Cache County Voters Deserve Truth and Transparency

Editor's note: This letter was shared earlier, but we keep seeing a pattern in Patrick Belmont's behavior and feel it's worth sharing again.

By Former State Representative Dan Johnson and F. Ross Peterson, Professor Emeritus of History, Utah State University

Between us, we have spent decades participating in, studying, teaching, and observing politics in Utah. One of us served six years in the Utah Legislature as a Republican and served as a lifetime educator. The other spent a career teaching contemporary American history at Utah State University and previously chaired the Cache County Democratic Party.

We come from different political backgrounds and have not always supported the same candidates or reached the same conclusions on public policy. But we agree on something more fundamental: politics works only when truth matters, disagreement remains civil, and voters can trust that the information put before them is presented honestly.

That is why we are troubled by what is happening in the campaign for House District 3.

Voters recently received what was presented as an “opinion survey.” But many of its questions were not really questions. They were lies about Rep. Jason Thompson’s integrity, finances, and public service, followed by requests for voters to say how much those allegations troubled them.

Campaigns are competitive. Candidates should challenge records, question votes, criticize decisions, and make the case that they would govern differently.

But there is a profound difference between challenging someone’s public record and using the appearance of an “opinion survey” to plant damaging lies about that person’s character in voters’ minds. Whether this survey came directly from the Belmont campaign or from those supporting his candidacy, the larger point remains: when a candidate is unwilling to reject this kind of messaging, the damage extends beyond the person being targeted. It erodes trust in our political system.

A poll should not become a vehicle for presenting falsehoods as facts.

We have seen Thompson’s public service firsthand. We have seen him work to demonstrate Utah State University’s value while the university has faced significant scrutiny from the Legislature. We have also seen his willingness to listen, work with others, and advocate for the communities he represents.

None of that means voters must agree with every vote Thompson has cast. They should challenge his record. Debate the issues. Question his decisions.

But do it with facts.

Our second concern is transparency.

Patrick Belmont has made transparency and accountability recurring themes in his campaigns. We agree that those things matter. But transparency is not something we demand only from our opponents.

In 2022, Patrick ran openly as a Democrat. Voters knew the political affiliation he had chosen and could judge his positions accordingly.

Two years later, Patrick ran for the Legislature as an unaffiliated candidate. He is doing so again in 2026.

Changing one’s party affiliation is certainly a candidate’s right. People’s views change, and no political party defines everything a person believes. But after presenting himself to voters as unaffiliated, Patrick continued seeking financial support from the Democratic Party.

That deserves an explanation.

If Patrick’s political philosophy changed after 2022, voters should know how it changed. If it did not, voters should know that too. If a candidate decides a party label no longer represents him while continuing to seek financial support from that same party, it is fair for voters to ask what actually changed.

This is not about forcing anyone into a Republican or Democratic box. Our own different political backgrounds should make that clear.

It is about giving voters the full picture.

The same principle applies to the outside political organizations spending money in this race. Way Back PAC has provided substantial support connected to Patrick Belmont’s campaigns. Outside dark money spending may be legal, but voters still deserve to know who is trying to influence their elections, where that support comes from, and why. The same organization became involved last year in Logan's nonpartisan mayoral race.

A candidate who makes transparency central to his campaign should be willing to apply that standard to himself: be candid about the continued pursuit of Democratic Party support, explain the relationships with outside political groups supporting the campaign, and support disclosure that helps ordinary voters understand who is financing efforts to influence their vote.

And the same standard should apply to campaign tactics.

There is nothing wrong with challenging Rep. Thompson’s record. That is politics.

Circulating damaging lies about someone’s personal integrity under the guise of measuring “public opinion” is something else.

These practices have consequences beyond one candidate or one election. Personal attacks, misleading claims, dark money, and the steady replacement of argument with falsehood are among the reasons good people increasingly want nothing to do with politics.

After enough of it, people walk away. Good people decide not to run. Others stop volunteering or paying attention. Eventually, some stop voting.

Our experiences have given us very different perspectives on politics. One of us has spent a career studying and teaching American history. The other spent six years serving in the Utah Legislature. One chaired the Cache County Democratic Party. The other served as a Republican.

Those experiences have not caused us to agree on everything.

But they have led us to the same conclusion: representative government depends upon trust.

And trust depends upon truth.

Voters in House District 3 should examine the candidates’ records, ask what they believe, ask who is supporting them, and expect difficult questions to be answered.

They should also expect political campaigns to tell the truth.

Winning matters in politics.

How we win matters too.

Dan N. Johnson, Ed.D.

F. Ross Peterson