U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 07, 2007 09:16 PM UTC
7 Comments
Loading ...
I hope the case gets a warm reception from an activist judge, and he/she overturns it.
Any information on what they are basing this on? Sounds like the most ridiculous thing ever. How can restricting the ability to recieve gifts be a First Amendment issue?
I don’t think the 1st Amd. Council is arguing that there is a 1st Amendment right to RECEIVE gifts. I believe the argument is that restrictions on GIVING gifts is unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment (not that I agree with that argument).
The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo stated that “the First Amendment simply cannot tolerate [the] restriction upon the freedom of a candidate to speak without legislative limit on behalf of his own candidacy’ whether the source of his money is personal wealth or funds raised from legal contributions.”
Of course, this argument deals with a candidate’s ability to spend money, not a lobbyist. The argument would be that a candidate’s right to advocate for a political end should not endure greater protection that an ordinary citizen; or, I guess a lobbyist.
Again, I’m not saying I agree with this money=speech argument, but it will be interesting to see how the court applies the U.S. Supreme Court ruling…if at all.
…until I can read the parties’ briefs. There seems to be a compelling public policy objective behind it, and it is tough to imagine that the right to bribe a public official is in any way protected by the First Amendment. But the Mullarkey Court is so corrupt that anything is possible — the Constitution be damned.
Implementing legislation for Amendment 41 has been stalled in the General Assembly. Why?
If implementing legislation is passed, Polis can take credit for anti-corruption Amendment 41 in his run for CD-2.
If implementing legislation is not passed, Fitz-Gerald can point to Amendment 41 as an example of Polis’ inept leadership by passing an unworkable amendement.
The First Amendment Council looks like a group of Democratic movers and shakers (McGihon, Dubofsky, etc.). IMH — but cynical — O, the lawsuit sure smells like an internal Democratic party fist fight for bragging rights in the upcoming CD-2 primary.
….which had the blessing of all the legislative leaders, Common Cause, and the Polis coalition.
The FAC is arguing now that SB 210 is contrary to Amend. 41, which the FAC has to argue because SB 210 takes away many of its arguments against Amend. 41.
The last time I looked the implementing legislation was stalled. Sounds like that’s changed.
Still sounds like an internal Democratic fist fight (Polis v Fitz-Gerald) given the folks involved. ‘tho. Republican movers and shakers (Wadhams, McElhany, May, Penry, Suthers, etc.) don’t seem to be publicly engaged in this fight.