'Family Values' Republican Accused of Paying for Sex Also Voted to Raise Penalties for Paying for Sex

Last year, Utah's Jon E. Stanard voted to raise the penalty for soliciting prostitution to $2,500. And this year...


Utah state Rep. Jon Stanard (R–District 62) proficiently spouted the standard family-values Republican fare. The married father of three may have also been paying for sex.

Stanard resigned "unexpectedly" on Tuesday, citing "personal and family concerns," said Utah House Speaker Greg Hughes in a statement. Stanard told the AP he wanted to spend more time with his father, who has terminal cancer.

But on Thursday, Stanard—whose now-defunct website touted him as a "lifelong social conservative" dedicated to preserving "family values" and "traditional marriage"—was accused in the Daily Mail by escort Brie Taylor of paying her for sex at a Salt Lake City hotel on two occasions. According to Taylor, Stanard reached out to her first in March 2017 after viewing her website. She was unable to meet then, but they did get together when he was back in town that June and again in August. Both dates correspond with times Stanard was in Salt Lake City for legislative committee meetings.

Beyond the (now routine) revelation that a so-called socially conservative legislator may have failed to follow his own ethical rules, the accusation is notable because it suggests another frequent form of hypocrisy. In 2017, Stanard voted in favor of a bill raising the penalty for soliciting paid sexual activity to $2,500.

"I was surprised when I found out that he voted in favor of stricter laws," Taylor told the Daily Mail.

"This is a Republican state so you have to stick with your buddies otherwise it will hurt your career but on the other hand, he is a john," Taylor continued. "It is hypocritical because he is supporting laws that make it stricter for other men who do what he does."

It isn't unusual for a public official to take a tough-on-prostitution stance publicly while secretly engaging sex workers' services. For instance, former Trump campaign coordinator and Oklahoma state senator Ralph Shortey, elected on a "family values" platform, was recently found in a hotel room with a 17-year-old boy he had paid for sex. And just about every week, there are news stories in which the same cops who help arrest sex workers also pay for their services or just demand sex from them.

Stanard's attorney attempted to blame the #MeToo movement for necessitating the legislator's resignation. "Given the current climate in this country with misconduct allegations and the way things are happening in the media right now," he told the Mail, "there isn't any explanation that my client could give that would overcome the shadow of these allegations."

NEXT: Our Infrastructure Is Not 'Crumbling.' Repeat: Our Infrastructure Is Not 'Crumbling'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


    1. It’s just a few bad apples, really. The rest are fine, upstanding citizens who only want to serve this great nation and its people. Honest. Now, did you hear about that terrible thing that Democrat did last week? It was horrible!

  2. It’s more exciting when you know the penalties are “stiffer”.

  3. Since when is paying for sex not a family value?

    1. Oh, no u dinnt.

  4. So did he do it?

    1. I tried to find the answer to that in the article, but it’s not there.

      How do we know the accusing prostitute isn’t politically motivated by his anti-prostitution stance, and knows evidence isn’t required to ruin his career?

  5. I still can’t believe that family values still plays with voters. Of all the right’s bullshit, this doesn’t seem like something that would stand the test of time.

    1. That’s because nobody in Red areas wants to be the first person to call BS on some of that s–t.

      1. Seems like you could just stop using it in your campaigns. There are plenty of other right-leaning governance/legislative platforms from which to choose.

        1. But “family values” is emotional meat for the base. When your party has a reputation of being largely reactionary against what the other party wants to do, you need something to be for.

          1. That’s what I’m saying. I can’t figure out how it’s still emotional meat for the base. Or, perhaps more correctly, that there’s still enough of a family values base out there for its use to be worth it.

            1. Beats me, man. I got into an argument in 2016 with a dude who insisted that Donald Trump was a “family man” who would stand up for “family values,” and he couldn’t explain what that meant or how it applies to a guy who’s been married so many times.

              1. Trump values families so much that he’s had three of them, i guess.

                1. Yeah, I have no idea how he sold that one. He does seem to care about his children, but he doesn’t seem to have anything similar to traditional american family values. Whatever that may be.

            2. It’s a dog whistle, Fist. It means no gays, no drugs, no promiscuity, and no gambling. In other words, family values means you hate fun.

              1. It really just means suppress others for their failings, forgive me for mine.

              2. It’s still baffling that there’s any significant positive response to the dog whistle. What are you gaining?

            3. “That’s what I’m saying. I can’t figure out how it’s still emotional meat for the base. Or, perhaps more correctly, that there’s still enough of a family values base out there for its use to be worth it.”

              Perhaps because there are so many policies which undermine normal families – from divorce laws to ruining mom and pop cake bakers. “Family values” can simply be a shorthand for “not doing that sort of thing.”

        2. Like what? Fiscal conservatism? Entitlement reform? Sane immigration policy? Do Republican have any greater credibility on any of those?

          A call to “family values” is just another meaningless kata in the pro forma political/tribal ritual, design to signal group membership to one group of rubes, and to cluck at another group of rubes. If a misogynistic serial philanderer is God Own President, then “familiy values”, along with all the rest, is meaningless.

          I don’t know how good or bad of a legislator this dude was. What it seems like is, he wanted/needed occasional NSA strange, and found it up a hooker’s ass. And the hooker, apparently, is the sanest person involved, since even she realizes he’s gotta say the shit to get elected by his tribe in that state.

          1. I also noticed the prostitute’s political prudence.

    2. And it bites them in the ass over and over. Dem bangs a prostitute and nobody bats an eye. Rep needs to resign.

      It’s the gift to the left that keeps on giving.

      1. Um that is the complete opposite of reality, but OK. Former senator David Vitter agrees.

      2. And I have little problem judging people using their own supposed criteria.

        1. Is he into forgiveness though?

          One thing I wonder is hypocrisy has become so maligned, but is it better to have ideals and fail to reach them, or to have no ideals at all? I don’t know enough about this guy to say the circumstances around it, but we all fail to live up to perfection.

          Though he’s a politician, so I care somewhat less.

    3. It’s the political equivalent of Maori tattoos. They’ve been trained to repeat certain phrases as a way of advertising group membership. Any semantic meaning those phrases may have is completely secondary to that signalling function.

      1. It’s the same reason my dad, who outside weddings and funerals hasn’t been to church in 20 years, spends all his time complaining about secularists. He doesn’t actual care about the Christian religion, he’s just been trained that his social group public identifies themselves as Christian.

    4. IOKIYAR. It’s not really about family values. They’d probably elect a thrice-married serial cheater who hits on his own daughter if it meant saving the fetuses. Extreme hyperbole, I know.

      1. Yes they would. Because Marital Infidelity < Murder to someone who believes life begins at conception, dumb ass.

        1. Marital infidelity seemed to matter a whole lot to them when Bill Clinton was president.

          1. Did Bill Clinton get an abortion?

            Case closed.

          2. And sexual harassment meant a lot to the Dems between the Thomas confirmation hearings and Bill Clinton taking office.

            1. We decided to forgive Monica for sexually harassing the president.

              1. Got your presidential knee pads on, then ?

        2. Unless one is prepared to incarcerate every woman who has (or tries to have) an abortion, and is prepared to consider lesser charges for a pregnant women who engages in conduct (such as jogging) that precipitates a miscarriage, the “murder” argument is silly.

          Most belief that life begins at conception is vague and superstitious, unworthy of respect in reasoned debate among adults. People are entitled to believe as they wish. Adults neither offer nor accept superstition-based arguments in reasoned debate about civic affairs.

          1. Further, abortion was accepted on the QT up until the Papist hordes started coming to America and outbreeding the Protestants. THEN the WASPs started getting excited about raising the WASP birth rate.

          2. It’s also not supported biblically. If you look at the punishment for causing a woman to miscarry, it’s pretty clear that it’s not considered equivalent to murder, but rather a relatively minor property crime against the fetus’s father.

            This isn’t surprising given the repeated connection the old testament draws between life and breathing: if you’re not breathing, you’re not alive.

            1. And don’t forget the that murder of foreigner babies is positively encouraged.

      2. To be fair, and while no one likes to admit it, there is plenty of room on both sides of the abortion debate to be right. It can and probably should exist outside of the family values umbrella to stand on its own.

  6. Basic economics. Lower the price for himself by decreasing the demand from other johns.

  7. Did he admit that his actions were wrong?

  8. Maybe he actually has no problem with sex workers and just wanted to raise more money for the local governments. Sex tax-the best kind of sin tax.

  9. No problem he’s a Republican, the Party that forgives, excuses, justifies, or ignores self admitted puss grabbing, multiple wife beating, sexual assault with the underage, 2,000 documented lies in one year, porn star philandering, racial intolerance, etc. Why would he resign, in the Republican Party it’s a badge of courage.

    1. Nigga, are you actually trying that noise with Bill Clinton in existence?

      They all do it motherfucker. Don’t mug yaself.

      1. The Republican party forgave Bill Clinton?

          1. So is the standard that if a living person did something bad, Trump is forgiven for all? Whatabout dead people? Hitler existed, so Trump isn’t so bad yet.

            1. Nigga, stop regurgitating talking points like it’s your tricks spunk.

  10. At this point, I assume anyone making a moral outrage play is guilty of 10x worse.

    Right-wing Republican family values politician: probably betraying spouse.

    Left-wing income inequality social justice warrior: probably has an extra large annual shoe budget.

    1. Except one of those is hypocrisy and the other isn’t, because liberals who want to reduce wealth inequality a bit don’t actually believe that people shouldn’t be allowed to be wealthy.

      This is why this country is becoming a banana Republic with nukes, you know.

      1. I get it: wealth inequality scolds don’t really want wealth equality.

        Makes perfect sense.

        1. I don’t know how to respond to this. Obviously it makes sense. You do get that you can enjoy eating a bag of Cheetos without necessarily enjoying eating 1,000 bags of Cheetos? Yes? Hello?

          1. Dude, I told you I get it: wealth inequality scolds only scold over other people’s wealth inequality.

            In a matter that’s totally different from hypocrisy.

            And for your analogy to be accurate for the political class, You should talk about ia morbidly obese woman chugging 2 tons of Cheetos every day, whining about someone else going to McDonald’s for a cheeseburger.

            1. That would be an appropriate analogy for plutocrats who complain about the diet choices of welfare recipients, maybe.

              Nobody is proposing any policy that only affects conservative rich people. When billionaires donate to Democrats they know they’re supporting the cause of raising their own taxes.

              1. If that’s how you think political campaign finance works, you must love the Citizens United decision.

                1. It’s certainly not ideal that we have to rely on the good graces of thoughtful billionaires to compete with the sociopathic ones using government to loot the country for themselves, but that’s the hand CU dealt us.

                  1. You mean the gazzilionars who donate to support national security, safe neighborhoods, and economic freedom, in a totally unselfish way, right?

                    1. And the $1.4 billion in free money they just got from Republicans is just a sort of thank-you card.

                    2. And it’s just a total coincidence that the democrat political/upper class effort to redistribute their own money through the DNC and political apparatus is almost completely ineffective.

                      There they are, trying desperately to give their money away, only to be thwarted by long-established political trends. The poor dears just don’t have any options, really.

                    3. There they are, trying desperately to give their money away, only to be thwarted by long-established political trends. The poor dears just don’t have any options, really.

                      Look, John Kerry would gladly donate all of his money to help the poor if only someone would force him!

                    4. It really is everyone else’s fault.

                  2. It’s certainly not ideal that we have to rely on the good graces of thoughtful billionaires to compete with the sociopathic ones using government to loot the country for themselves

                    Is that why the $100k of Russian ad dollars defeated the millions and millions spent by HRC and her supporters?

          2. You think rich people have a Scrooge McDuck swimming pool full of cash, gold, and jewelry?

            No, shithead, it’s in the form of investments. Even if they have a big-ass yacht, that still was built by human labor and is still crewed and maintained by human labor.

            Or maybe you think old moldy Cheetos in the original package are collector’s items?

            Nitwit. Shithead. Balls for brains.

            1. Let them swab decks!

              1. Don’t let them swab decks! In fact, forbid them and put them on welfare!


      2. liberals who want to reduce wealth inequality a bit don’t actually believe that people shouldn’t be allowed to be wealthy


        1. “Prohibit Individuals from Accumulating Over $3 Million in Tax-Preferred Retirement Accounts.”

      3. That’s why Nancy Pelosi doesn’t hire union workers for her plantations, and has CPA’s do her taxes when she could lead by example, take the standard deduction, and “pay her fair share”.

  11. Thank you Rep. Stanard for bringing to light the horrors of human trafficking.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.