Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Amendment 47 backers run afoul of campaign finance law

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 16, 2008 at 10:52 a.m.
Updated October 16, 2008 at 12:16 p.m.

Text size  

More More Business

More stories »

The Colorado Right to Work Committee violated campaign finance laws in failing to disclose all of the contributions made toward putting Amendment 47 on the November ballot, an administrative law judge ruled.

The group has been fined almost $10,000, a penalty of $50 a day for the period from Jan. 16 to July 29 - the day after the committee’s first report was filed through the day of a court hearing.

Administrative Law Judge Michelle Norcross ruled that the committee failed to report all its contributions in its Jan. 15 campaign finance report.

Amendment 47 would do away with compulsory union fees for workers covered by collective bargaining contracts. The current state law requires that at least 75 percent of workers vote to establish such “all-union” agreements.

The court ruling’s “findings of fact” indicate the signatures collected by the group were turned over to Andrew Zuppa, an executive at American Furniture Warehouse, and kept in a safe at his company’s offices until being turned over to the secretary of state’s office in April.

But there was no evidence that Zuppa was paid or that the use of the safe had any “fair market value” that required financial disclosure.

The court also noted that the Colorado Right to Work Committee “has not engaged in much activity since the petitions were submitted.” Once the signatures were filed, a group called A Better Colorado took over to handle the campaign aimed at passing the ballot measure.

Protect Colorado’s Future, a union-back coalition fighting Amendment 47, filed the complaint against the Colorado Right to Work committee in an effort to force the disclosure of the initial financial backers of the measure.

The case failed to show who was behind the committee main donor group, a nonprofit called Protect Colorado Jobs. But it showed a failure to report a number of payments to parties hired to get the initiative on the ballot.

“They certainly participated in a significant level of secrecy in prohibiting the public from seeing how contributions are made and who they’re made from,” said Jess Knox, executive director of Protect Colorado’s Future.

The judge ruled the committee failed to report a number of payments to parties hired to get the initiative on the ballot.

We’re looking at whether or not we’ll appeal it,” said Scott Gessler, the attorney representing the committee. “I just don’t know right now.”

Gessler characterized the outcome as a ruling on the most “minor infractions possible.”

The battle over Amendment 47 has been one of the costliest in the state’s history.

Proponents of Amendment 47 argue that it gives employees the choice of whether to support a union financially. Opponents argue it undermines unions, which by federal law must represent all workers covered by collective bargaining contracts even if they pay nothing toward the expense.

Comments

  • October 16, 2008

    11:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    johne123 writes:

    Apparently the backers of Amendment 47 don't believe in "the freedom" to know who's behind their efforts. Why so secretive guys? What are you hiding?

  • October 16, 2008

    12:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    UnionFirefighter writes:

    I will never, ever shop a t any Jake Jabs establishment again. I will also try to discourage any friends and family from shopping there. Is Jake that dumb? I bet 99% of his customers are middle income workers. Hmmm...take away my ability to negotiate my wage means I will not have any money to shop there. Just stupid, Jake.

  • October 16, 2008

    1:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ari writes:

    "Big_D" might think twice before using the comments section to post libelous remarks. Neither Jon Caldara nor the Independence Institute are involved in Amendment 47, Caldara just confirmed on the phone. Caldara is promoting Amendment 49, not 47. (Incidentally, I've endorsed Amendment 49 but come out against 47.)

    Thanks,
    Ari Armstrong
    http://www.freecolorado.com/

  • October 16, 2008

    1:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    It's typical. They are protecting the wealthiest of the wealthy in this state. Jake Jabbs, Coors. Is it any wonder that it is the wealthiest of the wealthy financed this crap. They hate labor. They have always hated labor, and they will always continue to do so. Real wages in America have not kept up with the cost of living and inflation for over thirty years. Big companies continue to send good paying jobs over seas to countries that have no labor laws. They pay these people peanuts and still charge us the same prices.

    It is time for the American worker to step up and say enough is enough. Union's Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • October 16, 2008

    1:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    UNV_ME writes:

    No on 47.
    Yes to Unions.

  • October 16, 2008

    2:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jbowen43 writes:

    Of course those people think they are above the law. Too bad the fines aren't substantial enough to make a difference to those rich clowns.

  • October 16, 2008

    2:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    richardtmyers writes:

    A couple of things. I've confirmed that what Ari Armstrong says is true, i called the Independence Institute and asked not whether they were backing Amendment 47, but whether Jon Caldara supports Amendment 47. The person i talked to said she couldn't tell me.

    I can't vouch for what they would have said before the spit hit the fan, however. On the other hand, it would be interesting to explore any Jon Caldara's comments about Amendment 47 on his television program. Interesting, but perhaps not in any way conclusive, i know he's suggested before that there is no connection (i take that to mean no financial connection) between 47 and 49. (To their targets, i think they remain ideologically connected.) But thanks to Ari Armstrong for the observation, it is an important one.

    The other point i want to make -- Marshdale, while Jonathan Coors of CoorsTek is backing Amendment 47, Bill Coors (who is more closely connected with the brewery itself) has spoken publicly against Amendment 47. CoorsTek does ceramics, and they've been described as very active in Asia -- recruiting all that low wage help, doncha know. CoorsTek may be a Coors Brewing Company spin-off, but they're very different companies, operated with very different philosophies. Coors is no longer one family with one business philosophy, if it ever was.

    NO on Amendment 47! We shouldn't let people who violate campaign finance laws change our state constitution. And Amendment 47 is just a bad idea...

    best wishes,
    richard myers

  • October 16, 2008

    3:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ObiWan writes:

    Big_D writes:

    Jon Caldara and the Independence Institute involved with breaking campaign finance laws? Who would have thought it?

    Caldara and the Independence Institute are involved with 49, not 47.

    Care to retract?

  • October 16, 2008

    3:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    MarineWing writes:

    If Unions were such a great entity in and of themselves, why should we force employees to belong to them? If they truly serve the best interest of the workers, wouldn't the workers willingly and unabashedly simply join them and pay their dues? Removing the worker's own free will to act or not act is called communism.

  • October 16, 2008

    6:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    YES on 47 for real employee free choice.

    You shouldn't be forced to join a union, our brothers at the state aren't and we should have the same rights Bill Ritter gave them ... the Right-to-Work.

  • October 16, 2008

    9:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Jake Jabs is a defender of economic freedom. Amendment 47 will provide freedom from the tyranny of big labor. The undemocratic card check is coming. Amendment 47 is your only defense against forced payment of union dues.

    Always vote against big labor cartels. Big labor will increase prices, decrease quality, and lower employment levels. Big labor is a cartel with power derived from political connections. If you like cartels such as OPEC, you should be happy to support big labor. If you value competition and choice, you should oppose anything supported by big labor.

  • October 16, 2008

    9:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AvsIn7 writes:

    How can Jabs be for this amendment? Who will use the store break rooms? Did he even think about that? The pleather couches in the break rooms are absolutely to die for. Tragic.

  • October 17, 2008

    3:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    richardtmyers writes:

    MarineWing wrote: "If Unions were such a great entity in and of themselves, why should we force employees to belong to them?"

    MarineWing, you're not paying attention. No one can be forced to join a union. Federal law says so.

    When Channel 9 News found this pro-47 ad to be false:

    "QUOTE: All it does, it gives workers the right to choose for themselves whether or not they want to join a union (Graphic: 'Amendment 47 is about the freedom to choose')

    "TRUTH: This is false."

    http://www.9news.com/news/article.asp...

    ...they also observed,

    "As it stands now, and as we mentioned above, federal law prohibits anyone from being forced to join a union."

    Who would be the best source for information on that issue?

    We might consider the American Bar Association, which has written, "Full union membership cannot be compelled under the NLRA." (National Labor Relations Act)

    http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/sp...

    But let us consider another, even more compelling source. What if the "Right To Work" people themselves -- those who are supporting Amendment 47 -- contradicted their own argument?

    In fact, they do exactly that on their national website:

    "Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?

    "Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?

    "Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees. [...]

    "Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required."

    http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

    Note the emphasis present in the original.

    What does it say, that they're breaking the law AND lying about the law, meanwhile trying to CHANGE THE LAW?

    best wishes,
    richard myers

    IBEW retired

  • October 17, 2008

    3:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    richardtmyers writes:

    (continued)

    If we accept the arguments of the "National Right To Work" people as discussed on their website, then we have a simple notification problem, and not a need to amend state constitutions. The state legislature could easily mandate that unions, and/or companies tell prospective union members that under federal law they're not required to join. We DO NOT need to change the state constitution to accomplish that.

    Second, we might speculate why Colorado's proposed Amendment 47 is written in such a way to seemingly deny federal law. I contend it is because the backers of Amendment 47 are abusing the process, falsely propagandizing that there is a "right" Colorado working people ought to have, but do not have. By characterizing the legal situation in this way, the backers of Amendment 47 are able to generate anger, even outrage, that might carry them to success in their efforts to change the constitution.

    What motivates Amendment 47 backers to mislead and lie? Consider this excerpt from Amendment 47 spokesperson Jake Jabs, reported in Westword:

    "Jake Jabs has embraced the spotlight by running commercials for Amendment 47. At an October press conference, he told reporters he wanted 'to frankly hurt the pocketbooks of the unions.'"

    http://www.westword.com/content/print...

    The Colorado Constitution is more easily amended than repaired if we happen to pass a bad law. Several amendments on the ballot would in fact be laws that many working people in Colorado would come to regret. Amendment 47 is purely an attack against Colorado unions, carried out by a few wealthy corporate extremists. Colorado voters should vote no on all three of the amendments that comprise their attack -- Amendments 47, 49, and 54.

    best wishes,
    richard myers

    IBEW retired