"Swallow has adamantly denied Johnson's allegations, saying he only put
Johnson in touch with Richard M. Rawle, who had experience working with FTC
lobbyists."Why would he do this? And would he do it for free?
What experience? It is all about money.
"My bill and hopefully my law will make it very, very clear that if
you're on the state payroll, you may not do business in a way that would
have any relationship whatsoever with your official duties"Last
time I read it, that is already state law. Anyone making $5000 is supposed to
disclose the company that they worked for in the conflict of interest form,
which wasn't done in this case. I don't know why.
Ethics are only for Democrats.Republicans don't need ethics.At least not in Utah.
Where are all our usual conservative posters? Could it be that they can't
think of any way to spin this into some sort of support for John?
If anyone should know about devious contributions, it would be Enid, while a
death bed declaration would be ignored wouldn't suprise us, given Swallow a
Republican, and the courts are liberal, either way there are more questions than
answers, so let's give Swallow his day in court.
I would like to see the Utah republican party take the position that
"lobbying" has no place in our justice system. Our justice system is
guided by the law. It is administered by impartial investigations,
prosecutions, courts, and juries. Person's with money to hire lobbyists
don't get special treatment.
So the whole article is about how Swallow didn't get campaign
contributions, didn't make any money from Johnson, and didn't do
anything illegal, and some of you are wondering why conservatives aren't
commenting to defend Swallow? Maybe because the article already did that for
Its hard to break rules when there are basically no rules to break. The
republicans have opposed ethics reforms for years, and will continue to oppose
them this year as well.