The Third Side: Let Them Eat Checks
Every so often, politics hands us a scandal so ridiculous that the only responsible reaction is to laugh — and then think harder.
This week, a conservative activist walked onto the floor of the Wyoming House and handed out campaign donation checks to legislators. Photographs were taken. Statements were made. Protests were filed. Investigations were launched. The word “stain” echoed through the chamber like someone had spilled coffee on the Constitution.
The action was ridiculous. It was repulsive. It lacked decorum. And it demonstrated a kind of high-dollar donor arrogance that understandably rubs the average Wyoming taxpayer the wrong way.
But here is the uncomfortable part: It may not have been illegal.
It may not even have violated House or Senate rules.
That question will be sorted out by investigative committees formed with near-unanimous consent in both chambers. And that is fine. Institutions should defend their integrity.
But once we are done clutching our pearls, perhaps we should consider a different response.
Instead of banning the practice, we should require it.
If legislators are going to receive campaign contributions during session — and let’s not pretend that money stops flowing just because the gavel drops — then the only acceptable way to do it should be on the floor of their respective chambers, in full public view.
In fact, let’s expand the rule. No campaign donations, gifts or bundled contributions should be delivered to seated legislators — or to the governor, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer or superintendent of public instruction — except in a public ceremony conducted during the legislative day. The requirement should extend to the 72 hours before and during interim committee meetings as well.
If the money is going to move while public business is being debated, then the public should get a front-row seat.
Let’s really do it right.
Borrow from the old French and English courts. Add a little pageantry. Each day’s agenda can include a scheduled “Presentation of Benefactors.” The sergeant-at-arms announces the arrival of the donor. The chamber doors open. The benefactor proceeds down the aisle to a lectern placed prominently before the body.
There, with clarity and confidence, the donor announces the name of each official they wish to support, along with the precise amount and nature of the contribution, before physically presenting it.
No envelopes slipped quietly into coat pockets. No “nobody’s business.” No confusion about optics.
True transparency.
Because let’s be honest about what offended people most.
It was not merely that checks were delivered. It was the setting. The symbolism. The sense that something normally done behind the curtain had wandered accidentally onto the stage.
The average Wyoming citizen already contributes significantly to these lawmakers — through taxes that fund the very budgets being debated. Many work in the industries that generate the lion’s share of the state’s wealth. They show up to work every day without a lectern, without applause and without anyone publicly announcing their sacrifice.
Meanwhile, a well-connected donor class can write five-figure checks and, until last week, do so without the public seeing the choreography. If we are not prepared to fundamentally change how campaigns are financed — and there is little appetite for that — then let us at least remove the pretense.
Put it on the calendar. Put it in the journal. Stream it live.
Require that any campaign contribution delivered during a session be announced in the same chamber where the people’s business is conducted. If a donor believes strongly enough in a bill to financially support its sponsors, let them say so clearly, proudly and under the bright lights.
And if legislators believe their votes are unaffected by timing or proximity, they should welcome the sunlight.
This proposal does not accuse anyone of bribery. It does not assume quid pro quo. It does not even condemn lawful political support. It simply acknowledges reality: money and policymaking intersect. The public knows it. Pretending otherwise insults voters’ intelligence. The real scandal would be responding to this episode with symbolic outrage while allowing the same practices to continue more discreetly elsewhere.
Wyoming prides itself on plain talk and open skies. Let’s apply both to campaign finances during a session. If checks are going to be handed out while laws are being debated, then let them be handed out where everyone can see them. If we are not willing to stop it, we should at least have to watch it.
That might be the most honest reform of all — and a very Wyoming version of the Third Side.