Utah lawmakers seeking re-election this year hold a number of advantages over challengers — one being money.
The Utah Progressive Network Education Fund, in its annual report titled "Buying Power in the Utah State Legislature," says a record amount of money was given to legislative incumbents in 1999 by political action committees and corporations.
And incumbent senators, on average, had $9,061 in their campaign bank accounts as of the last legislative filing, giving them a healthy leg up at the start of the 2000 election season.
The report, however, doesn't include exact totals of lawmakers' personal accounts. State campaign finance law requires no filings by lawmakers in off-election years, says Amy Naccarato, state elections director.
The first report the public will see of individual legislative candidate campaign accounts comes this month, if they are challenged within their party convention, or Sept. 15, if they are unchallenged. They must also report before a June primary, if they have one, and 10 days before November's general election. The candidate reports will show total funds raised and spent up through those filing deadlines, Naccarato said.
Still, UPNet's study does show how much PACs and businesses are giving to legislators. And it's a lot, the public interest group concludes.
In 1999, not an election year, PACs and corporations donated $74,742 to Utah's 104 part-time lawmakers, UPNet says.
Combine that with money left over after their 1998 re-elections, and incumbent lawmakers combined had $650,000 in campaign cash.
In 1998, incumbent lawmakers raised nearly three times as much campaign money as their challengers and 98 percent of the incumbents were re-elected, the group says.
UPNet estimates a winning Utah Senate race this year will cost, on average, $38,000. Considering that the average senator has $9,000 in the bank already (and that doesn't include any individual funds possibly received in 1999), the incumbent already has a quarter of what's needed to win.
UPNet also concludes that several so-called government reform bills killed in the 2000 Legislature would have had an impact on lobbyist-giving to lawmakers and how campaign cash is spent.
The group says that of the $105,000 reported as gifts to lawmakers during the session by lobbyists, only $18,500 came with lawmakers' names attached.
So the public only knows on whom 18 percent of the money was spent. That's because Utah law says that any gift over $50 by a lobbyist must also list a lawmaker's name. By far most gifts, such as meals, are under $50 a day, so no lawmaker's name is listed in the lobbyist's report.
But some lobbyists have become adept at providing meals and golf games at just under $50. In addition, some have started splitting the cost of a more expensive gift, like a Jazz ticket, with several lobbying colleagues. And each lobbyist reports a half or a third of the ticket's price, and so the lawmaker's name is not listed along with the gift. A bill to tighten up lobbyist reporting died in the Senate after passing the House.
Finally, a bill that would have restricted how lawmakers can spend their campaign money died in the 2000 session. Currently, there are no restrictions at all on spending. And some legislators purchase items some may question as campaign-related, like books, clothes and car repairs.
The bill would have detailed how lawmakers can close out their campaign accounts when they retire from office. Some lawmakers just give themselves the cash left over in their accounts.
"Fifteen legislators not seeking re-election in 2000 received a total of $14,281 during 1999 — 19 percent of the total given" by PACs and businesses last year, UPNet points out.
Combine the 1999 funds with their bank accounts as of the beginning of 1999, and these 15 lawmakers have at least $92,481 in their accounts when they entered their last year in office, UPNet says.
"And there are no legal restrictions on the use of these remaining funds," the group writes in its report.
Jeanna Nixon, UPNet program coordinator, says legislators must be willing to adopt reasonable reforms that will increase ethics and accountability.
"While many legislators refuse to support reform because they don't see a problem or they think it would be admitting guilt, the data demonstrates that the public's desire for reform is based on real problems with disclosure and influence," she said. "We need real reform to restore the public's faith in government and the democratic process."