Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras

Breaking News:

Subscribe

The gag amendment

54 would shut down many Coloradans' political speech

Rocky Mountain News

Published October 1, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Tom Lucero, chairman of Clean Government Colorado, speaks in support of Amendment 54.

Video Video: Tom Lucero, chairman of Clean Government Colorado, speaks in support of Amendment 54. Watch »

Joel Heinemann, Firefighter, speaks against Amendment 54.

Video Video: Joel Heinemann, Firefighter, speaks against Amendment 54. Watch »

Related Links

More Editorials

More stories »

Backers of Amendment 54 believe there's a "presumption of impropriety between contributions to any campaign and sole-source government contracts," and they want the Colorado Constitution to reflect their sense of outrage, too.

We've never accepted the assumption that contributing to political campaigns is "corrupt misconduct," as the amendment also states. It's actually an extension of free speech and political advocacy that should not be muzzled, as Amendment 54 would do.

The amendment would bar untold numbers of Coloradans from advocating their positions by making contributions to candidates or political parties - all because they happen to be a government contractor or related to one.

A policy adopted in 1997 by the Regional Transportation District's board that barred contributors from getting contracts was rejected by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as a violation of the First Amendment. Amendment 54 would go further, and probably suffer the same fate. It deserves to be defeated.

Amendment 54 will prevent anyone who has a total of $100,000 or more in "sole-source government contracts" with Colorado agencies - state, county, municipal or district - from donating to any political candidate or related ballot campaign.

"Sole-source government contracts" are defined as those that do not use a public and competitive bidding process soliciting at least three bids.

Also under 54, the contractor and its principal shareholders, officers and directors could not donate to any political party or any candidate for elected office in Colorado for the duration of the contract and for two years after it ends.

The ban applies not just to the agency the contractor is doing business with but to any state or local candidate or party. We can't fathom why, say, a paving contractor in Weld County would be considered corrupt if he and his partners donated to a state House candidate on the Western Slope, or the Democratic Party.

It gets worse. The amendment applies not only to the contractor, but also to "immediate family members," including spouses, children, siblings, grandparents, in-laws, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and domestic partners.

How far this gag on political advocacy reaches isn't clear. University of Colorado Regent Tom Lucero, a key sponsor of 54, told us the family member ban would apply only to donations made to the government agencies that the contractor has business with.

Opponents of the measure claim the ban would block family members from giving to any Colorado campaign. Whoever's right, it's still an affront to free speech to bar a Denver contractor's brother-in-law from donating to a Denver school board campaign.

Moreover, any elected official who "knowingly" accepts a campaign contribution from anyone covered by the strictures of Amendment 54 can be removed from office. Politicians would have to do background checks on their donors.

Amendment 54 assaults political speech in other ways - outlawing campaign contributions by union political-action committees, for instance - but we hope you get the point. It's a poorly crafted measure with potentially far-reaching consequences that needs to be defeated.

Comments

  • October 1, 2008

    6:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    What we really need is a requirement that the names, addresses, pictures, backgrounds and mental capacity of those who propose goofy amendments be posted on a web site. That might stop some of these silly amendments from being on the ballot.

  • October 1, 2008

    6:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Gonzopozo writes:

    It appears the RMN is right on this one. The "sole source" process in State procurement is not a rubber stamp walk in the park. There are tight controls and REAL justifications are required - at least they were in the agency I worked for.

    How does junk like this get on the ballot anyway?

  • October 1, 2008

    6:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    YES on 54 for Clean Government

    Labor Unions, Politicians and Big Corporations oppose this ... follow the money and ask why?

    If it makes them more accountable that is good.

  • October 1, 2008

    8:50 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    intothelens writes:

    I don't like the idea that elected officials are responsible for knowing the origin of ALL their campaign donations, but I think a responsible candidate should indeed know from whom the LARGEST donations are coming from. And I do know this -- there is too much money in campaigns. Offices are being bought. And if you receive the benefit of a sole source gov't contract -- the good fortune of not having any competition -- taking a step away from the political process does not seem like an unfair trade.

  • October 1, 2008

    10:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    a_watcher writes:

    Put in the national context, the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can be traced back to the refusal of the Democrats in Congress to allow them to be regulated.

    When it was discovered that the executives were using fraudulent accounting to inflate their multi-million dollar bonuses, Democrats in Congresss attacked the regulator. It wasn't an accident that they were on the take from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives.

    In this case, the "free speech" that the Rocky wants to protect cost the taxpayers $85 Billion.

    I don't consider that free.

  • October 1, 2008

    10:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cleanman writes:

    RMN got it wrong on this one. They are shilling for labor this cycle. This is a simple amendment that would clean up the backroom deals and provide for NO-BID contract database so taxpayers can see where their money is being spent.

    This same type of amendment has been done in 7 other states. NJ courts just ruled that this is indeed CONSTITUTIONAL because it is a contract matter. Read the text Mr. Carroll.

    visit www.CoCleanTeam.com and see for yourself.

  • October 1, 2008

    11:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    P_Denver writes:

    I like it. Vote Yes.

  • October 1, 2008

    4:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    Why not just get rid of sole-source contracts?

  • October 1, 2008

    4:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    "University of Colorado Regent Tom Lucero, a key sponsor of 54, told us the family member ban would apply only to donations made to the government agencies that the contractor has business with."

    Mr. Lucero seems to be incorrect:

    Section 15: Because of a presumption of impropriety between contributions to any campaign and sole source government contracts, contract holders shall contractually agree, for the
    duration of the contract and for two years thereafter, to cease making, causing to be made, or inducing by any means, a contribution, directly or indirectly, on behalf of the contract holder or on behalf of his or her immediate family member and for the benefit of any political party or for the benefit of any candidate for any elected office of the state or any of its political subdivisions.

    It clearly says "any candidate for any elected office of the state."

    While I do believe this is constitutional, this is too broad a restriction. I'll vote no.

  • October 1, 2008

    8:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    Here at the Flying Saucer Mobile Home Park in Southwest Denver,
    we've been discussing this proposed Constitutional Amendment. Most here believe what is needed in addition to this is Amendment 55 that would prevent contributions to political and religious organizations from anyone who makes their living from the private sector. The discussion is not over. Luke suggested voting rights be removed from those who's income comes solely from the private sector. Only those who receive the benefits of tax revenues should possess the right to vote. Video at 10:00.

  • October 1, 2008

    10:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike846 writes:

    I agree with Andy. Why aren't ALL contracts put out for bid? This amendment is a direct result of the corruption that has ruled the "sole source" process for years. Of course its cumbersome; it's meant to be. Again, put everything out to bid, and this amendment becomes meaningless. Mike

  • October 17, 2008

    10:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    UnionFirefighter writes:

    I want to know why this amendment has to include labor contracts. They are trying to fool the voters into thinking that labor contracts are a sole-source contract. They are not. Labor contracts are set up with EMPLOYEES. Can you imagine if the City of Denver fired all of its firefighters and police officers every year in order to re-hire them on a bid process? It is absolutely ludacris. This is an opportunity that the authors and backers are using to try to bust unions. VOTE NO ON 54!

  • October 22, 2008

    2:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    sac621 writes:

    We must get special interest out of politics if we want to fix our country's problems.
    There is too much corruption in our government.big business is taking over our leaders.
    I went to http://www.fec.gov/ and found what and who is donating to the candidates . It appears to me that Obama is buy the race and if you really trace all the donations back to their original source you will find that big business and special interest are in cahoots with Obama.
    Its quite sad really.
    I was going to vote for him until I found out that has been lying to us all and the only real change is for the worst.
    Please stop being party liners and check it out!
    Also check this out:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releas...

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints