As the Grand Junction Sentinel’s Charles Ashby reports:
A southern Colorado tea party group is providing a lesson to similar organizations in what not to do when it comes to campaign finances.
Don’t contribute money directly to candidates unless you create a political donor committee with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office. And if you don’t do that, then don’t ignore subpoenas when a complaint is filed against you.
All that happened to the Southern Colorado Tea Party, which now faces up to $18,000 in fines and attorney fees as a result of those multiple failures, said the attorney who filed a campaign-finance complaint two years ago against the group.
“The penalty that is proposed is appropriate here because the message that it sends will be heard by other groups that do this as well,” said Mark Grueskin, attorney for Pueblo resident Dr. Malik Hasan, a well-known political donor for mostly conservative candidates. “My client just wants to make the statement that these groups must comply with the law.”
Adds the Pueblo Chieftain’s Patrick Malone:
The central question before Administrative Law Judge Matthew Norwood was whether the Southern Colorado Tea Party is a loosely organized social group or clunky political machine subject to campaign finance rules.
“I don’t understand the separation of the Tea Party from the populace,” former Southern Colorado Tea Party Chairman Sheldon Bloedorn of Pueblo West said.
Bloedorn cast the group as a community organization that backs likeminded candidates committed to low taxes, small government, constitutional literalism and other conservative values.
“Ours was an organization just like a bowling league, a community organization,” he said.
The biggest problem for the Southern Colorado Tea Party appears to be their donations to candidates they endorsed such as 2010 GOP gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes and GOP treasurer candidate J.J. Ament. That and their prominent candidate endorsement section on their website, and even a link to a donation page for the Colorado Republican Party. Ashby and Malone report that the two leaders of the group who were subpoenaed simply failed to appear in court, resulting in threats to prosecute them for contempt and a summary judgment. Yesterday’s court hearing was to argue over the amount they will be forced to pay.
The complaint was filed almost two years ago on behalf of Malik Hasan, father of 2010 GOP treasurer candidate Ali Hasan. You might recall that Ali and his family complained bitterly about racist whispers against his campaign originating from the Southern Colorado Tea Party.
For all of these reasons, the “bowling league” argument is just another insult.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: 2025 State of the State Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: 2025 State of the State Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Pettersen Part of Proxy Voting Push for New Moms
BY: kwtree
IN: Pettersen Part of Proxy Voting Push for New Moms
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: A Few Words About Colorado’s Egg Prices
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: A Few Words About Colorado’s Egg Prices
BY: davebarnes
IN: A Few Words About Colorado’s Egg Prices
BY: harrydoby
IN: Legislature Convenes with New Idiocy from House Republicans
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Legislature Convenes with New Idiocy from House Republicans
BY: MarsBird
IN: It’s Long Past Time to Ban Body Armor
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
used to routinely endorse candidates, provide a fundraising conduit, and work on elections.
No… we were just chipping in for beer and it only got political when somebody vetoed a case of Coors because they could “taste the hatred of gay people”
for pizza and then work to recall candidates. Is that the same thing?
All fines on Republicans are unnecessary according to him.
he’ll have to do.
That’s not some functional definition of a PAC.
The endorsements and donations – yeah, you can’t just sign checks from an organization to a political candidate while avoiding the reporting requirements. Sorry, Tea Partiers – you’re not above the law.
Let me see if I get this.
You want Roe v. Wade and Federal income confiscation but you do not want the First Amendment?
Above the law, what law?
Just askin’
Because the words I read have no connection to the diary, at least not that I can tell. Please translate the Nockish into English for me, if you would be so kind…
The Tea party say whatever it wants, however it wants, because it’s protected by the 1st amendment of the constitution. Endorsing candidates and contributing to them is protected political speech, not subject to regulation or limitation. This should be obvious to even the most simple-minded liberals.
Furthermore, you liberal, activist justices have twisted the interpretation of the constitution to mean that abortion is protected under a non-existent right to privacy and confiscatory income taxes are protected under some other non-existent right [note: I forgot my tinfoil this morning and can’t remember the details of this argument].
To sum up, you liberals make up rights to defend policies you like, while ignoring those rights (speech, religion, guns) that stand four-square as the basis of our great country [cue the national anthem].
Nobody’s home.
Well done.
http://youtu.be/h9ucJAV3rVU
It’s answered in the diary, though I know you’d prefer to ignore it.