I would be interested in knowing what happends to the campaign funds of our Senators when they retire.

Could some one tell me what will happen to Orin Hatch's massive campaign fund if he decides to retire or not to run in the next election.

Would he be able to use it after he retires?

Are there any restrictions?

Do they have to be returned to the companies and people who donated it?

The same might also be said of donations to Charity..It is a big business..Except for the Salvation Army, only 10% of contributions actually reach needy..90%, or more, go to support the organization..

Why the need for ever more limits, laws, and rules?

If you don't trust a politician to use your donations in a way you find acceptable, don't donate.

OTOH, serving in the legislature IS a significant pay cut for many who serve there. Doing so can impose significant financial burdens in other ways. How many suite, ties, and dress shirts must a man purchase to be properly attired during the long hours of the 6 week session? Especially if he doesn't normally wear suits to work? Double or tripple that cost for a woman who does not require professional attire for her job to be properly outfitted.

We often decry the lack of diversity in the legislature, but then turn around and complain when someone uses campaign money to buy a new suit or to replace family income lost to the time spent serving???

If someone is willing to donate knowing it may be used on personal expenses, that is the donors choice. And if someone donates NOT knowing how the donation might be used, odds are laws won't protect him anyway.

In response to the question about campaign accounts once a Senator retires. In the old days they could keep the money for personal use. So you would see massive fund raisers and then with about a year before election, maybe less they would announce retirement. In some cases, on top of their lavish retirement, they would keep many, many millions of dollars. Now, they have strict limits on what can be done with the money.

Also, I just became aware of another graft that has taken place in the legislature. It would seem that Rep Aaron Tilton (R-Springville), the same one of 'no conflict of interest' on the nuclear plant/license issue has already slipped one past us.

Three years ago he ran a bill that legalized certain forms of on-line pharamcies. Shocking, once he got the bill passed and signed by the Governor he immediately opens up shop selling viagra and cialis on-line. Apparently he has made millions.

It is good to have healthy economic laws. It is pathetic when a legislator runs bills to 'hook themselves up.' The Deseret News needs to investigate this. I know it's true. He admitted it to me. He needs to Resign! TODAY!

None of us will ever know what goes on behind closed doors or under the table, will we?
Until all gifts, contributions, etc. are deemed to be illegal - the system we have will be a corrupt one.

It seems that we wish to demonize all elected officials for the inappropriate actions of a few. If one reviews the data available about spending of campaign funds we will see some obvious abuse, but for many officer holders their expenditures seem within reasonable parameters. I beleive full disclosure of campaign contributions and spending is essential to good government practices. That will allow voters to judge whether or not those who represent them are fit to serve.

A more valuable tool for judging potential corruption is monotoring of lobbyists and their 'gifts' to legislators. However, if that was a law, lobbyists would find a way to contribute to lawmakers campaigns and we would have a worse problem. The best way to achieve overall honesty in government is to have a balance of political parties. When one party has too much power then corruption invariably rasies its head and the public is the loser.

I take great exception to your post. You are implying that all nonprofits, except for Salvation Army, use over 90% of the funds that they raise for organizational reasons and not for the people they serve. I have worked in the non-proift sector for over 18 years and the majority of the nonprofits in Utah are upstanding, hard working charities and the majority of them put at least 80-90% back into the people they serve and they run their orgs on usually less than 10%. You slander the good names of the many nonprofit orgs out there by suggesting that they are taking 90%. Most people work in nonprofit because they CARE about what they are doing, they are NOT making money by working in nonprofit.

Slater DOES have a point.
According to the law-of-the-land (we're seeing lots of this term lately, aren't we?) only 10% of the contributions need to be directly applied to the actual cause leaving 90% for administrative purposes.
That's a lot of administration.

To East Millcreek, Senator Hatch didn't go on the big fund raiser in 2006 and raise millions that weren't needed for his election for no reason. He will be able to use most of it himself, but he will be able to buy political influence with the rest of it. That is why I think this is his last term. Always remember as the article states, "It's a way to buy access to a lawmaker. That access fosters relationships." Follow the money! Those relationships are very important after a senator retires.

We are rigth there with the romans, headed for a downfall. Things are looking kinda shady even for our good leaders. No wonder the Skull and Bones society of GWB..just a form of secret combinations if not honest...But I do reccomend the PIE..for Pizza if you going to hell anyway!

To Slater and Anon 1:27: While SOME charities may take a large amount of the donation for administrative expenses, that is the EXCEPTION not the rule

After doing a quick search on the internet I found information on several Utah charities and what their expenses are. I’ll list the charity followed by the amount of their budget that they spend on their program, then administrative expenses and finishing up with fundraising expenses. (wish I could list the websites for these, but DNews wont allow it).

As you can see, many of these charities put a majority of their budget into their programs not Administrative costs like what Slater and Anon 1:27 would have you believe.

Best Friends Animal Society: 72.5%, 7.7% 19.6%
Children’s Miracle Network: 90%, 5.8%, 4.0%
Christmas Box intl: 88%,: 4.8%, 6.3%
Crossroads Urban Center: 90.6%, 4.8%, 4.4%
Humane Society of Utah: 78.5%, 10.4%, 10.9%
Make A Wish: 84.7%, 5.7%, 9.5%
Ronald McDonald House Charities: 82%, 7%, 10%
The Road Home: 86.7%, 6.9%, 6.2%
YMCA of Salt Lake: 85.1%, 4.0%, 10.8%

Actually the topic is geared toward campaign contributions. Perhaps a list of legislators who don't accept gifts from outside sources, lobbyists, special interests, etc. would be, uh, ... interesting.
Any bets that there are none?

Dear Control Freak, you said that..."if we don't trust a politician to use our money....don't contribute." If we do our best to find the right person to vote for and someone comes along and looks us in the eye and makes promises that we look forward to then gets into office and does the opposite, what recourse is there for us? Wait until next election and vote him out? A case in point is Sandstrom. We supported him to be anti-voucher. Teachers campaigned and worked for him. Then he casts the deciding vote for vouchers. Typical slimebag! As an American I must vote or have no say whatsoever. Yet, I must admit that many politicians cannot be trusted to keep their word.

An earlier article pointed out that an insane percent of state legislators donations come from PACs, not people. I think it was above 95% of their donations come from PACs.

With the percentage that high it is not a case of 'if you don't like it, don't donate.' We the people aren't donating. Good or bad, we are not. so that becomes a reality of PACs and special interest buying our legislators love.

The basic fact is that if buying Jazz tickets, etc didn't work, the lobbyists wouldn't be doing it.

One other point, I was talking with a long term staffer in the legislature. They started in the 1980's. They pointed out how it didn't use to be like this. Very few professional lobbyists with the money floating around very small. All of that changed when Rep Mel Brown professionalized the legislature by running for Speaker of the House twice. He basically gave a couple special interest groups ownership of the legislature and the other side realized they had to step up to the plate to compete. Whether true or not the perception was Mel Brown sold the legislature to the highest bidder.

We need to reel this in.