Guns: A new level of buffoonery at the statehouse.

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)
Man with Gun

Eleven senators and 7 members of the Colorado house, all Republican, have sunk to new lows of legislative buffoonery – SB 13-062. (It’s short, I urge you to go and look at it.) В For those of you who don’t follow links as a matter of principle let me give you a brief explanation of what the bill does:

If you own a “private business” that is open to the public (bar, restaurant, grocery store, coffee shop, law office, dentist’s office etc.) and you prohibit the carrying of firearms, whether concealed or open, on the premises of theВ business, where such carrying would otherwise beВ permitted under law, you are strictly liable (liability without proof of negligence or fault on your part) for any injury or loss one of your customers may suffer at the hand of anyone else – robber, nutcase, etc. – unless you hire at least one armed security guard.

As if owning and running a small business isn’t hard enough, these nitwits (I know name calling is not the preferred method ofВ political discourse, but I just couldn’t come up with anything else – actually, В I could, but it would have been worse.) want to strap small businesses with extraordinary costs just to allow gun nuts the ability to bring their tools of death into my business. “What costs?” you may ask.

The first would be insurance. Since the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of the Second Amendment and right wing state legislatures have expanded the ability to carry concealed weapons, the insurance industry has taken note. The risk of liability is substantially higher if there are guns in a business. Therefore, liability policies where guns are allowed carry substantially higher premiums than policies for businesses that prohibit guns. One of the reasons that businesses prohibit firearms is that they can’t afford or don’t want to pay for the extra insurance.

“Ah,” you say, “then prohibit guns and hire an armed guard.” Sorry, but hiring an armed guard brings not only the wages of the guard but the liability insurance cost of having an armed guard. These combined costs would even be higher.

Finally, the expanded – no-fault – liability placed on businesses that prohibit guns and can’t afford to hire guards will generally increase insurance premiums. As is stands now, the business is not liable for the wrongs committed by someone outside the business unless the business is somehow found negligent. However, this bill would make the business liable for all injuries suffered by a customer at the hands of anyone else regardless of fault. (The bill essentially stands for the proposition that prohibiting all guns – even those of an armed security guard – from your business is per se negligence.) Insurance companies will deal with this added liability by jacking business liability insurance premiums.

What champions of business these nitwits are.

HB 11-1190 – “The Vitamin Cottage Poison Peanut Butter Bill” – UPDATED

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



UPDATE #2:  The House Judiciary Committee voted 10-1 to indefinitely postpone consideration of HB 11-1190 last night (2/22/11).

UPDATE:  When I explained products liability law, I forgot to mention a particularly salient part of the law.  If you have ever gone to a used car dealership, you will immediately know what I am talking about – the disclaimer.  A seller can avoid any responsibility whatsoever for the goods – including food – he sells by conspicuously posting a disclaimer of the implied warrantly of merchantablity or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.  In the case of food retailers – like Vitamin Cottage – this would mean posting signs at the door, by the cash registers and at strategic places around the store where food is sold, something like this:

Sold as is . . . .

All the food and products sold in this store are sold as is with all faults.  We do not warrant that the food we sell you is fit for human consumption.  Specifically, we do not warrant that the food is safe to eat or that it will not make you sick or kill you.

If we told you that we have determined that the food we sell you is “safe” or of the “highest quality available,” you cannot rely on those representations if you get sick.  If we told you that you could trust the products that we sell in this store – don’t believe us because this was just marketing and “puffing.”  We didn’t mean it.  We were lying.

“Who would shop at such a store?” you ask.  No one.  That is why HB 11-1190 is not only a license to poison, it is a licence to lie.

In an earlier post, I brought to your attention that Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling) and Sen. Cheri Jahn (D-Lakewood) are sponsoring HB 11-1190 – a bill that would limit – no, eliminate – retailer’s liability for selling the public tainted food.  In that post I reported that according to Sen. Jahn this was being promoted by Vitamin Cottage and I would explain why. It is a story of greed and willful ignorance. But, more than anything else it is about what corporations learn and take away from human tragedies that they cause. This story is important, not simply because it explains Vitamin Cottage’s motivations for pushing this bill, but because it discloses exactly what the authors want the bill to do.  There will be no unintended consequences if you understand this history.

General products liability law says that the seller of a product – like food – warrants that the product is “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.” In the case of food that means that it won’t make you sick.  This is called the implied warranty of merchantablity which makes everyone in the chain of production and sale liable to a customer who is injured by product found to be unsafe. Where the seller or manufacturer go futher to market their product as “healthy, safe and of the highest quality,” the seller has made the consumer an express warranty of “fitness for a specific purpose.”  If, in the case of food, the product makes you sick or kills you, the seller is liable to you for your injuries and your medical expenses.  The customer does not have to prove intent or even negligence – only that it was the product – used as it was intended – that caused the injury.

In Colorado, our legislature – in its infinite wisdom – has carved out an exemption to this rule for Colorado retailers – not just food retailers – all retailers.  Colorado retailers are exempt from liability if the consumer can sue someone higher up the chain like the manufacturer.  However, if the consumer can’t get at the manufacturer because it is in China or filed bankruptcy, the law removes the exemption and makes the Colorado retailer liable for the consumer’s injuries.

HB 11-1190 would carve out an additonal exemption for “food retailers.”  Unless the retailer tainted the food itself, it would not be liable to a consumer to whom it sold tainted food except where the retailer “knew” that the food was tainted. It would protect retailers who bury their heads in the sand and practice willful ignorance.  Under this standard, a retailer – say Vitamin Cottage – could tell its customers that “We only sell products that we have determined are safe and are of the highest quality available. You can completely trust the products that you buy from Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage.” *  But, after you to trust them and the food you buy from Vitamin Cottage makes you sick or kills you, they can say, “Oops, didn’t know. I don’t read newspapers – wouldn’t believe them if I did. You really believed us? Go away. Don’t bother me with your silly lawsuits and your medical bills. Not our problem.”  Because the retailer bought the food from China or a company that went bankrupt, you’re screwed.

Perhaps the best nickname for this bill should be the “Vitamin Cottage Poison Peanut Butter Bill.” You see, that’s where it comes from. Apparently, Vitamin Cottage got sued because it’s “organic” peanut supplier was Peanut Corporation of America.  Vitamin Cottage used salmonella tainted peanuts from PCA to make their in-store ground peanut butter.  Despite the fact that the contaminated peanut story was initially reported by the MSM in November of 2008 and PCA was identified as as the source of the contamination in late December of 2008, Vitamin Cottage did not recall the peanuts and peanut butter or inform its customers that it used PCA peanuts in its products until January 30, 2009. (Hey, Kroger pulled all of its PCA related products in early January and told its customers not to eat them.)  Even then, Vitamin Cottage professed that it’s peanut butter was safe.  Not until mid-February of 2009 did Vitamin Cottage finally acknowledge that it had used tainted peanuts to make and sell its peanut butter.  On February 13, 2009, the PCA filed bankruptcy so they couldn’t be sued by all of the people they had killed.  Vitamin Cottage got sued – in part, because they said that “they had determined” that their peanut butter was “safe” and “of the highest quality.” We could trust the products that we buy from them.

What was Vitamin Cottage’s response – “We didn’t know.”  More specifically, here is what Heather Isley, Executive Vice-President, told Congress on March 19, 2009.  Basically, she relied upon what PCA told her in the months between November 2008 and February 2009.  And what did that corporate miscreant PCA tell her?  ”No problem.”  This is the same PCA which public records show had had problems with contamination of it products before in 2001 and 2007.  In fact, goverment inspectors had found that PCA had on these prior occasions intentionally shipped salmonella contaminated peanuts and peanut products.*  Had the executives at Vitamin Cottage exercised even a modicum of reasonable care or due diligence, they would have known they could not trust a thing that PCA said.   Keep in mind, Vitamin Cottage promises its customers that it has “determined” that its products are “safe and of the highest quality available.” If the Vitamin Cottage had lived up to their pledge, I hope that they would never have used PCA as a supplier in the first place.

If HB 11-1190 had been the law in 2009, the people who “trusted” Vitamin Cottage and got sick because of eating its peanut butter would have been SOL. The people in whom we entrust our fagile food suppy must understand that they will be held to a higher standard of care that those who merely sell us cars or shoes or computers. Yet, Vitamin Cottage is asking our legislators to lower the standard.  

In closing, I want to say that I don’t profess to be “fair & balanced” – at least not in the same way that the MSM acts.  Both, sides don’t have an equally valid positions – that is false equivalency.  However, that doesn’t mean that I haven’t carefully reviewed Vitamin Cottage’s position – I have. I just don’t buy it. So don’t expect me to spend a lot of time and space giving Vitamin Cottage’s position.  However, I will give you a link where you can read what they have to say for yourselves.  Testimony of Heather C. Isely, Executive Vice President, Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets, Inc. (“Natural Grocers”), Lakewood, Colorado before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.  

I admit that I was hard on Vitamin Cottage – some of you may think unfairly so. I began my research with a relatively high opinion of Vitamin Cottage.  However, while researching this issue, I came across the Vitamin Cottage corporate manifesto: “What We Won’t Sell and Why.”  Here is what Vitamin Cottage wants its customers to believe this manifesto means:

What Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage Does Sell: We only sell products that we have determined are safe and are of the highest quality available. You can completely trust the products that you buy from Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage.

Yet, their behavior during the contaminated peanut crisis, their response to their customers’ law suits, and their support of HB 11-1190 belies a much different message. Buyer Beware! We can sell you poisoned food and it’s just your problem.

Senator Jahn Sponors Bill to Limit Retail Liability for Tainted Food – Updated

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Updates (2) Below

State Senator Jahn is sponsoring HB 11-1190 – limiting damages against retailers for foodborne illnesses.  The folks over at Food Safety News are reporting that Jahn and Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg have presented the bill but are refusing to say who has put them up to it.  Here is the article (Fortuately, the website allows us a license to reprint it as long as we provide proper attribution.):

A Bid to Limit Retail Liability for Tainted Food by Dan Flynn | Feb 16, 2011

A bill that gets dropped in the hopper at a state legislature often starts out as a mini mystery. Who’s behind it? Where did it really come from?  What is it really trying to accomplish?

Colorado House Bill 11-1190–limiting damages against retailers for foodborne illnesses—is just such a bill. Its sponsors are state Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg and state Sen. Cheri Jahn. And they’re not talking.

Sonnenberg is a farmer-rancher from Colorado’s rural eastern plains and Jahn is a suburban politician from populous Jefferson County. He’s a Republican and she’s a Democrat.

Both serve on their respective chamber’s agriculture committees. He chairs House Ag and she is vice chair of Senate Ag. Food Safety News asked Sonnenberg and Jahn to respond to questions about HB 1190, but neither did so.

As drafted, the bill would greatly limit the liability of food retailers in foodborne illness cases.   It would mean that retailers would be let off from responsibility when their customers get sick unless it could be shown that they were responsible for contamination or had actual knowledge of it at the time of the sale.

Under the doctrine of strict liability, every part of the supply chain is deemed responsible for producing safe food to protect consumers. The Sonnenberg/Jahn bill would provide a “get out of jail free” card for the retail sector.

There is already some confusion about the language of the bill, which has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. The liability limiting language would apply when “jurisdiction cannot be obtained over the manufacturer.”

That has caused some legislative observers to speculate that Lakewood, CO-based Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets Inc. might be behind the bill. It was caught up in the 2009 Salmonella outbreak involving Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), and settled litigation after PCA’s bankruptcy.

The 30-store Vitamin Cottage chain, with units in Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, was grinding organic peanuts from PCA’s Texas facility in early 2009 that were contaminated with Salmonella.  

This is really bad policy.  The deficit chicken hawks in Congress have proposed cutting the Food & Drug Admin.’s budget.  There will be fewer inspectors and fewer inspections.  At the state a local level, budget cuts will limit the number of onsite inspections of all kinds of food processors and retail distributors.  Food safety costs money – hiring people to inspect and clean food before it is sold to you and I – whether in a grocery store or a restaurant – eats into profits.  The threat that a failure to properly inspect or clean food will give rise to significant monetary loss will become the only incentive that food retailer have do their part to ensure the safety of our food supply.

UPDATE: As her constituent, I called Sen. Jahn before I made my post.  I spoke to one of her staff – yes, a live person not an answering machine.  He told me that Sen. Jahn would call me back about the bill.  I have still heard nothing though I have called her office three times this morning.

After spending more time than I can afford, I have been able to confirm through three sources who asked to remain confidental (I am sorry but you will have to take my word for this.) that the HB 11-1190 is being promoted by Vitamin Cottage through its lobbyist Kirsten Thomson.  I have confirmed through records at the Secretary of State’s Office that Ms. Thomson is, in fact, a registered professional lobbyist for Vitamin Cottage.  I both called and e-mailed Ms. Thomson asking her to confirm or deny whether Vitamin Cottage and she are the source of the bill.  I have yet to receive a response.

Apparently, there is an interesting back story about why Vitamin Cottage might be lobbying to get this bill passed.  I have more research to do before I am comfortable writing about it.  So, stay tuned. There will be more to come.

Update No. 2:  I just received a call from Sen. Jahn.  She confirmed that Vitamin Cottage and Kirsten Thomson, its lobbyist, are the source and prime movers behind the bill.  Why you ask – think PCA and peanut butter.

Senator Jahn Sponors Bill to Limit Retail Liability for Tainted Food

State Senator Jahn is sponsoring HB 11-1190 – limiting damages against retailers for foodborne illnesses.  The folks over at Food Safety News are reporting that Jahn and Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg have presented the bill but are refusing to say who has put them up to it.  Here is the article (Fortuately, the website allows us a license to reprint it as long as we provide proper attribution.):

A Bid to Limit Retail Liability for Tainted Foodby Dan Flynn | Feb 16, 2011

A bill that gets dropped in the hopper at a state legislature often starts out as a mini mystery. Who’s behind it? Where did it really come from?  What is it really trying to accomplish?

Colorado House Bill 11-1190–limiting damages against retailers for foodborne illnesses—is just such a bill. Its sponsors are state Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg and state Sen. Cheri Jahn. And they’re not talking.

Sonnenberg is a farmer-rancher from Colorado’s rural eastern plains and Jahn is a suburban politician from populous Jefferson County. He’s a Republican and she’s a Democrat.

Both serve on their respective chamber’s agriculture committees. He chairs House Ag and she is vice chair of Senate Ag. Food Safety News asked Sonnenberg and Jahn to respond to questions about HB 1190, but neither did so.

As drafted, the bill would greatly limit the liability of food retailers in foodborne illness cases.   It would mean that retailers would be let off from responsibility when their customers get sick unless it could be shown that they were responsible for contamination or had actual knowledge of it at the time of the sale.

Under the doctrine of strict liability, every part of the supply chain is deemed responsible for producing safe food to protect consumers. The Sonnenberg/Jahn bill would provide a “get out of jail free” card for the retail sector.

There is already some confusion about the language of the bill, which has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. The liability limiting language would apply when “jurisdiction cannot be obtained over the manufacturer.”

That has caused some legislative observers to speculate that Lakewood, CO-based Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets Inc. might be behind the bill. It was caught up in the 2009 Salmonella outbreak involving Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), and settled litigation after PCA’s bankruptcy.

The 30-store Vitamin Cottage chain, with units in Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, was grinding organic peanuts from PCA’s Texas facility in early 2009 that were contaminated with Salmonella.  

This is really bad policy.  The deficit chicken hawks in Congress have proposed cutting the Food & Drug Admin.’s budget.  There will be fewer inspectors and fewer inspections.  At the state a local level, budget cuts will limit the number of onsite inspections of all kinds of food processors and retail distributors.  Food safety costs money – hiring people to inspect and clean food before it is sold to you and I – whether in a grocery store or a restaurant – eats into profits.  The threat that a failure to properly inspect or clean food will give rise to significant monetary loss will become the only incentive that food retailer have do their part to ensure the safety of our food supply.

Senator Udall Revives Hackneyed and False Talking Point in Support of his Balanced Budget Amendment

I just received Senator Mark Udall’s newletter. When I came to the part about his balanced budget amendment, I – quite literally – almost fell out of my chair.  To support his amendment Udall revives a Republican talking point which is both hackneyed and a patent falsehood:

“American families have to balance their own checkbooks – and, especially in these hard times, they’re wondering why their federal government doesn’t have to do the same,” Udall said.

Udall Co-sponsors Balanced Budget Amendment

Mark, for your information – in case you have become completely out of touch there in Washington – American working and middle class families have not been living within their means for years.  You know – it’s this little thing called consumer credit.  We’ve been relying on credit to maintain our standards of living for nearly three decades now.  We have run up trillions of dollars in debt try to stay where we are because our wages and salaries have declined in real dollars over the past 30 years.

In times of depression/recession we need the Federal Government to spend more than it brings in to stimulate demand.  If your idea carries the day, we would now be in the biggest depression in our history with unemployment standing at near 40%.  

It time for you to stop being a Republican Lite.

Jahn’s Comments to the Denver Business Journal

The local right wing blogs are all a twitter about comments Senator Cheri Jahn made to the Denver Business Journal recently:

“When legislation comes through, the very first thing I am going to look at is:  How will it affect my business and my ability to operate and to expand and to maintain what I am doing.”

“And if it is going to hurt me, I am not going to support it.”

I thought I voted for her to look at how legislation would affect me and the people in Colorado – that should be the “first” thing that she “looks” at. This kind of attitude from Democrats in the state legislature is why we had to pass a state minimum wage by inititive and referendum.

Jahn’s Comments to the Denver Business Journal

The local right wing blogs are all a twitter about comments Senator Cheri Jahn made to the Denver Business Journal recently:

“When legislation comes through, the very first thing I am going to look at is:  How will it effect [sic] my business and my ability to operate and to expand and to maintain what I am doing.”

“And if it is going to hurt me, I am not going to support it.”

I thought I voted for her to look at how legislation would affect me and the people in Colorado – that should be the “first” thing that she “looks” at. This kind of attitude from Democrats in the state legislature is why we had to pass a state minimum wage by inititive and referendum.

Bennet Supports Conrad-Gregg Deficit Commission

Here is the text of Senator Bennet’s speech before the Senate yesterday supporting the Conrad-Gregg deficit commission:

  AMENDMENT NO. 3302

  Mr. BENNET. Madam President. I would like to express my strong support for the Conrad-Gregg fiscal task force amendment. I thank Chairman CONRAD and Senator GREGG for crafting a proposal that rises above petty Washington partisan bickering.





  When my oldest daughter Caroline was born in 1999, our Nation’s debt stood at about $5.6 trillion. Our country welcomed her with an unpaid bill totaling $20,000–the amount every American would have to pay up in order to balance the budget.

  But there was reason for hope. A President was working with Congress, using pay-go and discretionary spending limits–and reducing our annual deficit down to virtually zero, even running a surplus in a much stronger economy than today’s.

  Two years later, we welcomed Caroline’s younger sister Halina into our family. Our debt had jumped to about $5.8 trillion. She also owed about $20,000. We had a new administration with new priorities–tax cuts that were not paid for, a prescription drug plan that was piled on the deficit , and unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind, and the war in Iraq.

  In 2004, we welcomed our youngest daughter Anne. The debt had skyrocketed to over $7.3 trillion. Anne’s share of the national debt stood at $25,000.

  By Caroline’s 10th birthday last year, the national debt stood at about $11 trillion–double what it was when she was born. She owed about $36,000 at this point. I would have to say that is a lousy birthday present for any 10-year-old.

  Now we have had to deal with the worst recession since the Great Depression, and the necessary steps we have taken to provide middle class and small business tax cuts and preserve jobs for police officers and teachers have contributed to the red ink.

  Today, our debt stands at just over $12 trillion. Each person owes about $40,000. By 2019, the White House projects that it will double yet again. If we do not come to our senses soon, we may pass the point of no return with this unfair and vast mortgage on our children’s future.

  The other day I was at a house party in Denver and I was talking about how we were passing this debt on to our kids and they were going to have to pay it back. Caroline was with me. We walked outside the party and she said: Daddy? I said: What? She said: Just to be clear, I am not paying that back. Which I think is the right attitude we should have. We need to take care of it now.

  No Member of this body wants my three daughters or any child to inherit the fiscal mess we have caused. Yet partisan stalemate prevents reform from even getting off the ground.

  For my part, I introduced the Deficit Reduction Act, which would reinstitute discretionary spending limits and cap our deficit to 3 percent of the GDP, and I cosponsored pay-go. Yet even ideas as basic as these have faced stiff opposition.

  We need the Conrad-Gregg amendment. Their commission would enable Congress to reduce the deficit without the usual backroom deals, appeasing of special interest groups, and engaging in partisan blamesmanship.

  It is a shame that a commission is necessary. But it is. We have to take the partisanship out of reducing the deficit or nothing will get done. The commission can do this. Sadly, Congress, left to its own devices, has proven that it will not.

  Conrad-Gregg is a chance to make Congress live by fiscal rules. I commend the President for expressing his strong support for this amendment.

  And to my Republican and Democratic colleagues, now is our chance to show that you are serious about real reform–serious about reducing our deficit .

  I urge my colleagues to follow JUDD GREGG’s lead, and to follow KENT CONRAD’s lead. They designed this commission to allow for everyone’s point of view.

  When I think about extending the debt limit, I cannot help but return to my daughters and all the children across this country. They have their entire lives in front of them.

  Most of us in this body are parents or grandparents or aunts or uncles. One way or another, we are in public service to help our kids. Let’s view the Conrad-Gregg proposal through their eyes. They are depending on us to plan for their future–to pay for our tax cuts and to restrain our spending impulses to only the most important priorities.

  I urge support for the deficit commission proposal. We need 60 Senators to stand for fiscal responsibility. Let’s not allow this chance for bipartisan breakthrough to pass us by. Vote yes on Conrad-Gregg. I yield the floor.

I’ll let you all decide what you think of this.  I just wanted you to know that he not only voted for this concept but strongly supported it.  Is he a “deficit peacock?”

Polis, Perlmutter & Markey Vote to Gut the Executive Pay Limitation Act

Polis, Perlmutter and Markey all voted in favor of the Bean amendment to the Pay Performance Act which would have limited executive compensation at firms receiving TARP money.  The amendment all but gutted the bill by exempting banks an financial institutions which which are paying back the TARP money – whether a dollar a year or all in one payment.  So, you see, the amendment sets up a system so the banks can game us while these three come back an proudly announce that they voted to limit executive compensation.  

You can read more from Jane Hamsher at Huffington Post:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

Betsy Markey Votes Against Obama Budget

I just read in the New York Times that Betsy Markey was the only Colorado Democrat to vote against the budget bill last night.  Does anyone have any information as to why?

Gee! I’m Going to Miss My Cup o’ Joe

The New York Times is reporting that the National Labor Relations Board has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Starbucks for firing, intimidating and interrogating employees who supported efforts to unionize four of its stores in New York City. Apparently, this isn’t the first time Starbucks has been caught violating the law:

“Thirteen months ago, Starbucks reached a settlement with the Industrial Workers of the World, agreeing to offer jobs back to two workers and to pay nearly $2,000 to several employees after the labor board brought a separate set of charges against the company, accusing it of illegally seeking to quash efforts to unionize.”

http://www.nytimes.c…

Over the years, I have become addicted their high priced coffee.  I even got gift cards from my kids for my birthday.  Well, I guess that is all gone now – until Starbucks cleans up its act.

Is Hillary Clinton For Sale?

It appears that Hillary Clinton intends to try to buy the Democratic nomination. To do this, it looks like she is for sale to the highest bidders. Along the way, she is destroying the one meager attempt we have made to get big money out of presidential elections.

Clinton Bid Heralds Demise of Public Financing

By Dan Balz and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; Page A01

The public financing system designed to clean up presidential campaigns in the wake of the Watergate scandal may have died on Saturday when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced her bid for the White House.

Little noticed amid the announcement rollout was a page on her Web site in which she asked potential contributors to give her campaign checks of up to $4,200. That figure signaled not only that she plans to forgo public funds for primary season but also that, if she becomes the nominee, she will not take public money for the general election.

By opting out of the system, Clinton will be able to spend as much money as she can raise, both for the primaries and for the general election, rather than being forced to abide by strict spending limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission on candidates who accept public financing.”

The rest of the article is here..

Who was the last presidential candidate to pursue this course? W! Is Clinton blinded by pure ambition or is she really a Blue Dog Democrat?