STATE BILL COLORADO
A state House candidate in southern Colorado has sold The Huerfano World, a newspaper in Walsenburg, and it has since been resold to area publishers Brian and Gretchen Orr, who have combined the newspaper with their Huerfano Journal, now called The Huerfano World Journal.
Lisa Grace Kellogg, who’s running for the GOP nomination for the Colorado House seat now held by rancher Wes McKinley, a Democrat, sold the paper seven weeks ago to Dale Bean.
Bean, in turn, sold the World to the Orrs last week.
Before starting her American Print Media company, Kellogg served as general counsel to a news media company owned by her parents, The Colorado Statesman has reported. Her husband, Michael Kellogg, who played for the Denver Broncos in the 1960s, is a judge in Los Angeles Superior Court and resides at the couple’s ranch in Malibu.
President Barack Obama blew through Denver during a snowstorm Thursday afternoon to boost Sen. Michael Bennet’s re-election campaign, part of a skip across the West to help vulnerable candidates, The Denver Post reports. The president stumped for the rookie Democratic senator in front of about 2,700 people packed into Fillmore Auditorium, then cruised through town in his motorcade to a cocktail fundraiser at the downtown Sheraton.
In other coverage:
Mike Littwin, The Denver Post: If you want an idea just how toxic things are in Washington these days, all you had to do was take a trip to Denver. As you’ve probably seen, Jane Norton welcomed Barack Obama to town by cutting her first TV ad, calling on Obama — who may not have seen the ad — to balance the budget or not run for re-election in 2012.
The Denver Daily News: President Barack Obama’s fundraising visit to Denver yesterday in support of U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet came with its fair share of controversy and protest. From medical marijuana advocates who want to stop raids on growers, to conservatives who questioned the cost of Obama’s visit to Denver, the picket lines were colorful yesterday afternoon outside the Fillmore Auditorium where Obama spoke.
Bloomberg: President Barack Obama is emphasizing his administration’s actions on the economy during a two-state Western state swing that comes as he’s trying to bolster the chances of Democrats in November’s elections. The president plans to announce today in Las Vegas $1.5 billion in funding for housing finance agencies in states where the average prices for homes have fallen more than 20 percent from their peak, according to an administration fact sheet.
Politico: President Obama did his best to present Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet as a Washington outsider who’s only in the nation’s capital to change it. Obama pointed out that this is the first election for Bennet, who was named as Colorado senator just over a year ago. He told a story of how Bennet recently stood up in a Democratic caucus meeting and challenged his colleagues on the ways of Washington. Obama talked about how the two of them have no time for politics. Bennet, he said, is so new to political scene he’s “still kind of puzzled” by it all.
San Francisco Examiner: Complaining that America has grown “numb” from “slash and burn politics,” President Obama urged Democrats here to keep faith with the party and ignore the noise from Washington. Back in full-throated campaign mode, Obama is on a two-day swing through the West trying to shore up a pair of his party’s embattled Senate incumbents.
Los Angeles Times: Looking to galvanize Democrats, President Barack Obama cast himself Thursday as a truth-teller in the Harry S. Truman mold, mocking Republicans who opposed his $787-billion economic stimulus package while claiming credit for delivering projects back home. Speaking to about 2,400 people at a fundraising reception in Denver, the president invoked a famous phrase from Truman’s come-from-behind bid to stay in the White House in 1948.
Gov. Bill Ritter has asked the Colorado Supreme Court to weigh in on a campaign-finance dispute over contribution limits, The Denver Post reports. Ritter wants clarification in the aftermath of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows businesses and unions to directly spend unlimited amounts of money to produce and run their own campaign ads. Law Week Colorado, a sister publication of State Bill Colorado, originally reported this story last week. That story featured video of Secretary of State Bernie Buescher.
House Bill 10-1272 would set contribution limits of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for small donor committees to any candidates for school board seats and the RTD board of directors. The measure comes on the heels of extremely high spending school board races last year in Denver and Douglas County. Rep. Beth McCann and Sen. Pat Steadman, both Denver Democrats, are the sponsors.
By Matt Masich, STATE BILL COLORADO
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission last month dramatically changed the rules for campaign finance by lifting restrictions on corporations’ independent campaign spending. The Colorado Bar Association-CLE in Colorado held a program 10-days after the landmark decision to help lawyers understand the impact on the state’s laws.
Secretary of State Bernie Buescher made an appearance at the event, joining the all-star panel of election lawyers Ed Ramey of Isaacson Rosenbaum, Martha Tierney of Kelly Garnsey Hubbell & Lass, Richard Westfall of Hale Friesen and Maurie Knaizer of the attorney general’s office.
Buescher said Gov. Bill Ritter and the legislature will likely ask the state Supreme Court to issue a ruling to clarify what Citizens United will mean for Colorado election law.
“We’ve crafted a series of interrogatories which now have been approved by the governor, “ Buescher said. “We hope they are the subject of a joint resolution and are submitted in the next week to the Supreme Court. They deal with Article 28 Section 6.2 of the Colorado Constitution. The specific problem we’ve got is that our campaign finance [laws are] embedded in the constitution.”
The legislature must uphold the state constitution — even if it is contradicted by Citizens United — until the state Supreme Court tells it otherwise.
State candidates, stealth political groups and special-interest political committees in Colorado have amassed millions of dollars in campaign donations to kick off the 2010 elections, The Denver Post reports. At stake are the governorship, control of the state legislature, and the redistricting of state and federal legislative districts.
In a bid they say would loosen the grip of special interests on the State Capitol, some Democratic lawmakers are proposing to let qualifying legislative candidates tap public funds to help pay for their races.
The proposal by Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, would be paid for voluntarily by those who choose to check a box on their state income-tax returns, and it would help finance state House and Senate candidates who also demonstrate they can raise individual contributions of their own through their campaigns.
“Most people are concerned about the role of money in elections and we want to start the conversation,” said Sen. Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat who is sponsoring the bill in the Senate. “If we don’t like the role of money and special interests, then let’s do something about it.”
Its backers say House Bill 1156 takes a shot at leveling the playing field for candidates who voluntarily decide to forego special-interest, corporate and union money in favor of individual, grassroots contributions, which then would be matched 2-1 with public money under the proposal.
“Public financing is the only way to keep our republic intact,” says newcomer Rep. Max Tyler, D-Golden, who was appointed to his seat after former representative Gwyn Green resigned and has not yet had to campaign for his seat.
Tyler, who has signed onto the bill as a co-sponsor, thinks that the bill is even more important in light of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision relaxing restraints on corporate and union campaign giving in federal elections. The decision says that corporations will be treated the same as individuals in their campaign donations.
“Public financing might be a way to make sure that people are in charge of our government instead of big corporations with lots of money,” said Tyler.
Court, the House sponsor, now wonders what if any effect the new court decision might have on her bill since the decision has sparked a lawsuit over voluntary contributions.
“If we pass it and find that it is just a moot point, then it doesn’t make sense to do it,” said Court, who will be talking to the drafter of the bill to determine how to proceed from here.
Proposals to open the door to publicly financed campaigns long have divided the two major parties. Capitol Republicans say that, rather than clean up campaigns, publicly financed candidacies actually would distort elections. Campaign contributions reflect real-world support for a candidate rather; subsidies, they say, mask it–or the lack of it.
“Candidates should garner their own support and not depend on a public lottery system,” said one GOP lawmaker, Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R—Broomfield. He also said public funding forces taxpayers to fund candidates they don’t believe in.
“People shouldn’t have to pay for political contests that support messages that they don’t agree with,” Mitchell said.
This week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on political spending has left the state’s campaign finance law vulnerable to a legal challenge, but the top elections officer is hoping to avoid that by asking the Colorado Supreme Court for advice. Secretary of State Bernie Buescher reached out Friday to Republican and Democratic legislative leaders, Gov. Bill Ritter and election lawyers, urging them to try to work together to figure out the fate of Amendment 27 rather than file a lawsuit, the Associated Press reports.
By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
State elections officials are scrambling to understand what impact a Supreme Court ruling Thursday will have on the state that permits corporations to spend unlimited money to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.
The landmark high court decision reverses long-standing campaign finance limits, ruling that such limits violated constitutional free-speech rights of corporations.
“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in his ruling on behalf of the conservative majority.
The 5-4 ruling divided the nation’s high court along conservative and liberal lines.
Those critical of the ruling are concerned that the decision will result in a flood of money to be spent in this year’s congressional election and the 2012 presidential contest. Fears are that there will be a “stampede” of special interest money in politics, as President Obama said Thursday while denouncing the decision.
Meanwhile, the immediate impact on Colorado elections was unclear Thursday since the Supreme Court decision flies in the face of a voter-approved state constitutional amendment that prohibits corporations from using money to campaign for or against a candidate.
The Colorado law mirrors many of the key components of the McCain-Feingold Act invalidated by the court. The federal law, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, prohibited corporations and labor organizations from spending money on independent advocacy for or against candidates for federal office.
Secretary of State Bernie Buescher said he needs to examine the Supreme Court ruling before determining what impact it will have on Colorado. He said he is working with Attorney General John Suthers to determine how the decision will affect Colorado’s voter-approved campaign finance laws.
“The 183-page decision issued by the Supreme Court this morning is complex and will require careful analysis,” Buescher said in a statement Thursday.
He added that lawmakers will likely need to legislate compliance with the decision.
“Ultimately, my aim will be to preserve the will of Colorado voters,” said Buescher.
The Supreme Court ruling Thursday morning overturned high court precedents set in 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.
Concerns are being raised not only over corporate political action committees flooding money into campaigns, but also of labor unions being allowed to spend more freely in political campaigns.
But supporters of the decision say the ruling was about free speech and preserving democracy by giving everyone a voice — even corporate special interests.
“For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said following the ruling.
Critics of the decision, however, immediately lashed out against the ruling, arguing corporations will be able to spend unlimited funds to influence elections.
U.S. Senate Democratic primary candidate Andrew Romanoff, the former House Speaker for Colorado, pointed out that special interest groups already spent $1 billion on last year’s election cycle.
“Today’s ruling just opened the floodgates for billions more,” Romanoff said at a news conference Thursday. “The Supreme Court said that corporations and other interest groups can spend as much as they want on independent expenditures.”
His primary opponent, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, agrees that the decision will be a boost to corporate special interests instead of the people of the nation.
“Allowing corporate influence to flow unfettered into federal campaigns will only undermine the confidence the American people have in their government, and serve only to stack the deck further in favor of special interests at the expense of hardworking Americans,” Bennet said in a statement. “At a time when Washington is already too out of touch with the American people and too in tune with special interests, this decision sends exactly the wrong message.”
From The Colorado Independent: Speaking on the steps of the U.S. Federal Appeals Court building here Thursday, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff blasted the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier in the day that set aside campaign finance laws limiting corporate spending in the elections process. The controversial ruling played well into Romanoff’s recent campaign theme, that of the outsider-reformer ready to stand against the encroaching power of special interests. Romanoff said the court’s decision would only further erode the American people’s faith in the political system.
