Bidding on lawmakers
The disgustingness* continues to spread on Capitol Hill. Now, KSL is reporting that Rep. Paul Ray acknowledges that he, like former Rep. Susan Lawrence, was offered big money to change a key vote.Ray told KSL that in 2007, just before the House vote on private school vouchers, a lobbyist offered him campaign money if he would support the voucher bill.
The conversation was, you know, if you change your vote on vouchers, we can fund your campaign. It mentioned no specific dollar amounts. It wasn't a personal bribe, but it was an offer to fund my campaign if I would switch my vote.Joel Briscoe, associate director of the Davis Education Association, told the committee he was in a meeting last week at which Ray said he had been offered $100,000 to support vouchers.
I didn't view it as just . . . Certainly to me, [it] goes into the bribery category.
I want to know: Who took the money?
*Republicans refer to the charges that Rep. Greg Hughes, right, offered a bribe to Lawrence are politically "disgusting" because they come so close to the election, but it would seem better to apply the term to Legislative ethics in general.
6 Comments:
Why don't you check those that voted against the vouchers, and see how many then received funding from the NEA/UEA etc.
There are problems on the other side.
Again, no proof. Just words.
I can see where Warchol and the Tribune are taking this. First, vouchers supporters offered bribes.
Now, all those who voted for vouchers did so because they were bribed into doing so.
No one took the money because there wasn't any money. Just wishful thinking legislators trying to solicit campaign contributions.
The voucher vote was purchased.
In 2006, Richard Moss alone took $33974.02 from Parents for Choice in Education for a state school board race.
PCE spent over $500,000 in 2006 pushing a single issue. They made large donations to various candidates and directly to the Republican party, who then laundered it back to the campaigns.
Good point, anon 1:30 pm.
I challenge anyone who can demonstrate a link between UEA contributions and legislator votes against vouchers.
Those who voted for vouchers did it because they were paid to. Those who opposed vouchers did it FOR THE CHILDREN! Although many of them may have received UEA funding, that is incidental.
My representative said "Wow, I hope no one thinks that I opposed vouchers because I received UEA funding. This is all a strange coincidence."
To all of the above, aren't you missing the forest for the trees?
Ethics violations in our State Senate effect all of us, not just on the voucher issue, but on all issues.
Investigations into ethical behavior are (unfortunately) necessary, and an important part of keeping our republic not only in check, but in accordance with representing the people.
I am willing to give all involved the benefit of the doubt without obscuring the issue (as many posting above are trying to do), but one way or another, this investigation must continue to either vindicate those wrongfully accused, or allow voters to oust those who've acted unethically.
Many of the comments above amount to acting against our own best interests out of partisan concerns rather than what really promotes a better system of representation. Shooting off your nose to spite your face. And better this come up before an election than after, at which point these people (if guilty) would have another two years to walk all over taxpayers.
Post a Comment
<< Home