U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(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) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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%
August 24, 2006 02:17 AM UTC
25 Comments
COCo (ohwilleke) did a good job digging this up. I wonder how many of these LLC donations we’ll be seeing from the GOP this year.
But the amount of times, an individual can donate the max. amount to a candidate. This loop-hole had the opportunity to fixed, (thanks to Anne McGihon), but the Governor vetoed it. So, while he allowed the loophole, Republican consultants advised some of their clients to donate through this loophole.
It’s not only money laundering, but it’s an excellent example of the un-trustworthyness of the Republican party.
While consultants are advising Republicans about the lopphole, Gigi attacks unions. Talk about election year politicking full of scandals. And for pundits to claim Gigi is not using partisan politics is complete malarchy.
What happened when Boyd was appointed to the Senate, Gigi Dennis enforced a two day stalling period (oops, I lost the paper work), so that Republicans would have a chance to try and sneak some loop-sided legislation through.
And when Governor Owens and Trailhead went after Holtzman, all they had to do was walk down Dennis’ office and have a nice chat about “throwing out valid signatures.”
The more and more the Republicans snake the public, the more seats they lose.
McGihon is a DEMOCRACT who tried to clean up campaign finance.
….and the hidden donations of liberal big money folks in opposition to Trailhead is better?
So, “liberal” big money folks are donated more money to themselves, and hiding it fromm the public?
Oh the austracities! the humanity!
What about the misuse of funds by governor? Have you heard of CNAC?
I’m trying to understand how in the world this is relevant and how this makes any candidate out to be some scoundrel. Donations should be unlimited to individuals with full, immediate disclosure as I have said before. Then we have no problems because we’ll know clearly who controls the candidate.
is the key word in your argument. The difference between “should” and “is” means a lot.
We “should” have fair and justice political system. The difference is that we do not.
Try staying with the program.
….bemoaning the lack of “fairness” and “justice” does not nullify my argument that removing gift limits while requiring full disclosure with stiff penalties is necessary (I retract “should”) to clean up the whole system.
I suspect a bit of the subjective in your evaluation of what is “just” and “fair”. Is it fair that a portion of a union member’s dues be used to support, say, pro-abortion politics if that person is pro-life. Is it just for the union bosses to decide how that money is used without the input and consent of the union members?
For that matter, is it just or fair that unborn babies are destroyed in their mothers’ wombs without allowing them to live the life they surely would have lived had they come to term?
I think its you who is off point, Blue.
Because abortion and campaign finance are related topics.
…no Democrat would dare follow the logical argument here.
If you mean unions allegedly swiping money from their members for purposes not approved by membership vote, I can follow that. I’d expect you to give examples to back up your case, however, and won’t buy it until you do.
BTW, I’m independent. Always have been.
Just because you think donations should be unlimited, doesn’t make them umlimited. The law says 1,000 per person right now. And the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed a bill to close that loophole, but the Republican Governor vetoed it – and now his buddies are abusing it.
It is relevant because the Republican Party can’t seem to play by the spirit of the law. It’s constantly trying to push back the borders; sometimes it stays within the boundaries, and other times it steps way over. The Republicans in and/or running for office just don’t seem to value the law that much. And they accuse the Democrats of being anti-American. Hah!
….Phoenix, that the Governor vetoed under guidelines adoped in our state constitution and that it is fully legal for LLCs to make donations. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it illegal or unethical. For example, I don’t like the fact that union members can be shaken down for political contributions. Currently such theft is legal and not subject to RICO. That apparently doesn’t make it illegal.
The very premise of your argument regarding the veto by the Gov. is clearly partisan and unreasonable. The fact is that the Governor can veto any legislation he pleases. And when he does so, it is incumbent upon the legislature to override it if they disagree. If they can’t muster the votes, they lose.
I wonder if you’ll see the same injustice if a Republican legislature passes law allowing only voluntary political contributions to unions which is subsequently vetoed by a Democrat Governor.
The current union shakedown system is clearly unethical if the money is being used against the political beliefs of any of its members. What say you about this ethical problem?
I believe Unions can only set up small donor committees right now, unless I misread the law for Colorado financing. That’s not a shakedown, that’s voluntary contribution.
I don’t disagree that the LLC trick is legal; that’s why the Governor vetoed it in the first place – so it would remain legal. That doesn’t make it ethical, any more than is a corporation coldly calculating payoff in the event of a product liability suit vs. the cost of fixing a known defect.
A union has a democratically-elected leadership chosen by the working people it represents. At least in that respect it can be said to have a real voice that speaks for its workers. The same cannot be said about most corporations.
You said: “That doesn’t make it ethical, . . .”
Nor does it make it unethical either. And there is no compelling fact to prove your point that using LLCs is unethical.
We are at a stand-still in the argument between us because there is really no argument to be made…..except a political one.
There’s no basis for ethics, eh?
I’m hoping your ‘nym doesn’t reflect your profession.
There is no basis in ethics when there is no ethical basis. I can argue with you all day long on my belief that union small donor committees use unethical means to obtain their funds. Are you going to argue back that it is ethical or that there is no ethical basis?
Unless you are consistent in your analysis of the ethics of a legal process, you don’t make your point.
You say: “It is relevant because the Republican Party can’t seem to play by the spirit of the law. It’s constantly trying to push back the borders; sometimes it stays within the boundaries, and other times it steps way over.”
You claim that Democrats play by the spirit of the law? HOGWASH!
Don’t throw out your pitiful platitudes in the direction of us Rs when you can’t even keep your own house in order. Don’t get me started with the likes of Pelosi and Ried and their campaign finance peccadillos!
The recent allegations about Reid are disturbing; the ones about Pelosi less so compared to so many other scandals out there now. Worst one on the Dem side if it’s true is probably Wm. Jefferson’s cold cash.
But in comparing three or four national Dems and one local Dem to the buttload of Republican scandals out there (Delay, Ney, Burns, Cunningham, Doolittle, Pombo, Corker, Hastert, etc., and now O’Donnell here in CO), the Dems are playing in the minor leagues in scandaltown.
This is not a problem of Rs or Ds per se. In fact, it isn’t a problem at all. It’s legal to use LLCs: period. And the ethical problem is something you and other Dems feel yourselves as you see it play out. It feels wrong at the same time you desperately want to take back the Governor’s seat. Understood.
We Republicans, by the way, want to keep it. But to accuse Beauprez of some sort of ethical lapse when the proof you offer is criticism of a fully legal process is, well, unethical.
Let’s all take a chill pill here. We’re going to duke this out between now and November. May the best man win.
But that doesn’t mean you’re Lamborn Had Godlike Qualities, either.
Here’s what’s different, and you’re being too partisan to realize: there is a base level of corruption in all walks of life, including politics. Then there’s the recent surge of Republican corruption and arrogance. In everything Republican leadership seems to do, they try to push the boundaries of legality. Bush’s Executive Orders, which actually attempt to alter legislation. Dennis’s rule on unions, which attempts to create legislation after the Lege explicitly rejected the same rule. One person donating $16,000 by using LLCs in a blatant (but legal) runaround of the $1,000 per person limits. Not following laws requiring disclosure of Iraq expenditures. Strongarming lobbyist firms into firing their Democratic workers. Accepting lobbyist cash. Holding open voting sessions for hours in order to bribe fellow Republicans into voting a certain way. Marking up bills in the Rules Committee two hours before a scheduled vote on the bill. Excluding Democrats from conference committees. Attempting to read the Midnight Gerrymander here in CO the required three times by having multiple people on the floor each reading part of the bill.
Need I go on? It’s a pattern, and one far more pervasive than the pattern that got Democrats ousted in ’94.
I mean, come on! Are you actually attempting to make the claim that Gov. Owens’ veto was illegal or unethical? He disagreed with the Dem approach, and the Dems couldn’t rouse the sense of integrity in enough other legislators to override it. That is a problem of disagreement between Dems and Reps as to approach.
Here’s a thought (admittedly repeated by me ad infinitum lately), open up all donations and in-kind gifts to full disclosure with stiff, criminal penalties. That way we’ll know every dime spent not only by Mr. Benson and Mr. Coors, but also by Mr. Gill and Ms. Stryker.
Then we could all start talking about issues rather than petty child tantrums over which party can pass the better loophole.
Padre is right. The most fair and reasonable way to police special interests is full disclosure with no limits.
Isn’t that the whole point? It’s not about passing loopholes, it’s about closing them – or not closing them.
Full disclosure would work just great if every ad had an attachment saying who paid for it. If candidates had to group contributions together into lump sums and disclose anyone paying more than 10% of an ad in the ad itself – in a clear and unambiguous manner (no “Trailhead Group” – make it “this ad paid for by Benson, Owens, and Coors”) – then *maybe* I’d go along with it. Otherwise full disclosure is just as big a joke as free speech being == money.