Does it matter if a political candidate gets $10,000 from one company vs. 100 individuals?

The Democratic challenger for Senate District 16 in Provo has thrown down a challenge to Republican incumbent Curt Bramble to not accept any money that doesn't come from a business "not headquartered in Utah."

Hatfield does retreat from the hard line when asked about companies that aren't headquartered here but do substantial business in the state. At that point the conversation shifts to concern that big money means big influence.

"I'm trying to figure out a place to draw a bright line," she said, "because we've got to draw a bright line. No one should be able to put $10,000 toward any campaign or any initiatives."

Bramble rejects the premise of the question.

"I think policy issues stand on their merits whether they donate or not," he said.

He also rejects his opponent's assertions that he's a bought man. Hatfield says Bramble is now taking money from a company -- Altria Corporate Services -- that benefits from a 2008 law that lowers the cost for moist snuff. Bramble and the Governor's Office said at the time the law was passed that it leveled the playing field for tobacco companies.

Bramble also counters that he "took money on both sides of that issue."

He points to other issues where he said he took money from groups, only to run bills counter to their desires. He lead the charge on removing alcopops from store shelves despite taking money from Anheuser-Busch.

Bramble views taking big money as a more efficient way to raise funds than getting it from individual donors.

"Their money spends as well as anyone else's," he said.

Decades of attempted campaign finance reform at all levels of government show one thing:

"There's actually a rich body of literature that shows both ways," said Kirk Jowers, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah.

"Both sides of the argument are vehement in their positions that campaign contributions do or do not impact a public official's vote," he said.

Hatfield argues that anything over about $1,000 from any single source is too much.

"We are a representative democracy and it's a violation of basic constitutional principals to allow groups that much say on what happens," she said.

The idealism is a nice sentiment, Jowers said, "but because of financial circumstances and apathy, the responsibility falls on those with the means and willingness to really engage in our political system."

Where they stand

The next reporting date for campaign finances is Sept. 2 (a week from today) and Bramble expects to have raised about $25,000 since the last deadline. At that time he had $55,000 on hand.

Hatfield says she was surprised to discover that it costs $75,000 to $100,000 to run a senatorial campaign. It has also meant taking a hard look at her own fundraising policies. She didn't want to self-finance her campaign but has donated $10,000 so far. The previous reporting period has her with about $10,000 on hand, though her Web site showed Monday she has raised close to $25,000.

At the moment, all her recorded donations have come from individuals, but she said her forthcoming disclosure will show some funds taken from business including $250-$350 from EnergySolutions. She's struggling at the moment with whether to take a substantial amount from the Utah Education Association.

Money in large doses, she says, is like fire. On one hand a tool, on the other destructive.

"We have to be respectful that it distorts the message as quickly as it can communicate it," she said.