“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.

Sponsored by Spencer Swalm of Centennial, House Joint Resolution 1031 would have added Colorado to the list of several other states that have adopted such a resolution calling for a constitutional convention, Swalm told the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee.

Swalm says that neither party has the political will to deal with the national debt, and believes the states need to send a strong message to Congress that there is a growing willingness among the states to call for a convention.

“The purpose of this resolution is to stiffen the spine of our leaders in Washington and to say this is something that we need to do…we need to get our fiscal house in order,’ said  Swalm .

Brian Del Grosso, a Republican from Loveland, believes that the federal government should look to the state of Colorado and to ordinary citizens as a model, because they are subject to balanced budget principles.

“It forces us to be like everybody else in the real world who has to balance their own budget and asking the federal government to do the same is not out of line,” said Del Grosso.

Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, took exception to Del Grosso’s assertion that the people have a better handle on their finances than the government.

“The fact is, is that Americans are addicted to debt. We have 14.6 million dollars in credit card debt in Colorado,” said Court. “I’m not certain that Coloradoans are all that good about reining in their debt.”

Committee chairwoman Nancy Todd, D-Aurora, told the panel that she could not support the measure as a resolution, but she believes that other avenues should be pursued to address the problem of accumulated debt by the federal government.

“I do not believe that us sending a resolution to Washington is the answer,” said Todd. “It is citizens speaking up . It is meeting up with our congressional delegation and saying ‘this has got to change.’”

Joining the Republicans in voting for the measure was Rep. Ed Casso, D-Commerce City, who thinks that a balanced budget amendment is the right thing to do for both current and future generations.

“As long as the General Assemblies of the country keep kicking the can down the road, we’re not going to get anywhere with the debt we have accumulated,” said Casso. “[The debt] we are putting on our children by not requiring a balanced budget is unwarranted and uncalled for. “

The measure failed 6-5.

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.

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.”

House Bill 1248 would have banned the manufacture of personal-care products in Colorado that contain, in any amount, any ingredient that has been shown to cause cancer or harm to an unborn child.  The European Cosmetics Directive under the E.U. maintains a list of banned substances in Europe that are believed to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Under the measure, Colorado would have relied to a large degree on that list in determining which products could be banned;  1,100 chemicals are on the list according to Primavera.

At least one Colorado business owner and personal-care products supplier took umbrage at the thought of passing a law that relies on decisions made for Europeans about the relative safety of personal care products.

“I find it highly offensive that we have to look to the EU for direction,” said Jerell Klaver, who sells Salus bath and body care products that contain cocoa butter, a potentially banned substance due to trace amounts of cancer-causing agents inherent in cocoa butter.

Science and politics crossed paths as lawmakers struggled to understand what was at stake.

“I don’t feel qualified to determine which ingredients are safe or not.  Why is this a political decision and not a Public Health Department decision?” asked Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo.

Whether or not the products are potentially harmful should be a decision that at a minimum is made here in the United States, said Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs.

“This EU thing is interesting to me. (This bill) would give the EU the ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ on what is a permissible product in Colorado,” said Gardner. “We don’t have representation on the EU and they would have veto power over what’s sold.”

Committee chair Claire Levy, D-Boulder, disagreed with Gardner.

“I don’t think it’s a bad thing to do what the EU is doing,” Levy said. “We can look to other countries for ideas.”

Dr. Richard Adamson, a cancer causation expert and a cancer survivor himself, said that he and his family members use personal care products that under the measure may be banned.  Adamson said he just doesn’t see the risk involved.

“I know of no study that has shown that a personal care product has shown any type of cancer,” said Adamson.

Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction queried Adamson on the validity of the European findings.

“Is the EU directive the ‘gold standard’ for this sort of thing?” asked King.

“No,” Adamson responded.

Representing the Women’s Lobby of Colorado, Susan Roll spoke to the panel in favor of the bill and spoke highly of the European approach.

“I’ve been involved in this David vs Goliath fight for a long time.  When the EU came up with the directive we thought it would be beneficial to us, with American products conforming to the standards, but it was not the case,” said Roll.

Roll acknowledged science has not evolved to the point where definitive claims can be made pointing to cause and effect, but she urged lawmakers to err on the side of caution following the European lead.

“We don’t have the smoking gun, but in Europe they are moving forward anyway,” said Roll.

Sarah Johnson, who started her own line of organic personal-care products after experiencing harmful side effects from products that she had been using, implored the panel to pass the bill in a show of proactive, forward-thinking action.

“The EU is doing it, California is doing it. We ought to be doing this,” said Johnson.

Primavera said she’ll try again next year.

Yet, science was the defining factor for Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, who voted against the bill.

“My father was a scientist, and I just didn’t hear enough science to support this bill,” said Court.

Primavera said the $50 billion-a-year personal-care products industry is not likely to self-regulate enough to satisfy her concerns.

“It’s really the fox guarding the hen house when it comes to personal-care products,” she said.

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.