President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 14, 2010 05:49 PM UTC

Also Known As "Something To Hide"

  • 63 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: Run for it! The Denver Post’s Chuck Plunkett hands McInnis spokesman Sean Duffy the shovel, this is absolutely surreal:

I’m surprised, really, that McInnis didn’t see this coming and be ready for it.

Now he’s given Hickenlooper – who is providing his returns for the last 10 years by next Friday – yet another chance to look more gubernatorial…

“The key point was we never said he wasn’t going to release his tax returns ever,” Duffy said. “He may indeed. They are very complex tax returns. At some point he may indeed.”

And: “It’s under review now. Obviously we’re not trying to bother CPAs on the 15th of April.”

Duffy called The Post’s request for the returns an “arbitrary deadline,” and said we were engaging in the creation of “straw men” to take down.

“It’s really not that big a deal to him,” Duffy said of his boss. “We kind of view it a little bit as a tempest in a teapot.”

Uh, yeah. Maybe it was.

As the Denver Post reports:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis has refused to release his tax returns, a position that breaks from routine campaign practices in Colorado and nationally.

“He’s already disclosed what he’s required to publicly,” said spokesman Sean Duffy. “At this point he’s not prepared to turn over . . . income taxes.”

GOP candidate Dan Maes also rejected The Denver Post’s request for his tax returns. Democratic candidate John Hickenlooper has pledged to release 10 years of his returns by the end of next week.

Media outlets routinely request tax returns from candidates because they reveal more than mere income: They show sources of income and potential conflicts of interest, charitable giving, the use of tax shelters, how candidates manage their own money and how their tax rates compare with the average taxpayer’s.

Open-government advocates say it’s especially important that wealthy candidates, who usually have a multitude of investments, be forthcoming with their taxes.

In the case of Scott McInnis this does indeed look bad, in fact his failure to disclose–given his known wealth, insider connections, and high-profile lobbying clients–is sure to invite more questions that a simple disclosure would hurt him. Then again, maybe not? Back in 2004, McInnis’ wife’s W-2 forms, as you may recall, got him into some hot water.

As for Dan Maes, it’s tough to get overly worked up about his failure to disclose personal financial information, since what we know of his campaign finances suggests he can barely keep a free checking account open.

UPDATE: Here’s a blast from the past some of you will appreciate–a Denver Post story from autumn 1996, about a new ad from Senate candidate Wayne Allard (managed, mind you, by our own Dick Wadhams), hitting opponent Tom Strickland for not disclosing his tax returns:

The GOP’s new ad declares the Senate race to be “about trust.” It notes that Allard released his income-tax returns to the public and calls Strickland, a Denver lawyer, “a lobbyist who’s made millions yet refuses to release his complete tax returns to the public.”

“Why?” the ad continues. “Maybe it’s because Strickland’s firm lobbied to build a medical waste incinerator in Denver. Or maybe because he represented a company fined millions for polluting our air.

“Tom Strickland’s earned plenty,” the spot concludes. “But has he earned our trust?”

Funny how you can change “Senate” to “governor,” Allard to Hickenlooper, Strickland to McInnis…and you don’t have to change anything else. One “lawyer-lobbyist” to another, see?

Tweet
Share

Comments

63 thoughts on “Also Known As “Something To Hide””

  1. Within 15 days of filing to run for office, every candidate for state office sets their mode of reporting their personal financial data. Candidates can either file an extensive financial disclosure statement or turn over tax returns. Informed reporters turn to this source!

      1. Tax forms wouldn’t pick up all the individual W-2s, but the financial disclosures might identify large clients. Doubt Abrarmoff got W-2s filed this year-He is better off in his new residence.

      2. I have yet to dig into the companies that certain mmutal funds represent for certain candidates.

        A lot of my opposition research hasn’t been used. It never hurts to build files on oppoenents, however.

    2. Hickenlooper has promised to show the last decade of his records. Personally, I would like to know what McInnis’ records looked like when he was a Congressman.

      1. I would like to see how much he “generously” gave to the less fortunate. (RW Mcinnis talking point)

        Any bets that Huge chunks of Mcinnis’s wealth is “missing” in offshore accounts?

  5. from your hymnals: McInnis is all bad and St. Hick is up there with St. Theresa… On second thought let’s turn the page. That one is getting old.

    1. If the unmustached one has nothing to hide then he shouldn’t worry about a little warrant-less wiretapping.  Oops wrong “nothing to hide” rationale but maybe apt since McInnis really does have nothing to hide and is probably the most ethical lobbyist Washington DC ever produced.  I’m not sure how you have determined that little Scotty is geting picked on while Hickenlooper is somehow elevated to be above the fray when all Hickenlooper did was state his intention to allow public access his returns.  If Hickenlooper releases his tax statements then it might say something about Hickenloopers commitment to open and transparent government but McInnis not showing anything more than the absolute minimum doesn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t believe in transparency.  It could just be a lag between beliefs and practices.

    3. Environmentalists have been calling him out for his luc warm comments on the O&G regs.

      However, I think this is a big issue. If Hick feels comfortable making the last ten years of his tax returns, then McInnis should follow in kind. Otherwise, he opens himself up to this kind of thing.

      1. should compel McInnis to “follow in kind.” Just because Hickenlooper has nothing to hide, McInnis shouldn’t have to reach back that far. But McInnis should do what all the other Senate and gubernatorial candidates have routinely done in Colorado or come up with a good explanation why not.

        1. I tried to release them, but I have a rogue staffer holding the docs in a locked file folder, and he won’t release them until I change my hair color.

                1. They were inadvertently shredded by Rose Mary my wife (while on payroll) as she leaned over the desk.  Something about a mistake with a foot pedal.  

      1. You’ll notice that when these potentially embarrassing stories pop up, if she can’t offer a substantial defense, she’ll attempt to divert and deflect.

        If you look through her old posts, you’d get the impression that it’s a bad thing to be a well-liked, successful, scientist/businessman/politician. Now it appears that she has added  transparency to that list.

      2. It’s an issue that comes up in every statewide Colorado campaign, so it can’t come as a surprise to the Scooter camp.

        If he won’t produce, then the questions will come. The junkies will gossip and it’ll be a repeated line in news stories.

        As in, “McInnis, who has refused to make his tax returns public,…”

      3. I agree. But if this is such a compelling issue on which to hinge an election (and it deserves a news story line), why isn’t the current leg leadership changing that particular election rule on late bill status while their mucking around with the others?  Scott has filed with SOS so if he and Lori have decided to keep their taxes private.  I respect their decision.  For me there are so damn many more compelling issues right now that this seems petty by comparison.

        2. Scooter made the decision to run for governor with all the public scrutiny that goes with it. Sure, he can “choose” to keep his tax returns private, but then he can expect the critics to come out of the woodwork.

          What the legislature does or does not require has nothing to do with it.

          I suspect he’s “choosing” to keep them private for the same reason Strickland did. Lobbying is not a business for the faint of heart, and details can be messy.

      4. As a career government worker, I wouldn’t expect the release of a tax return to be a big deal to you, but for business people, especially high earners, releasing this infomation could have adverse business consequences.  I would never release a tax return.  

        1. McInnis isn’t a businessman. He’s the career Lawyer/Lobbyist/Politician.

          Are you trying to pull the ol’ “McInnis is just a small businessman” charade?

          In case you didn’t notice, Hick is a real small (but highly successful) businessman, who is releasing his returns.

          Always fun to see your standard, GOP shill, defense of the indefensible, “Robert Jordan” 😉

        2. You are an uber-rightie that is a “career government worker?”

          Why is my head pulsating?

          You take tax money for your work but hate, I’m presuming by your stances that I recall, hate taxes?  

          No fucking wonder we have such a disdain for righties.  And a word: hypocrite.

           

            1. Unlikely “Robert Jordan” is a government worker.  My bet is he’s a paid GOP flack.  Who knows? Maybe DickWad signs his checks.

              There’s never any real passion in his posts that I’ve seen in the past year or two.  Not like he’s a true believer or anything.

        3. You have no grasp on reality.

          You live and work in a parallel universe in which nobody worries about getting laid off and everyone has health care for life.

          You might never release a tax return.  I accept that.  But your career depends on never pissing anyone off, and you accomplish that by never actually doing anything.

          Thanks for your service.

            1. But actually, “Robert Jordan”‘s tortured syntax has everyone a little deceived as to his point.  

              As SXP pointed out, the actual semantics of his statement goes like this:

              As a career government worker, … you

              The problem of course, is who is the “You” he’s referring to.

              But then with anything he says, does it really matter?

          2. I was a career government worker.  And I worked hard, pissed off plenty of people, lots of my fellow state employees got laid off, and when I retired I couldn’t afford PERACare so my poor husband had to get a job with benefits.  Finally, I would release my tax returns; they might be embarrassing, but people might take pity on me and buy me lunch.

            1. No to mention, it would become immediately clear I used to work for Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, thus making my politics suspect.

              I did piss people off- over, under and around me.  Even pissed off some taxpayers. And the California congressional delegation once or twice. The aerospace workers and I got along ok- the machinists not as much. I could go on, but what’s the point? It was just gubbmint work.

  6. The fact that McInnis is refusing to disclose his tax returns must mean that said returns do not exist!

    Therefore, he must have not paid his taxes. But that would be illegal.

    Wait, I know! He obviously has money and must be earning some sort of income, but has not filed his tax returns. Perhaps he just hasn’t filed his Colorado tax returns…. because he’s not a legal resident!!

    That’s it!! He’s not qualified to be Governor! Now we just need a clever name that ends with “ers”

  7. I just read this:


    Republican gubernatorial candidates Scott McInnis and Dan Maes are bridling today at a Denver Post report that calls them out for not releasing their tax returns.

    In phone interviews I’ve been told that the candidates may very well just might make them available at some point in time or another. Perhaps.

    They said so because our editorial board is weighing-in with a request that they release the returns in an editorial tomorrow.

    . . . .

    I’m surprised, really, that McInnis didn’t see this coming and be ready for it.

    Now he’s given Hickenlooper – who is providing his returns for the last 10 years by next Friday – yet another chance to look more gubernatorial. (Again, I just love that word: Gubernatorial.)

    Look at this contrast.

    Here’s the quote from Hickenlooper’s spokesman, George Merritt, on explaining why the Denver mayor and former brewpub entrepreneur has agreed to turn over his returns.

    “We have every interest in being as transparent as possible. It’s a fairly common practice.”

    Admire the nice, clean lines of the statement. Wonder in the sunshine of such a stance. Marvel at the lack of equivocation.

    Then consider the contortions of Sean Duffy, the spokesman for McInnis.

    “The key point was we never said he wasn’t going to release his tax returns ever,” Duffy said. “He may indeed. They are very complex tax returns. At some point he may indeed

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/th…

    How does this latest quote from the McInnis campaign square with that quoted above in the original post?

  8. From a story in the 1995 LA Times, “Their House Away From Home: Republican reps say sleeping in their offices is efficient. Democrats call it a gimmick.”

    …..Besides Kingston, Sanford and Hoekstra, confirmed congressional campers are Bob Inglis of South Carolina, Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) and Scott L. Klug (R-Wis.).

    All are male, young (under 45), evidently have flexible spines, and have families who, following the trend for newer members, have chosen not to accompany them to Washington.

    Coincidentally, all are also Republicans. While most say they are sleeping in for reasons of efficiency–they can work even longer hours–there’s an element of mortification of the flesh that they evidently hope will impress their constituents next election day.

    “My constituents are getting more out of me than if I go out with lobbyists every night,” Kingston said. “The people of Georgia did not send me here to be a Washingtonian.”

    Or are they just being cheap?

    How did McInnis go from “cheap” to “complex tax returns?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

62 readers online now

Newsletter

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