Republicans in the Colorado state legislature are currently operating with historically-small minorities. Of the 100 state legislators elected in Colorado, 69 are Democrats; the margins for the GOP work out to a 23-12 minority in the State Senate and a 46-19 micro-minority in the State House.
Colorado Republicans have reached unprecedented lows for a variety of reasons. Most of those reasons are related to the common theme of regularly taking sides on issues that absolutely do NOT represent the viewpoints of the vast majority of Coloradans (extreme opposition rhetoric on abortion rights, gun safety, taxes/spending, etc.). But there also appears to be a fundamental disconnect between Republicans and, well, everyone else on even the most basic matters of civic discourse.
The website for the Colorado Senate Republicans includes a section called “Civics Corner,” which is explained as “Your guide to the legislative process.” Included in this corner of the Senate GOP website is a guide to “Understanding the role of Colorado lobbyists and how to monitor what they do.” The explanation mainly deals with an outline of the voter-approved measure in 2006 called “Amendment 41” that implemented lobbying reforms; stronger ethics measures; and a “gift ban” for lawmakers.
This is all fairly benign stuff…until you reach the final paragraph:
[mantra-pullquote align=”center” textalign=”left” width=”90%”]“Given the constitutional changes approved by Colorado voters in 2006, many of the negative stereotypes commonly associated with lobbyists no longer apply in Colorado. Today, an appropriate definition for a “lobbyist” in Colorado might be ‘First Amendment Practitioner.’“[/mantra-pullquote]
Say what, now?
Could you accurately describe a lobbyist as a “First Amendment Practitioner”? Maybe…but why would you bother? More importantly, why are Colorado Senate Republicans devoting any amount of time whatsoever to this stylistic change?
Perhaps the Senate GOP just wants Colorado lobbyists First Amendment Practitioners to know: We GET you, man. Now please talk to us and give us money even though we can’t really do anything to help you.
Anyway, the main thing you should take from this guide to lobbyists comes at the very bottom, in smaller type:
The information provided herein is intended for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you have questions of a legal nature, then please consult with an attorney.
Thanks for reading OUR GUIDE to the Senate GOP’s guide to the legislative process.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: skeptical citizen
IN: Aurora Councilmember Doesn’t Want To Hear Your Silly Facts
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: kwtree
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Aurora Councilmember Doesn’t Want To Hear Your Silly Facts
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Friday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Both parties have always used the term “lobbyist” as a pejorative term. Who can forget Wad Dickhams and his pronunciation of “MillionaireLawyerLobbyist Tom Strickland” as virtually one syllable?
But the term “lobbyist” per se is neutral – it all depends upon for whom the lobbyist lobbies. I’m a member of the LGBTQ-etc. community and I have financially supported lobbying efforts for our community in the past. I am over 65 and support AARP’s lobbyists’ work.
I’m not a fan of the lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industry, the ammosexual community or big pharma but they obviously have their rights to hire representatives to shill for them.
I’m glad to see that the CO State Senate GOP is now trying to detoxify a term they did so much to poison.
I will concur. Lobbyists are not all antiheroes like Jack Abramoff. Like most professions, there are good and bad ones, and in this case working for good or bad clients (depending on anyone's point of view). They're a bigger part of the legislative process than lots of folks would like to admit, but the good ones learn their subject matter in detail, and make positive contributions like working for fair amendments.
“First amendment superhero,” said Larry Flynt, and every other skeezy pornographer.
Haven’t been in the Springs for a good while now, that headline has me wondering if their “First Amendment at Filmore” shop has managed to still stay open in these days of ubiquitous smartphone http://www.XXX? Maybe they’ve expanded the business into lobbying supplies?