Dudley Bown says “No rule” will stop Rocky Mountain Gun Owners from threatening lawmakers during its lobbying efforts

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

On Corky Kyle's "In the Lobby" show March 4, the Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Dudley Brown, said that he could care less about a regulation prohibiting lobbyists from threatening state lawmakers with political retribution for casting a vote.

Brown said "no rule" will stop his gun organization from threatening to throw lawmakers out of office if they don't vote his way.

Dudley Brown: I can tell you this much, though the claim here might be that you can’t threaten political retribution for a vote, and our actual lobbyist is up for – in front of ethics charges for doing just that, that’s exactly what our organization is doing. We’re saying, “You vote wrong, and you’re in a marginal district, we will come out and we will defeat you in the next election, if at all humanly possible." And I make no qualms about that. No rule in the Capitol is going to stop us from saying that.

Corky Kyle: Thanks, Dudley.

DB: Thank you!

CK: [Off camera] Bee-yoooo-tiful, dude!

DB: [maniacal laughter] –get tossed out as a lobbyist.

CK: Yeah, I know! Oh, it wouldn't be the first time somebody said something to me.

DB: Yeah, that would– So, I won't even say that. So sorry to say that. You can’t say that? Really?! [inaudible] says that.

[in studio] CK: All right… [chuckling, to producer] you can turn the rest of that off…

The Legislature's Rule 36 prohibits lobbyists from influencing legislators “by means of deceit or by threat of … political reprisal…with intent thereby to alter or affect said legislator's …vote." 

Attempt to influence any legislator or elected or appointed state official or state employee or legislative employee by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic or political reprisal against any person or property, with intent thereby to alter or affect said legislator's, elected or appointed state official's, state employee's, or legislative employee's decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by him or her or the agency or body of which he or she is a member [BigMedia emphasis]

Kyle chose not to press Brown on his brazen disregard for lobbying rules, which is a shame, because it would have made a perfect topic for Kyle's "In the Lobby" show, which focuses on the State Legislature, from the perspective of a lobbyist!

Kyle should invite Brown and others back to discuss: Should an outfit (Rocky Mountain Gun Owners) that promises not to abide by lobbying rules be allowed to lobby at all?

Already, as Brown noted in the interview, a Rocky Mountain Gun Owners employee is under investigation for breaking lobbying rules. And Brown has been sued in federal court recently for his alleged role in a political attack ad.

Brown is apparently playing by the rules in his court fight against gun-safety legislation, but, as with his lobbying efforts, he's taking an extreme tack.

Brown has already threatened a lawsuit, which he's said even the "NRA isn't going to support," to stop Colorado's new law requiring background checks on private gun sales. Brown has said his suit would stop all background checks for gun sales, noy just private sales.

22 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Albert J. Nock says:

    First, apparently this rule only applies to Dudley because this is how politics works. You vote the way of your voting base lose your seat…

     

     

    Secondly, why is Polls standing behinds this law as it a violation of the First Amendment?

    • DavieDavie says:

      A constitutional expert such as yourself should not hesitate to ask that question of the Supreme Court.  They could always use a good laugh.

    • Jason Salzman says:

      It's the rule for everyone, not just Dudley. I linked to it. Maybe the thinking is, a paid lobbyist shouldn't be making threats to throw a lawmaker out of office. An ordinary citizen is one thing, but a registered lobbyist doing this is unseemly, not what you want at the Capitol.

    • BlueCat says:

      This is specifically about registered lobbyists and the rules that govern them. It's not about how politics work in general. Once again Nockwurst, you don't know WTF you're talking about.

      • VanDammerVanDammer says:

        yeah, like not knowing what he's talking about ever keep that Ass from braying.  Knockworst has no problem proving his idiocy again & again.  He courageously displays his ignorance daily, don't try to stop him from bringing dumb to the discourse.

  2. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    The lobbying rules in Colorado are quite broad and could be subject to a strong overbreadth challenge.  

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      But unless/until a court overrules them, they're the law.

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Elliot has a serious point, However, as others have noted, the rules apply to registered lobbyists, not ordinary citizens.  The punishment for breaking them is loss of your lobbying privileges, not prison, so I suspect a court would uphold them.   But at the same time, I don't think we can dismiss Elliot's observation of their being overly broad.  But there is an element of unreality about them.   As Samuel Gompers said, in politics you reward your friends and punish your enemies.   Is any legislator really dumb enough not to know his or her votes have consequences at election time?  

      Likie Elliot, I'd be interested in a challenge on this.   If you file one, Elliot, I'd happily do some of the legal rsearch (I'm a certified paralegal among my other failings.)

      • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

        The issue isn't just how it applies to lobbyists, it is also how broadly lobbyist is defined.  Now, speaking very generally, there is some caselaw on whether a person who is squarely in the ambit of a law can challenge it for overbreadth on first amendment grounds, my sense (NOT LEGAL ADVICE) is that this law may be susceptible to a good 1st amd. challenge. 

        As for all hat and no cattle, given that my apartment got flooded a few hours ago due to a burst pipe (or something of the sort) from the apartment above and will have to be renovated, I don't think I even have a hat right now :-(

        • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

          That sucks.

          I hope you didn't lose too many priceless family heirlooms.

           Everything else is temporary.

          • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

            Thx – the place is pretty disgusting right now so I haven't had a chance to go through and see what got damaged.  Hopefully the damage to the apartment is mainly structural and the personal property damage will be minimal – but I'll have to see.  Thanks again.

  3. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    It would be a fun lawsuit to try.  Some real interesting first amendment issues. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.