President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

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
October 25, 2005 08:00 AM UTC

Bruce Joins Caldara on the Wrong Side of the Law?

  • 36 Comments
  • by: Blue Sky

Yesterday I received an 8×17 two color bifold brochure against C&D put together by a group called Active Citizens Together.  Many of you have probably seen the brochure already.  As a registered Democrat, I must be low on their mailing list.  The front of the brochure is a graphic with many words, highlighting the main word “Fears.”  Inside, one page is devoted to “Facts” and the other to “Finances,” and on the back page we are supposed to get “Freedom.”  More on those later.

But first the news.  I did not recognize the group, so I went looking.  Here is what I found.  Active Citizens Together is a 501(c)3 non-profit.  That is the same classification as the Independence Institute.  It was founded in 2002 by none other than Doug Bruce.  And the mailing was sent out under a non-profit discount permit.

That means that Bruce has put himself in the same legal jeopardy that Caldera is in, the one where the Independence Institute is awaiting a hearing for violating election law.  It also means the same claim about false use of a United States Postal Service discount permit applies to ACT Colorado that has been claimed of other No on C&D groups.  According to a 2004 article by The Colorado Springs Independent, this is not the first time Bruce has used ACT Colorado in violation of election law to run political ads.  In 2004, Bruce used another ACT Colorado mailer to promote his own candidacy for County Commissioner.

Now on to the brochure’s claims.

“Facts,” the brochure is short on real facts.  It says state spending rose 130% since 1992.  But to keep even with inflation and population, it should have risen about 190%.  It shows a graph of rising income taxes.  But it leaves off 2001-2005.  It makes a big deal about a 257% rise in healthcare costs.  But that only tracks national healthcare increases and population growth.  It says higher education spending per student is up 30%.  But that is just the cumulative rate of inflation, which is half the rate of tuition increases.

“Finances” are kind of like statistics, everyone has their own set.  ACT Colorado continues the misleading use of the word “tax refunds”.  It also says C&D will mean “unlimited state spending forever” because the new spending limit is “so high”.  That may be true in a sense; if you look at history, we only started getting TABOR refunds in 1997 and have not received one since 2001, so without the ratchet we may not see another TABOR refund for a long time.  But the statement hides the fact that we will continue to limit our spending to a restrictive inflation plus population growth formula.  The brochure claims that the state budget has never had a cut, but it does not show the deep cuts already required of specific departments.

“Freedom” is just another word for the ability to deceive according to the back page.  While the most accurate and balanced information is on this back page, so is some of the most malicious information.  The top section is divided into two columns of “Common arguments” for and against C&D.  In the “FOR” column we have such laughable statements as “Government can spend money better than we can.  People will waste their refunds on pizzas, vacations, and cigarettes.  We need more welfare programs to help the poor,” and “Big Business wants more taxes and fees.”  In the “AGAINST” column the brochure continues to use the vague “tax refunds” and adds the additional bogeymen, “As gasoline and utility prices soar, the state wastes millions on corporate welfare, big raises to Ward Churchill-types, and illegal aliens.”  It continues with an accurate list of pro and anti C&D websites, then detours back into propaganda with by asking which side wants to “get your money” and have a government with “unlimited spending.”

Misleading the voter and flirting with the wrong side of the law are a poor way to run a campaign, no matter what campaign you are running.  Maybe it is time we strengthened our truth in advertising laws.

Tweet
Share

Comments

36 thoughts on “Bruce Joins Caldara on the Wrong Side of the Law?”

  1. For those of you who wonder why the explicitly Dem bloggers never quite manage to make it on this blog, this post is an instructional tool. Red Hawk, for all of her obvious and sometimes misguided partisanship, tends to stick to reporting. Reprting rumor and innuendo, sure, but reporting nonetheless. She does not editorialize very often.

    Every Dem – what is it, three or four now? – blogger on this site has tended to editorialize first and report second.

    Just a hunch, that might be why they never last, where Red Hawk has.

  2. I am open to criticism, joe.  Would you prefer just the main page blurb?  That was simple reporting.  I tried to keep my editorializing on the second half to a minimum while providing links to the “other half” of the brochure’s facts, and I put that section in the extended entry so people could skip it more easily.  Open blogs rate your posts down if you do not add your own take on an issue, and I went with that.  Do other commenters have opinions one way or the other?

    And more importantly is Bruce going to find himself in the same hot water as Caldera over this brochure?

  4. I love how BAD this site sucks now.  There have been about fourty comments since they started the registered typepad.  Hell, it took me 10 minutes to sign up just so that i could post about how happy it makes me to see this site DIE!

  5. I think the blog article, “Bruce Joins Caldera on the Wrong Side of the Law?” is excellent. Great analysis. I hope the piece motivates the Attorney General to investigate the group ACT (what a hackneyed acronym, by the way). The organization is clearly a front for opposing C+D and does not appear to comply with the spirit of the law. How sad that the group purports to educate Coloradans yet insidiously tries to get them to support C+D. And how ironic that they puport to educate Coloradans yet one of their goals is to destroy public higher education in the state.

  6. I received the same in the mail, and as one of many registered democrats on this site, recognized the content for what it was and promptly threw it in the trash. Apparently, this non-profit doesn’t mind wasting someone’s money, but I’ll bet it wasn’t Bruce’s. I’d like to know who pays for this.

    Welcome aboard Blue Sky. I enjoyed reading your post.

  7. Actually, there have been 193 comments posted to Coloradopols.com since we activated Typekey, as of this writing. Most feedback we’re getting about the new system is quite positive.

    But please, do go on with your bad self.

  8. I find the signing in every day (and it is every day that I have to) to be a bit annoying. Other than that, Typekey is OK

    What I have been finding while on the C&D campaign trail is that many many poeple lurk here and don’t post anyway.

    Anyhow, if the couple of minutes it takes to sign in keeps someone from posting a message, what they had to say probably only had so much merit to bgin with.

  9. There is a good and bad side to the typekey.  The good part is that it keeps the “loose” posters to a minimum, most of the comments will now come from people that have somewhat logically comments to make.  The bad side, with the decreased activity, there is a possibility those folks that just “lurk” will eventually disappear and, for them, the overall appeal  of the blog will be reduced.

    I guess it will be okay to just hang out and talk casually with the few people who do stick around (We can all be lifelong friends).

    Gov. Peabody:  Those 193 comments, how many users made them? 

    And Governor – you go on with your BAD self (It’s your birthday, not a holiday).

  10. Alright, first.. thanks Blue Sky it was obvious that you were against C&D and its nice to see a poster take a side…. whether we are agree or not. Second, as far as 69….. goes, serioulsy if you don’t like this site why do you come back or post here? I mean just go back to Georgia.

    Glad to have you around Blue Sky, keep it up!

  11. Come on
    Non profit organizations posting political signs for C & D. Illegal. Non profit groups campaigning with non profit resources. Illegal.
    Group after group sending out e-mail that is not educational but calls for a Yes Vote. Illegal.
    These people on both sides are well meaning. Show a little balance here as the line of illegality has been crossed more often by the Yes than the No.

  13. Not to mention the use of government resources: college forums, dept of transportation resources and all the nonsense being sent home from public schools.

    But no one cares about that because “it’s for the children”.

  16. Blue Sky’s post looked ok to me. Reported on mailing received and on the sponsor. Noted the 501(c)(3) status. Asked about the legality.

    Subsequent posters put the story in perspective. Dozens of pro-C&D nonprofits may be violating the law as well. Should keep the IRS investigators busy.

    Too bad the newspapers aren’t doing this reporting and keeping thinks in perspective, but they’re editorializing for C&D on their news pages and have no time nor space for honest reporting, much less interest in being honest information brokers.

  17. Some of the non-profits that understand what will happen to Colorado if we don’t pass ref C and D may be stretching the letter of the law to help get ref C and D pass but these non-profits at least provide the main functions of what non-profits were meant to be when the 501(c)(3) tax exempt status was created.

    Can anyone from the Independence Institute explain what exactly they do for the community to deserve the same exact tax status as the Red Cross?

  18. “Some of the non-profits that understand what will happen to Colorado if we don’t pass ref C and D may be stretching the letter of the law” snip

    Developmental Disabilities is a non-profit. Their total revenue for 2004 was 35.2 million, 31.6 million of this is from taxpayer’s funds. How this is a non-profit versus a government agency boggles me. Last year’s election we voted on a property tax mill levy increase for them, which did pass. Again, how can this possibly be a nonprofit? If they use 15% of their resources to advocate a tax increase, well who cares because it’s taxpayer money to start with.

    They use their land, buildings and website to advocate a tax increase that they will benefit from. To me this is far more wrong than donor’s names being withheld. Governor Owens is too busy with lawyers getting depositions to find this to be a problem.

    Developmental Disabilities is probably only 1 of a 100 who are guilty.

  19. I cited the Independent because it ran a story similar to the one I was writing more than a year ago.  I do not read the Independent, but the story came up in a background search on Active Citizens Together.  The actions of Douglas Bruce made writing both my story and the Independent’s story easy.

  20. it’s pretty clear that none of you understand campaign finance law as it relates to nonprofits.

    501(c)(3)s are allowed to use up to about 15% of their budget (vaguely defined) on issue campaigning. No candidates, of course, but an org with a $1 million budget could spend, say $100,000 explicitly telling people to vote for or against C&D, and that’s legal. That’s how ProgressNow and these other 501(c) groups can do what they’re doing. Caldara knows all this or he would have gone after them, but apparently none of you “insiders” do.

    The question as it has always been applied to the independence institute has more to do with using $400,000+ of their $600,000 (c)(3) budget to campaign against C&D. That’s illegal, period. there’s a huge difference.

    so…active citizens together? have they done ANYTHING except come up with a glossy flyer attacking C&D?

  21. Donald,

    Dozens of pro-C&D nonprofits may be violating the law as well.

    And I may be violating my coworkers’ silence with guffaws.

    The world may be flat.

    Some people say, Hank Brown may actually be a Socialist.

    Put up or shut up, buddy.  Rumor-mongering is easy.

  22. From the ACT mailing:

    “Also, C’s new spending ‘limit’ is so high, we will never vote on spending or get a tax refund again.  C and D mean unlimited state spending forever!”

    Since when are lies charitable?

  23. Novel theories. It is OK for a non profit to use its resources to engage in politics if it is for a good cause? That is clearly in violation of the rules set forth when they applied for tax exemption under 501(C)(3. Examples look at the groups listed in today’s article that say they will be using their offices to phone bank. Look at all the signs at non profit organizations around the City. Naughty, naughty must not do. A pox on both houses as both are guilty.

  24. Education, a la IndepInst, is legal, boneheads. Lobbying with up to 15% of the money nice people gave you to help the retarded is legal too unfortunately.

    My gosh, maybe there AREN’T enough lawyers, with dopes like above pretending.

    At least when I give II money to fight left-wing propaganda, it’s not being used behind my back to help the retarded.

  25. I’m not confused on the 15%, Ignorants. I’d like to know how a nonprofit receives 90% of their revenue from taxes, I have no choice but to fund them or be delinquent on property taxes, yet they get nonprofit status. Since you’re an expert, please enlighten me.

  26. Well, since you probably cheered on whatever dubious privatization scheme made the funding by tax revenue of a private nonprofit necessary to begin with, I invite you to answer your own question.

    It’s a wierd Republican world we live in, pal, but thanks to circular arguments like these Grover Norquist is always the one who comes out smiling…

  27. The bottom line on nonprofits is that they want higher taxes so that more people will contribute to them to get tax deductions.

    So, if you oppose higher taxes, don’t fund nonprofits.

  28. “Well, since you probably cheered on whatever dubious privatization scheme made the funding by tax revenue of a private nonprofit necessary to begin with, I invite you to answer your own question.”

    Nice twist and turn but I’m unable to answer this one. I don’t advocate government literally handing a check to a non-profit. When the charity is 90% funded by taxes, that should be a government body and follow the laws.

    Your response would lead an uneducated voter to think that Grover Norquist gets an actual check from the government. Is that what you meant to imply? How do you rate yourself on a scale of 1-10 for the truth?

  29. No, I mean that Grover Norquist wants everything privatized, then people like you start complaining about money going to nonprofits that administer privatized programs (that is, how they get tax money). Like I said it’s circular, and like I said it makes Grover Norquist smile because the whole idiotic cycle services his aim of “drowning government in a bathtub” with remarkable efficiency.

    I don’t think that’s difficult to understand. I know, you’d prefer to have “market losers” die in the street. We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

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

167 readers online now

Newsletter

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