Retiring politicos can leave with cash

Utah's Curtis has about $400K in campaign accounts he could keep
By Bob Bernick Jr. and Lee Davidson
Deseret News
Published: November 15, 2008

The 18 Utah legislators who retired this year — either voluntarily or by voters' choice — have nearly a combined half-million dollars sitting in campaign accounts, money that they currently can just give to themselves, spend on a future campaign or dole out to whomever they wish.
By far most of that cash belongs to House Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, who was defeated Nov. 4 by Democratic challenger Jay Seegmiller. Curtis has $281,865 in his campaign account — and another $99,081 in his political action committee — the latest pre-election financial reports show.
But Sen. Carlene Walker, R-Cottonwood Heights, who also lost in the general election, is no cash slacker — she has $32,000. And Sen. Darin Peterson, R-Nephi, who briefly sought re-election last spring before getting out of his race, has nearly $30,000. Retiring Sen. Dan Eastman, R-Bountiful, has about $22,000.
That is not chump change.
And while Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and GOP and Democratic lawmakers alike are talking about changing the current campaign funding law to restrict state candidates and officeholders from giving themselves campaign money, it is questionable whether such a new law coming out of the 2009 Legislature could be retroactive to current campaign cash.
Utah allows campaign accounts to be spent on any legal activity. And in years gone by, some candidates and officeholders, and some former officeholders, have given themselves campaign cash.
Considering that among the current crop of 18 retiring legislators, 76 percent of their campaign money in their last year for which disclosure forms are available came from special interest groups, a Deseret News analysis of their latest filings shows, then, in effect, they could be retiring on cash from lobbyists and special interests who sought special favors from them.
Can such a thing really happen, one may ask?
Yep. For example, Rep. Jack Draxler, R-North Logan, gave himself $6,300 last year from his campaign account, telling the newspaper that he is self-employed and he lost more than that through the 45-day general session and other legislative work days when he couldn't earn his regular pay. (Legislators make around $15,000 a year in state pay and expenses.)
And it has become rather regular for some retiring/retired legislators to donate big chunks of their campaign accounts to charities.
Previous bills on restrictions to campaign account expenses — and current talk about putting some limits on such spending — all include exceptions for donating campaign money to a bona fide charity. So it is likely that charitable giving will still be allowed under any new law restricting campaign account spending.
Curtis could not be reached for comment on this story. However, he has previously said that he would not take any of his campaign cash himself, but may give to other candidates, his party or to charity.
And he may seek higher office down the road. Curtis' nearly $400,000 (in PAC and campaign cash) would be a good jump-start for a campaign for governor, Congress or attorney general.
Other high-profile legislators have also raised a lot of cash for a political rainy day. For example, former House Speaker Marty Stephens raised several hundred thousand dollars while he was speaker and spent a chunk of it on his failed 2004 run for governor. And current Rep. Kevin Garn, R-Layton, kept about $45,000 in his Utah House account even after he lost a run for the U.S. House in 2002, and spent that money when he ran successfully for his Utah House seat again in 2006.
Eastman was one of the few retiring members who would comment on plans for his leftover money — about $22,000. He said he plans to give about half to charity, most of the rest to other politicians and maybe some for himself. "But I don't plan to be buying any plasma TVs for myself," he joked.
He said he does not favor restricting how campaign accounts can be used. "You elect honorable people, and they will use it in honorable ways," he said.
Eastman added that while he raised more than he needed in his last election, much of what is left over will go to "several Senate friends and other candidates who are deserving" and have similar political goals as he does.
While Eastman dislikes campaign-fund restrictions, he does support banning all gifts from lobbyists — another controversial political money issue.
Of note, exactly how much money retiring members have is often unknown. If they are not active candidates, they do not need to file disclosure forms — showing how much they are raising and how they have been spending it — until January, or just after they officially leave office.
________________________________________
E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com; lee@desnews.com
© 2008 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved

All this cash should be donated to children’s charities’. - Alex

Southern Utah residents have say on immigration

ST. GEORGE - A slumping economy may have dominated the headlines of late, but immigration took center stage Wednesday, during a meeting of the Utah Legislature's interim Immigration Committee at Dixie State College.

The committee, assigned by legislative leadership to study immigration issues and make recommendations for future state action, has met throughout the state this year, gathering input from residents and hearing testimony from various community leaders.

In Wednesday's meeting, members of local anti-immigration groups such as the Utah Minutemen and Citizens Council Against Illegal Immigration weren't shy about their takes on the issue, saying undocumented immigrants cost U.S. citizens in a myriad of ways. Some clapped when Rep. Neil A. Hansen, D-Ogden, arguing that undocumented immigrants deserve humane treatment, barbed "Why don't we just shoot people as they come across the border?"

Committee members said they simply wanted to gather information as they consider possible legislation on immigration, and asked for new ideas and thoughts on how the state government could best handle the issue.

Larry Meyers, a local attorney and member of the Citizens Council Against Illegal Immigration, said the issue shouldn't be about race, but about whether someone is legal or illegal. He encouraged the committee to consider ways to improve immigration enforcement through both funding and legislation.

"We care about this issue," he said. "We don't want our community invaded by people who aren't in this country legally."

Aaron Corsi, a St. George resident who has lived in California, said he hopes the gangs and crime he saw there don't engulf Southern Utah. He said it has been difficult finding work in St. George lately, and he sees mostly Latinos doing the construction.

"It's frustrating when I go to some of these places and can't get a job, and the ones working are illegals," he said.

Such concerns have already spurred some local government action. Last week the St. George City Council voted unanimously to include a new clause in business license applications that makes business owners certify that all of their workers are legal.

Retired Sen. Bill Hickman, R-St. George, has sponsored legislation that would make it tougher for undocumented immigrants to get jobs and find places to live in Utah. SB81, set to take effect in July 2009, was toned down from earlier versions as it passed through the Legislature, but still includes provisions that mandate some employers verify their workers are legal and allows police officers to enforce immigration law.

Opponents of such legislation contend these attempts do little in actually addressing the fundamental problems behind the issue, and often lead to profiling and incite racism.

Manny Aguilar, a St. George resident and activist for Latino affairs in the area, said he is concerned that immigration legislation would only be focused toward Latinos, and said the issue has caused divisions among American and Latino cultures.

"We don't see anybody else getting picked on," he said.

If the government pursues Legislation, some residents asked that it also promote a peaceful discourse, said St. George resident Yulma Diaz. She said she has personally been ridiculed and belittled because of her looks, despite being a U.S. citizen.

"As we do this, can we at least promote peace?" she said.

Hansen, who said his district is the most diverse and economically challenged in the state, said his main concern was making sure to prevent discrimination.

"This country of the United States is a United States of immigrants," he said.

The committee heard two presentations on E-Verify, an online system jointly operated by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to check the work status of new hires.

Gloria Aitken, management and program analyst with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services under the Department of Homeland Security, said the system, often criticized for technical problems and database errors, has had most of its bugs worked out, citing a "94 percent accuracy rate."

Hickman, also a committee member, said he was concerned that the system is inherently flawed as currently instituted, because employers must voluntarily choose to take part.

"That doesn't solve the problem," he said. "The problem is an attempt to verify the status of the employees, and I can't imagine, if it's on a voluntary status, what benefit that is."

Barbara Szweda, public policy advocate with the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, gave a presentation on the system as well, calling it a "quick fix" to the problem of undocumented workers that has actually caused enormous financial losses to both businesses and employees because of ongoing technical problems and obvious threats to privacy.

"It's sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water if we don't take the time to look at the impact it could have on American citizens," she said, arguing that while the system may catch some undocumented workers, it could also hurt legal citizens through unfair errors.

http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20081113/NEWS01/811130320

Sanctuary City Must Report Alien Drug Offenders, Court Rules

Immigration enforcement advocates scored a major victory on October 22nd when the California First District Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit against San Francisco's sanctuary city policy that had been thrown out last year. The suit, Charles Fonseca v. Heather Fong, Chief, San Francisco Police Department, challenged that the city's practice of not cooperating with federal immigration authorities violates a state law that requires law enforcement officers who make arrests on drug related charges to notify the federal government if it is suspected that person is not a U.S. citizen. (Opinion of the California 1st District Court of Appeals) The Superior Court judge who heard the case last year dismissed it on grounds that the state statute was itself an invalid law that sought to regulate immigration. The appellate court disagreed, noting that the law intended to fight drug trafficking in California.

The plaintiff, Charles Fonseca, noted that his interest in filing the lawsuit was "making the city comply with the law." (San Francisco Chronicle, October 23, 2008) The court decision requires the city to comply with the state law, which the city maintains will have no "bearing on the city's sanctuary ordinance," noting that written policies for the city already "allow" officials to report drug offenders who appear to not be U.S. citizens to federal authorities. (San Francisco Chronicle, October 23, 2008) However, President Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch remarked: "This landmark ruling strikes at the heart of the sanctuary movement for illegal aliens. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities are not above the law. This court ruling exposes the lie behind the argument that state and local law enforcement cannot help enforce immigration laws." (The Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2008)

This case marks just another instance in a year of troubles for San Francisco's sanctuary city policy. In June, Mayor Gavin Newsom came under fire after the San Francisco Chronicle uncovered a taxpayer-funded program that was flying illegal alien youth gang members back to their country of origin, rather than entering them into the court system. Then, in early October, city officials announced that a federal grand jury was investigating whether the sanctuary city policy violated federal immigration laws that prohibit aiding and abetting illegal aliens. (See Legislative Update, October 14, 2008)

Back to top