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%
June 01, 2012 09:05 PM UTC
8 Comments
This portion makes me think that the statute is probably intended to punish people who intentionally and maliciously cause a run on the banks, statewide panic, or other extraordinarily damaging circumstances.
There are a few problems with trying to apply this to Lamborn’s statement:
1. Bank Rate gives the bank in question three stars. I’m not convinced that it isn’t in some way possible to construe this as below average. There are so many possible averages — average of all banks? Average of CO banks? Average of banks that offer a particular account type?
2. Integrity Bank doesn’t seem to even be trying to prove that Lamborn has caused a run on the bank or damaged public confidence — their letter says he could.
3. Even if his statement was false and it did damage the bank as set out in the statute, it’s not clear that he knew the statement was false when he made it.
That said, he should probably try to quietly pull the ads.
The Bankrate.com Memo shows both above and below average detailed ratings.
Probably the most worrisome might be this:
So, while at a glance, the lawyers have a point that Lamborn’s ad is misleading, Lamborn could make an equally convincing case that they were talking about those pesky details.
Is if Lamborn pushes back and makes an argument that the bank is below average.
That’s exactly what the lawyers for the bank are complaining about. But Lamborn’s not an FDIC examiner. He’s cherry-picking the information.
He’ll get away with it in all probability. The only question is, will it save his job?
Lamborn is a reliable GOP vote, but otherwise useless. As Democrats, are we better off if Bla-bla-bla is his replacement?
I think the wisest thing is for posters to NOT comment on this particular bank
Even if it applies, the mental state requirement is unlikely to be met.
Even if the mental state requirement is met, political speech has special constitutional protections.
the statements are “false” or whether they “result in impairment of public confidence,” the statute provide for a criminal violation, but no civil remedy. The alleged criminal offense is of no consequence, unless and until the district attorney determines to pursue charges. When that happens, I will eat my hat (if I wore a hat). No DA will touch this, nor should they.
here:
GOP Ally of Big Coal Smears Environmental Activist With Kiddie Porn Accusation
http://www.motherjones.com/blu…