September 07. 2010
Latest Blog Entries
Oct 28 › Noel Receives Endorsement from Lt. Governor Herbert
Oct 28 › NOEL SIGNS REMOVED IN KANE COUNTY
Feb 22 › Status of sponsored legislation as of 2/22/2006
Mike Noel in the News
Links & Info
› Mike Noel's Legislative Page
Join the Mailing List!
Weblog - Notes from Mike Noel
Posted Wednesday, February 8, 2006
Common Cause issues apology
Article Inaccurately Portrayed Legislators' Expenses
On Wednesday, January 25, Common Cause of Utah and Utah Students for Clean Elections conducted a press conference to present a study on legislators' use of campaign funds. We looked at expenditures that have been considered in other states for restriction, and referred to these expenditures as 'questionable'.
Utah is one of a minority of states that has almost no restrictions on the use of campaign funds. The purpose of the study was primarily to stimulate public discussion of what sort of expenditures might constitute appropriate use of those funds, and to draw attention to a common sense bill that would restrict personal use of campaign funds. The study was not intended to target specific legislators, as inappropriately occurred with Rep. Mike Noel and others.
Our recent analysis was not designed to produce a list of legislators whose expenditures might be ethically suspect. That would not have served the need for a broader interest or discussion. The emphasis would have been on individuals rather than the shortcomings of our campaign finance system. Furthermore, what one person may find inappropriate, another may find wholly legitimate. Many of the expenses that we included in 'questionable' categories would likely be widely accepted as legitimate campaign expenses if their specific purpose could be divined from the limited information available.
Instead we developed a methodology, based on those items that other states have scrutinized or restricted, and applied these categories to the campaign expenses of Utah Legislators. Our study, therefore, provided a look at categories of expenditures as opposed to a laundry list of items we deemed inappropriate.
This methodology is far from perfect. Some of these categories, such as "Charitable Gifts," would probably be considered less controversial. Many expenditures might be considered legitimate given the circumstances of a given legislator. For example, a legislator such as Rep. Noel who represents a geographically large area will probably spend more on travel than most.
These and many other factors led us to portray the numbers in the study as "soft." That is to say, that the amounts and percentages should in no way be used to call into question the integrity of any legislator. The numbers are meant to be used as an overall barometer of spending, by legislators and as a guide to POTENTIALLY questionable campaign expenses. If a legislator seems to have spent a lot in a given category, citizens could then look at the actual expenditure report for that legislator and determine for themselves if that money was truly spent appropriately.
We repeatedly expressed that the study should not be used to highlight individual legislators spending, both in the study and at the press conference in which it was released. We expressed to the members of the press present, that if they truly wanted to highlight individual legislators, than they had best look at their actual expenditure reports before listing names.
The article, "Report lists 'Questionable Campaign-Fund Spending" (Tribune, 01/26/06) used the data in the study in a way that we suggested it not be used, but for which we are ultimately responsible. The article listed the ten legislators who had spent the highest percentage of their campaign funds on potentially questionable expenditures. In Rep. Noels case, his inclusion in this list can be explained by the overall low amount of total expenditures in 2004, and the fact that a significant percentage of his 2004 expenditures were used to pay back his 2002 election expenses. This made it look as if a high percentage of his total expenditures were "questionable."
We appreciate that the article did make mention that many expenses that fell under the wide umbrella of potentially "questionable" expenditures might well be legitimate. However, the choice and selective presentation of data from the study, presented a decidedly "skewed" list of top offenders.
Were we to compose a list of the top ten legislators with 'questionable expenditures, our list would be very different from the one found in the article. We encourage citizens to look at the report and individual campaign expenditures, and judge for themselves.
The study can be found at:
http://www.commoncause.org/Utah
Individual campaign expenditure reports can be accessed at:
https://ucrs.state.ut.us/
Anthony Musci
Chair, Common Cause of Utah
Luke Peterson
Exec. Dir., Utah Students for Clean Elections
On Wednesday, January 25, Common Cause of Utah and Utah Students for Clean Elections conducted a press conference to present a study on legislators' use of campaign funds. We looked at expenditures that have been considered in other states for restriction, and referred to these expenditures as 'questionable'.
Utah is one of a minority of states that has almost no restrictions on the use of campaign funds. The purpose of the study was primarily to stimulate public discussion of what sort of expenditures might constitute appropriate use of those funds, and to draw attention to a common sense bill that would restrict personal use of campaign funds. The study was not intended to target specific legislators, as inappropriately occurred with Rep. Mike Noel and others.
Our recent analysis was not designed to produce a list of legislators whose expenditures might be ethically suspect. That would not have served the need for a broader interest or discussion. The emphasis would have been on individuals rather than the shortcomings of our campaign finance system. Furthermore, what one person may find inappropriate, another may find wholly legitimate. Many of the expenses that we included in 'questionable' categories would likely be widely accepted as legitimate campaign expenses if their specific purpose could be divined from the limited information available.
Instead we developed a methodology, based on those items that other states have scrutinized or restricted, and applied these categories to the campaign expenses of Utah Legislators. Our study, therefore, provided a look at categories of expenditures as opposed to a laundry list of items we deemed inappropriate.
This methodology is far from perfect. Some of these categories, such as "Charitable Gifts," would probably be considered less controversial. Many expenditures might be considered legitimate given the circumstances of a given legislator. For example, a legislator such as Rep. Noel who represents a geographically large area will probably spend more on travel than most.
These and many other factors led us to portray the numbers in the study as "soft." That is to say, that the amounts and percentages should in no way be used to call into question the integrity of any legislator. The numbers are meant to be used as an overall barometer of spending, by legislators and as a guide to POTENTIALLY questionable campaign expenses. If a legislator seems to have spent a lot in a given category, citizens could then look at the actual expenditure report for that legislator and determine for themselves if that money was truly spent appropriately.
We repeatedly expressed that the study should not be used to highlight individual legislators spending, both in the study and at the press conference in which it was released. We expressed to the members of the press present, that if they truly wanted to highlight individual legislators, than they had best look at their actual expenditure reports before listing names.
The article, "Report lists 'Questionable Campaign-Fund Spending" (Tribune, 01/26/06) used the data in the study in a way that we suggested it not be used, but for which we are ultimately responsible. The article listed the ten legislators who had spent the highest percentage of their campaign funds on potentially questionable expenditures. In Rep. Noels case, his inclusion in this list can be explained by the overall low amount of total expenditures in 2004, and the fact that a significant percentage of his 2004 expenditures were used to pay back his 2002 election expenses. This made it look as if a high percentage of his total expenditures were "questionable."
We appreciate that the article did make mention that many expenses that fell under the wide umbrella of potentially "questionable" expenditures might well be legitimate. However, the choice and selective presentation of data from the study, presented a decidedly "skewed" list of top offenders.
Were we to compose a list of the top ten legislators with 'questionable expenditures, our list would be very different from the one found in the article. We encourage citizens to look at the report and individual campaign expenditures, and judge for themselves.
The study can be found at:
http://www.commoncause.org/Utah
Individual campaign expenditure reports can be accessed at:
https://ucrs.state.ut.us/
Anthony Musci
Chair, Common Cause of Utah
Luke Peterson
Exec. Dir., Utah Students for Clean Elections