President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

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

52%↑

48%↓

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
March 25, 2009 12:32 AM UTC

Call for Scott "McLobbyist" McInnis to keep his commitment

  • 39 Comments
  • by: Alan

(Isn’t this why he didn’t run for Senate? – promoted by Colorado Pols)

This past weekend ex-Congressman Scott McInnis, now a lawyer-lobbyist, announced at a Republican party meeting that he plans to run for Governor in 2010. (“McInnis tells pals: “I’m in” governor race,” Denver Post, 3/22/2009)

The last time McInnis was in the papers this much was in November, 2004 when he was still in Congress and under investigation by the Federal Election Commission. The FEC was investigating McInnis for using his campaign committee to pay his wife a salary of more than $40,000, plus an additional $1,150 per month, plus additional funds for a car and cell phone. (Denver Post, 11/12/2004).

The big problem with that arrangement was that McInnis didn’t actually have a campaign at that point. He already had announced in the summer of 2003 that he would not seek another term, but still kept his wife on the “campaign” payroll for over a year after his decision not to run. (Washington Post, 11/10/2004)

It gets worse.

On June 2, 2004, McInnis stated that much of the $1.3 million leftover in his campaign war chest–what he wasn’t giving to his wife–would be used to “seed a new foundation” on breast cancer research, education and conservation. (Rocky Mountain News, 6/2/2004)

But on September 29, 2004, just before McInnis left office, his first reported “charity” was a $5,000 contribution to the DeLay Legal Expense Trust, the legal defense fund for ex-Majority Leader Tom DeLay.  (Center for Responsive Politics) Two months after that donation, and following DeLay’s indictment, McInnis voted to weaken the ethics rules and allow his boss DeLay to remain majority leader. (RMN, 11/21/20004)

Paying for DeLay’s legal expenses out of his campaign war chest is a far cry from McInnis’ pledge to use the money for breast cancer research, education and conservation.

Click on the following link to join our call for McInnis to stick to his pledge to use the money left-over from his previous campaigns for “breast cancer research, education and conservation” instead of bankrolling his wife or Tom DeLay’s legal expenses:

http://www.ProgressNowColorado.org/KeepYourPledge

Thank you, in advance, for your help in holding McInnis accountable.

Tweet
Share

Comments

39 thoughts on “Call for Scott “McLobbyist” McInnis to keep his commitment”

  1. Scott’s campaign was investigated by the FEC and completely found to be clean and clear of any wrong.  Just a liberal red haring.  What was that whole episode with Ritter and the fundraiser he held to pay himself back… Now THAT was fun!

    As far as DeLay is concerned; everyone is entitled to their day and court.  McInnis did what he thought was necessary at the time.  This is an expected attack against Scott.  

    It will be interesting when Ritter’s record as one of the worst D.A.s in state history and one of the worst governors in memory is really dug into over the coming year.  I think that these little petty attacks by liberal fever swamps like progressnowcolorado, will seem petty and pathetic.

    Just a question Alan, how much of the Obama stimulus is your organization getting? 😉

    1. Scott McInnis: FEC says no laws were broken

      Those liberals and their Red Haring (that would be Keith Haring’s younger brother, right?).

      Funny, gopstud doesn’t have a distracting retort about McInnis breaking his promise to pay for breast cancer research. Because there is none — Scotty is a crass opportunist who just pretends to be a plain-spoken country bumpkin.  

        1. an anti-Washington West Sloper who spent a dozen years in Washington and has been raking in the lawyer-lobbyist bucks lobbying Washington since then.

          And it was generated by Progress Now, not Pols, but I’m glad Pols put it up front. Scotty’s no angel.

              1. The papers and TV stations do a fairly effective job with the facts. Maybe this is why POTUS needs to go up tonight on primetime to explain he and Nancy’s plans for Amerika.

                The Prez and Guv have $4 billion to spend over the next 2 years, they’ll make fine use of your grandchildren’s future earnings.

            2. Of course, you could click on my name and see that lots of stuff I post the Pols have not seen fit to front page. But that would spoil your tinfoil-hat fun, wouldn’t it?

              Don’t get me wrong, we do own you, just not to the omnipotent supernatural extent you think we do.

              Cheers,

              1. I’m not sure that if I stayed up all night whimpering about Scott freaking McInnis that I’d be accusing someone else of wearing a tinfoil hat.

                Get bent,

                LB

          2. He’s a politician. Sad thing is, though, he may be the strongest Republican to run against Ritter because he’s not a wingnut.

            But that’s why he’ll never get the nomination. The wingnuts would rather be right than win statewide elections.

    2. Yes, that makes paying your wife from the campaign slush fund for doing no work COMPLETELY okay with the voters.  Yep.  Nobody should have a problem with that.

    3. Is going to do any good in 2010? It didn’t work in 2006, when he was fresh out of the office. Why would the same attacks work four years later?

      1. no. But it should definitely not be forgotten, and there are some gems in that record that need to be polished up and put out again for the public to admire.  

        1. Will you also support a little Ritter dancing a jig (maybe he was supposed to be skipping)?  I loved that ineffectual anti-Udall commercial.  It left me feeling happy.

          1. Negative campaigning in the sense that it was used in the Schaffer-Udall election completely ruined the GOPs chances.

            The problem was that the Schaffer camp relied almost entirely on these types of attacks, and never gave reasons to vote for Schaffer over Udall.  As we’ve seen before (think the Kerry-Bush race), the anti-candidate approach to campaigning does not work.

            That being said, when facing an incumbent, it is important to relay to the voter’s why they need to vote against them as well as why the challenger will do a better job.

    1. if you think this is all anybody can find.

      Scotty can wipe himself clean all he wants, but the stench will linger from DeLay/Abramoff corruption, McInnis family values nepotism and stiffing the breast cancer foundation.

  3. First of all, I like how you did not quote the June 2, 2004 Rocky Mountain News article.  If you did, people would see that the article states that McInnis had not made a final decision but at that time he was planning to start a foundation.  Further, the article never states that that “much of the $1.3 million leftover in campaign warchest”, as you stated, but rather that “Retiring Rep. Scott McInnis reportedly plans to use part of his $1.3 million campaign war chest to start his own charitable foundation.”

    Next, a commitment was never made to an organization that I am aware of, or that you can provide any proof of.

    Finally, the money was raised by donors of Scott McInnis, and I am not aware of that any of the money was raised from donors with the expectation that it was would be given to breast cancer research or anything other charitable cause.  So, what “commitment” exactly are you referring to?  Or is this just the latest version of the same hypocritical, intellectually dishonest crap out of Progress Now Colorado?

      1. He can do whatever he wants with his campaign funds.  He should use, or have used, the money in the way that best serves his interests.  That could be making a contribution to charity, donation to a colleagues legal fund, or a funding a future run for federal office.  All are permissible and acceptable per the law and FEC.  

        If you can show me where he made a “commitment” to funding any charity that he did not in fact do, that might be relevant.  But to say that his because an unfinished plan never came about is any indication of his character is a long stretch.

        This has political game written all over it, and brings nothing of substance to the table.  If you want to hate on McInnis because he has an R after his name, have the intellectual honesty to come out and say it, but to try to use a mis-cited news article to do so it is laughable.

        1. McInnis tried to score some cheap political points by loudly pledging to donate funds to cancer research.  But then he decided that Tom Delay needed the money more than cancer victims.  McInnis played the political game badly and now he may have to answer for it.

          1. that some of the funds were going to be used for political purposes.  That was pretty clear from the article.  Again, what is stated about the June 2, 2004 RMN article is not what is in the actual article.

            2. so when the truth isn’t there, just forget the facts, create little sites like Alan’s, and rewrite it.

              jmatt12 is right, and actually cites the article honestly.  If these baseless attacks by the liberal fringe and bitter phonies like MesaModerate are all that’s out there, then McInnis is in good shape.

              The fact is that McInnis pledged to use some of the money for charity and political purposes, which he did.  He fulfilled his commitment.  The only ones trying to earn some fast political points off of this are the fever swamp opportunists looking to boost their web traffic.

        2. I bet that McInnis is already trying to launder his federal campaign donations (raised under looser federal limits) so that he can run for a state office under the tighter limits of Amend 41.

      2. Gene Nichol, Strickland’s primary opponent was the first to use the term during the primary and it stuck.

        Wadhams has really never had an original idea – oh wait, there is that BOULDERLIBERALMARKUDALL  thing.

  5. What a perfect reminder of why this state doesn’t need the likes of Scott McInnis at the helm.  If someone wanted to define “self interested politician” you can’t get much lower than promising $ to start a breast cancer foundation — then use it to pay off Tom DeLay.  If I were a member of the GOP I’d tell Scott that the party isn’t interested in fighting the DeLay/Bush battles anymore.  For god’s sake GOP, turn the page.  

    1. Once Scooter wins the presidency governorship of Colorado think of the fun mapmakers will have–Pike’s Peak will become McInnis Mountain; near CO Springs will have the Garden of Scott; people can take their kids to see a show at RedHead McInnis Amphitheater; and afterwards perhaps take a nice float down the Colorado Scooter McRiver and maybe have an ice cream at the Hotel Scotterado in McInnis Springs.

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

130 readers online now

Newsletter

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