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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 17, 2011 11:12 PM UTC

Judge Smacks Down Gessler Campaign Finance Rule

  • 17 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The joint release from Colorado Common Cause and Colorado Ethics Watch:

A Denver district court judge today agreed with Common Cause and Ethics Watch that Secretary of State Scott Gessler overstepped his authority in changing campaign finance limits for political issue committees.

Judge Bruce A. Jones ruled that Gessler does not have the authority to raise the disclosure threshold for political issue committees from $200 to $5,000. The Secretary of State’s rule would have made it much easier for political groups to avoid disclosing financial interests behind a ballot initiative. Last year, Douglas Bruce tried to hide his involvement in three extreme initiatives that would have limited local governments from handling their own financial future.

Voters approved the $200 limit when they passed a constitutional amendment in 2002.

In his ruling, Judge Jones said that the rule “focuses on changing the contribution and expenditure amounts contained in the constitution. In doing so, the Secretary went beyond his authority.”

Colorado Common Cause Executive Director Elena Nunez said, “Voters have said time and again that they want transparency in political campaigns.  We’re pleased that the Court protected Colorado’s strong disclosure laws by rejecting the Secretary of State’s rules.”

Ethics Watch Director Luis Toro said “We expected all along that the Court would agree that the Secretary of State has no authority to change disclosure thresholds that were set by Colorado voters in a constitutional amendment. In the event the Secretary chooses to appeal, we are confident this ruling will be upheld.”

Full text of the decision here–an expected development after Judge Bruce Jones blasted Scott Gessler’s defense of his “solution” to conflicting state law on the matter of campaign finance disclosure–and also Attorney General John Suthers, saying Suthers was on the “wrong side”–“the side you should be on is defending the constitution.” Pretty harsh stuff.

We’re just keeping track–has Gessler won once in court on election law since taking office? You’d think after a certain number of judicial defeats, especially where the judge straight-up humiliates you, you should take stock of your agenda. Or, failing that, others ought to.

Tweet
Share

Comments

17 thoughts on “Judge Smacks Down Gessler Campaign Finance Rule”

  1. in court during his tenure as council for Republican campaign committees? It seems like his specialty was in ignoring the law and hoping the bad things would go away… which actually was a fairly good strategy.

        1. No activist judges Tuesday when reapportionment got tossed but definitely activist judge that handed Scotty his head on a platter.  Damn how those activist judges seem to be on every case the the Repubs. lose.

  2. that deserve a non snarky, genuine thank you–Colorado Common Cause and Colorado Ethics Watch. We the voters spoke in 2002 and approved this limit for a reason. Thank you for defending it and for defending us.

    Gessler may not respect voters but thank God, the courts still appear to.  

  4. Is there actually any movement by Democrats to recall Gessler or to find a serious candidate to challenge him next time he’s up (2014?).

    There is story after story here, but I have not heard anything from Democratic leadership besides complaining.

    2. As in turn in signatures to the SoS in order to qualify for a recall election over the SoS’s dishonesty and corruption? That doesn’t seem very promising.

      If we could catch him out with hard evidence of illegal behavior, impeachment would be a better option… assuming a friendly legislature. Gessler doesn’t seem the type to resign in shame.

      So, we just have to trudge along until we can fire the guy electorally. One small bright spot is that Gessler keeps edging outside of what’s legally permissible. If he can keep tangled up in the courts over blatantly unconstitutional crap, perhaps he won’t have time to really screw everyone.

      1. I wonder if there is any precedent for forcing someone besides SoS to handle a recall of the SoS given the obvious conflict of interest.  I’m sure he would try and find a way around it even if there was though.

        Ralphie is probably right also that it’s just too large of a task to undertake at that level.

        Makes sense — just put up with a couple years of him (unless he does do something really illegal).  I was just curious about peoples’ thoughts.

        1. our current SoS’s ethics issues and the steady trickle in recent years of SoS iffyness with conflicts around voting machines, rule-making, seeking higher office (*cough* Coffman), perhaps it’s time the legislature tackled some form of recusal guidelines and conflict of interest standards.  

      2. to screw the Obama campaign and try to steal the Presidential election for Republicans.

        They are going to have to have a fast response team in place next when he tries to steal the election for Bachmann.  As soon as one of his voter suppression/campaign finance finagling schemes comes to light, they are going to has to act fast to deal with it.

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

109 readers online now

Newsletter

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