Utah Hive Politicsfrom the publisher of The Weber County HiveRep. Jake Sawyer's (R) campaign money runs through vendors owned by the same family network already documented across three other Weber County races. District 9 covers portions of central Ogden, northern Roy, and West Haven. Both candidates have now filed September 30th reports: Sawyer's $22,951 this period came entirely from PACs, the party and businesses, while about three-quarters of Choberka's $20,339 came from individuals.
Updated Oct. 2, 2026, with legislative-record grades added. Earlier update Oct. 1, 2026, with both candidates' September 30th Reports (period June 12–Sept. 25) and grades.
Two views of the same money, shown separately so neither one misleads on its own: all years combined (2024's losing race, the 2025 year with no contributions raised, and 2026's rematch, added together) and 2026 only (just the current rematch). Sawyer has run continuously as an officeholder raising money since his 2024 win; Choberka's 2024 total reflects a race she lost, then a 2025 with no contributions raised, then her current 2026 campaign.
Not a like-for-like time period: Sawyer's chart covers his full all-years total ($94,901); Choberka's covers her September 30th Report ($20,339 of her $137,268 all-years total), the most recent report broken down to this level. For a same-period comparison, see "2026 Cycle Only."
| Year | Candidate | Raised | Source period |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Choberka | $88,966.94 | Full cycle, Convention–Year End. Raw export uploaded 9/12/26; reconciles to 475 contribution transactions. |
| Sawyer | $55,800.00 | Full cycle, all 5 report periods (Convention, General, Primary, September 30th, Year End). Raw export uploaded 9/13/26; reconciles to 23 contribution transactions. | |
| 2024 general election result: Sawyer 58.3% (9,497 votes) · Choberka 36.8% (5,996) · Johnson (L) 4.9% (799) | |||
| 2025 | Choberka | $0.00 | Full year, raw export uploaded 9/12/26. $2,123.76 spent (24 transactions, routine platform fees + community-goodwill gifts) — no contributions raised that year. |
| Sawyer | $7,150.00 | Full Year End report, 1/1–12/31/25, raw export uploaded 9/13/26. Unlike Choberka, he kept fundraising in his off-year (17 contributions, 13 expenditures). | |
| 2024–2025 combined | Sawyer | $62,950.00 | $55,800.00 (2024) + $7,150.00 (2025) — confirmed via full raw exports for both years, uploaded 9/13/26. |
| This resolves an earlier ~$4,500 gap: a prior "$58,450 through 2025" estimate undercounted by exactly $4,500. The corrected $62,950 figure now reconciles with his separately-stated career total (below) to within 39 cents. | |||
| 2026 | Choberka | $48,300.97 | Year to date through 9/25/26, from her September 30th Report (submitted 9/29/26). |
| Sawyer | $31,951.00 | Year to date through 9/25/26, from his September 30th Report (submitted 9/30/26): $9,000.00 through the primary plus $22,951.00 this period. | |
| All-years total | Choberka | $137,267.91 | Sum of the three clean, non-overlapping year totals above. |
| All-years total | Sawyer | $94,901.00 | $62,950.00 (2024-2025, confirmed above) + $31,951.00 (2026 through 9/25). His earlier career-total method matches this to within 39 cents. |
Same period for both: June 12–Sept. 25, 2026. Cash contributions only; in-kind gifts are listed separately below.
| Candidate | Period | Amount | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choberka | 2026 year to date, through 9/25/26 | $48,300.97 | From her September 30th Report's balance summary. |
| September 30th Report, 6/12–9/25/26 (submitted 9/29/26) | $20,339.13 | Individuals $15,289.13 (75.2%, about 106 names); groups $5,050 (24.8%): Weber County Democratic Party $2,000, Fresh Air PAC $1,000, SMART TD PAC $1,000, Local 222 Drive Chapter $500, Utah AFL-CIO $300, Women's Democratic Club $200, Friends of Elizabeth Weight $50. In-kind, not in the total: $8,145.71, mostly a $6,000 data-analytics gift from Jake Rugh. | |
| Sawyer | 2026 year to date, through 9/25/26 | $31,951.00 | From his September 30th Report's balance summary. |
| Primary Report, 3/31–6/11/26 | $3,000.00 this period ($9,000.00 YTD) | Utah Bankers Association $500, Utah Association of Realtors $1,500, NUPAC $1,000. | |
| September 30th Report, 6/12–9/25/26 (submitted 9/30/26) | $22,951.00 | 14 gifts, all from PACs, the party or businesses: House Speaker Leadership PAC $10,000, UHREC $5,000, Weber County Republican Party $3,000, Google Client Services $1,000, U-Car PAC $751, Home Builders Association of Utah PAC $750, Maverik $500, 1-800 Contacts $500, and $250 or less each from Strata Networks, Association of Utah Nurse Practitioners, SEL Inc, Holland & Hart, WCF Mutual and Parsons Behle & Latimer. It includes all nine gifts from his earlier 8/21–8/31 report. |
Both candidates' own filings on disclosures.utah.gov, period June 12–Sept. 25, 2026.
| Choberka (D) | Sawyer (R) | |
|---|---|---|
| Submitted | Sept. 29 | Sept. 30 (due date) |
| Raised this period | $20,339.13 | $22,951.00 |
| Spent this period | $14,568.07 | $8,114.92 |
| Cash on hand, Sept. 25 | $12,241.37 | $20,516.76 |
| Raised, all of 2026 | $48,300.97 | $31,951.00 |
| From individuals, this period | 75% | 0% |
| From PACs, parties & businesses, this period | 25% | 100% |
Sawyer: Two groups gave $15,000 of his $22,951 (65%) on the same day, Aug. 24: the House Speaker Leadership PAC ($10,000) and the Utah House Republican Election Committee ($5,000). He spent $8,115, mostly on Garret Muchinson ($3,597.44, advertising; $8,924.76 across three payments in 2026), Golden Key Consulting ($3,130, "Campaign Expense," 9/17) and James Humphreys ($1,000, "Campaign Expense," 7/4). Utah Division of Corporations records show Golden Key Consulting's registration expired April 5, 2023, and list James Clayton Humphreys II of Ogden as its registered agent (registry checked June 2026). The same vendor received $8,103.71 from Weber County Commission candidate Richard Hyer's campaign in 2026.
Choberka: About 106 individuals gave $15,289, many in small amounts; new larger gifts include Robert Steiner, Aldy Milliken and Sean Bishop ($500 each). Groups gave $5,050, led by the Weber County Democratic Party ($2,000). She spent $14,568, mostly on Elevate Strategies ($6,471.28) and Apollo Political ($4,200), both listed on the public report as "Campaign Expense," plus $1,500 in advertising with Eye Contact Media.
IN PLAIN WORDSEvery dollar each campaign reported, sorted into piles: people, caucus and leadership PACs, other organizations, party help and the candidate's own money. Bars are drawn to the same scale, so a short bar means less money. These are facts from the filings; they are shown here, not graded.
Periods differ where the filings in hand differ; each candidate's period is listed with their bar. "Own money" includes loans and money moved from the candidate's own earlier campaign account, as labeled. Disclosure-form lines come from each candidate's own form as described on this page. Added Oct. 2, 2026.
Every item is graded on the same five questions used across this project: Power, Transparency, Financial accountability, Environmental impact and Community impact. A C means the record meets what Utah law requires, the status quo. A B or A means the candidate went beyond it, and the record shows it. D means something is vague or bundled, or a public check is weakened; F means something required is missing, or a check is removed with nothing in its place. On reports, one required item missing is graded D, since it can be a mistake; several missing from the same report is graded F. On disclosure forms, an item voters can't see anywhere else (a company, a board seat, a job) left off is graded D; two left off, D−; three or more, F, a pattern. Legislative pay, which is public, left off with nothing else missing is graded D+. Anything named somewhere on the form counts as listed, and a form not on file is graded F. (Disclosure-form ladder added Oct. 3, 2026.) How a grade can change: candidates can file an amended report or an updated disclosure form at any time. When the missing or unclear item is fixed on the public record, we update the grade and note the date. Feedback appreciated: candidates and readers can send corrections or records we missed to webercountyhive@gmail.com, and we check every one against the public record.
Overall is the average of the graded questions (A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, F = 0; N/A and dashes are left out). A plus or minus shows where the average falls between letters, and an average exactly halfway counts toward the higher letter with a minus. Added Oct. 2, 2026.
| Candidate | Power | Transparency | Money | Environment | Community | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sawyer | F | C | D | N/A | D | D |
| Why: All 14 gifts this period came from PACs, the party and businesses; none came from individuals. Two House Republican leadership groups gave 65% of it on one day. Across all years, 98.5% of his money has come from groups. Every contributor and payee is named, but this much reliance on a few leadership-linked groups weakens the check that a broad base of voters provides. His largest new payment this period, $3,130 to Golden Key Consulting, went to a business whose Utah registration expired in 2023, listed only as "Campaign Expense," so the public can't tell what it bought or who stands behind it. The money, by category (this report, June 12–Sept. 25, 2026 (98.5% of all his money since 2024 came from groups)): individuals $0 (0.0%); caucus and leadership PACs $15,000 (65.4%); other organizations $4,951 (21.6%); party help $3,000 (13.1%). Own money: none reported. Own money is stated here, not graded. Power F: 0.0% of the counted money came from individual people. Regraded Oct. 2, 2026 on the Hive's fixed scale; earlier: D. Scale: A = 90% or more of the counted money from individual people; B = 67–89%; C = 34–66%; D = 10–33%; F = under 10%. Counted money is individuals plus caucus and leadership PACs plus other organizations (businesses, trade and union PACs, other candidates' campaigns). Ordinary party help and the candidate's own money are shown but not counted. What would have scored higher for the collective: a donor base that includes people who live in the district. | ||||||
| Choberka | B | C | C | N/A | C | C+ |
| Why: About 75% of her money this period came from roughly 106 individuals, and the rest from seven groups, the largest being the county Democratic Party. Every contributor and payee is named and in-kind gifts are reported. The public report lists most of her spending lines under the category "Campaign Expense"; in a public comment to The Hive on Oct. 1, 2026, she said she entered descriptions on many of them that the public report does not show. That meets the law. The money, by category (this report, June 12–Sept. 25, 2026; the page has no full-2026 split, cash): individuals $15,289.13 (75.2%); caucus and leadership PACs $0 (0.0%); other organizations $2,850 (14.0%); party help $2,200 (10.8%). Own money: none shown on this page. Own money is stated here, not graded. Power B: 84.3% of the counted money came from individual people. Regraded Oct. 2, 2026 on the Hive's fixed scale; earlier: C, then B under the grassroots rule earlier today. Scale: A = 90% or more of the counted money from individual people; B = 67–89%; C = 34–66%; D = 10–33%; F = under 10%. Counted money is individuals plus caucus and leadership PACs plus other organizations (businesses, trade and union PACs, other candidates' campaigns). Ordinary party help and the candidate's own money are shown but not counted. | ||||||
Going beyond the law would look like: saying what each "Campaign Expense" payment bought, and raising most of the money from people who live in the district. (On the state's public report, most spending lines show only the category "Campaign Expense." Candidates can type a description when they file, but the public report may not display it, so a missing description there doesn't mean the candidate left it out.)
| Candidate | Power | Transparency | Money | Environment | Community | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sawyer | N/A | D+ | C | N/A | N/A | D+ |
| Why: His most recent form (July 2026) names Sawyer & Co as his employer and describes him as its “Owner,” but answers “n/a” to the question about businesses he owns or serves as an officer of. Utah's business registry lists Sawyer & Co, LLC (formed 7/8/2026) with Jacob Read Sawyer as a member. Because the company is named on the form, it counts as listed under the Hive's rule, and its placement is noted here, not graded. His legislative pay as a sitting representative in 2025, the year the form covers, is not listed anywhere on the form. It is missing from his January 2026 form as well. Legislative pay is public, so with nothing else missing it is graded D+. Earlier: D, for the company's placement. Regraded Oct. 3, 2026 so the same rule applies to every form. How the grade can change: an updated form that lists the Legislature and puts Sawyer & Co on the business line. | ||||||
| Choberka | N/A | C | C | N/A | N/A | C |
| Why: Her form lists her jobs (Select Health program manager; Weber State adjunct) and her board seats (Lantern House, the Weber-Morgan Board of Health, the Weber Local Homeless Trust and the MLK Jr. Human Rights Commission). No owned businesses, $5,000-plus stock holdings or other outside income are listed. That meets the law. Her income line is left blank while her jobs are named on the form; because the jobs are named, that is noted here, not graded. | ||||||
Going beyond the law would look like: listing more than the form asks, such as a spouse's business or unpaid roles, as Kay McRae did in Senate District 20.
| Candidate | Power | Transparency | Money | Environment | Community | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sawyer | D | B | C | — | C | C |
| Why: He voted for S.B. 134 and H.B. 392. His HB 493, signed, requires chemical-disclosure labels on menstrual products, which gives the public information it didn't have before. HB 395, struck, would have routed every real estate closing through one state-selected vendor. Four other bills he filed never got public text, so their effects can't be graded. This five-question grade is separate from the promises-vs-record grade above (D), which compares his record with his campaign pledges. What would have scored higher for the collective: HB 395 with several certified vendors and open board meetings, and public text for every bill he files. | ||||||
Graded only from the bills and votes this page and the Hive's research documents. “—” means not enough of the record is documented yet to grade that question fairly. The challenger has not held this office, so there is no record to grade. Added Oct. 2, 2026.
Every major donor and vendor connection on file, filterable by type. Click a card to read the full detail.
NUPAC's real total corrects an earlier "$5,000 twice" estimate — the actual record shows four separate gifts totaling $21,000 (5/15/24, 8/12/24, 10/15/24, and 6/11/26). NUPAC's own leadership — Sen. Ann Millner, Rep. Casey Snider, and treasurer Kyle Palmer — overlaps directly with Sawyer's own vendor payments. Governing Group PAC is the same PAC already documented in Rep. Ariel Defay's campaign finance file.
Two of Sawyer's three vendor relationships trace back to the same small circle of people — a real, overlapping network, not three unrelated payments.
Kerry Gibson is the one name common to both vendor entities.
Four institutional relationships repeat across separate, dated filings: NUPAC — $5,000 (5/15/24), $10,000 (8/12/24), $5,000 (10/15/24), $1,000 (6/11/26), $21,000 total, his single largest relationship. UHREC — five gifts totaling $19,500 (2024-2025) plus a new $5,000 (8/24/26), $24,500 total, still active in his most recent filing. House Speaker Leadership PAC (Speaker Mike Schultz's own PAC) — grew from $4,500 to $14,500 total with a new $10,000 gift (8/24/26), more than tripling in one period. Weber County Republican Party — $2,500 plus a new $3,000 (8/25/26), $5,500 total.
Sawyer has been fined $1,550 total for late-reported contributions: $1,450 from six separate fines on his 2024 General Report (UHREC, Conservative Millennials, Governing Group PAC, Home Builders Association, House Speaker Leadership PAC, and NUPAC all reported late), plus $100 more for a late-reported Utah Behavior Services gift — a recurring pattern, not a one-off.
His filings also show 15 [DELETED] entries. Only one carries a recoverable amendment comment: a $3,000 UHREC contribution dated 9/16/24, wiped via amendment on 10/8/24.
Sawyer's 2024 campaign named housing his explicit top priority. In a Salt Lake Tribune commentary, he wrote he'd "fight for policies that encourage responsible development and remove unnecessary regulations that drive up the cost of building homes," and told the Standard-Examiner directly: "My top priority will be lowering the cost of housing." He also pledged to prioritize education — properly funding schools, raising teacher pay, cutting administrative burden, expanding local control.
His full sponsored-bill record across two sessions shows he chief-sponsored one bill that shares "real estate" language with his campaign promise — but on closer reading, it isn't housing policy.
The actual 2026 housing legislation that did pass — HB 492 (infrastructure fund), HB 436 (Moderate Income Housing Infrastructure), HB 68 — was carried by other representatives. On education, his only connection is as one of several cosponsors (not chief sponsor) on Rep. Pierucci's teacher-mentoring bill, HB 146 (signed).
This grade asks a different question than the bill-by-bill ones below: not whether any single bill was well-designed, but whether he did what he told voters he'd do. He named four specific priorities. Here's the record against each, one at a time:
Two additional facts inform this grade without being promises themselves: his committee attendance turned into an absence pattern immediately after a same-day cluster of PAC donations (9/4/25), and 98.5% of his all-years fundraising is institutional rather than individual — context for whose interests he's positioned toward, not a promise question on its own.
D. Three of four named campaign priorities show no delivery; the fourth shows only secondary, non-authored involvement. This is a promises-vs-record grade specifically — it does not double as a policy judgment on any bill's merits, which are graded separately below.
CORRECTED against the actual bill text (comparing HB0493 to its substitute, HB0493S01): this is not a shelf-pricing law, as earlier described here. It does two distinct things — establishes an escalating civil-penalty schedule for violations of the Dept. of Agriculture and Food's weights-and-measures program (commercial scales, pumps, packaged goods), and creates a new requirement that menstrual product manufacturers disclose on packaging any intentionally-added ingredient, specifically naming five chemicals if present: lead, cadmium, arsenic, dioxin (TCDD), and PFAS. Senate Sponsor: Ann Millner — the same Sen. Millner already documented elsewhere in this project as NUPAC's co-founder and Koford's Senate predecessor. Cosponsors: Kristen Chevrier and Candice B. Pierucci.
Design: B+. A modest, genuine consumer-protection measure with no structural downside found — the grade itself is unchanged by this correction, only the description of what earns it.
Did it change between introduction and passage? No bait-and-switch here — the substance was consistent from the introduced bill through to the enrolled law. The only "correction" involved was this page's own earlier wrong description (shelf-pricing), not a change in the bill itself.
Who benefits: Diffuse public benefit — consumers of menstrual products gain a genuine right-to-know on chemical content; no single named company gains or loses from either provision.
Outcome: B+ (signed). Design and outcome match here — it became law as written, effective 5/6/26, with the labeling requirement itself taking effect 12/1/27.
Design: C. A legitimate problem addressed through a single-winner structure worth watching, not a clean transparency or consumer-choice win.
How it died, confirmed: Introduced 1/28/26, referred to House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee 2/3/26, that committee "recommends returned to Rules" 3/4/26, then struck via enacting-clause removal at 11:59 PM on 3/6/26 — the same night and mechanism, and the identical committee-to-Rules pipeline, already documented elsewhere on this page killing H.B. 100, plus H.B. 267, H.B. 422, and H.J.R. 7 in this project's broader bait-and-switch tracker.
Did it change between introduction and its death? Not established — only the final (pre-death) text is on file here, not an earlier version to compare it against. Unlike HB 236 elsewhere on this page, no bait-and-switch pattern is confirmed for this bill; it may simply have read this way from the start.
What would have made it good for the collective: Keep the anti-wire-fraud goal, but let licensed title/escrow/real-estate professionals choose among multiple certified transaction-network vendors instead of one exclusive company, and require the new board's vendor-selection and fee-approval meetings to be open to the public.
Who benefits: Not established — the bill died before the new 5-member board ever selected the "one exclusive private company," so no specific vendor was ever named as the winner. If it had passed, that company would have been the clear concentrated beneficiary; for now this sits in industry-generally, no-company-named territory.
Outcome: N/A — struck via enacting-clause removal, 3/6/26, never passed. No real-world effect to grade; the design concerns above never had to be tested.
Why no grade: Two separate reasons, not one. First, no substantive detail on this bill's actual text is on file beyond its title — grading Power/Transparency without reading the bill itself would be guessing. Second, even if the design were known, it never passed, so there'd be no real-world outcome to grade against that design anyway.
How it died, confirmed: Introduced 1/20/26 at 3:44 PM — and unlike most bills on this same-night kill list, it shows no standing-committee referral at all, going straight from introduction to Rules to being struck via enacting-clause removal at 11:59 PM on 3/6/26. That's the same night and mechanism already confirmed killing H.B. 100 elsewhere on this page, plus H.B. 422 and H.J.R. 7 documented in this project's broader bait-and-switch tracker. No committee ever touched this one before it was killed.
Did it change between introduction and its death? Unknown — without the bill text, there's no way to tell whether it followed the bait-and-switch pattern documented elsewhere on this page (HB 236) or stayed consistent throughout.
What would make it good for the collective, and who benefits: Not statable without reading the actual bill text — flagged here as a gap in this page's research, not a claim that the bill was fine.
Why no grade: Same two reasons as HB 267 — no substantive bill text on file beyond the title, and it never passed, so there's no real-world outcome to test a design against even if one were known.
How it died, confirmed: Introduced 1/20/26, sent to House Health and Human Services Committee 1/26/26, that committee "recommends returned to Rules" 3/4/26, then struck via enacting-clause removal at 11:59 PM on 3/6/26 — the exact same night and mechanism already documented elsewhere in this project killing H.B. 422, H.J.R. 7, and H.B. 332 in the same single session. The kill mechanism is confirmed even though the bill's own substance still isn't.
Did it change between introduction and its death? Unknown, for the same reason as HB 267.
What would make it good for the collective, and who benefits: Not statable without reading the actual bill text — flagged here as a gap in this page's research, not a claim that the bill was fine.
Abandoned before ever being formally introduced — no bill number, no bill text exists. There's nothing to grade. This was one of five bills Sawyer abandoned pre-introduction that session, per the official list marking each "Bill Abandoned per Sponsor": Rental Dwelling Amendments, Emissions Inspection Modifications, a Concurrent Resolution Regarding Federal Currency, Discipline in School, and Metal Recycling and Shredding Facility Emission Amendments. None of the five were ever numbered, and no bill text exists for any of them — so this reflects a broader pattern of abandoned bills that session, not a decision specific to housing.
Sawyer is one of 27 cosponsors on HB 236, "Truth in Taxation Amendments" (chief sponsor Karen M. Peterson, Senate sponsor Daniel McCay, signed into law). It's not counted among his graded bills above since it isn't his own initiative — but it's worth flagging: comparing all four versions of the bill (original, S01, S02, and the enacted S03) shows a real necessity-test mechanism was removed between S01 and S02.
The original design would have forced a taxing entity to first adopt a budget proving it could function without a proposed tax increase before being allowed to budget for it. That requirement was replaced with a much weaker one-way disclosure schedule — while the bill's own "Highlighted Provisions" summary reads almost identically across every version.
Two fully-verified findings from Sawyer's committee record, cross-checked against primary-source minutes for every meeting cited. The first is a timeline worth seeing laid out, not just described:
Judicial stack: Sawyer voted yes on both S.B. 134 and H.B. 392, the two flagship 2026 judicial-control bills already documented in Kyle's HD8 file — the second Weber County Republican confirmed on the core stack.
Sawyer's most recent COI filing lists his current employer as "Sawyer & Co," a "client acquisition company" he owns — but the same form's Item 2A (entities he owns/officers) is marked "n/a," directly contradicting Item 1B on the same document. Utah's corporate registry shows Sawyer & Co, LLC was formed 7/8/2026, weeks before this COI update, registered at Sawyer's own home address, with a stated business purpose of "Lead Generation for service businesses." Its second listed member, James Weldon Neff, has no other apparent connection to Sawyer — his only other Utah corporate history is Key Concierge, LLC, a Draper company inactive since 2011. Neff isn't using an address of his own on the Sawyer & Co filing either; it lists Sawyer's home address.
Choberka is currently Ogden City Council Chair for District 1 — a sitting local official running for the state seat — and also works as a Select Health "Program Manager, Equity Initiatives" and a Weber State adjunct English professor. Her COI disclosure is clean: no owned entities, no $5K+ stock holdings, no undisclosed outside income. Board seats: Lantern House (Secretary), the Weber-Morgan Health Department Board of Health, the Weber Local Homeless Trust, and the MLK Jr. Human Rights Commission (a Cox gubernatorial appointee).
2024 — her first run, which she lost: Choberka raised $88,966.94 (475 contribution transactions, full Convention-through-Year-End cycle, reconciled via raw export) but lost to Sawyer in the November general election, 58.3% to 36.8% (Libertarian Jacob Johnson took the remaining 4.9%). Top donors: Utah House Democratic Leadership Council $7,000, Utah Women in Politics PAC $5,000, IBEW PAC $4,000, George & Mary Hall $3,000 (funding her again in 2026), Roxane Googin $1,270 (the same Park City donor tied to UINPAC's own founding). Her September 30th Report shows one confirmed, publicly-visible [DELETED] entry: originally a $500 line item to "The Monarch Venues" (9/25/24), wiped via amendment on 9/30/24 — date, name, purpose, and amount all removed.
2025: zero contributions raised all year — with only routine platform fees ($2,123.76 total across 24 transactions) and small community-goodwill gifts (Youth Impact, Boys & Girls Club, Ogden Contemporary Art, the Innocence Project) on the ledger.
2026 through Sept. 25: $48,300.97 raised (September 30th Report). Received the same $7,500 UINPAC gift as Kim James, same day, part of the documented multi-candidate Democratic slate. Heavy consultant spend — Elevate Strategies ($8,755.29) and Apollo Political ($6,939.00) together are over 70% of 2026 spending, a professionally-run operation distinct from a DIY campaign. Cross-Democratic-slate giving continues: David and Rosemary Lesser combined $2,500 across four separate gifts, and a mutual-support pattern with Bianca Mittendorf's HD7 campaign (each gave the other's campaign a small direct gift).
This period reconciles exactly to $13,637.25 across 79 named individual donors plus 3 institutional gifts — 90.8% individual ($12,387.25) / 9.2% institutional ($1,250: Fresh Air PAC $1,000, Women's Democratic Club of Utah $200, Friends of Elizabeth Weight $50). This corrects an earlier secondhand claim that her fundraising was "100% individual" — it's overwhelmingly individual, but not entirely. Named repeat donors within this period: John Thomas gave three times ($350 total), Rosemary Lesser gave three times ($1,300 total) — on top of the separate $2,500/four-gift Lesser-family total already noted above for the broader 2026 cycle. Other named individual donors: David Lesser $500, Greg Matis $1,000, Katherine Matheson $750, and several sitting/former Utah Democratic officials giving small personal amounts (Jennifer Dailey-Provost, Patrice Arent, Ben McAdams, Ross Romero, Jacob Fitisemanu).
Preserving Utah Values PAC ran attack ads against Choberka in June 2026 — a Wisconsin-registered PAC (officers Thomas and Timothy Datwyler, Hudson, WI), created 10/8/2024. Its only documented contribution, $120,000, came directly from Mike Schultz personally (11/30/2024) — the same House Speaker whose own leadership PAC and party network fund a large share of Sawyer's own campaign, documented earlier on this page. The money was spent almost entirely on a single vendor, G2 Consulting ($110,535).
The PAC filed a dissolution "Final Report" on 6/20/2025 — yet a separate report filed the same day shows $2,914.57 in expenditures, a contradiction in its own paperwork. The ads themselves ran under "Paid for by Preserving Utah Values Inc," and zero 2026 disclosures have been filed anywhere in Utah's campaign finance system for the period the ads actually ran — a documented compliance gap, not an assumption. The Salt Lake Tribune independently identified Schultz as the funder behind this network, using his own photo alongside the story.*
Choberka is one of at least three candidates targeted by this same PAC — Scott Stephenson (HD-44) was targeted the same year, 2026, alongside her; Rosemary Lesser was targeted earlier, during her 2024 race, which she lost by roughly 300 votes. (Note: a similarly-named but entirely separate group, "Protect Utah Values PAC," is Utah-registered and funded by a different individual — not to be confused with this one.)
*The Tribune's naming of Schultz was tied specifically to the 2024 Lesser race. As of this writing, no equivalent named press coverage has been found tying Schultz to the 2026 targeting of Choberka or Stephenson by the same PAC. Nor does the record show any enforcement action addressing the compliance gap noted above — the PAC has continued running ads under an active filing with no 2026 disclosures on record.
Salt Lake Tribune independently named Schultz as the funder, using his own photo.
Published word for word, both sides. Candidates' comments to The Hive are posted in full.
Hi there! Thank you for your detailed reports. I just checked and no details for the campaign expenses are showing up on the report although in many cases I did enter a description. This may be a problem with the website. Just to note that it may not be accurate that no descriptions were provided by candidates. I don’t think I do a description for every entry - especially when it is obvious like the website or zoom account. Just in fairness to all candidates.
Thank you, Angela, this is helpful and fair. You're right: the state's public report shows only the category, not descriptions a candidate enters, so I've corrected the wording on every page so it no longer suggests anyone left descriptions out. I'm working to make the grading rubric fair across the board for every candidate. Right now a C means meeting what the law requires, and I'm still thinking about how to better reflect transparency beyond that minimum. Feedback like yours helps.
What changed because of this comment: every graded page on this site now says the public report lists spending under its category, and notes that descriptions candidates enter may not appear there. No grade changed.
Utah Hive Politicsfrom the publisher of The Weber County HiveIndependent · Accountability · Journalism