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
January 24, 2008 07:16 AM UTC

Press concludes - Doug Lamborn did not sell out voters for $250.00.

  • 5 Comments
  • by: NEWSMAN

Jeff Cranks spin machine must be biting their nails and ready to tear their hair.  Every time they concoct a noose for Lamborn, he slips it.

A few weeks ago CRANKy Republicans were making a big deal of Jeff Cranks criticism of the earmark. Now the local press (hardly a Lamborn friend) has exonerated him of the false charge.

Next week when fundraising figures are released, they get to answer for their wild speculation of last Fall. GO Lamborn !


Our View Monday Jan 21, 2008

Colorado Springs Gazette

Earmarks, Constitution often at odds

Earmarks in the federal budget are becoming more wellknown to the general public. Long the target of fiscal conservatives and few others, they’re increasingly seen as pork when someone else’s representative brings home the bacon.

  A Gazette report earlier this month noted that Reps. Doug Lamborn and Mark Udall, along with Sen. Ken Salazar, had obtained an $800,000 earmark for Sturman Industries. The money is going to the Woodland Park company for research to improve fuel efficiency in military vehicles.

The kicker here is that Sturman gave Lamborn a $250 campaign donation only a few months prior to the appropriation. Some might see the appropriation as payback for the donation …….

  We don’t think the Sturman appropriation is payback for a campaign donor.

Two Democrats outside the district also requested the money be added to the defense spending bill and Lamborn’s office told us he doesn’t request spending unless someone in government certifies the need for the money.

We like the idea of tightening the rules for earmarks, but the problem is more basic than that. Government is too large and earmarks are a small part of the problem. The only real solution will come from scaling back government to the duties laid out in the Constitution. Then earmarks and campaign financing will be irrelevant because there will be few opportunities for the appearance of paybacks.

Tweet
Share

Comments

5 thoughts on “Press concludes – Doug Lamborn did not sell out voters for $250.00.”

  1. At this rate it won’t be long before the Crank camp spin machine loses all their credibility.  When Crank puts out stuff like this that even the media identifies as untrue, it only shows how desperate he is becoming.  

    We should expect more of the same in the future since Crank’s game plan is defacing the opposition, not promotion of his achievements since he has none that hold water for a congressional candidate.

  2. I hadn’t heard of this before. Were people honestly claiming that Lamborn gave an earmark in exchange for a $250 donation?

    That’s, what, 10% of a individual’s donation limit? In exchange for an earmark? You gotta be kidding me.

    Besides, I read in the gazette that this earmark was also sponsored by Udall and Salazar. Were they in on the cut too? Did the three of them split the $250, or did each one get their own donation?

    You’ve go to be kidding me.


  3. Doug Lamborn put together an $800,000 earmark for a company in Colorado who’s owners gave him a sizable donation.

    GOPpundit

    I think most people would hardly call a $250.00 contribution “sizable”.

    In  politics, I believe “sizable” has a much larger threshold.

    I know your point is on his wording, but he does make a good point.

    If you bar any assistance for a business from any Congressman or Senator who ever accepted any reportable amount from any person who is a stockholder, or CFO, CEO, etc., that is a nightmare.  First how would a candidate know? Those officers and stockholders change sometimes more than annually. The record keeping and compliance would be impossible. And to what purpose.

    Our campaign finance laws get crazier the more we try to “fix” them. This “sizeable” contribution won’t even one tiny ad in the Gazette. Yet to be elected at this level, a candidate must raise $150,000 to $250,000.

    I know this makes great fodder for you anti-Lamborn folks, but Jeff Cranks proposal is bad law, and this story is not about a scandal.

    Mark Udall and Ken Salazar pushed this earmark for this company.  Who in the company ever gave any amount to them???  

    You aren’t even curious because your focus is just “get Lamborn”.

    ——————————————————————————–

    by: NEWSMAN @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM MST

    [ Reply ]

    ——————————————————————————–

  4. Lamborn opponent looks to restrict the funding practice

    By ED SEALOVER

    THE GAZETTE

    January 7, 2008 –


    There is nothing illegal about a member of Congress helping to get federal money for a campaign donor. But some in Congress favor tightening the law on earmarks, the monetary awards for specific companies or projects that are inserted quietly into budget bills.

    One of those is Jeff Crank, the 2006 Republican primary runner-up who is running against Lamborn, a fellow GOP member, again this year. If elected, Crank said, he would introduce a bill to ban members of Congress from taking money from people for whom they acquired earmark funding.

    “Could it be an oversight that any member of Congress could take that money and get an earmark? Certainly,” said Crank, former administrative director for Lamborn’s predecessor, Rep. Joel Hefley. “But that’s why you shouldn’t even do it – because you don’t want the appearance that your vote’s being bought. And I don’t want to guess what Doug’s intentions are.”

    Lamborn denied that the campaign donation had anything to do with his helping Sturman, saying the military is interested in the technology her company is developing.

    “I don’t make that connection because there is no such connection in reality,” he said. “I’m not for sale, and for anyone to think that is just plain wrong.”

    Lamborn said he is also concerned with keeping jobs in the 5th Congressional District, and that an earmark like this can help.

    http://www.gazette.com/article…

  5. The Jeff Crank campaign or at least it’s supporters seam very petty.

    These guys keep talking about sleazy campaigning in 2006 by third parties who supported Lamborn , all the while whispering about their opponent. Typical

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

96 readers online now

Newsletter

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