CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 25, 2010 05:47 PM UTC

Doug Bruce Identified as "Dr. Evil"

  • 47 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Now there’s a headline you always knew was coming. The Colorado Springs Gazette’s Eileen Welsome has been covering the emergent story of three state ballot initiatives–Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101–for which a large and costly petition campaign was obviously mounted, but no expenses were ever reported. Efforts to get to the bottom of this have been obstructed at every step, until, as Welsome reports today:

Colorado Springs resident Douglas Bruce was a guiding force behind a massive signature-gathering campaign that led to placement on the November ballot of three controversial measures, testimony in a campaign finance complaint hearing revealed Monday.

Bruce, who has a law degree, not only advised the sponsors of the ballot issues on how to file court motions, but he also advised one proponent not to testify at the hearing and to destroy his e-mail, testimony and records submitted during the hearing indicate.

The surprise witness at the hearing was Michelle Northrup, a 38-year-old writer from Black Hawk. Northrup testified that she didn’t approve of the evasion tactics being used by the other backers of the ballot issues and didn’t “approve of orders being barked at me” by Bruce.

Northrup and Golden resident Russell Haas are sponsors of Amendment 61, which restricts borrowing by state and local governments without voter approval…

Bruce, the author of the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, has sought to distance himself from the three measures.

But testimony by Northrup and other proponents reveal that he gave detailed advice to the sponsors not only about the language of the ballot measures, but other intricate processes associated with getting approved for the ballot by the Secretary of State’s Office and the signature-gathering campaign.

Bruce was subpoenaed as a witness in the hearing. But he has refused to comply and has been evading attempts by process servers and sheriff’s deputies to serve him with a court order that would compel compliance…

It’s been separately reported that a number of the paid petition gatherers who allegedly worked on these initiatives lived at rental properties owned by Bruce while they gathered signatures. It’s looking increasingly like Bruce is, as many suspected, the mastermind behind the whole effort to get these three budget-busting initiatives on the ballot. And in addition to coloring them with his special brand of prickly charm, he appears to have just as much open contempt for the law today as ever. None of which would have been easy to prove, though, without somebody on the inside of Bruce’s scheme–in this case a sponsor of one of the initiatives–coming clean.

But now that the game is basically up, the next step gets kind of muddy. Do the alleged illegalities surrounding this case have sufficient penalty to matter? Under what circumstances could the initiatives be kept off the ballot if the process used to get them there was hopelessly abused? Is this a situation where Bruce, who nobody thinks is stupid, might have weighed the penalty for noncompliance against the benefits, and decided it was a risk worth taking?

We’re also curious to see if this could be a big enough scandal for other, non-election laws to apply, such as contempt of court, RICO, or even a common law ‘comic-book villain’ provision (if there’s not one there ought to be). As we’ve said before, operating a statewide petition gathering campaign, then willfully disregarding all applicable laws for disclosing the funding for those efforts, is quite serious–if Bruce and cohorts get away with this, it’s basically a signal to every other scofflaw ideologue in America that Colorado election law is unenforceably weak.

Tweet
Share

Comments

47 thoughts on “Doug Bruce Identified as “Dr. Evil””

    1. is not a member of the Colorado bar and. to my knowledge, never has been.  He served for a while as a prosecutor in California.  The law degree merely allows him to represent himself pro se — as my paralegal certificate allows me to represent myself.  Indeed, to represent yourself pro se, a birth certificate is sufficient.  The interesting thing, however, would be to see if Bruce’s activities crossed the line into practicing law without a license.

      That is against the law.

  2. As we’ve said before, operating a statewide petition gathering campaign, then willfully disregarding all applicable laws for disclosing the funding for those efforts, is quite serious–if Bruce and cohorts get away with this, it’s basically a signal to every other scofflaw ideologue in America that Colorado election law is unenforceably weak.

    If the rule of law does not hold for elections, then we are no longer a democracy. I hope they can get these thrown off the ballot for not complying so they the lesson is that breaking these laws does not pay.

    And major major kudos to Michelle Northrup for being honest about what occured.

    1. Hefty fines can be assessed, but that is about the extent of the punishment.

      Just to note: this is different than candidates. If a candidate is found to have violated election laws they can be kept off the ballot, or removed from office if the conviction comes after being sworn-in.

    2. Kudos to Michelle.  I wrote previously that I thought she was better than these shenanigans, and in the end it looks like her conscience won out.

      Now, let’s talk about what vile penalties we can apply to Daddy Bruce and his illegally solicited initiatives.

  3. Bruce has consistently violated local campaign finance rules with his various local petitions, most recently his Iniative 300 last year.

    He fails to file campaign information (and even has the gall to complain that his opposition, who does report, makes errors) and has ignored all attempts to accurately report.

    Many believe he hides behind his 501(c)3 “charity” and does all of his funding for campaign materials through it, but absent any required reporting, no one is really sure.

    The Colorado Springs City Clerk has been unsuccessful in her attempts to get him to comply and her requests to the Secretary of State’s office for help have been for naught.

    Another reason Bruce feels he is above the law and can get away with his antics.  

    1. How can the electorate push the Sec o’ State to move on this?  How come complaint can’t be filed with AG, if indeed financial malfeasance might be at the root of undermining the CO electoral process.  

      Dougie can’t be the bully & then go hide behind momma’s charity apron when he gets caught.  Why can’t the initiative sponsors be subpeonaed?  I read process server has tried & failed soo many times 2 get 2 Dougie, so let’s start reeling in co-conspirators to discuss possible RICO charges … somebody would sing then.  

    1. .

      It’s that darned Petition Process.

      The voters are too stupid to be entrusted with the power to rein in taxes; legislators are smarter than us common folk and should be permitted to govern as they see fit.

      First we get rid of that pesky petition thing.  Next we cancel elections.  After that, Nirvana, rule by the Philosopher Kings.

      .

      1. People can vote for more services and less taxes on two different initiatives: inconsistent and unworkable.

        The reality is governing is about trade off–initiatives are about misinformation and pandering.

        We hire representatives to spend the time to understand the trade offs and to reflect what the majority of the electorate would do if they spent the time to understand the trade offs, and equities, involved.  If the representatives don’t reflect the will of the majority, the majority hires somebody new.

          1. .

            I incorrectly assumed that there was general support for the petition process that’s provided in the State Constitution.

            But it turns out that my intended hyperbole was right in line with your actual beliefs.  

            Of course you don’t find that amusing.  Which is why you equate a petition process, with significant hurdles, with government by plebiscite.

            .

            1. My view is pretty simple:

              We elect people to make these decisions. If it is a matter that needs public approval, the legislature (or local governing body) has the opportunity to vert the issue and word the propsal in a way to avoid those dreaded “unintended consequences” that plaque so may initiatives.

              We don’t get that when any special interest with a wild hair up their ass can place any issue on the ballot regardless of the consequences and whether it is actually a workable law.

              And more often than not, the “citizen” initiatives place totally inappropriate issues in the state constitution where it becomes horribly cumbersome for anyone, legislature included, to fix even minor problems with it.

              Colorado’s initiative process is the fastest path to ruination of the state. The time for reforming this process is long since past.

      2. I suppose if this was an ACORN operation and the goal was to eliminate defense spending in Colorado Springs it would a horrific subjugation of democracy and the rule of law.  We saw this same argument when it came to sanctioning torture.  The sad little people who never miss a chance to brag about how patriotic they are and how completely they understand the Constitution are the always the first ones to abuse the situation to try and gain a partisan advantage.  I don’t have any problems with the petition process as long as it is followed by everyone.  Good government requires fair practices in business and in government.  If the only way you can win is to cheat then we should allow Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa into basebalss hall of fame.  What a lame chickenshit justification for unethical political practices.  And you call yourself a patriot.

        1. HAHAHA if this was an ACORN operation…

          Citizens would have signatures gathered without compensation.

          Voter registration/participation would be up.

          and the conservatives would be left to complain from the sidelines.

          conservatives Ignore IKE’s warning about the “industrial military complex”. as it eats more than half of the federal budget as well as it has become the ultimate welfare subsidy of places like Colorado Springs.

          with out it, reality would creep in and Colo Spgs would be forced to pay it’s own way.

          so what was that about “responsible government spending?” “reigning in the deficit?”

        2. .

          ACORN hypothetically circulates petitions across the state to end military spending in Colorado Springs ?

          Or tries to collect those signatures just in Somalia Springs ?  

          Either way, the max they can collect is 117 signatures.  Democracy isn’t threatened, but neither is the spending.  

          I assume this made sense to Froward 69, because she or he appears to be in agreement, but I don’t understand what’s being agreed to.  

          .

          Much as I couldn’t comprehend the opening, the part about sanctioning torture is even more opaque.  

          The only rationale I can recall right now for sanctioning torture was the classic from John Yoo, channeling RM Nixon:

          if the President does it, that makes it legal.  I am the law.  A war president has no constraints.

          Is that really what you think I said ?

          .

          Not that you would know about it, but I have passed on at least 1 opportunity to brag about my patriotism.  But I’m not going to pass this one up.  

          I gave up a $75,000 per year civil service job in order to fight against the unconstitutional employment of Mercenaries in Iraq.  I hardly had to do a lick of work in that job, and could have easily coasted to retirement, but I put my family into some tough circumstances so that I could press the US Army in Federal Court to stop this practice.  

          I used to command Infantrymen, and in my heart I am still an Infantryman, 20 years removed from active duty.  

          Using Mercenaries made it impossible for the US to succeed in either Iraq or Afghanistan.  It would take too long to explain; take my word for it.  

          More importantly, using Mercenaries devalued the service and sacrifice of every soldier ever to serve.  

          I am now blacklisted from doing work for any of the clients I used to have, or from returning to civil service, because of my efforts to end that black, illegal and immoral practice.  My wife and I are broke.  

          The CIA keeps an open file on me, and I am on some kind of terrorist watch list, just for standing up for the Constitution.  

          There were some threats on my life on websites frequented by Mercenaries.  

          I don’t question if you’re right about me being a sad, unethical, chickenshit little person; I don’t see that side of me, but I may not notice all of my shortcomings, I have so many.  But I think you’re wrong to impugn my patriotism.

          ps: I lost my lawsuit.  The Court (USCFC) said I had to have at least the possibility of $8 Million in operating capital available, for my suit to go forward, & I was unable to line up even the most tentative indications of such support.  Feel free to add “loser” to your list of characterizations.  

          The Army now has over 100,000 Mercenaries in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  My failed Claim actually ended up encouraging the US Government to increase the outsourcing of combat operations, and that policy option has accelerated under the new Administration.  Two examples:

          *** All of the people fighting to defeat the attack on Kabul Airfield last week were Mercenaries.  

          *** By July, the US will have more Mercenaries in Iraq than US soldiers.  

          .

          1. I assume your personal story is real and you have a deep commitment to removing mercenaries from military situations.  This is another failure of Republican beliefs because sometimes private business is not better than government.

            What I take issue with are these statements that we need to let Bruce do whatever he wants to because otherwise it is totalitarian rule by bureaucrats which I guess is what you are dealing with your personal battle.

            I wonder if you would be upset if Jared Polis used his wealth to put together a petition to exclude online flower distributors from local taxes.  He would then have the resources to pump a lot of money into the campaign via a 527 corporation so the the state constitution ends up getting used for the benefit of a few wealthy people.  Isn’t Bruce doing the same thing using his wealth to change the constitution the way he wants it?

            Obviously you are doing what you do for cause but your situation is entirely different from the disregard of established law that was developed to deal with something as important as changing the state constitution.  Shouldn’t that be the one document in the state that requires rigorous standards to applied before changing?

          2. is Congressman Polis in regards to the overuse of mercenaries by the army.  He went to Iraq and saw first hand their influence and was very concerned about the situation.

            Maybe instead of trying to take on the Army head on you should consider shifting your efforts to other organizations and/or politicians that share your concern.  Obviously Republicans and Tea Party extremists will tell you that there is no problem.  That is the standard response to any situation that they don’t want to deal.

            Even though he isn’t your congressman you should consider contacting Polis and seeing if there is some organization that you could lend your support to.  Don’t try to do it alone when the consequences of failure are so corrosive.

      3. Let’s just get rid of all our government representatives?! Why should we have to deal with those pesky city counsel members and mayors and governors, etc.? They’re just dumbass politicians anyway. What do they know? The next time the Colorado Department of Transportation wants to adjust their budget to fix the highways, they should just ask the people! Because we sure have the free time and general knowledge to make that decision much better than a representative could. /facepalm

        Look, we elect representatives because we don’t have the free time or the knowledge (knowledge is different than intelligence) to make most of the decisions that run our governments. If you want to live in a society where every person is involved in making decisions, go join a commune.

  5. maybe we’ll find out what horrible thing happened in Dougie’s childhood to make him such a bitter, hateful, conniving little prick. Any theories?

  6. …But as David writes above, it’s a key function of democracy.

    This past session, Lois Court passed HB 1370 which appears to make these shenanigans illegal in the future.

    Still, the Secretary of State’s office seems impotent to enforce existing law.  Last cycle there were questions about Amendment 48’s financial disclosures which were never adequately resolved.  This spring, amendment 62 didn’t get enough valid signatures by the deadline, and miraculously came up with more than three times the needed signatures in the remediation period.  While the SOS hinted that a challenge to their validity might have merit, the current rules don’t allow the time for a challenge without a significant investment of manpower and money by the challenger, so once again Personhood goes on the ballot, siphoning money into electoral politics that could better be spent preventing unplanned pregnancies.

    Empowering the Secretary of State to better enforce existing laws, and giving him the legal tools to safeguard fair elections is critical to our democracy, particularly one so vested in the ballot initiative process.

    1. The SoS essentially has to wait until someone files a complaint against the Doug Bruce’s of the world to act on it.

      The SoS should be able to go after these speople on their own initiative.

      1. But I sort of disagree in practice.

        The SoS is a partisan elected official.  The current system of having complaints originate outside the SoS office shields the office from accusations of partisanship.

    2. A very old opinion by Secretary of State Mary Estil Buchanan states that if fraud was used to gather the initial signatures, then the signatures are not counted and no cure period is allowed.  I used this same argument in Lakewood to get rid of a zoning petition out there which was rife with fraud.

  8. This article is a quite fair report but the blog about the article is nothing more than pot stirring.

    There isn’t any indication that “the process used to get them [petition signatures] there was hopelessly abused.”  Unless the judge in this case makes law from his bench the only abuse this process has suffered is that Douglas Bruce has mocked it, ridiculed it and rendered it a tool for his purposes…all legally, supposedly.  That still remains to be seen.

    Some of the proponents have joined Mr. Bruce in choosing to mock the process as if it is a vicious dog on a stout chain.  If the judge does not create new law in this case, then it makes no difference if Mr. Bruce is “Mr. X.” or “Dr. Evil” because there is no limit to the spending by an individual in the petition process.  Doug Bruce obviously believes he is correct and has chosen mockery and manipulation to make his point.

    The case hinges on the question of whether or not a “proponent” for a petition is defacto part of an “issue committee.”  Current law plainly says no, this is not so.  Reporting and accounting rules apply to issue committees and do not apply to the petition process.

    The laws do not clearly define “proponent.” So, deferring to the dictionary, a proponent is anyone who advocates the position.  Meaning, that anyone who signs a petition automatically becomes part of an issue committee and is therefore subject to reporting and accounting rules.  The entire case is preposterous and being pursued simply as a tactic to cast aspersions on people associated with the ballot initiatives at the heart of this matter.

    The goal is to punish citizens who become politically active in opposition to the free flow of State money into the pockets of lobbyists and consultants.  These enterprises have grown fat as parasites on the easy money flowing from our spendthrift politicians in Colorado.  If the fear that money might be being used to manipulate a process just follow the money to those bringing this fishing expedition into our courts.  Those bringing this case have very deep pockets and they are using all their financial might to press this case on ordinary citizens who dared to stand up and sign their names to their convictions that government must be limited.

    After these ballot initiatives are passed by the fiscal conservative voters of this state the lobbyist and consultant industry will wither and die because there will be no more cash cow for them to milk.  They can’t be expected to just roll over.  No, instead they are throwing everything they have at this as if their very lives depend on it…if not their lives then certainly their livelihoods.

    -Jahfre Fire Eater

    1. … our whole STATE will wither and die.

      PS: I will lay even odds that JahfreFireEater is Doug Bruce. Sounds just like him. Be a man and accept service of process.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

101 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!