Why I'm voting for Dan Liljenquist.

If you've followed my blog, you know that I have personally met with two of the candidates for State Senate district 23, Republican Dan Liljenquist and Democrat Richard Watson. I've tried contacting the Constitution Party candidate, Jorgina Hancock, with no response. I posted answers from Dan and Richard to several questions that I asked. You can see those questions and answers here. I feel like I have done more than my due diligence in deciding who should represent me in the Utah Senate. Through this process, I have found that Dan Liljenquist's views on the major issues closely match my views.

I've mentioned previously that I'm the type of person who likes details. In his answers to me, Dan gave details of not just what he thought was wrong in our state, but, also details of how he would help to fix those things. In my opinion, during my lunch with Richard, he spoke only in generalities. I wanted specifics of things he would do to fix those problems that he saw.

Dan also has the business experience in leading a large company. These skills in leading a successful, large company will only help him in working with people in the State Senate. Dan Liljenquist has my vote for Utah Senate district 23.

Answers - Question 13

This is the last in a series of questions posed to the candidates in the State Senate District 23 race. To see the previous questions in this series, please go to http://www.woodscrosscitizen.com/search/label/Answers.

Before getting to the answers to this last question, I would like to sincerely thank both Dan Liljenquist and Richard Watson for taking the time to answer my questions. I have personally met with both candidates and have been impressed with both of them. I know that if you have questions of your own that you'd like answered by either of these candidates, they will be responsive. Give them a call or send them an e-mail.

13) What makes you the best candidate? In other words, why should someone vote for you over one of the other candidates for this seat?

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:

I believe I am the best candidate for Senate District 23 for a few reasons:

First, I am a committed Republican and I believe in the principles of limited government, individual responsibility, and free markets – I share these beliefs with a majority of the citizens of Senate District 23.

Second, as a Republican Senator, I will be able to better deliver results for the people of South Davis County as a member of the majority party.

Third, I have the necessary experience and training to be effective. I am the President & COO of Focus Services, LLC, a contact center company based in Roy, Utah. Focus has over 1,200 employees and handles inbound and outbound telephone calls for several Fortune 500 companies. Prior to Focus, I worked as a Director of operational strategy for Affiliated Computer Services and as a Strategy Consultant for Bain & Company in Dallas, Texas. I received a BA in Economics magna cum laude from Brigham Young University and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago Law School. While I do not practice law, I am a member of the Utah State Bar Association. I believe in furthering Republican ideals through public service. I worked as a volunteer for two years with the Institute for Justice helping low income entrepreneurs in south Chicago pursue their dreams of business ownership. I also served as a Legislative Intern with US Senator Robert Bennett in Washington, DC.

Finally, and most importantly, I have a very supportive and loving wife, Brooke. We have been married for nearly 10 years and have five beautiful children – Jacob, Grace, Nathan, Joshua and Benjamin. My wife and children keep me grounded, balanced and happy.

Democrat - Richard Watson:

As stated [in a previous answer], I will not be obligated in serving the legislative leadership. Instead I will serve the people of South Davis. After writing columns in the Clipper for the past three years, I have come to appreciate the different view points within our community. I am amazed at how so many of us have similar concerns and worries about our quality of life in South Davis. And so many of us not only care about our families, but there is a genuine concern for helping our neighbors. The people in South Davis truly are great people and it will be a pleasure to represent the people of Senate District 23. Now is the time to change the "business-as-usual" type of government and give it back to the people. Change means that we are Moving Forward.

Answers - Question 12

This is the 12th in a series of questions posed to the candidates in the State Senate District 23 race. To see the previous questions in this series, please go to http://www.woodscrosscitizen.com/search/label/Answers.

12) What do you see as the biggest issue facing our state? What would you, as a state senator, do about it?

Democrat - Richard Watson:

Long-term planning. What does long-term planning mean? It means too many projects have come about because of a reaction to a problem. It is good to see the business community taking economic development seriously as they look to bring more businesses into Utah. But we need our lawmakers to plan better in areas of transportation, public education and affordable health care if we want Utah to be economically stable. Transportation is a good example of how Utah government has reacted to a problem instead of planning for future growth.

Long-term planning for public education is also essential for the future of our state. As stated [in a previous answer], more funding for public schools is crucial for Utah to have the best schools in the nation.

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:

There are several issues that we are facing as a State that I am concerned about. Perhaps the biggest issue we are facing is how to address issues, from education to transportation to economic development, holistically and objectively, without the political rancor that so often burdens the political process. I believe in the concept of “rational government” – if elected I will do my best to be objective and rational in making decisions.

All of the issues we are facing are interrelated and extremely complex. Here are the issues I am most concerned about:

The Economy

Utah’s record setting economy is coming down to earth. We must be diligent in our economic development efforts to ensure our ongoing prosperity as a State. We need to attract more, higher-paying jobs by leveraging our well-educated workforce, continuing to develop our transportation infrastructure, and fostering a business friendly environment through the use of appropriate economic incentives. Real economic growth results in more, higher-paying jobs and less pressure on local counties to raise revenue by increasing our property taxes.

Healthcare Reform

Health insurance costs are spiraling out of control as our population ages, treatment options increase, and more people drop from insurance pools, counting on the government to take care of their medical needs. All of these issues threaten to collapse our medical care system. We must be committed to a market driven solution to healthcare, allowing insurance companies more flexibility to offer a wider range of health insurance options to meet the needs and budgets of each Utah family. The alternative is government administered healthcare which will drive up taxes, reduce funds available for education and other necessities, and limit treatment options for everyone.

Education

Education is the key driver of our prosperity in Utah. We must continue our commitment to reduce class sizes and providing competitive wages for our teachers. We must ensure that the public education funding mechanisms are sufficient to handle the anticipated enrollment growth in our schools. Our educational system must become more competitive, with greater parental involvement in our schools. Parents must have a stronger voice in the educational decisions involving their children, strengthening the relationship between parents and educators. We must all work together to prepare our children to excel in hyper-competitive, global labor markets where knowledge and intelligence are vital for success.

Transportation

Population growth in North Davis County will continue to put pressure on our transportation infrastructure in South Davis County, threatening our quality of life by driving up traffic congestion and impacting air quality. We must be committed to the expansion of I-15, the build-out of Legacy Highway, and the extension of Front Runner. We also need to explore other avenues to alleviate traffic congestion as needed, including light rail and expanded bus service options. We must work to ensure that South Davis County residents have transportation options that will allow us to fully participate in the economic, educational and cultural opportunities along the Wasatch front, now and in the future.

Ethics Reform

Our Legislature must hold itself to the highest standards of integrity as it fulfills the trust and exercises the authority placed in it by the people. We must ensure that all potential conflicts of interest are disclosed publicly and that all legislative business is conducted openly and at arms length. All campaign donations should only be used for legitimate campaign purposes. We must make sure that the people of Utah have confidence in the integrity of our Citizen Legislature.

Immigration

The Federal Government must act to secure our borders and stop the flow of illegal immigration – this is the foundational action required for all meaningful immigration enforcement and reform. The Federal Government should also expand the flow of legal immigration to ensure that America continues to be a beacon for hard-working, intelligent, and law-abiding individuals is search of a better life. We should enforce our existing State laws, especially our identity theft laws, while treating everyone with respect and compassion.

Answers - Question 11

This is the 11th in a series of questions posed to the candidates in the State Senate District 23 race. To see the previous questions in this series, please go to http://www.woodscrosscitizen.com/search/label/Answers.

11) What are your reasons for running for State Senate?

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:

I am running for the Utah State Senate because I believe I can effectively represent the citizens of South Davis County.

First, I believe in the principles of limited government, individual responsibility, and free markets – I share these beliefs with a majority of the citizens of Senate District 23.

Second, I have the necessary career flexibility to devote the time required.

Finally, I try to follow the advice of Theodore Roosevelt to “do what you can, with what you have, where you are”. I am determined to do my part and participate in the political process.

Democrat - Richard Watson:

Public education has to be funded better than it has been. We always hear that our schools are doing well with the money they receive. Yes, it is true that Utah has good schools and great teachers. But why should we settle for good when we could have the best schools?

Also, we have to address the issue of taxes in Utah and the effect it has on hard, working families. We always hear politicians promising tax cuts, but once elected, they cut some taxes and shift the burden to others.

These two concerns as well as other problems facing Utahns, would be easier to tackle if we had a more open government with tougher ethics rules. Imagine if we knew everything that our legislators were doing on Capitol Hill, then we would have a government for the people and by the people. Furthermore, as a state senator, I will not be part of the legislative leadership and I will stand up to the bullying tactics that they commonly impose on other legislators.

The voters of South Davis want their government back. They want to change the existing attitude among lawmakers that legislators know more than they do. I want voters to know that the residents of South Davis will be my employers and I will work for them.

Answers - Question 10

This is the 10th in a series of questions posed to the candidates in the State Senate District 23 race. To see the previous questions in this series, please go to http://www.woodscrosscitizen.com/search/label/Answers.

10) Do you support school vouchers?

Democrat - Richard Watson:

Absolutely not.

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:

I voted against the voucher bill. Here is the text of the editorial I had published in the Ogden Standard Examiner last fall:

Guest commentary: Tone of the voucher debate disappoints
Saturday, October 6, 2007
By Dan Liljenquist

The voucher debate has digressed in recent weeks from the logical to the emotional, with both sides seeking the moral high ground in a state where voters are committed to "do what is right." It is critically important to re-set the debate and attempt to look at vouchers objectively.

The initial case for private school vouchers was articulated by neoclassical economist Milton Friedman in his 1955 article "The Role of Government in Education."

The article was published in an era of broad based regulation and general public distrust of market economies.

In the article, Friedman argues that it is appropriate for government to subsidize education. He wrote that "a stable and democratic society is impossible without widespread acceptance of some common set of values and without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens."

Friedman then argues that it is not necessary for government to administer public education, as long as its educational goals are met. Friedman presents educational vouchers as a market-driven alternative to publicly administered schools.

In the context of the voucher referendum vote this fall, it is important to consider the following:

* Friedman expected governmental oversight of educational curriculum to ensure common, appropriate content.

* Friedman expected extensive financial oversight by government agencies to ensure proper use of funds, citing the possibility of a greater abuse.

* Friedman does not address what forms of education have the greatest social advantage and how much educational funding is appropriate, except to say that these are questions to be decided "by the judgment of the community through its accepted political channels."

House Bill 148 represents a clear departure from the voucher program envisioned by Milton Friedman. First, the bill does not establish curriculum oversight to ensure appropriate use of government funds; this is contrary to Friedman's approach.

Second, the financial oversight provisions of the bill are simplistic and are not adequate enough to prevent fraud; Friedman clearly advocated substantial financial oversight.

Third, the bill explicitly excludes the judgment of the community from educational decisions, preferring to rely exclusively on parental judgment in educational decisions; this is contrary to Friedman's foundational assumption that all society has a vested interest in how our neighbor's children are being educated and what they are being taught.

While I am disappointed with the recent tone of the voucher debate, I am very pleased to see a grassroots movement to challenge our educational paradigms. Our educational system must become more competitive, with greater parental and community involvement, and more educational choices. We must provide increased funding to reduce class sizes and create greater financial freedom to compete for top talent, particularly in the key secondary education fields of math and science.

We must be focused on preparing our children to excel in hyper-competitive, global labor markets where knowledge and intelligence are the coins of the realm.

I am optimistic that this voucher debate will be the spring-board for broad based, positive educational reform.

Answers - Question 9

This is the ninth in a series of questions posed to the candidates in the State Senate District 23 race. To see the previous questions in this series, please go to http://www.woodscrosscitizen.com/search/label/Answers.

9) Are there any changes that you would like to see made in relation to charter schools?

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:

With 30,000+ students on charter school waiting lists, I am in favor of expanding the reach of charter schools as fast as possible. I would like to see permanent funding mechanisms put in place for charter schools to ensure their ongoing success.

Democrat - Richard Watson:

When a new charter school is proposed, we would be better served if we take away the conflict-of-interests any legislator has when building a new school.

Answers - Question 8

This is the eighth in a series of questions posed to the candidates in the State Senate District 23 race. To see the previous questions in this series, please go to http://www.woodscrosscitizen.com/search/label/Answers.

8) What are your feelings about charter schools?

Democrat - Richard Watson:

Again, charter schools began as a great idea for Utah families. And charter schools continue to serve the needs of those families who want a specialized education for their children. However, some lawmakers have viewed charter schools as a profit-driven opportunity for building more charter schools rather than focusing on the education needs of our communities.

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:

I fully support the charter school movement in Utah.

Answers - Question 7

This is the seventh in a series of questions posed to the candidates in the State Senate District 23 race. To see the previous questions in this series, please go to http://www.woodscrosscitizen.com/search/label/Answers.

7) What are your feelings about the federal government mandating states to follow certain criteria, such as they did with NCLB? What about the Utah Legislature mandating cities to follow certain criteria such as has been done with entities like UTOPIA?

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:

I am not familiar with the criteria that the Utah Legislature has passed regarding UTOPIA. My problem with NCLB is that the Federal Government is holding our own money over our heads.

Democrat - Richard Watson:

Again, big government hovering over local municipal government is taking away the power and confidence of the people. Also, Utah lawmakers have a bad habit of mandating and legislating cities to comply with new laws, but fail to properly fund most mandates. The problems we see with UTOPIA only emphasize the problem our Legislature has with funding programs that they mandate.

Answers - Question 6

This is the sixth in a series of questions posed to the candidates in the State Senate District 23 race. To see the previous questions in this series, please go to http://www.woodscrosscitizen.com/search/label/Answers.

6) What are your feelings about "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB)?

Democrat - Richard Watson:

What seemed like a great idea when it passed, NCLB has now become a miserable failure. In review, the legislation provided a lot of mandates with little funding to support the plan. However, since Utah receives some federal funding for public schools, we have to live with NCLB until lawmakers increase public school funding.

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:

I think NCLB is ineffective at best, coercive at worst. I don’t like being taxed by the Federal Government and then having to follow top-down, burdensome directives to get our money back.

Answers - Question 5

This is the fifth in a series of questions posed to the candidates in the State Senate District 23 race. To see the previous questions in this series, please go to http://www.woodscrosscitizen.com/search/label/Answers.

5) In the 2008 legislative session, Senator Dan Eastman sponsored a bill (SB46 http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/sbillenr/sb0046.htm) that limits the decisions that the government of a municipality in Utah can make in regards to it's municipal waste. Do you feel such decisions are rightly made by the Utah Legislature, or the government of the municipality? Why?

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:

I am glad that you asked this question because it highlights a specific situation where I think the State Legislature appropriately intervened at the local level. In this instance, the State Legislature decided that city governments cannot force commercial entities to use a specific solid waste disposal facility, except under certain circumstances. I would have voted for Senator Eastman’s bill – the best way to explain why is to propose a hypothetical.

One might argue that it would make sense for Centerville to mandate that all broadband services in Centerville be provided through the UTOPIA network. First, it would help ensure that UTOPIA remains solvent, thereby limiting taxpayer liabilities. Second, it would provide lower costs to individual consumers for broadband services because UTOPIA could charge much higher fees for commercial service. These are the exact arguments given in support for granting exclusive solid waste disposal contracts. On the surface, these arguments make some sense, however, if Centerville passed such an ordinance mandating UTOPIA use, most Utahns would expect the State Legislature to aggressively intervene to ensure that Centerville does not unnecessarily interfere with competitive markets.

I believe that it is appropriate for the State Legislature to ensure that city governments help facilitate free markets, and not restrict them unnecessarily. After studying this issue, I believe that the Legislature acted appropriately.

Democrat - Richard Watson:

Again, local governments should have the authority and power to solve local problems. Municipal governments understand local problems better than our state lawmakers do. The only outside laws that should be enforced on municipal waste are federal environmental laws regarding pollution. After all, most people, like me, enjoy clean air and clean water, but, we don't want a bunch of state lawmakers in Salt Lake City telling us how to run our neighborhoods in Davis County.

Answers - Question 4

4) In the 2008 legislative session, Representative Brad Daw sponsored a bill (HB139, http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/hbillint/hb0139.htm) that would have placed certain restrictions on anyone providing wireless internet access. Pete Ashdown, owner of Xmission, has publicly opposed this type of legislation and has said that he will shut down the free wireless provided by Xmission in downtown Salt Lake City if such legislation passes. (see http://peteashdown.org/journal/2008/01/24/the-end-of-free-xmission-wireless/) Would you support or oppose this type of legislation? Why?

Democrat - Richard Watson:
I oppose this bill. This bill falls in the line of "big brother" legislation and I believe Utah lawmakers should concentrate on bigger issues, like public schools, transportation, taxes and healthcare. In addition, this bill, had it passed, might have had some constitutional challenges later on.

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:
I would have opposed the bill proposed by Rep. Daw. While I believe an appropriate role of government is to ensure that community standards of morality and decency are upheld, such considerations must be balanced by the costs of achieving a desired results with the benefits that arise in doing so. In this instance, it is difficult to make the case that an unquantifiable benefit (for example, we have no indication that Rep. Daw’s bill will materially decrease the number of minors who actually access harmful materials) outweighs the significant, measurable costs (the shutdown of the Xmission free wireless project is only one such example) of such a measure. I would have opposed this bill on these grounds.

Dan Liljenquist survives plane crash.

According to KSL (see story here), Dan Liljenquist, the Republican candidate for State Senate District 23 survived a plane crash that killed 11 people in Guatemala. I'm glad that he survived this horrific ordeal. I wish him a speedy recovery from his injuries. I'll keep him and his family in my prayers. I'm sure it is traumatic for his wife and children to go through something like this.

Answers - Question 3

3) What are your feelings about the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency, better known as UTOPIA? What about other similar entities?

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:
UTOPIA is the perfect battle ground to debate the first two questions posed. I have spent much of the last month studying the issues surrounding UTOPIA. The intent of UTOPIA is to facilitate economic development by providing world class broadband infrastructure to third party service providers, enabling them to provide affordable broadband services to citizens of the 16 participant cities.

In my opinion, one of the primary roles of government is to facilitate free markets. Investments in infrastructure, whether they be highways, power grids, rail-roads, sewer systems, or telecommunications platforms, are appropriate for governments to make in behalf of their citizens. The benefits of infrastructure investments, on the balance, have outweighed the costs of such investments.

In the case of UTOPIA, the 16 cities that banded together on the project made a determination that the existing infrastructure in their cities was inadequate for their citizens. The decision to proceed with UTOPIA, in my opinion, was an appropriate exercise of city authority.

That said, it is clear now that the UTOPIA build-out has been mismanaged, requiring a rework of the business plan and a refinance of the debt instruments required to fund the project. Only time will tell if the revised business plan will work, but, at the very least, there should be useable broadband infrastructure in these cities for many years to come.

On a personal note, I did not think that the investment in UTOPIA was necessary for the 16 cities involved, especially given the rapid advancements in wireless broadband technology. On this basis, I probably would have voted against participating in the UTOPIA project had I been on a city council at the time. Early on, I was also concerned that UTOPIA was intended to compete directly against Qwest and Comcast. I later learned that the UTOPIA network is open to both Qwest and Comcast, but they have chosen not to provide service over the UTOPIA network. Knowing this, I would not have voted against UTOPIA on the grounds that government was in direct competition with private enterprise, even though this was my original inclination.

Democrat - Richard Watson:
What started out as a great idea has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare. Unfortunately, UTOPIA is a prime example of under funded programs the legislature has passed over the years.

Answers - Question 2

2) As a state senator, would you vote to make it more or less difficult for cities to create such entities as those listed in Question 1? (see Question 1 here)

Democrat - Richard Watson:
I definitely would work at making it less difficult for cities to create any entities. What's more, I would look at reversing some of the "Big Brother" laws that restrict cities to govern responsibly and give cities more autonomy. After all, residents voted for their local leaders to solve local problems.

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:
As a Utah State Senator, I would not vote to make it more difficult for cities to create such entities. I believe that one of my primary roles in the Utah Legislature would be to run interference for our cities, helping preserve as much flexibility as possible at the local level. I already have a solid working relationship with Mayors Johnson, Russell, Behunin, Schaefermeyer, and Parry. I have committed to them that we will meet quarterly so that I can stay attuned to the needs of the cities in Senate District 23.

Answers - Question 1

1) Do you support or oppose cities coming together to create certain entities such as the South Davis Recreation District, South Davis Metro Fire District, United Fire Authority, etc.? Why?

Republican - Dan Liljenquist:
I support cities coming together to create partnerships that benefit their citizens. I believe that it is good policy to allow this type of inter-city partnering for a few simple reasons.

First, I believe the principles of federalism apply to local government. As long as city governments do not interfere with rights specifically enumerated to federal and state governments, cities should be able to partner together on projects that would be mutually beneficial to their citizens.

Second, I believe that city governments are much more in tune with the specific needs of their citizens and are in a better position to make the necessary decisions to meet their citizens’ needs. There are very few barriers to involvement in city government, and, as a result, our mayors and city councils tend to be the most responsive to the will of the citizens in their communities.

Finally, as a matter of practicality, I do not believe that the State Legislature has the time to effectively understand and address the specific needs of each city.

Democrat - Richard Watson:
I strongly support cities working together in solving local problems. As a result, local citizens are more confident of having control of issues that are close to their neighborhoods. The South Davis Recreation Center is a great example of helping residents with local needs.

Answer posts coming...

I mentioned in a previous post that I have received answers to my questions for the Senate District 23 candidates. Due to the length of the responses, I have decided to post the answers in 13 separate posts. I will post two questions with answers each week. Look for the posts beginning this Thursday.

I had lunch with a Democrat!

I went to lunch today with Richard Watson, the democratic candidate for the State Senate District 23 seat. I had a very nice visit with him. No, he is not trying to buy my vote as I paid for my own lunch. We talked about several things including the questions that I e-mailed earlier to all the candidates (see here). He e-mailed me his answers to those questions 12 days ago. I still have not received answers to them from Dan Liljenquist.

When I mentioned to Richard that I hadn't received answers from Dan yet, he said maybe Dan feels like he doesn't have to worry about the general election. I was a little disturbed by a quote that Richard mentioned to me along those lines. In an article from the June 21st edition of the Salt Lake Tribune (see here), Dan Liljenquist is quoted as saying, "In Davis County, the primary is the election since 70 percent generally vote a straight ticket." This is what Dan used to justify the amount of money he spent leading up to the primary election.

I've mentioned in previous posts that I feel like many democrats and republicans aren't too far apart in many of their viewpoints (see here). I've also mentioned previously that I believe voting for someone just because of their party is ridiculous (see here). These two beliefs say to me that Mr. Liljenquist still has an election to win. He best not take it too lightly. I believe a lot more people will vote in this election than in previous state senate seat elections because of the great interest in the presidential election. I'd still like to wait to post Richard's answers to my questions so that his answers don't influence Dan's answers.

Republican Primary is History

I voted in the Republican Primary yesterday. I was glad to wake up today and see that Dan Liljenquist had defeated Ron Mortensen. I haven't put my reasons on this blog for not supporting Ron Mortensen. I've always felt like Ron Mortensen would not be responsive to his constituents, and, that he wanted to be in the Senate to push his own agenda. This was confirmed to me by the lack of any response to my e-mails to him. If he won't be responsive to e-mails before the election, how responsive will he be after he's in office?

I had Ron contact me a few times concerning the South Davis Recreation Center when I was a member of the Woods Cross City Council. When he would talk to me, he always seemed to want to be confrontational with those who did not agree with his views. I have found that in politics you need to work at making friends and building a consensus rather than making people upset with you. I couldn't see Ron's methods working very well in the Utah State Senate. The people who vote against your stance today will be the same people you'll need voting with your position tomorrow.

Knowing Me May be a Disadvantage

The two people that I know personally who were running for the State Senate District 23 position, Lamont Peterson and Kent Parry, were eliminated at the Republican nominating convention held Saturday. The two Republican candidates who will face off in the primary are Ron Mortensen and Dan Liljenquist. I've mentioned in a previous post why it will be hard for me to support Dan Liljenquist. I'm fairly sure I don't want Ron Mortensen as my representative in the State Senate. Maybe it's time for me to investigate where Richard Watson, the Democrat, stands on the issues that are important to me. I hope we would all do that, find a candidate that matches your position on the issues that are most important to you and then vote for that candidate. Unfortunately, in Davis County, it appears that most people find a candidate that matches their political party and then vote for them regardless of where they stand on the issues.

Buying a Seat in Senate District 23

I've posted previously about the Utah Legislature's reluctance to pass bills that concern their ethics. (see here, here, and here.) Well, I found some interesting things in the campaign finance disclosures for the Senate District 23 race. It would appear to me that Dan Liljenquist is trying to buy himself a seat in the Utah Senate. During the reporting period of "Party Convention" he has spent by far the most amount of money of any of the eight Republican candidates. One of the more interesting expenditures he has made was for a "County Delegate Event" held at "The Wight House." This event cost Mr. Liljenquist over $1,100.00. As of the end of that reporting period, Dan Liljenquist has spent $8,482.40. In contrast, in 2000 when Dan Eastman first won the Senate 23 seat, he had spent $4,627.59 at the end of the "Party Convention" reporting period. In fact, in 2000, Senator Eastman spent $10,132.94 on his entire campaign. (All amounts taken from the State of Utah - Campaign Reporting System. See here.)

Do we really believe that someone who is willing to spend this amount of money so early in a campaign will vote for bills that impact the ethics of lawmakers? It appears to me that Mr. Liljenquist is willing to spend whatever it takes to be elected to the Utah State Senate.