Money and the Utah Attorney General’s Office have a complicated history. Former attorneys general have faced investigations and public scrutiny over relationships with donors, including questions involving gifts, travel and access. [12] Those controversies left Utah with a question that has never completely gone away: What happens when the people financing the state’s top law-enforcement official also have interests before the government? 

You vote. Someone else writes a $50,000 check. Both are perfectly legal ways to help put a politician in office in Utah. But after the election is over, are they equally powerful?

It is easy to call this corruption or the “good old boys club.” Proving either is much harder.

Donations don’t  have to come with strings attached . Donors often give to candidates because they already agree with them. A business owner may support a candidate who favors lower taxes. An environmental group may support someone who favors conservation. A national Republican organization supports Republicans. A Democratic organization supports Democrats. Such is normal across the fruited planes and Utah is no exception.

But Utah makes the relationship between money and politics particularly interesting because, unlike most states, it does not impose a dollar limit on how much an individual can contribute to a candidate for state office. The National Conference of State Legislatures lists Utah among 11 states without individual contribution limits.[1] 

Give $500. Give $5,000. Give $50,000. Utah law permits all three. That raises legitimate questions about influence and independence. 

For an identified individual donor to a Utah state candidate, there is no statutory dollar cap. Utah does, however, regulate campaign money in other ways. State candidates must report contributions, maintain separate campaign accounts and may not simply use campaign funds for personal expenses.[2]

In other words, Utah relies substantially on disclosure rather than contribution limits to let voters see who is financing the people seeking state office. But that requires voters to actually look at the records. Michelle Quist did.

Quist ran for Utah attorney general in 2024 against Derek Brown. She was the United Utah Party candidate and now chairs the Forward Party of Utah, following the 2025 merger of the United Utah Party and Utah Forward Party.[3]

That context matters. Quist was Brown’s political opponent, and her criticism of him should not be mistaken for evidence that Brown has done anything improper. But during a recent Utah Stories podcast, Quist raised a question that is bigger than either of them. Who influences the people Utah elects after the campaign signs come down?  “When I ran, I ran as a third party candidate because I don’t think that our Attorney General should be connected to a partisan office,” Quist said.[4]

The Attorney General’s Office is an interesting place to test her argument because the attorney general occupies two worlds. Brown was elected as a Republican. But he is also Utah’s chief legal officer. Under Utah law, the attorney general represents the state in legal matters and exercises supervisory powers over Utah’s district and county attorneys.[5]

Quist argues that those responsibilities require independence from the political machinery that elects the attorney general. The office, she said, “should be independent of the legislature, should be independent of the governor,” and should also be independent of national Republican and Democratic organizations representing attorneys general.[4] Her concern becomes more concrete when campaign-finance records are considered.

An October 2024 analysis of Brown’s campaign disclosures by Utah Political Watch found that three contributors had given his campaign $50,000 each: Wasatch Group, Gov. Spencer Cox’s campaign and the Republican Attorneys General Association, commonly known as RAGA.[6]

At that point in the campaign, 54.5 percent of the money Brown had raised came from corporations and political action committees, according to the analysis. Just over $39,000, or 4.3 percent, came from donors who had given $1,000 or less.[6]

Those figures reflected Brown’s campaign disclosures at the time of the October analysis, not necessarily his final campaign totals. And none of those numbers establishes wrongdoing. RAGA exists to help elect Republican attorneys general. Brown was a Republican running for attorney general. A contribution from an organization supporting Republican attorneys general to a Republican candidate for attorney general is hardly surprising. A campaign contribution also does not prove that the recipient later acted on behalf of the donor. The more interesting question comes after the candidate wins.

RAGA’s involvement with Republican attorneys general does not necessarily end with campaign contributions. Brown’s own publicly released schedule shows that on Sept. 10 and 11, 2025, he attended a Republican Attorneys General Association conference in Miami.[7]

There is nothing inherently improper about a Republican attorney general attending a conference with other Republican attorneys general. But this is where Quist’s criticism becomes more consequential. She says voters should pay attention to the national legal fights their attorney general chooses to join. “We can see what issues that he focuses on in his office and we can see what amicus briefs he signs on to from the office,” she said.[4]

Quist went further during the podcast. Speaking about the national Republican attorneys general organization, she said Brown “also gets direction from that group” and that “they tell him what national issues they want him to focus on.”[4]

That is a significant assertion. It is also Quist’s assertion. Utah Stories could not independently establish that RAGA directs Brown’s litigation decisions. One of Brown’s early decisions provides a concrete example of why the question matters. 

In February 2025, Brown joined 17 other Republican attorneys general in an amicus brief supporting President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship.[8]

Utah was not one of the states that brought the lawsuit challenging Trump’s order. Brown joined the case through the supporting amicus brief.  Brown publicly explained his position at the time. He argued that the existing interpretation of birthright citizenship was being exploited, conflicted with sensible immigration policy and constitutional text, and that the legal question should be resolved by the courts.[8]

Interestingly, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, also a Republican, had taken a different position, saying he believed birthright citizenship was protected by the Constitution.[8]

That disagreement matters because it complicates any simple claim that Brown was merely following a unified Utah Republican position. But Quist saw Brown’s participation differently. “That was not pushed by anyone in Utah,” she said. “Utahns didn’t want him to sign on to a birthright citizenship amicus.”[4]

Quist did not provide polling or other evidence demonstrating what Utahns collectively wanted Brown to do. So rather than assume she was right, Utah Stories asked Brown’s office.

We asked what process Brown uses to determine whether Utah joins a multistate lawsuit or amicus brief, and who within the Attorney General’s Office participates in that decision.

We asked whether RAGA communicates with Brown or his office about potential multistate lawsuits, amicus briefs or other legal initiatives and, if so, what role those communications play in deciding whether Utah participates.

We pointed to RAGA’s $50,000 contribution to Brown’s 2024 campaign and asked how the Attorney General’s Office maintains independence between campaign supporters and decisions about litigation or other official matters involving organizations that supported his campaign.

And we asked what led Brown to determine that Utah should participate in the February 2025 birthright-citizenship case and what interest he believed Utah had in its outcome.[9]

The Attorney General’s Office responded: “We don’t have a comment or response for this story.”[9]

So those specific questions remain unanswered. That does not mean Quist is right. There is no evidence presented here that RAGA told Brown to join the birthright-citizenship brief. There is no evidence that its $50,000 campaign contribution influenced an official decision. And there is no evidence presented here that Brown has done anything improper.

The questions about political money and Utah’s Attorney General’s Office also did not begin with Brown.

In 2020, when Sean Reyes was attorney general, RAGA gave Reyes’ campaign $125,000 directly. A RAGA-affiliated Utah PAC also provided substantial independent spending supporting his reelection, nearly $300,000, according to reporting at the time.[10]

Reyes’ Republican primary challenger, then-Utah County Attorney David Leavitt, publicly questioned whether RAGA’s financial support influenced Reyes’ participation in national partisan efforts. Reyes’ campaign disputed that criticism.[10]

Different attorney general. Different challenger. Similar question. Where does political support end and political influence begin? And that question is not limited to the Attorney General’s Office. Utah lawmakers received $5.2 million in cash campaign contributions in 2024, according to an analysis of state campaign-finance reports by the Utah Investigative Journalism Project. They spent about $5 million in campaign funds that year and ended 2024 with a combined $2.8 million remaining in their campaign accounts.[11]

None of that means Utah legislators have been bought. Campaigns cost money. Advertising costs money. Candidates need donors.The harder question is what happens after the election. Most Utahns do not have $50,000 to give to a candidate. They do not run political action committees or belong to national organizations built around electing state officials. They have a vote. That makes campaign-finance disclosure more than paperwork filed with the state. It gives voters a way to see who helped finance the politicians asking for their support.

But disclosure can only tell us who gave the money. It cannot tell us what the money accomplished. Maybe a donor gets the policy it wants because the politician believed the same thing before the contribution was ever made. Maybe a donor gains greater access.Maybe it gains influence. Maybe it gains nothing. Those are very different possibilities, and a campaign-finance report cannot distinguish among them.

That is why a large contribution should not automatically produce an accusation of corruption. But neither does the absence of proven corruption make campaign money irrelevant. Quist’s proposed solution for the Attorney General’s Office is to remove more of the partisan connection. “I wanted to cut off that funding source regardless of whether the Republican or the Democrat was in the office,” she said of national partisan attorneys general organizations.[4]

People can reasonably disagree with her.

A Republican voter may want a Republican attorney general pursuing conservative interpretations of federalism, immigration and constitutional law. A Democratic voter may want a Democratic attorney general joining other Democratic states to challenge policies coming from a Republican administration. Political philosophy is one reason elections matter. But money is also one of the things that makes those elections possible. And that is why the issue is bigger than Derek Brown or Michelle Quist. It is about the bargain Utah has made with political money.

Utah allows individuals to give candidates for state office amounts that would exceed legal contribution limits in most other states, while relying on disclosure requirements to let voters see who is financing those campaigns.[1][2]

If that is the system Utah chooses, disclosure cannot be where public scrutiny ends. It has to be where it begins.

References

1. National Conference of State Legislatures. Campaign Contribution Limits: Overview. Current national comparison of state campaign-contribution limits. NCSL lists Utah among 11 states without limits on individual contributions to candidates.

2. Utah Legislature. Utah Code §20A-11-201, State Office — Separate Bank Account for Campaign Funds — No Personal Use — Reporting Requirements. Current Utah law requires state-office candidates and officeholders to maintain separate campaign accounts, prohibits mingling campaign funds with personal or business accounts, establishes contribution-reporting requirements and prohibits personal use of campaign funds.

3. Forward Party of Utah. State Leadership and Press Release: FWD and UUP Approve Merger. The United Utah Party and Utah Forward Party approved their merger in April 2025, and Michelle Quist became chair of the combined party.

4. Utah Stories. Interview with Michelle Quist, July 30, 2026. Podcast interview with Richard Markosian. Primary source for Quist’s statements regarding partisan politics, RAGA, campaign financing, Attorney General Derek Brown and multistate litigation.

5. Utah Legislature. Utah Code §67-5-1, General Duties of the Attorney General. Establishes the Attorney General’s responsibilities representing the state and supervisory powers over district and county attorneys.

6. Utah Political Watch. Utah Republican AG Candidate Derek Brown Outraises Opponents by 6-to-1, October 2024. Analysis of Brown’s Utah campaign-finance disclosures identifying $50,000 contributions from Wasatch Group, Friends of Spencer Cox and the Republican Attorneys General Association and analyzing the sources and sizes of Brown’s contributions.

7. Utah Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Derek Brown Releases Public Schedule 9/8/25–9/12/25. Official schedule states that Brown attended a Republican Attorneys General Association conference in Miami, Florida, Sept. 10–11, 2025.

8. The Salt Lake Tribune and Axios Salt Lake City. February 4, 2025 reporting on Attorney General Derek Brown joining 17 other Republican attorneys general in an amicus brief supporting President Donald Trump’s birthright-citizenship executive order. Contemporary reporting also documents Brown’s explanation for participating and Gov. Spencer Cox’s differing view on the constitutional question.

9. Utah Stories correspondence with the Utah Office of the Attorney General, August 2026. Utah Stories submitted four written questions concerning Brown’s process for joining multistate litigation, communications with RAGA, independence between campaign supporters and official decisions, and Utah’s interest in the birthright-citizenship case. The office responded: “We don’t have a comment or response for this story. Thank you for reaching out and offering the opportunity!”

10. The Salt Lake Tribune. 2020 reporting on the Republican primary contest between Attorney General Sean Reyes and Utah County Attorney David Leavitt, including RAGA’s $125,000 direct contribution to Reyes’ campaign, independent spending supporting Reyes and Leavitt’s criticism of the relationship. Reyes’ campaign disputed Leavitt’s characterization.

11. Chapman, Sydnee. The Utah Investigative Journalism Project. Utah Lawmakers Pulled in $5M in Donations — Here’s How They’re Spending the Cash, Feb. 25, 2025. Review of lawmakers’ 2024 Utah campaign-finance reports found $5.2 million in cash contributions, approximately $5 million in campaign spending and a cumulative $2.8 million remaining in lawmakers’ accounts at year end.

12. Utah House of Representatives, House Special Investigative Committee, Final Report on John Swallow; The Salt Lake Tribune reporting on the Mark Shurtleff/John Swallow investigations and John Swallow public-corruption trial. The investigations and subsequent court proceedings examined relationships involving political supporters, gifts and travel, including evidence and testimony concerning expenses paid for trips involving Shurtleff and Swallow.