Colorado News Agency » Campaign Reform

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Requiring photo ID to vote wins a round in the House

Debi Brazzale — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:00:33 +0000

Proving you are who you are is fundamental to the voting process, and a photo ID is the best way to verify one’s identity, say two Republican lawmakers who want to require photo ID to vote in Colorado. They garnered a majority of votes from the House State, Veteran, and Military Affairs committee Wednesday in favor of their proposal.

House Bill 1003, by Rep. Libby Szabo, R-Arvada, and Rep. Ken Summers, R-Lakewood, says that voters who show up at the polls for an election must produce a photo ID such as a drivers license or student ID that corresponds to voter-registration rolls.

Szabo noted to the committee how, in conducting other personal business, people must produce a photo ID, including when applying for aid from the state, flying on an airplane, writing a check or buying alcohol.

“In everyday life you need a photo ID,” said Szabo. “Pieces of paper that show residency such as a utility bill (allowed under current law) do not identify who the person is holding the piece of paper.”

“Everyone wants their vote to count and this bill ensures that,” said Szabo. “Voters should have the security of knowing that people who show up at the polls are indeed who they say they are.”

Summers said he believes that the voters have an expectation of integrity at the polls and the requirement of a photo ID may offer an added measure assuring that integrity.

“People become cynical when there aren’t enough safeguards in place,” said Summers.

Addressing concerns about obstacles some may face in acquiring an ID, Szabo mentioned that there are now programs in place that mitigate the costs of getting an ID as well as organizations that help people get the ID’s.

Opponents of the measure pointed to a variety of situations in which people may not have forms of ID other than a utility bill, particularly among students and people of limited means.

Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder questioned the need for a photo ID if the information it provides doesn’t verify eligibility to vote at the polling place where their name appears on the rolls.

“I understand the issue of integrity in the voting process,” said Levy. “However, the ID process says it’s the person but it doesn’t tell you where they actually live. I don’t know what we’re solving here.”

Legislation proposing to secure the elections process has become an annual staple of the General Assembly in recent years, often drawing a bright line between the two parties. While Szabo’s and Summers’ bill passed committee in the Republican-controlled House, a bill requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote died in committee last week in the Democratically dominated Senate.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Questions about ballot questions? This bill aims to answer ‘em

Debi Brazzale — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:49:36 +0000

Voters who have always w0ndered how issues come to appear on their ballots may now have an answer under a measure approved by the House today.

“Let’s give them some information about where these ballot measures come from,” said Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, sponsor of House Bill 1035. The measure adds language to the Blue Book—an official publication produced by the legislature’s Legislative Council, containing ballot language and arguments for and against ballot measures—that would provide voters some background, including the origins of a particular ballot issue.

Court said she heard repeatedly from constituents as she walked door-to-door campaigning this fall, asking how ballot issues land on the ballot. They wanted to know “how these got here, and why they are on the ballot,” said Court.

Referred measures come from the legislature and must garner a two-thirds majority vote in both houses to appear on the ballot. Initiatives, on the other hand, appear on the ballot after proponents gather a required number of signatures from registered voters. Under HB1035, the distinction between the two would be explained, in writing, before each measure, in the Blue Book.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers spoke in favor of Court’s measure but one Republican, Rep. Jim Kerr, R-Littleton, said he had reservations about the added language and would not be supporting it, citing information overload.

“This information is available to someone that wants to do a little work, a little research,” said Kerr. “People should be informed, and the Blue Book helps with that, but sometimes you just have to dig a little deeper.”

Supporting the measure, Rep. Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, said that while he’s not a fan of making the Blue Book longer or more complicated, including the explanations is a great idea.

“This is not intuitive information,” said Waller. “It’s information that needs to be there because if it wasn’t there, you wouldn’t know that it’s information that you need to know. “

Court said she is siding with the voters and that lawmakers should indulges them with the information they are asking for.

“I think our constituents deserve to know this information,” said Court.

HB1035 is now scheduled for a final, recorded vote on Monday before it makes its way over to the Senate for consideration.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Republicans take aim at potentially ineligible voters

Debi Brazzale — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:57:37 +0000

Legislative Republicans are touting a pending proposal they say will ensure only citizens vote–following a news report Thursday that some 12,000 registered Colorado voters are listed as non-U.S. citizens because they failed to check a box affirming citizenship when they registered to vote.

“Today’s Denver Post story about 12,000 registered Colorado voters who may not be citizens puts a spotlight on a long-standing problem,” Sen. Ted Harvey R-Highlands Ranch, who will introduce the GOP measure, said in a statement issued by Senate Republicans.

Secretary of State Bernie Buescher’s office has acknowledged that 8,763 individuals apparently have voted despite having failed to check a box on their registration form that says they are a citizen. The other 3,106 voters who also failed to indicate their citizen status did not vote in a recent election.

The first question on a voter’s registration form asks about citizenship, with a yes or no check-off box followed by another yes or no check-off box verifying that the applicant is at least 18 years of age. The 12,000 applicants in question left the boxes about citizenship blank.

Harvey says that 12,000 voters listed as non-citizens are too many to ignore.

“12,000 cases is a clear matter of system failure and it calls out for new safeguards,” said Harvey.

The measure now being drafted by Harvey for the 2011 legislature, which convenes in January, revisits legislation that GOP lawmakers have offered in recent years requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Each time, said Harvey, their efforts have been blocked by the Democrat majority.

However, Democratic Senate Majority Leader John Morse, of Colorado Springs, says the GOP push misses its mark. Rather than rooting out non-citizens who aren’t eligible to vote, Morse said, the Republican proposal would disfranchise voters who unintentionally left the check-off box blank.

“If you forget to check a box, (the proposal would) deem you a non-citizen and strip you of your right to vote? The fact that your eyesight is bad, that your arthritis is bad, those things are going to strip you of your right to vote?” asked Morse. “The standard should be probable cause, not forgetting to check a box on a form.”

Yet, Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp, R-Littleton, said he is sending a letter to Buescher asking for assurances that steps are being taken to remove the non-citizens from the voting rolls, or, require further evidence of citizenship prior to the November election.

Kopp says the time has come for action.

“We can’t continue the policy of casual indifference that we’ve had here in this state. It’s time to address and fix this problem and ensure that elections are being conducted with the utmost integrity,” he said. “Republicans have been trying for years to address this issue, and we have been rebuffed at every turn.”

2010 legislative highlights in review

Debi Brazzale — Mon, 17 May 2010 22:38:37 +0000

The following list reflects the final action taken on bills reported on by the Colorado News Agency for the 2010 legislative session. Some of the measures may have changed significantly prior to final passage from the date of story publication.

January 5 - Pending bills seek to lift economy with an assist to the arts

Final outcome: House Bill 1180 – Passed; Senate Bill 94 – Passed

January 10 - Lawmakers seek new ways to assess teachers, cull worst

Final outcome: Senate Bill 50 – Failed; Senate Bill 191 – Passed

January 12 - ‘Race to the Top’ now a race with time to win federal ed dollars

Final outcome: Senate Bill 36 – Passed

January 13 – Legislative leaders offer divergent views on budget woes

Final outcome: House Bill 1376 (the ‘Long Bill’) – Passed, signed into law

January 15 – Lawmakers cross finish line in Race to the Top

Final outcome: Senate Bill 36 – Passed

January 19 – Following late-fee flap, push is on to fix FASTER

Final outcome: Senate Bill 4, 44, and 57 – Failed; House Bill 1102 – Failed

January 19 – Capitol rally denounces federal agenda for health-care reform

Final Outcome: Ballot Initiative filed

January 20 – Expansion of emissions testing along Front Range draws flak

Final outcome: Senate Bill 95 – Failed

January 22 – Panel approves bill to give public a peek inside school spending

Final outcome: House Bill 1036 – Passed, signed into law

January 22 – Under pending proposal, public would help pay for campaigns

Final outcome: House bill 1156 – Failed

January 26 – Rollback of tax credits, exemptions now on the table at Capitol

Final outcome: House Bills 1189-1197- Passed, signed into law; 1198 – Failed; 1199 – Passed, signed into law; 1200 – Passed

January 27 – First medical-marijuana bill passes committee–draws a crowd

Final outcome: Senate Bill 109 – Passed

January 28 – Business community carries its concerns to Capitol’s doorstep

Final outcome: House Bills 1189-1197- Passed, signed into law; 1198 – Failed; 1199 – Passed, signed into law; 1200 – Passed

January 29 – State pension rescue plan passes Senate; critics say it does too little

Final outcome: Senate Bill 1 – Passed, signed into law

February 2 – FASTER’s sponsor taps brakes on Colfax streetcar plan

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 145 – Failed

February 2 – Lawmakers dig into state’s unsightly, unsafe tire piles

Final Outcome: House Bill 1018 – Passed

February 3 – Is it about jobs or kids? Legislators asked to decide

Final outcome: House Bills 1189-1197- Passed, signed into law; 1198 – Failed; 1199 – Passed, signed into law; 1200 – Passed

February 4 – Governor ups ante on renewables; critics fear cost

Final Outcome: House Bill 1001 – Passed, signed into law

February 5 – Parties lock horns over tax package, offer dueling budget plans

Final outcome: House Bills 1189-1197- Passed, signed into law; 1198 – Failed; 1199 – Passed, signed into law; 1200 – Passed

February 8 – Effort to beef up state’s DUI penalty gets derailed

Final Outcome: House Bill 1184 – Failed

February 9 – ‘Wind rights’: just around the corner in New Energy Economy?

Final Outcome: House Bill 1158 – Failed

February 10 – Bill letting corner markets sell real beer clears first hurdle at Capitol

Final Outcome: House bill 1186 – Failed

February 12 – Commercial rafters win a round over landowners in House

Final Outcome: House Bill 1188 – Failed

February 15 – Religious ‘Bill of Rights’ for schools gets spiked, called unnecessary

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 89 – Failed

February 16 – After dismantling tax breaks, Dems pose a new one; GOP cries foul

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 133 – Failed

February 17 – Plan to enhance mountain-college system gets panel’s OK

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 101 – Passed

February 18 – Ritter closes in on next year’s budget gap

Final Outcome: House Bill 1376 (the ‘Long Bill’) – Passed, signed into law

February 19 – House gives nod to secure online access for end-of-life info

Final Outcome: House Bill 1050 – Passed, signed into law

February 22 – Panel halts effort to bar felons from working at schools

Final Outcome: House Bill 1082 – Failed

February 23 – Lawmakers unite behind new approach to drug offenders

Final Outcome: House Bill 1352 – Passed

February 24 – Ombudsman for homeowners put on hold in committee

Final Outcome: House Bill 1278 – Passed

February 25 – Guv, lawmakers seek an advocate for kids

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 171 – Passed

February 25 – Arts in education get a lift in the legislature

Final Outcome: House Bill 1273 – Passed

February 26 – Pending helmet law for kids rapped as ‘nannyism’

Final Outcome: House Bill 1147 – Passed

March 1 – Lawmakers say science doesn’t support ban on notions, potions

Final Outcome: House Bill 1248 – Failed

March 2 – Panel kills bill, is told phone books will fade away anyway

Final Outcome: House Bill 1068 – Failed

March 3 – Students converge on Capitol to highlight tuition travails

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 3 – Passed

March 4 – Panel votes to end higher health-care premiums for women

Final Outcome: House Bill 1008 – Passed, signed into law

March 8 – Amazon pushes back after Colorado moves to tax online sales

Final Outcome: House Bill 1193 – Passed, signed into law

March 8 – Getting healthy gets you lower insurance rates under pending bill

Final Outcome: House Bill 1160 – Passed

March 9 – Rocky Flats’ legacy prompts proposal to post warning signs

Final Outcome: House Bill 1127 – Failed

March 10 – Plan to curb public PR for pols is rejected

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 105 – Failed

March 11 – Communication–not litigation–works best with docs, panel is told

Final Outcome: House Bill 1283 – Failed

March 12 – Booster-seat bill lauded as lifesaver, chided as ‘terminal silliness’

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 110 – Passed

March 15 – Make my day? Only at home, says legislative panel

Final Outcome: House Bill 1094 – Failed

March 16 – Conservation easements create buyer’s remorse for the state

Final Outcome: House Bill 1169 – Failed

March 17 – New fed rules hamstring some state water projects

Final Outcome: Senate Joint Resolution 18 – Failed

March 18 – Does bill provide affordable housing, or path to rent control?

Final Outcome: House Bill 1017 – Passed, signed into law

March 19 – River rafting bill stagnates because of study amendment

Final Outcome: House Bill 1188 – Failed

March 22 – Colorado joins lawsuit against new federal health-reform bill

Final Outcome: Suit still pending

March 23 – Contribution limits on school board races rejected

Final Outcome: House Bill 1272 – Failed

March 25 – Bill advances to clear the way for RTD rights-of-way

Final Outcome: House Bill 1276 – Passed, signed into law

March 26 – SE Colorado lawmakers urge state to keep hands off water funds

Final Outcome: House Bill 1376 (the ‘Long Bill’) – Passed, signed into law

March 29 – Timeline to affiliate may be shortened for candidates

Final Outcome: House Bill 1271 – Passed

March 30 – It’s a dirty job: Panel approves regulating grease

Final Outcome: House Bill 1125 – Passed

March 31 – Pols ponder GOP leader’s plan to slim down state government

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 29 – Failed

April 1 – Proposed helmet law for children moves into 2nd gear

Final Outcome: House bill 1147 – Passed

April 5 – House agrees to greater oversight for uranium processors

Final Outcome: House Bill 1348 – Passed

April 6 – Potential changes to ballot initiative process gain broad support

Final Outcome: House Bill 1366 – Failed; 1370 – Passed

April 7 – Horses get a helping hand from legislative panel

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 139 – Passed

April 7 – From the plow to the table: Bill would create food “advisory council”

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 106 – Passed

April 8 – Biomass gets a boost from lawmakers

Final Outcome: House Bill 1363 – Passed; Senate Bill 177 – Passed

April 9 – Remaining tax exemptions and credits could get regular scrutiny

Final Outcome: House Bill 1429 – Failed

April 12 – Mandate on homebuilders creates boiling debate

Final Outcome: House Bill 1358 – Passed

April 13 – How to provide transparency — with 80’s-era software

Final Outcome: House Bill 1078 – Failed

April 14 – If a rainy day fund is created, will future lawmakers use restraint?

Final Outcome: House Concurrent Resolution 1003 – Failed

April 16 – Stepped-up DUI penalties pass muster in House

Final Outcome: House Bill 1347 – Passed

April 19 – Voters could have choice to amend TABOR

Final Outcome: House Concurrent Resolution 1002 – Failed

April 20 – ‘Helmet bill’ comes to a screeching halt

Final Outcome: House Bill 1147 – Passed

April 21 – Teachers take approved time off to lobby bill – drawing criticism from the right

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 191 – Passed

April 22 – Judicial redistricting rules – necessary guidelines, or handcuffs?

Final Outcome: House Bill 1408 – Passed

April 23 – Dems want health policy surcharge; Republicans say it’s a tax

Final Outcome: House Bill 1103 – Failed

April 26 – Dems seek slowdown on investment tax credits

Final Outcome: House Bill 1200 – Passed

April 27 – I-70 ‘zipper-bill’ gains speed

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 184 – Passed

April 27 – Voting rights could be extended to parolees

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 179 – Failed

April 28 – Will voters make it tougher on themselves to amend the constitution?

Final Outcome: Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 – Failed

April 29 – Stiff new penalties proposed for violating disabilities act

Final Outcome: House Bill 1152 – Failed

April 30 – Pols tap ‘earn to learn’ trend for Colorado kids

Final Outcome: Senate Bill 210 – Failed

May 3 – Effort to have voters redefine marijuana ‘caregiver’ shot down

Final Outcome: Senate Concurrent Resolution 5 – Failed

May 4 – Committee scuttles ‘balanced budget’ message to Congress

Final outcome: House Joint Resolution 1031 – failed

May 5 – Senate votes to take shackles off prisoners in labor

Final outcome: Senate Bill 193 – Passed

May 7 – With Democrats and unions divided, committee OK’s teacher-tenure reform

Final outcome: Senate Bill 191 – Passed

May 8 – Who deserves first crack at the ballot: lawmakers or voters?

Final outcome: Senate Bill 216 – Passed

May 10 – Bill would create highway wildlife crossing zones, along with fines

Final outcome: House Bill 1238 – Passed

May 11 – Applying the brakes to personal use of state vehicles

Final outcome: House Bill 1287 – Passed

May 12 – Teachers union shaken, allies divided by passage of tenure reform

Final outcome: Senate Bill 191 – Passed

Who deserves first crack at the ballot: lawmakers or voters?

Debi Brazzale — Fri, 07 May 2010 20:02:57 +0000

“Put the people first” was the refrain heard from the Senate floor today among Republican lawmakers who argued against a proposal to reverse the order in which statewide ballot issues are presented to voters. The measure passed, thanks largely to majority Democrats.

Currently, ballot issues called citizens’ initiatives–which require petitioners to gather voters’ signatures–get top billing. Underneath those go ballot issues called referred measures, which are placed on the ballot by the legislature. Senate Bill 216, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Rollie Heath of Boulder would invert that order.

Heath said that he decided to sponsor the measure because referred measures that propose to change the state constitution are so difficult to get on the ballot in the first place that they get rigorous scrutiny–and infrequently survive the legislative process. Lawmakers must garner a two-thirds majority in both chambers before passing them on to voters, a tall task.

“To get a referred measure on the ballot, we know how tough that is,” said Heath. “I seriously doubt we’ll get any through this year.”

Yet, Republicans said the people deserve top billing over the General Assembly. Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, said the citizens’ efforts should be honored.

“The work that they have done is significant. It’s taken a whole lot of effort, a lot of money,” said Cadman. “Out of deference to the work and the will of the people, we ought to give them that place on the ballot.”

The GOP’s Sen. Kevin Lundberg, of Berthoud, defended the current ballot order as well, calling the proposed change, “a slap in the face.”

Lundberg also noted that citizens’ initiatives can be costly and therefore the bar is much higher for citizens than for lawmakers. He also said SB 216 sends the wrong signal.

“It does send a message to the voters that what they put on the ballot is less important than what we put on the ballot,” Lundberg said. “It sends a message that our ideas are more important than their ideas.”

Ballot order is a bone of contention for fear that “ballot fatigue” sets in as voters must work their way down a lengthy list of complicated issues. Participation is thought to drop off from one issue to the next.

“There is an edge to being first on a ballot. It may be minute, but if a ballot measure wins or loses by a few votes, the placement could mean the difference,” said Cadman. “The people deserve that edge.”

The measure now goes to the House for consideration. With three days left in the session, the measure must pass by the full house on Tuesday before a final vote on Wednesday.

Potential changes to ballot initiative process gain broad support

Debi Brazzale — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:07:42 +0000

Lawmakers today looked at two measures that could make changes to the initiative process in Colorado. The first measure addresses who is allowed to collect signatures for a ballot initiative. The second measure requires disclosure of groups promoting or opposing a ballot issue. Both measures passed unanimously out of the House State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee.

House Bill 1366 sponsored by Rep. Dennis Apaun, D-Colorado Springs, prohibits someone who is on probation or parole for unlawful sexual behavior or felony fraud from collecting signatures for ballot initiatives. The prohibition would apply to both paid and unpaid petitioners.

Apaun said he wants to make sure that participation by Colorado citizens in the political process will not have any negative consequences by having personal information falling into the wrong hands.

“They (Colorado citizens) deserve to feel confident that the information that they disclose will not be used for any unlawful behavior,” said Apaun. “ Their personal information should not be in the hands of sexual offenders or thieves.”

Rep. Edward Casso, D-Commerce City, thinks the measure is a step in the right direction, but questions why the prohibition doesn’t extend to those who are on a sex offender registry after they are released from parole or probation.

“We should probably look at people who are on the sexual offender registries and not just on probation or parole if we are going to do this,” said Casso.

Casso was joined by the GOP’s Mark Waller of Colorado Springs, who also thinks that the distinction between the supervision of parole or probation and having committed the crime in the first place is a small one when it comes to protecting personal information gathered from citizens.

“Perhaps these people should never be allowed to circulate petitions,” said Waller.

Michael Shea, Deputy Legal Council for the governor’s office stated when a person is on parole or probation they already have reduced first amendment rights and therefore the same limitations can apply for the initiative process—the distinction being a constitutional one.

The panel also considered House Bill 1370 sponsored by Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, that would require proponents and opponents of ballot measures be listed on the Secretary of State’s website with a statement in the Blue Book–a pamphlet produced by the government containing the ballot measures and arguments for and against–which directs readers to the Secretary’s of Sate’s website for full disclosure of the proponents and opponents.

Advocating for the disclosures bill was the Colorado Press Association, arguing the increased transparency and the value of the information disclosed would benefit media consumers and voters.

Court wrapped up the debate over her measure with a sentiment that paralleled the Press Association’s support.

“The more information sharing we can do…the better,” said Court.

HB 1366 will need to meet the House Finance Committee’s approval before it can go to the House floor for consideration. HB1370 is now headed to the House Appropriations Committee.

Timeline to affiliate may be shortened for candidates

Debi Brazzale — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:16:20 +0000

A panel of lawmakers today approved a measure, brought to the legislature by the only unaffiliated member, which would make it somewhat easier for an unaffiliated candidate to get their name on the ballot.

Rep. Kathleen Curry of Gunnison, who left the Democratic Party in December and registered herself as unaffiliated, is the primary sponsor of House Bill 1271, that changes the length of time in which a candidate must declare any party affiliation prior to the election. Previously, a candidate had to declare their affiliation one year before the election; HB 1271 would move the declaration deadline to the first business day after January 1 prior to the election.

“It’s a good thing for people who are trying to run unaffiliated,” said Curry. “ It will set up a process that is equal for various folks that want to run–regardless of their party status.”

Senate sponsor John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, thinks that the measure is necessary to make it easier for people to run for office, regardless of their party affiliation or non-affiliation, and that the unaffiliated, in particular, stand to benefit from the measure,because they aren’t operating within a party structure where the deadlines are well known.

“I think it’s a good idea because I think it should be easy for people to run for public office and not difficult,” Morse told the Senate State Affairs Committee.

Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, said he prefers the yearlong time frame rather than the January date for the extra measure of forethought that a full year would provide and questioned the need to change the timeline. His concerns were directed towards the motivations of candidates.

“I’d like to know that they (candidates) have ‘credentials’ and that they have those for at least a year and not just switch into the party so they can run,” said Schultheis.

Morse told the panel that the parties would still have the power to adopt any rules they want, and could even set the bar higher, but state law shouldn’t prohibit people from running if they aren’t registered a full year before the election. Curry and Morse both agreed that January is simply a more intuitive date.

“The party can set whatever standards it wants to make sure that person is truly who they are and not just doing it for the purpose of an election,” said Morse. “The first day of January makes more sense just from a ‘this is an election year’ standpoint,” said Morse in defense of the shorter timeline.

The bill, if passed by the full Senate, would not take effect until 2012, and therefore wouldn’t diminish any hurdles for Curry to get her name on November’s ballot should she want to run for the seat she now holds. Since she changed her affiliation after the November 2009 deadline Curry will need to gather signatures to have her name placed on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate.

Contribution limits on school board races rejected

Debi Brazzale — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:36:04 +0000

After lively debate on the House floor this morning, lawmakers rejected a measure that would have placed limits on campaign contributions for elected school board and RTD board positions

Sponsored by Democratic Rep. Beth McCann, of Denver, House Bill 1272 would have established contribution limits of $2,500 for individuals and political action commitees, and $5,000 for small donor committees. Current law does not limit contributions for school board and RTD races as it does for other elected offices under Amendment 27, passed by the voters in 2002. McCann thinks the limitations should apply across the board.

“We ought to honor the voice and the view of our citizens by making it consistent that those who are running for public office are subject to campaign contribution limits,” said McCann.

McCann began house floor discussion by offering an amendment to her bill increasing the small donor limit to $10,000, a gesture that McCann said would move closer to reflecting the limits imposed on other races. Those limits for the Colorado statehouse and executive branch are $200 for individuals and PACS and $2000 for small donor groups, and $400 and $4000 respectively.

Rep. Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, took issue with McCann’s amendment by offering his own, which was ultimately rejected. Waller’s amendment would have created equal limits for individuals and small donor committees. Waller said that small donor committees in school board races are essentially an arm of unions that represent schools, and that parents especially would have their voices muted.

“We’re saying a school union has more of a voice than an individual does in the United States of America and that’s wrong,” said Waller.

McCann defended the discrepancy between individuals and small donor groups, citing Amendment 27.

“It takes away the whole point of small donor committees. Our citizens have spoken and they want to give people the right to pool money into small donor committees,” McCann said in response to Waller’s amendment.

Rep Amy Stephens, R-Monument, agreed with Waller’s amendment to level the playing field between individuals and small donor groups, rejecting McCann’s higher limits for small donor groups.

“Frankly I think it’s terrible to limit [speech] in any way shape or form but if you’re going to do this–this is a fair way to do it. The previous way gives much more advantage to the unions who don’t need that advantage,” said Stephens.

Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, upped the ante with yet another unsuccessful amendment that would have raised the small donor committee limit to equal 10 times the individual limit, as is the case under amendment 27. Court, a firm supporter of campaign limits said that school board and RTD board races should be limited–but she recognized that those races have a much harder time raising money.

“So we clearly have a philosophical divide here and that’s quite obvious. I firmly believe in campaign finance limits,” said Court. I believe in the constitutional amendment that the people of Colorado passed saying that we spend too darn much money on campaigns and it’s obscene.”

Waller put the philosophical divide into sharper focus.

“Now the school unions will be given 10 times more of a voice than an individual in a school board election,” said Waller. “The school union small donor committees can now give and control and affect the outcome of a school board election and get their candidate elected.

McCann countered that the small donor committees empower individuals that might not otherwise have as much of a voice on their own.

“We are not changing what the citizens have told us they would like us to do. Small donor committees are made up of individuals who may not be able to give $1,000 but who want to have a say in the election.“ said McCann. “It actually gives more power to the individual who can give a smaller amount and have more impact on an election.”

Under pending proposal, public would help pay for campaigns

Debi Brazzale — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:53:37 +0000

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.