert Killpack, Peter Knudson, Patricia Larson, Tim Moran, Lowell Nelson, Norm Nielsen, Evan Olsen, Kurt Oscarson, Doug Peterson, Grant Protzman, Karen Smith, Nora Stephens, Michael Styler, Pete Suazo, Jordan Tanner, Daniel Tuttle, Michael Waddoups, Bill Wright.
Supporters in the Senate are Dave Buhler, Al Mansell, Ed Mayne, LeRay McAllister, Alarik Myrin, Millie Peterson, Steven Poulton, David Steele, Robert Steiner, Howard Stephenson, Nathan Tanner.
*****
Senate
...................................................................Percent of
....................................................................special-
1994 Total campaign Total special- interest
Legislator Party Incumbent money raised interest money money
Holmgren, John R Y $12915 $11615 89.9
Wharton, Blaze D Y 25088 21986 87.6
Blackham, Leonard R Y 8676 7591 87.5
McAllister, LeRay R Y 6350 5050 79.5
Peterson, Millie D Y 13626 10515 77.1
Stephenson, Howard R Y 10926 8423 77.0
Mansell, Al R Y 25363 19500 76.9
Steele, David R Y 25555 18856 73.8
Mayne, Eddie D N 42712 26021 60.9
Mantes, George D Y 37225 22375 60.1
Tanner, Nathan R N 20345 11050 54.3
Buhler, David R N 44128 20495 46.0
Taylor, Craig R N 23210 10563 45.5
Poulton, Steve R N 32968 13789 41.8
Myrin, Alarik R Y 8575 3425 39.9
Steiner, Roberti D Y 28073 5125 18.3
*****
House of Representatives
...................................................................Percent of
....................................................................special-
1994 Total campaign Total special- interest
Legislator Party Incumbent money raised interest money money
Gowans, Jamesi D Y $1700 $1700 100.0
Harward, Byron R Y 5550 5550 100.0
Goodfellow, Brent D Y 6115 5915 96.7
Ellertson, Lee R Y 4639 4439 95.7
Evans, Mont R Y 11484 10668 92.9
Haymond, Brent R Y 5775 5350 92.6
Valentine, John R Y 9925 9189 92.5
Stephens, Martin R Y 26026 23737 91.2
Moran, Tim D Y 5791 5220 90.1
Bowman, Demar R Y 1950 1750 89.7
Tuttle, Daniel D Y 10345 9225 89.1
Brown, Melvin R Y 20601 18129 88.0
Oscarson, Kurt D Y 18703 16179 86.5
Johnson, Bradley R Y 1455 1250 85.9
Fox, Christine R Y 9360 7874 84.1
Evans, Beverly R Y 6025 4990 82.8
Hendrickson, Neal D Y 4515 3725 82.5
Protzman, Grant D Y 14985 12354 82.4
Suazo, Pete D Y 7857 6425 81.7
Bodily, Stephen R Y 3775 3075 81.5
Hickman, Bill R Y 5875 4750 80.8
Hunsaker, Fred R Y 7419 5975 80.5
Nelson, Lowell R Y 6247 4942 79.1
Waddoups, Michael R Y 15496 12225 78.9
Wright, Bill R Y 950 750 78.9
Killpack, Robert R Y 7457 5871 78.7
Garn, Kevin R Y 2575 1975 76.7
Barth, Steve R Y 13200 10029 75.9
Larson, Patricia D Y 10583 8028 75.9
Atkinson, Kelly D Y 20559 15580 75.8
Carnahan, Orville R Y 15329 11411 74.4
Hatch, Tom R N 3648 2700 74.0
Johnson, Met R Y 1800 1200 66.7
Allen, Brian R N 5004 3318 66.3
Frandsen, Lloyd R N 12052 7982 66.2
Knudson, Peter R N 7729 5063 65.5
Buffmire, Judy Anni D Y 13715 8830 64.4
Bradshaw, Aftoni R Y 14246 8887 62.4
Davis, Gene D Y 9385 5800 61.8
Styler, Michael R Y 4831 2977 61.6
Dilree, Marda R Y 6825 4191 61.4
Arrington, John D Y 9791 5970 60.9
Johnson, Keele R Y 5246 3196 60.9
Smith, Karen R Y 10963 6675 60.8
Jensen, Shirley R Y 5753 3428 59.6
Alexander, Jeff R Y 6426 3826 59.5
Peterson, Douglas R Y 10014 5940 59.3
Anderson, Eli D Y 17102 10095 59.0
Short, Ray R Y 10525 6199 58.9
Carlson, Mary D Y 15987 8976 56.1
Tyler, Lamont R N 12782 7010 54.8
Jones, Davei D Y 18279 9375 51.3
Baca, Lorettai D N 5470 2770 50.6
Ure, Davidi R Y 6335 3100 48.9
Bradford, Ted R N 7375 3525 47.8
Olsen, Evan R Y 4800 2197 45.7
Mortimer, Doyle R Y 5960 2675 44.9
Curtis, Greg R N 12008 5337 44.4
Nielson, Norm R Y 4540 1975 43.5
Bresnahan, Davidi R N 10594 4544 42.9
Allen, Sheryl R Y 14923 6270 42.0
Adair, Gerry R Y 12470 4660 37.4
Hunter, Reese R Y 13349 4636 34.7
Stephens, Nora R Y 8464 2825 33.3
Bush, Don R Y 8818 2864 32.5
Seitz, Jack R N 3125 1000 32.0
Gubler, Darlene R N 6839 2050 29.9
Holladay, Byran R N 6965 1998 28.7
Tanner, Jordan R Y 550 150 27.2
Chard, Blake R Y 10505 2725 25.9
Matthews, Tom D Y 15800 3750 23.7
Lockman, Sue R N 4564 1010 22.1
Bigelow, Ron R N 3763 500 13.3
Murray, Joseph R N 5670 300 5.3