The Utah Legislature must resist being stampeded into phony "ethics reform."

Pundits and some state politicians have been pontificating on the supposed need for ethics reform all year. Voters apparently did not buy it. They had a great opportunity to "throw the bums out" on Nov. 4, but most incumbents were re-elected. That suggests the alleged problems are way overblown.

Let's put this in perspective. California's full-time state legislators make a minimum of $116,208 in salary a year; Utah's part-time lawmakers make around $5,800.

And what do Utahns get for that? Our state has balanced its budget, while California is expected to run a deficit of $28 billion over the next 18 months.

Overall, Utah gets government that has been recognized as the best managed in the country at bargain basement prices. Why would anyone quibble if a lawmaker accepts a meal here or there to talk about public policy? That's not the kind of money that buys influence.

In recent years there have been few complaints, let alone verified unethical behavior. This fall, a panel dismissed eight complaints against Rep. Greg Hughes. All in all, the whole thing looked like an October surprise cooked up for political advantage.

And that's what the ongoing "ethics" drive seems to be.

According to news reports, lawmakers will consider limits on campaign contributions. At the state level, that seems silly; there are no mountains of money or landslides of loot burying candidates. State legislative races are small potatoes.

The key thing to remember is that every member of the Legislature is a part-timer. Most have jobs they must juggle while performing legislative duties. It's absurd to nickel-and-dime them as they try to handle all the demands. If anything, ethics laws need to be somewhat looser so that legislators can focus on serving the people of Utah, rather than fretting over whether $5 will run afoul of complex ethics rules.

Part-time legislators are unique in many respects. Some are farmers or ranchers, for example. Should they recuse themselves from any discussion that would affect rural life? (That would mean the majority of measures, directly or indirectly). No, we should want them to bring their expertise in farming or ranching to the table. Ditto for the accountants, teachers, insurance salespersons, lawyers and all the other experienced people who serve on Capitol Hill.

But there is one key area that should be improved: transparency.

Voters should know what money a legislator is receiving. All contributions and gifts should be posted quickly in a single Internet location searchable by name.

Say a lawmaker has dinner every night for a week with a representative of a monied lobby, and the lobbyist picks up the check each time. Well, let the voters see that. Maybe they'll conclude that there's too much influence; maybe not. Maybe they'll think that issue needs attention. Whatever the case, give them the info and let them decide.

It's true that some online records are available now. But they're often hard to find and use. Different declarations are made in different places.

But in a state that boasts of its high-tech prowess, it should be easy to make the state Web sites easier to find and use when tracking legislators' donated receipts and expenditures.

Equally important, the hearing process on ethics complaints needs to be transparent. The Hughes hearing was closed. Complaints against him were dismissed but because so much took place behind closed doors, innuendo and rumor continued to circulate after the decision.

Perhaps initial queries could be investigated confidentially, so that crank complaints can be eliminated before going public. But any substantial hearings must be open. That's the best way to shed light on ethics.

By mandating full transparency in gifts and campaign contributions, and by opening up ethics hearings, the Utah Legislature would take a major step forward in public confidence.

Do you agree?