On Point: No wiggle room

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Desperate supporters of Amendment 41 are arguing, some even with a straight face, that their attempt to rewrite their monstrosity after voters enshrined it in the constitution is no different from what occurred after passage of Amendment 27 a few years ago.

Early in 2003, they point out, the legislature wrote "clarifying language" to smooth 27's rough edges regarding campaign finance. That's all they want the legislature to do today with Amendment 41, they insist. So what's the big deal?

The big deal? Let's see: How about two wrongs don't make a right? As a Rocky editorial complained in 2003 (and remember, we opposed 27 just as we opposed 41 last fall), one popular legislative plan amounted to "a brazen attempt to get around the strict campaign contribution limits that had been approved by voters in last year's Amendment 27."

Just because lawmakers illegally rewrite the constitution once doesn't make it any more palatable the second time around.

As it happens, at least one aspect of Amendment 27's provisions was not perfectly clear. To the surprise of some supporters, state Attorney General Ken Salazar ruled that the amendment did not cover legislative office accounts.

In a recent letter to Rocky media critic Jason Salzman, former Senate Minority Leader Mark Hillman explained as well as anyone why 41 leaves no wiggle room whatever for lawmakers.

"Who is covered \[by 41]? 'Any employee, including independent contractors, of the state, a public institution of higher education, or any local government.'

"What is prohibited? The above \[people] as well as their 'spouse or dependent children' from receiving 'any gift or thing of value' worth more than $50 'from a person.' "

And "person" is defined carefully, too. It means "any individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, limited liability company, partnership, labor organization, association, political party, committee, or other legal entity."

Hillman goes on to point out that "in all three cases the definition uses the all-inclusive 'any' and then the amendment prohibits legislation that would 'limit or restrict' the scope of the amendment.

"If the legislature were to say that 'any employee' doesn't include certain employees or that a spouse or dependent child is not covered when the text clearly says otherwise," it would "clearly violate the plain letter of the law," Hillman concludes.

"Amendment 41, love it or hate it, was perhaps the most poorly drafted ballot issue in my lifetime."

Amen.

Giuliani and 9/11

Here's the story line for Rudolf Giuliani's career, a story line that is now cemented in conventional wisdom: It was saved by 9/11.

Last weekend alone I read two such accounts of Giuliani - by Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal and Gail Schoettler in The Denver Post.

According to Noonan, "On 9/1 0/01 he was a bum, on 9/11 he was a man, and on 9/12 he was a hero."

Schoettler offered a similar chronology. "Until Sept. 11, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was headed out of office on a rail, despised by New Yorkers for his abrasive manner. His performance in the aftermath of that awful day not only redeemed him as mayor, but also propelled him into a presidential bid."

But was Giuliani, now an all-but-announced Republican presidential candidate, really persona non grata in his own city on the day before the terrorists struck? Tom Bevan of the RealClearPolitics Web site has unearthed some evidence that debunks this well-groomed fable.

"Before 9/11," he writes, "Rudy was pretty darn well-respected, though not necessarily so well liked.

"Six days before Sept. 11, Quinnipiac recorded Rudy's job approval rating among 303 New York City likely Democratic primary voters at 42 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove."

Six weeks earlier, Bevan meanwhile notes, a wider poll of all New York registered voters found his approval rating at 50 percent, with 40 percent disapproving.

Giuliani was no hero to most New Yorkers pre-9/11, in other words, but he was no bum, either. And he certainly wasn't about to be run out of office on a rail.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.