March 10, 2011 09:01 PM UTC

Scott Gessler Was a Bad Choice For Secretary of State, Part CMLXVII

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

The Colorado Independent’s David O. Williams reports:

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, according to the Denver Post, will be proposing a new set of rules that would waive or reduce a significant number of campaign finance fines for political committees that fail to file disclosure reports…

“If someone is willfully blowing it off [Pols emphasis], yes, that merits a higher fine,” Gessler told the Post. Gessler represented a group called the Colorado Independent Auto Dealers Association that had its fines for failing to file reports dropped from more than $504,000 to just under $8,500 – a story that came up during his campaign last fall but failed to gain traction with voters.

And Gessler also represented a group called the Colorado League of Taxpayers, incorporated by Republican operative Scott Shires, that was hit with a more than $7,000 fine for failing to register its electioneering activities in a 2008 Garfield County commissioners race that pitted oil and gas interests against two Democrats who ultimately lost. Fines in that case grew to more than $8,000 and went unpaid for years. [Pols emphasis]

Shires was the original registered agent for Western Tradition Partnership, a conservative, pro-energy nonprofit active for years in a slew of elections across the West. But Gessler’s law firm, which earlier this year he tried to continue working for even while serving as secretary of state, took over the registration of Western Tradition, which was sharply criticized for its campaign tactics during the past election cycle.

Of course, we, like you and everybody else in the state, are obliged to give the newly-elected Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt; having not actually seen the details of his proposed changes to Colorado election rules. Scott Gessler is within his authority to propose changes; revisions and updates to these rules are a common and necessary practice.

The problem, although as the Independent notes above, it “failed to gain traction with voters,” is knowing Gessler’s history makes it very difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt. The fact is, every time he makes a move, Gessler’s record will not just provoke but mandate a high level of scrutiny. Any time he proposes a change that might benefit one of his who’s-who list of shady political clients (sample above), or–even better–tries to actually enforce a rule that he in all probability has previously argued against…ready-made controversy, folks. Over and over.

All of which is an excellent justification for not putting foxes in charge of henhouses to begin with, but the voters have settled that question until, barring anything unforeseen, at least 2014.