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%
May 19, 2015 02:26 PM UTC
14 Comments
Just curious how lobbyists "sneaked in" legislation. Did they slip it into a stack of bills already assigned to committees? Did they do some sort of Daffy Duck/Bugs Bunny vote for the bill, vote against the bill, for, against, against, for! routine in the Business Affairs & Labor committee? Use their jedi powers to get the bill passed on the House floor by a ridiculous margin– "Easy Obi-Wan, we only need 33 votes. 62 votes..showoff."
Or maybe, just maybe, did a Democratically-controlled House filled with corporatists actually like this bill. either because of their misguided understanding or honest feeling for the lenders. Dickie Lee put the bill into a committee (she could have killed it), the Dems voted for it in committee and on the floor (with a couple exceptions). If they gave a rats ass about the folks this would affect, they could have chosen, because it was entirely within their power to do so, to take it up next session.
Democrats were complicit and active in this process. Stop with the "look what happened to us" bullshit.
I don't disagree with you. I think what you're saying is a given, and they're just trying to do the right thing without excessive rancor.
Has anybody heard what the Gov plans to do?
I don't have patience for that, to be honest. They should replace "Lobbyists for the…" everywhere in the diary with "House Democrats"– at least it would be honest. Saying lobbyists this and that is trying to demonize folks who are only doing what they are paid to do. How about laying this turd at the foot of the folks who failed to do what they are paid to, our beloved House majority.
I believe the usual no fault formulation is… mistakes were made. Not that anybody made them.
Good points, except the one about pay. Lobbyists get paid substantially more than $30,000 a year, so given the relative disparity in compensation for results achieved, I think the lobbyists should shoulder a proportionately larger share of the blame.
Disagree. It's their job to push for what they want but it's the legislators' job to make the best decisions for the benefit of the people regardless. That's where the buck stops. They don't get to use the excuse that the lobbyists made them do it. It's there job to educate themselves on the issues, not just accept what lobbyists tell them.
What I guess was in the back of my head when I wrote that was the issue of low-paid, part-time legislators, with a growing set of responsibilities in a state that is experiencing explosive growth, but the session's length is still just 4 months.
Aren't we expecting a bit too much from citizen legislators that have to put most of their lives on hold for 4 months of the year, to expect them to be able to absorb all bills (esp. late bills) better than a full time paid lobbyist focusing on just a handful of their own bills?
But I agree, I can't believe just from the title of the bill, this wasn’t a non-starter for Dems (although I will admit, my old Dem state rep voted for supporting the payday loan sharks several years ago before the limits were finally imposed in 2010). So they do have their hooks deeply embedded in our party's reps.
Like I said, no argument from me. My Dem Rep. voted yes and I signed this petition asking for a veto. I will call him out for it next town hall too.
wonky……gettin' down in the weeds.
"deliver the signatures of hundreds of Coloradoans………" And the state's population is 5 million +. Not exactly talking a landslide here.
No but the universe of Coloradoans who are even vaguely aware of anything going on in the state legislature is really, really, really small. That said, good point.
True, but then the lobbyists only delivered the votes of 62
idiotintellectually challenged Representatives . . .I ran across this before I checked in this morning. It may be the most persuasive reason for a veto:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/five-big-banks-agree-to-pay-more-than-5-billion-to-settle-regulatory-charges/2015/05/20/bdedb770-fefb-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
It demonstrates, once again, just how crooked the big banks are.
Three of the five big banks cited in the article are foreign banks. I don't see how that ties into any request for a veto of a Colorado-passed bill.