Proposals to limit campaign contributions in Sandy elections and add more financial transparency requirements for donors sparked strong disagreement among city leaders.

The proposed election rule changes were prompted by a memo from Councilmember at-large Aaron Dekeyzer, sent to the Sandy City Council on Jan. 20.

“To me, the core of this is about transparency and public confidence and the integrity of our municipal elections,” Dekeyzer told the council while introducing his proposals. “... when a small number of donors can contribute such disproportionately large sums of money to influence elections, those voices end up carrying far more weight than those of typical residents who are concerned about a much broader set of topics.”

If passed, donations to a candidate's campaign from any individual or organization would be capped at $2,500, but there would be no limit on candidates' self-financing their election run. The measures would also outlaw anonymous contributions, requiring every donor to provide their full name, address and a financial disclosure statement with their campaign offering.

Utah already has laws requiring individual donors to report their financial information. However, Dekeyzer noted that political parties are exempt from the requirement.

“And there are other exemptions that result in … expenditures that support municipal candidates without any election-specific disclosure to the voters of Sandy City, which creates a transparency and accountability gap that prevents residents from understanding who is spending money to influence the people who are elected to represent them,” the councilmember said.

Still, some of Dekeyzer’s colleagues believe state code provides enough transparency.

“I don’t believe that a transparency gap exists. I think there is plenty of transparency,” said Councilmember Marci Houseman. “What we would in effect do is ask people to have a second filing system, which creates more work.”

Councilmember at-large Brooke D’Sousa echoed Houseman’s viewpoint. The councilmember doesn’t think there is a lack of transparency in campaign finance reporting, but that Sandy voters may have difficulty accessing the information. D’Sousa suggested officials create a “transparency hub” on the city’s website, where all the links to financial disclosures can be found.

Some city lawmakers also thought that capping campaign donations at $2,500 would make municipal elections less transparent, as donors could exploit legal loopholes.

“If someone wants to give you $4,000, then they will give $2,500 in their name and then $1,500 in their wife’s name,” Councilmember Alison Stroud said.

Along with possibly making financial disclosures less transparent, city officials also said the donation cap could give an edge to candidates who can self-finance their campaigns.

“I think anytime we are limiting the amount that individuals can receive, we are in effect saying only people who can self-fund their campaign can run for office,” Houseman said. “Because we are limiting the amount people can receive in donations, and we are adding an unnecessary barrier.”

‘Narrative instead of governance’

One of the primary motivators for changing the election rules – as outlined in Dekeyzer’s memo to the council – is that unlimited campaign funds could give wealthy donors, corporations and special interest groups disproportionate say in municipal elections, undermining public confidence in elected city leaders.

“Large contributions can create a sense of obligation on the part of the candidate, even if no explicit quid pro quo exists, or at least suggest that a public office can be bought, not earned,” the memo reads.

Houseman said that Dekeyzer’s concerns over special interests flooding municipal elections with donations have “more to do with narrative instead of governance.”

“I don’t see any evidence of the cause that you are trying to solve,” Houseman said. “I’m not seeing a failure of state enforcement of what’s expected, I’m not seeing any evidence of Sandy City government being taken over … by corruption or distortion.”

Councilmember at-large Cyndi Sharkey said she found Dekeyzer’s memo “incredibly offensive.”

“I don’t know any elected official who thinks that way or acts that way,” she said.

Sharkey also reiterated concerns about the campaign contribution cap. She said that allowing candidates to fund their own campaigns gives wealthy contenders an unfair advantage. The councilmember added that the only way to “level the playing field” in municipal elections is through government-funded elections, in which no candidate may fund their campaign and everyone running for office receives the same amount of city funding.

“I will be willing to entertain that. But I will only be willing to entertain that if we put it on the ballot for the voters to vote on because it’s their money,” Sharkey said.

When concluding the deliberation, Dekeyzer said the council will have follow-up discussions on the campaign finance measures. He added that government-funded elections would be his ideal outcome from continued discussions.

“I am completely surprised … of the thought that we could work together on publicly funded elections because … that is the ideal outcome. This [proposal] to me is about baby steps about getting there, not thinking there would be a chance we could ever get to that, but that would be awesome, so we will talk about that and see what comes of it.”