Weblog - Notes from Mike Noel

Dear Representative Noel,
In regard to the recent Salt Lake Tribune article, "Report Lists 'Questionable' Campaign-Fund Spending," we write to apologize for the way in which your campaign expenses were portrayed in this article. The author of the article included your name at the top of a list of legislators with the most "questionable" campaign expenses based on a recent study produced by our organizations. We assert here that under no circumstance would we have implicated that your reported campaign expenditures constitute inappropriate behavior.

In conducting our recent study of the campaign expenditures of Utah State Legislators, we did not attempt to compile a list of suspect individual expenses. Such a study would be in no way objective, fair, or scientific. Instead we developed a methodology based on those items that other states have found reason to scrutinize or restrict, and applied these categories to the campaign expenses of Utah Legislators. Our study, therefore, provided a look at broad categories of expenditures and not a laundry list of theoretically inappropriate items.

This methodology is far from perfect. Many Utahns would probably view some of these categories, such as "Charitable Gifts," as less controversial. Most of these potentially "questionable" expenditures would likely be considered legitimate given the circumstances of a given legislator. For example, a legislator such as yourself who represents a geographically large area would naturally 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 legislator's spending, both in the study and at the January 25 press conference in which it was released.
The Salt Lake Tribune article used the data in the study in a way that we cautioned against, although we accept responsibility for the manner in which that data was portrayed. The article listed the ten legislators who had spent the highest percentage of their campaign funds on potentially 'questionable' expenditures. Your inclusion in this list can be explained by the overall low amount of total expenditures that you made in 2004, and the fact that a significant percentage of your 2004 expenditures were used to pay back 2002 election expenses. This made it look as if a high percentage of your total expenditures were "questionable" and could give the mistaken impression that a large portion of your spending was inappropriate.

Once again, we apologize for the unfortunate manner in which the data was utilized and for any negative impressions that have been conveyed as a result. Thank you for your time and patience in bringing your concerns and the concerns of your colleagues to us. We respect your devotion to public service and appreciate the opportunity to hear your story.

Sincerely,

Anthony Musci
Chair, Common Cause of Utah


Luke Peterson
Director, Utah Students for Clean Elections