Perry Who? Colorado GOP Brass Backs Romney

Tim Hoover of the Denver paper reports that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, recently challenged for his status as frontrunning Republican presidential candidate in this state by the surging Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, will appear in Denver next week in downtown Denver at a $500-a-plate fundraiser for his campaign.

Perry may have shaken Romney’s heretofore lead in Colorado in the most recent polling, but it’s worth noting (as Hoover does) the long list of Colorado GOP luminaries co-hosting Romney’s fundraiser next week–including Bill Owens, Hank Brown, Wayne Allard, and all three statewide Republican officeholders: Treasurer Walker Stapleton, Secretary of State Scott Gessler, and Attorney General John Suthers.

Lead or no lead, it’s a bit more impressive a roster than Marc Holtzman and Scott McInnis.

Too big to fail – too big to be held accountable

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”          Thomas Jefferson

“The banksters in effect issued their own currency in the form of collaterized debt obligations (CDO’s) which were ostensibly securitized by property.  As the foreclosures continue to roll, more  Americans everyday wake up with their property gone and homeless.    You can’t say we weren’t warned.”  


Last fall in the wake of the “robo-signing “scandal and other egregious practices by big banks concerning foreclosure procedures, the same ones who were deemed “too big to fail” and got bailed out by the taxpayers, the attorneys generals from all 50 states and some federal agencies launched an investigation of the big mortgage servicers into the well documented faulty foreclosure procedures.  Predictably, some of the AG’s have been more aggressive than others (Colorado AG  John Suthers can be put in the “less aggressive” category, perhaps even as MIA)  in investigating and pursuing wrongdoing  in the  mortgage mess which is at the core of the countries housing meltdown.

It now looks like the Obama administration has joined ranks with those pushing for an agreement which would grant immunity and hold the big banks and servicers harmless from future liability and litigation in the mortgage mess.  And the incestuous relationship between the agencies charged with regulation and the banking industry is being exposed as well, with the agencies having clear conflict of interests in the matter.

Unfortunately, it looks like the interests of the big banks and servicers may prevail, flexing their economic and political power to stifle any accountability of their actions.

The state AG’s that have said no to any deal that gives the banks a “get out of jail” card are led by New York AG Eric T. Schneiderman and include Massachusett state AG  Martha Coakley  and some others. Schneiderman so far has held his ground saying “no deal” to a settlement that would let the five largest institutions involved –  Citigroup,  JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Ally Financial Inc., and the dirtiest of the dirty,  Bank of America – off the hook for future liability for a reported $20 billion settlement.  Sources also say the $20 billion would be structured for  loan modifications and principal reduction on existing mortgages,  so such a scenario would encompass the good, the bad, and mostly the ugly.

Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson stated “We continue to believe the best way to get the housing market going again in every state is a global settlement that addresses these issues fairly, comprehensively, and with finality ” .  What a crock.  The reality is, the housing mess isn’t going to get any better with the “settlement” B of A and the other banksters desperately want.  It’s a slap on the wrist,  and a paltry sum to pay for the real gem handed to the banksters on a silver platter -immunity from any further investigations, civil liability, and potential criminal prosecutions.

The 50 state AG investigation was prompted by the “robo signing” scandal and other foreclosure “irregularities”by the banksters, which Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal characterized as “at best careless negligence and at worst, outright fraud”.  But Schneiderman wants to enlarge the probes investigating Wall Street’s and the banksters role in the packaging and securitizing of risky mortgages, which was facilitated by the establishment of MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) in 1995. Another issue to be investigated is the credit rating agencies issuing  AAA ratings on this junk.

State AG’s Martha Coakley  (Massachusetts.), Beau  Biden (Delaware), and recently California  AG Kamala Harris has expressed solidarity with Schneiderman’s desire to continue the investigations.  Harris has subpoenaed Citigroup, and its banking subsidiary Citibank to produce documents and answer questions about the selling and marketing of mortgage backed securities in California.

But that’s the last thing the banksters want.  Sources report  they are getting backup from the Obama administration pressuring Schneiderman ,  through HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and high level Justice Department officials  (no surprise here, Eric Holder, the top federal law enforcement official has been “invisible ” in all this) – to accept a settlement that would release the banksters from all future liability in the biggest financial scandal ever that destroyed our economy.

Even the Fed is in on the coverup, with Kathryn S. Wylde, member of the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and president of the Partnership for New York, a non profit organization of city business leaders stating to Schneiderman…..

“It is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it. Wall Street is our main Street – love ‘em or hate ‘em. They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible”

Earth to Wylde.  How would you know they did something “indefensible” in the first place , when all investigations are squelched by the deal the banksters and the Obama administration are pushing?  Even though the real fraud occurred on Wall Street (the securitized financial instruments, the CDO’s, bogus credit ratings, etc.),  just move on folks, there’s nothing to see here.

Financial analyst  Barry Ritholtz had this to say on his The Big Picture website about the obvious conflicts in play…..

Note that the Federal Reserve (and indirectly, the NY Fed) are conflicted players in this. On the one hand, they are supposed to be bank regulators (a task they have performed poorly).  They are also substantial investors in the banks, and their regulatory oversight role is obviously conflicted.

There have been all manner of criminal and civil trespasses committed, and we should find out who ordered them, who committed them and why. AG Schneiderman should continue investigating the robo-signing, bring civil and criminal charges where necessary.

Recall that the original problems came about in large part due to Alan Greenspan’s Nonfeasance – the failure to perform his professional obligations of oversight and regulation. That any member of the Federal Reserve or NY Fed wants this closed before any investigation has been undertaken is a scandal of the highest magnitude.

The Obama administration , facing a tough re election battle in an anemic economy, has cast it’s lot with the banksters and corporatists. Evidently it’s better to coverup the festering wound and give those who should be held accountable get out of jail cards than hold them responsible. Scratching that wound during an election year is only going to make for a steady stream of bad news, and since “ignorance is bliss”, it’s  better to squelch the investigations and  just stay ignorant …..until the same players bring us down the next time.

Too big to fail….too big to be held accountable.   Welcome to the new Amerika.  

Polis, Suthers Debate Marijuana Legalization

A very interesting debate held Wednesday night in Vail between Rep. Jared Polis, a leading proponent of marijuana legalization, and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers–who, as you’d expect, is not a fan of marijuana medicinal or otherwise. As reported by the Colorado Independent’s David O. Williams, whose lengthy report is worth reading in its entirety:

Congressman Jared Polis and drug-policy reform advocate Ethan Nadelmann argued Wednesday night in Vail that one of the most compelling reasons to legalize marijuana in the United States is to eliminate a major funding source for deadly Mexican drug cartels. Both Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and recently retired DEA agent Anthony Coulson sharply disagreed…

“Almost without exception, the people on these panels advocating the legalization of drugs have either been academics, paid affiliates of public policy institutes, editorialists or law enforcement officers or politicians in ski resorts and areas of great affluence,” Suthers said.

Polis, a millionaire entrepreneur whose family owns property in Vail, disputed that notion. While he says he’s never smoked marijuana himself and very rarely even drinks alcohol, Polis said he’s dealt with addiction in his own family and saw a high school friend die of a heroin overdose.

But pot is not heroin, he said, and the ease with which is can be obtained illegally makes it all the more imperative to regulate marijuana for strength and purity and to keep it away from those under the age of 21. Plus, legalization will neuter the cartels and boost the U.S. economy…

“I personally would prefer legalization of marijuana to the medical marijuana regimen we currently have in Colorado,” Suthers said. [Pols emphasis] “I believe the retail dispensary model in Colorado, whereby marijuana is grown in large grow operations and sold in retail dispensaries to people who allegedly have a debilitating medical condition has become a complete joke. It’s nothing more than state-sanctioned fraud on the part of thousands of patients and a few dozen doctors.”

Pres. Jimmy Carter calls on end to 40 Years of Failed Drug Policy

Today marks the 40th Anniversary of the War on Drugs.  This war has cost us $1 Trillion dollars, the rise of cartels, rogue law enforcement attacks on the minority communities and millions of lives ruined.  And not one thing was gained!

Today in the NY Times, Presdient Jimmy Carter noted

But they probably won’t turn to the United States for advice. Drug policies here are more punitive and counterproductive than in other democracies, and have brought about an explosion in prison populations. At the end of 1980, just before I left office, 500,000 people were incarcerated in America; at the end of 2009 the number was nearly 2.3 million. There are 743 people in prison for every 100,000 Americans, a higher portion than in any other country and seven times as great as in Europe. Some 7.2 million people are either in prison or on probation or parole – more than 3 percent of all American adults!

America is infamous throughout the world with our focus on drugs and not on education.  We are now one of the worst educated countries on the planet, with the most people in prison!

Not only has this excessive punishment destroyed the lives of millions of young people and their families (disproportionately minorities), but it is wreaking havoc on state and local budgets. Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pointed out that, in 1980, 10 percent of his state’s budget went to higher education and 3 percent to prisons; in 2010, almost 11 percent went to prisons and only 7.5 percent to higher education.…

Rolling Stone Magazine Chimed in as well

Happy Birthday, Drug War! You’ve come a long way: a trillion dollars spent, millions of tokers and small-time pushers busted, countless jails built and crammed full (and then crammed full some more). And drugs? More plentiful than ever! Everybody wins! Or, to put it another way – the way a gold-plated panel of former world leaders recently put it – “the global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.” Right, then…

We can all disagree on MMJ or MJ.  But I have never been more convinced than what I am doing is the right thing.  It is time to legalize marijuana.  People who are believing the silliness that gets passed to us by AG Suthers and other uninformed law makers need to read up on this subject and quit acting like the world will end if we legalize a plant that has been used by people since ancient Egypt.


El Paso County Republican Party Staw Poll Results!

(Romney by a mile, trailed by Pawlenty and the Herminator – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Earlier this week, the El Paso County Republican Party hosted Karl Rove as their Lincoln Day Dinner speaker.  Along with the event, Chairman Eli Bremer tasked me with conducting a Presidential Primary Straw Poll.  

The results are after the fold.


The ballot was designed to measure the current field as represented by announced candidates (including those that have formed exploratory committees) as well as any candidate that has expressed a reasonable level of interest.  People that have announced their intention to not seek the nomination were taken at their word and excluded (except for Rick Perry, who has recently opened the door).

The dinner had 622 attendees.  Of that, approximately 277 actually returned ballots.  The difference in participation could be due to various reasons, such as a limited number and placement of ballot boxes.

Declared Candidates:

Candidate Votes Percentage
Herman Cain 44 16..67%
Newt Gingrich 25 9.47%
Ron Paul 11 4.17%
Tim Pawlenty 54 20.45%
Mitt Romney 106 40.15%
Rick Santorum. 24 9.09%
Gary Johnson 0 0.00%
Roy Moore 0 0.00%
Buddy Roemer 0 0.00%
Illiegal/Blank 11 NA

All Potential Candidates:

Candidate Votes Percentage
Michele Bachman 42 16.22%
Josh R. Bolton 2 0.77%
Herman Cain 29 11.20%
Newt Gingrich 8 3.09%
Rudy Giuliani 18 6.95%
Jon Huntsman Jr. 5 1.93%
Gary Johnson 0 0.00%
Roy Moore 0 0.00%
Sarah Palin 27 10.42%
Ron Paul 4 1.54%
Tim Pawlenty 25 7.72%
Rick Perry 20 7.72%
Buddy Roemer 1 0.39%
Mitt Romney 48 18.53%
Rick Santorum 9 3.47%
Illegal/Blanks 17 NA
Write Ins:
Chris Christie 11 4.25%
Donald Trump 3 1.16%
Paul Ryan 2 0.77%
Allen West 1 0.39%
Matt Arnold 1 0.39%
John Suthers 1 0.39%
Karl Rove 1 0.39%
Bill Cadman 1 0.39%

State: TABOR’s Bruce practiced law without license

(But remember, folks, TABOR is wonderful! Never mind its author! – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Hot off the press … anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce, already facing jail time if tried and convicted of tax evasion, now faces fines for practicing law in Colorado without a license.

As Law Week Colorado reports here:…

The Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel on May 23 quietly filed a petition for injunction against Bruce, who lives in Colorado Springs. The petition asks the Colorado Supreme Court to enjoin him from the unauthorized practice of the law.

The regulation office seeks fines of between $250 and $1,000 for each rule violation.

Bruce has a law degree and is on inactive status as an attorney in California, but he is not licensed to practice in Colorado.

The attorney regulation office claims he drafted complaints filed by his supporters during a ballot issue dispute last year in district court in Colorado Springs. It also claims Bruce passed notes telling his supporter-litigants what to say in court.

The Supreme Court issued an order for Bruce to show cause why he should not be enjoined. He has until June 15 to respond.

Earlier today, Bruce won a short delay in the criminal case lodged against him by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.

The petition is posted at Law Week Online. Please follow our website for more as this story develops.

Former VIP backers of Romney in CO have differing views on whether to support him now

(Ouch! More war chest RomneyCare, stat! – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who launched his presidential exploratory committee yesterday, would be President now, if the Colorado GOP had its way in 2008.

You recall, Romney won big here in the GOP’s caucuses over Sen. John McCain, with major Republican support from people like Sen. Wayne Allard, Rep. Bob Beauprez, Sen. Hank Brown, Gov. Bill Owens, and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. GOP State Senators Andy McElhany, Shawn Mitchell, and Nancy Spence all supported him. As did, among others, CO State Rep. Kenneth Summers, Weld Country District Attorney Ken Buck, executives Bruce Benson and Alex Cranberg, and Colorado GOP chair Ryan Call.

Not to be left out, The Denver Post selected Romney in the GOP primary.

Reporters haven’t asked what these folks think of Romney now, about three years later. So I checked in with some of them.

“I’m inclined to think we need a fresh face,” McElhany told me. “I was a strong early supporter of Mitt Romney in 2008, and I think he had his chance at that time, but I’m encouraged to look other places.”

I asked McElhany about the health care law Romney signed into law in Massachusetts, mandating that state residents purchase insurance.

“I don’t think the health care thing helps him,” McElhany said. “Certainly it’s a huge issue, and his support of the Massachusetts law will weigh on him heavily.”

Attorney General Suthers and Colorado Sen. Spence are both still supportive of Romney.

Through his spokesman, Suthers said:

“America is in need of an economic turnaround. No one has the credentials he does in terms of producing an economic turnaround.”

“Of the names in the race so far, I’d still support him,” Spence told me. “Now that doesn’t mean if Superman jumped in, I wouldn’t change my mind. But that’s where I am right now.”

Asked whether the health care issue affects her view of Romney, Spence said, “I supported him last time-and there was the health-insurance and right-to-life stuff then. He did what he had to do in Massachusetts.”

Colorado Rep. Ken Summers hasn’t made up his mind. “Maybe it will be like in 2008 when it was easier to keep track of who wasn’t running than who was,” Summers told me.

Romney’s support of the Massachusetts health care law is not a deal breaker for Summers, who added that he (Summers) was “fully supportive of the health-care exchanges here in Colorado, and he told Rep. Amy Stephens that his “name would have been on that bill if it was introduced.”

“As Republicans go, Romney was doing what he had to do in Massachusetts,” Summers said. “It’s baggage that he’ll have to overcome, just like Tom Tancredo had to do with immigration. But Tom didn’t want to.”

Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck is remaining neutral.

“I am staying neutral in the presidential race for a while,” Buck told me. “I am the national co-chair for the Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. We are trying to get candidates together for a presidential debate sometime this fall, and the leadership is staying neutral until we can get that accomplished.”

Pestiferous Independence Institute President Jon Caldara, who was not listed among Romney’s supporters in 2008, gave me his opinion on Romney:

“My guess is, it’s going to be very, very difficult for him to win support in a GOP primary given his support for what is essentially Obamacare,” said Caldara. I don’t know how he dislodges himself for that. On the bright side, he’s got great hair, and for that I am most envious.”

Caldara cohort Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute added:

“I would say that Romney’s chances of winning would be much, much higher if Romneycare did not exist, especially because Obamacare will certainly be one of the biggest issues in the 2012 Presidential election, and perhaps the biggest issue,” Kopel emailed me. “The Sunday that the U.S. House voted for Obamacare, the biggest political loser in the nation was Mitt Romney.”

President Barack Obama has been praising Romney’s health care law of late, reportedly saying in a Feb. speech at the National Governors Association:

“I know that many of you have asked for flexibility for your states under this law. In fact, I agree with Mitt Romney, who recently said he’s proud of what he accomplished on health care in Massachusetts and supports giving states the power to determine their own health care solutions. He’s right. Alabama is not going to have exactly the same needs as Massachusetts or California or North Dakota. We believe in that flexibility.”

Yesterday the DNC distributed a photo of Romney signing the health care law-with Sen. Ted Kennedy in the photo looking on approvingly. Democrats have also been eating birthday cake and pointing out that today is the five-year anniversary of the enactment of the Mass health-care bill.

Romney did not mention his health care law yesterday, when he announced the formation of his presidential exploratory committee, but he’s said previously that he supports the rights of states to craft their own health care laws.

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog

Doug Bruce, Author of TABOR, Indicted For Tax Evasion

As the AP reports, who will weep for the author of Colorado’s iconic Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights? How ironic is a charge of tax evasion against Bruce, really? How much harder will this make it for the TABOR movement in other states?

Colorado anti-tax crusader Doug Bruce has been indicted for allegedly failing to pay his taxes.

Attorney General John Suthers announced Friday that a statewide grand jury returned the indictment against Bruce on Thursday.

He’s accused of failing to pay taxes on income earned during three years by moving money into a non-profit he founded.

Something tells us we’ll be savoring this irony, and talking about what might finally be Bruce’s much-anticipated fall, for some time. Even if smart local Republicans ditched him long ago.

(Mug shot public domain, courtesy Colorado Department of Law)

Backstab: Stephens Spikes Health Care Exchange?

We’ve been following the strange case of Majority Leader Amy Stephens this session, specifically her decision to sponsor two seemingly at-odds pieces of health care legislation: Senate Bill 200, the bill to implement a health care insurance exchange pursuant to federal health reform passed last year, as well as a “Tea Party” inspired bill that would radically opt Colorado entirely out of the federal health care system in favor of an “interstate compact.”

We, like many others, found the apparent contradictions between the sponsorship of these bills to be interesting, but we were assured by people close to the debate that Stephens was participating in the health care exchange bill in good faith. Stephens herself said as much, and that the health care exchange was a “free market” component of federal health care reform she could support while trying to undermine it out of the other side of her mouth.

Well folks, if a letter we were forwarded today from Stephens to the Democratic co-sponsor of Senate Bill 200, Sen. Betty Boyd is accurate, Stephens’ true colors are revealed:

On this point let me be clear: Obamacare is unconstitutional, and it is bad public policy.  I applaud Attorney General Suthers and his colleagues around the nation for taking the fight to the courts.  I have supported legislation in the past to legislatively opt Colorado from its big government vices.

That brings us back to SB 200, and the fear that the health exchange legislation might be unwittingly used to support the implementation of Obamacare.  There is only one way to solve this problem, and that is to make absolutely sure that the healthcare exchanges are implemented only after the State of Colorado opts-out of Obamacare.  Specifically, I am requesting that the Committee add the following provision to the legislation.  

“The provisions of SB 200 shall not be implemented, nor shall they have force or effect, until the State of Colorado requests, and the federal government grants, a full waiver from all terms, restrictions, and requirements in the federal Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act of 2010, and all rules, regulations and administrative guidelines issued thereto. [Pols emphasis]  The Governor of the State of Colorado shall seek such waiver within 60 days of the enactment of this Act.”

Looks like that cynical voice in the back of our heads was right once again. It really doesn’t matter if it was always Stephens’ (or somebody else’s) plan to spike this bill with a big partisan splash, or if this is in response to the “Tea Party” ambush she experienced last week.

Either way, if we’d been asked to bet money the moment we heard she was involved, this is the outcome we would have bet on. Read the full text below, and tell us if you don’t agree.

March 31, 2011

Dear Senator Boyd:

The discussion surrounding SB 200 (the Health Benefit Exchange) is proof positive that the enactment of Obamacare has set the American debate about healthcare backward by light years.  For years, conservatives at all levels have touted the free market virtues of healthcare exchanges as a way to give private citizens greater purchasing power and greater access to private health insurance.  The concept of individuals banding together to cut the best healthcare deal possible for themselves and their family has been a staple of the House Republican platform for many, many years.

But enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – otherwise known as Obamacare – has so thoroughly contaminated the public discourse about the nation’s healthcare system that even simple and common-sense ideas like healthcare exchanges have become toxic and fraught with public policy peril.  This is more than a symbolic concern.  Many of my constituents and a few of my colleagues have told me that, while exchanges are themselves sensible public policy, the potential linkage of this legislation to Obamacare is far more damaging than whatever benefit is derived from the bill.  Some have worried that, even though the exchanges created in my bill are totally independent of Obamacare, that future legislators or Governors (or even the federal government) could hijack this local control measure to implement Obamacare.  It is not in the plain language of the bill, but after all the over-reaches that government has engaged in of late, it is an issue that I want to settle in this legislation in the clearest possible terms.

On this point let me be clear: Obamacare is unconstitutional, and it is bad public policy.  I applaud Attorney General Suthers and his colleagues around the nation for taking the fight to the courts.  I have supported legislation in the past to legislatively opt Colorado from its big government vices.

That brings us back to SB 200, and the fear that the health exchange legislation might be unwittingly used to support the implementation of Obamacare.  There is only one way to solve this problem, and that is to make absolutely sure that the healthcare exchanges are implemented only after the State of Colorado opts-out of Obamacare.  Specifically, I am requesting that the Committee add the following provision to the legislation.  

“The provisions of SB 200 shall not be implemented, nor shall they have force or effect, until the State of Colorado requests, and the federal government grants, a full waiver from all terms, restrictions, and requirements in the federal Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act of 2010, and all rules, regulations and administrative guidelines issued thereto.  The Governor of the State of Colorado shall seek such waiver within 60 days of the enactment of this Act.”

In as much as I believe that healthcare exchanges are a good idea, in order to be a good representative of my district, I must ensure that these state exchanges are not hijacked for the unconstitutional purposes of implementing the federal healthcare legislation.

With this amendment, Colorado would become one of the first states in the nation to take-up President Obama on his recent offer to allow States to opt-out of his healthcare bill.  For his part, Governor Hickenlooper expressed openness to the idea of an opt-out.  In exchange for the bold step of opting out of Obamacare, the State of Colorado will have healthcare exchanges that help patients get and receive affordable and reliable healthcare.  It is a win-win for the State of Colorado.

I strongly encourage the Committee to accept the above language.  If the Committee chooses not to add this important provision and still forwards the bill to the House, I will work all of the votes in my caucus to ensure that the Obamacare opt-out provision is added in the House of Representatives prior to returning to the Senate.

I continue to believe that healthcare exchanges are a common sense policy, just as conservatives have advocated for many, many years.  And with the addition of the above provision, they can be implemented into law without federal intrusion, instruction or interference.

Thank you for your consideration.

House Majority Leader Amy Stephens


Battle Lines Forming, Suspicions Growing Over “Payday Payback”

As the Colorado Independent’s Joseph Boven reports, a curious disagreement over what happened last year with the passage, then implementation, of long-sought legislation to reform the controversial payday lending industry in this state:

The battle over payday loan fees will strain partisan loyalties at the Legislature again this year as new legislation was introduced Friday in the House. While former payday loan bill sponsor Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, said the new legislation would roll back last year’s improvements, Senate sponsor of this year’s bill Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, said the new bill does exactly what he meant to do last year.

“It is doing what I thought we had done a year ago,” Heath told the Colorado Independent. Heath, who says he remains interested in creating a fair marketplace for payday lenders and customers, said “the Attorney General’s office misinterpreted what I thought I had negotiated.”

Ferrendino wholeheartedly disagreed with the move made by Heath to strip what he said was the heart of his bill.

“[The new legislation] basically guts the intent of the bill. One of the main reasons that we [made origination fees refundable] is that it disincentivizes the lender to to churn the loan,” Ferrandino said…

A chart, provided by Coloradans for Payday Lending Reform, shows the cost of a $300 loan held for 30 days would increase from $21.75 under current law to $71.25 under the new legislation. When figured in terms of APR the loan jumps from 86 percent to 289 percent.

Ferrandino and others fear that allowing lenders to keep the origination fee regardless of how soon a loan is paid back will cause them to develop loan products that would lead to individuals returning time and again for loans.

With all due respect to Sen. Rollie Heath, our recollection of events here solidly backs up Rep. Mark Ferrandino. Last August, the implementation of House Bill 10-1351 became heated after Attorney General John Suthers published draft rules that would have allowed payday lenders to keep the full amount of this “origination fee,” even if the loan was paid off early. As we and many others noted at the time, this would have had the effect of making payday loans more expensive to consumers, not less, and left “reform” of the industry in a state that actually increased their profits. Ultimately, after exhaustive hearings (and contributions to Suthers’ reelection campaign from the industry became an issue), final rules were adopted that made this fee refundable on a pro rata basis. Which, as Rep. Ferrandino says above, was always the intent.

Our interest in payday lending reform legislation, as we’ve said from the outset, stems from the endless payday lending spam we battled against for years in our comment threads. This spam has mostly stopped since then, but any industry that relies on advertising methods that sleazy and irritating–not to mention the foolishness of spamming the state’s biggest political blog while reform legislation was debated–deserves what it gets.

In any event, the payday lending industry has not gone out of business in Colorado under these new rules. Consumers now have the time they need to pay off these loans without plunging back into cyclical debt, and the pro-rated origination fee gives them an incentive to pay them off early if they can. The only reason to apply this “fix” is to increase payday lenders’ bottom lines, on what remains the highest-interest financing legally available in Colorado.

And make no mistake–whatever Rollie Heath’s interest, the payday loan industry knows who they are counting on to pass this legislation. They knew a year ago, in fact. As we discussed in detail last fall, and the Independent doesn’t let the reader forget today:

ACE Cash Express, headquartered in Irving, TX, contributed $26,000 to both the Republican Senate Majority Fund, LLC and Coloradans for a Better Future (CBF), a 527 group registered under Andy Nickel who also was the registered agent of Colorado Citizens for Accountable Government (CCAG). Last year CBF received $50,000 from the Senate Majority Fund, LLC.

The majority of CBF’s money was used for two advertisement expenditures to Strategic Media Placement LLC.

As the Colorado Independent reported, CCAG sent out mailers accusing Democratic House Rep. John Soper of wanting to release sex offenders from prison and implied that Soper would turn them loose in the district’s school yards…

Here are the Democratic co-sponsors of House Bill 1290: Jim Riesberg, Ed Casso, and Sue Schafer in the House, and Heath, Mary Hodge, and Lois Tochtrop in the Senate. These are the Democrats who are joining forces with Republicans Dave Balmer, Larry Liston, Bob Gardner, Chris Holbert, Jim Kerr, Ed Massey, B.J. Nikkel, Amy Stephens, and Keith Swedfeger in the House, and Senate Republicans Greg Brophy and Mike Kopp, to give payday lenders a payback at the expense of the state’s most economically vulnerable.

The Republicans at least have an excuse. Perhaps John Soper will ask these Dems for theirs.

Gessler’s Enforcer?

A new report from the Colorado Statesman’s Marianne Goodland about the ethics complaint against Senate Majority Leader John Morse, and the organization that filed it, the Colorado Government Accountability Project (CoGAP), has got to make you wonder:

The request for an ethics investigation was filed with the Senate on March 10 by the Colorado Government Accountability Project (CoGAP), a conservative non-profit that investigates alleged Democratic wrong-doing. The founder of CoGAP, Stephanie Cegielski, is a former employee of the Secretary of State’s office who is tied to Republican activists, conservative blogs, and the current Secretary of State. To date, CoGAP, which claims it is non-partisan, has filed complaints only against Democrats or organizations linked to Democrats…

Cegielski has been linked in the past to Scott Gessler, prior to his election as Secretary of State. In a complaint filed last year against then-Secretary of State Bernie Buescher, Gessler admitted last year he may have had “input” into the complaint, filed by Robert McGuire, Cegielski’s attorney, although the complaint was actually filed on behalf of Nickelette Bigham-Gullette, an Adams County GOP activist. McGuire told The Statesman that Bigham-Gullette was “familiar” with the work of CoGAP on Buescher. In addition, Cegielski told The Statesman she had spoken to McGuire about the issue, although she claimed not to know Bigham-Gullette.

Cegielski’s ties to Gessler, the original letter of complaint, and the timing of the complaint also is raising eyebrows at the Capitol. The original press release, dated Feb. 23, was half about Morse’s per diem and the other half criticizing Morse for going after funds in the Secretary of State’s office. The press release pointed out that Morse had sponsored amendments to cut the budgets of Attorney General John Suthers and Gessler, and during debate on Senate Bill 11-164, said Morse “chastised Secretary of State Scott Gessler for his claims that he could not live on a salary of $68,500. Morse went on to say that Gessler ‘needed to tighten his belt the way ordinary Coloradans have.’ Sen. Morse has been quick to criticize others while collecting state money at a rate superior to his fellow members of leadership,” the press release said.

Cegielski said the timing of the complaint was “coincidental”…

The other interesting finding that Goodland makes in this story is the fact that CoGAP’s complaint against Morse is riddled with exonerating error–this appears to be a much weaker complaint than the precedent-setter against ex-House Minority Leader Joe Stengel in 2005 (which was dismissed). We’ve heard that CoGAP has filed a number of Colorado Open Records Act requests recently, so far as we know all against Democrats–so the first thing to check when they roll out their next high-dudgeon complaint might well be whether the defending party has irritated Secretary of State Scott Gessler, and how recently.

Stapleton not seeking formal AG opinion on moonlighting

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

One of the things I try to do as a media critic is keep track of what officials tell journalists they’re going to do. And if promises made aren’t reported on, I ask about them.

For example, there’s the dangling promise Scott McInnis made to The Denver Post about clearing up his name months ago, but tempting as it is, that’s not what I’m returning to now.

Today I’m writing about State Treasurer Walker Stapleton’s promise to 7News in January that he’d seek an opinion from Attorney General John Suthers about whether it’s ok for him to moonlight for his former company.

You recall Stapleton’s moonlighting job would add as much as a quarter-time-plus job to his life and bring in, at $250 per hour, up to a nifty $150,000 on the side, making The Denver Post wonder about a “conflict of time.”

I asked 7News content producer/presenter Marshall Zelinger whether Suthers had produced an opinion on Stapleton’s moonlighting. Zelinger emailed me that Stapleton spokesman Brett Johnson told him that Stapleton never asked for an official opinion from Suthers’ office.

Zelinger told me that he understood from Stapleton, during his Jan. interview with him, that he was going to seek an official opinion, and that’s why Zelinger stated in his piece that Stapleton had “asked the attorney general’s office to make sure it’s OK to moonlight afterhours.”

Zelinger contacted Suthers’ office and confirmed that Stapleton never sought an opinion.

However, in January, Politics Daily reported that Stapleton had talked about the issue with Suthers but did not ask for a formal ruling.

John Suthers, Walker Stapleton back Ryan Call for CO GOP chair

Ryan Call is picking up some of the most important endorsements possible in his run for chair of the Colorado Republican party, according to this news release:

Attorney General Suthers and State Treasurer Stapleton join Legislators and Party Leaders from Across the State in Endorsing Ryan Call for State GOP Chairman

Denver – Ryan Call is pleased to announce his first list of campaign supporters.

“I am truly honored for the support of these Republican leaders from all over Colorado,” said Call. “From fellow county party activists to statewide elected officials, the range of experience these supporters possess underscores my intent to work with both local and elected leaders to gain large Republican victories in 2012.”

The following are supporters of Ryan Call for Colorado Republican State Party Chairman:

Attorney General John Suthers

State Treasurer Walker Stapleton

CU Regent Sue Sharkey

State Senator Nancy Spence

State Senator Ellen Roberts

State Senator Jean White

State Representative/Assistant Majority Leader Mark Waller

State Representative Bob Gardner

State Representative Spencer Swalm

District Attorney Mark Hurlbert

District Attorney Russ Wasley

Congressional District 1 Chairman Gabriel Schwartz

Congressional District 2 Chairman/Summit County Chairman Debra Irvine

Congressional District 3 Chairman Ralph Walchle

Former Arapahoe County Chairman/Bonus Member Dave Kerber

Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder/Bonus Member Nancy Doty

Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder Pam Anderson

El Paso County Treasurer/Former Clerk and Recorder/Bonus Member Bob Balink

Former El Paso County Chairman Wayne Williams

Former Adams County Chairman Clark Bolser

Former Arapahoe County Chairman Nathan Chambers

Former State Republican Party Chairman Don Bain

Former State Republican Party Chairman Bob Martinez

State Republican Party Treasurer/Former State Solicitor General Richard Westfall


On radio, Suthers vows to fight so gay married couples don’t get CO benefits

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Today’s Denver Post reported that Attorney General John Suthers didn’t have much to say about the Obama Administration’s decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

But Suthers discussed Obama’s decision for about 15 minutes on KOA’s Mike Rosen show this morning.

He told Rosen he doesn’t want Colorado to be forced to recognize gay marriages, performed in states like Massachusetts. This, he said, might require our state to give Colorado’s marriage benefits to gay married couples who move here from states like Mass. Suthers said on the radio:

“We’re going to defend Colorado’s right to say, this is what we think marriage is, and we would not like to have to recognize marriages in other states because that flows for Colorado benefits too, Mike. We’re not just talking about federal benefits. There are statuses of being married that have advantages in Colorado law too.”

Rosen failed to ask Suthers what Colorado marriage benefits he didn’t want same-sex married people to have. It was my understanding that DOMA, under section 3, tried to prevent gay married couples from receiving federal marriage benefits, like being able to be buried together in veterans’ cemeteries.

So I asked Suthers’ Communications Director, Mike Saccone, which Colorado marriage benefits Suthers was referring to:

“What he was thinking of was the joint filing of taxes,” Saccone told me. “To the extent there are other benefits that mention marriage, Amendment 43 [which bans gay marriage in Colorado] could affect them too.”

Obama’s DOMA Decision Affects Colorado

(Suthers loses his cover – promoted by Colorado Pols)

President Obama has decided to direct the Justice Department to stop defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act against challenges in federal courts, challenges in which Republican Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has controversially filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state defending the law despite the fact that Section 3 applies to the rights of same sex marriage couples only with respect to the federal government.

Before this, there was a symbolic difference, but no practical difference, between a civil unions bill, like one being considered in Colorado’s General Assembly this sesion (SB 11-172), and a same sex marriage bill (which Colorado’s constitution currently prohibits at Article II, Section 31: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” added by Initiative in the 2006 election).  Now, legally married same sex couples will have far more rights under federal law that same sex couples with civil unions (at least until they are legally married in a state that grants same sex marriages to non-residents).

Learning a lesson from the decision of California’s leaders in the Prop 8 litigation, where the state refused to appeal a trial court finding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional (the standing of the ballot measure proponents to appeal in that case has been certified to the California Supreme Court), President Obama has directed the Department of Justice to stop defending the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Justice Department has said:

The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman: . . . The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. . . . [T]he Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ‘ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President’s and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3. . . .

Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government, when applying federal law, shall disregard legal state law marriages that are not between one man and one woman.

The key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act state that:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The decision does not by itself affect Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act which provides that the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution does not extend to same sex marriages. Thus, state, local, territorial and Indian tribe governments are not federally required to honor same sex marriages that are valid in other states.

Will President Obama’s Position Be Sustained In the Courts?

President Obama’s decision is likely to stick. Generally, the only parties with standing to participate in a case where a same sex couple alleges that their rights have been violated by Section 3 of DOMA are the federal government and the couple(s) bringing the lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court, particularly in recent years, has construed taxpayer standing (alleging the federal funds are used for an unconstitutional purpose) and citizen standing (alleging that the federal government is acting unconstitutionally) very narrowly.

I’ll have to look later at the standing of members of Congress to speak for the federal government in litigation or intervene in lawsuits attacking the constitutionality of a statute. The general rule is that the Justice Department is the sole representative of the U.S. position. But, federal courts have the authority, although not necessarily the obligation, to appoint a lawyer to argue for a position like that constitutionality of a law or the rights of pro se parties, that is not represented by a party in court.

To speak for Congress, per se, or even one house of Congress, would ordinarily require the passage of a resolution by Congress or at least a house of Congress. But, members of Congress who sponsored or voted for legislation might be viewed by a court as suitable intervenors to argue to a court for a position that no party to the suit is willing to advance.

On balance, it seems unlikely that Congressional advocacy will cause a Court to rule in favor of the Constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA when the Justice Department and legally married same sex couples are both parties in the case and arguing that it is unconstitutional.

An IRS ruling last year holding that domestic partners in California were entiteld to split income for federal income tax purposes due to community property principles foreshadowed the changing position of the Obama administration on this issue.


From a practical perspective, some of the main consequences of the decision are that gay married couples can file tax returns with married filing jointly status (and receive all of the benefits of married couples for estate taxation purposes), that same sex married couples qualify for federal immigration law treatment of spouses, and that same sex married couples can receive Social Security survivors benefits and spousal Veteran’s benefits. The Veteran’s benefits issue looms large now that Congress has repealed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

Also, while not quite spelled out by this ruling, the implication seems to be that a same sex couple that is legally married in any state will thereafter be treated as married by the federal government, even if the state in which they live does not recognize same sex marriage. Since some states do recognize same sex marriage (and allow non-residents to be married in their state), that means that same sex couples that go to those states to be married and then return to their home states can receive all of the federal government benefits of marriage.

Another tricky issue is the impact that the decision on Section 3 of DOMA will have on state administered programs that are funded by the federal government and governed by federal rules, such as Medicaid (where marriage matters because a spouse’s assets are relevant to eligibility for Medicaid financed nursing home care) and TANF (i.e. the main mean tested welfare program).

In addition to undermining the efforts of state governments to deny federal benefits of marriage to same sex couples in their own states, the determination also increases the stakes in the civil union v. gay marriage debate in the states. Until now, this has been a strictly symbolic debate. A civil union bill that creates as the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law, but doesn’t call it marriage (such as one pending in the Colorado General Assembly right now) would not constitute marriage under federal law, while one that calls the relationship marriage would have that effect.

Thus, states are left with multiple options including: (1) disallow both civil unions and same sex marriages, but acknowledge that couples with legal sex sex marriages from other states may receive federal treatment as married, (2) allow civil unions but not same sex marriage, which gives copules state law marriage rights but denies couples federal treatment as married until they get legally married in another state, or (3) allow same sex marriage.

Also, while Section 2 of DOMA does not require states to recognize same sex marriages from other states, it also does not prohibit them from doing so out of comity. In many states, the issue of when comity should recognize other state’s legal acts when the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution does not require it has been left to the courts rather than being made a subject of legislation. Thus, judges could choose, influenced but not bound by the Section 3 of DOMA interpretation, to honor out of state same sex marriage even though the constitution and federal law do not require them to do so.

Civil unions have been a sensible legislative objective for same sex couples in many states, like Colorado, where the state constitution has been amended to prohibit same sex marriage, but not more broadly to prohibit civil unions or domestic partnerships of same sex couples as well. But, there will be increasing pressure to actually call this marriage legislatively, and as courts evaluate the issue.