Mudslinging charged in legal revelations

By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 23, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Elections

The October surprise for state House and Senate races appears to be the revelations of temporary restraining orders.

In the past few weeks, mailers paid for by 527 political groups have been sent to voters with somewhat misleading information about temporary restraining orders issued against candidates in tough races.

Republican Kevin Priola, a first-time candidate battling Dave Rose for the House District 30 seat, was reminded of a temporary restraining order issued against him, his father and his firm in 2007. He was reminded when someone showed him a mailer paid for by a group called Accountability for Colorado.

What the mailer didn't say was that the order was dismissed and that it was a legal maneuver by a tenant who was behind in his lease payments as Priola's firm tried to get him evicted.

"I had forgotten about it, to be honest," Priola said.

Priola said that with a little less than two weeks to go before Election Day, it would require a big effort to combat the impression left by the mailer.

"I'm going to stand up and tell the truth and tell them it's a desperate attempt by my opponent and the people helping him," Priola said. "I've worked hard visiting voters and for it to come down to mudslinging like this is reprehensible."

Joe Whitcomb would say the same thing. The opposition found that Whitcomb, a Democrat vying for state Senate District 23 against Republican incumbent Shawn Mitchell, had three restraining orders issued against him in 1995 by an ex-girlfriend.

Mailers have appeared with the image of a scared woman and a quote saying that she was afraid of Whitcomb. It was paid for by Senate Majority Fund LLC.

What the mailer didn't say was that the restraining orders were dismissed and that the woman admitted that Whitcomb never threatened her in any way.

Whitcomb spent money to send out 19,000 robo-dials to refute the mailers and said it bothered him that the restraining orders became an issue this late in the campaign.

"It's one of those things - an allegation that needs no proof or basis in fact," he said.

A blog item on Face the State reported about the restraining orders and quoted Denver defense attorney Larry Pozner saying it is "incredibly easy" to get a restraining order leveled against someone. He cautioned against drawing quick conclusions based on one being filed.

The tactic of using restraining orders being used as ammunition against a candidate late in a campaign seems to be growing.

Last year in Chicago, Bob Fioretti lost an endorsement from the National Organization for Women when it was revealed that he had a restraining order issued against him after a woman accused him of stalking years ago.

Fioretti, running as an alderman, later got the NOW endorsement back when it was determined that the request for the order had no basis in fact and that a judge had vacated it a week after it was filed.

Floyd Ciruli, a Denver-based pollster, said he believes that temporary restraining orders are a "new arrow in the quiver" for 527 organizations, which are tax-exempt special interest groups.

Ciruli said he believes that in future campaigns, some candidates could have third parties seek temporary restraining orders against an opponent, just to put it on record and then get a mailer out with the charge.

"If you have a restraining order, it goes straight to character," Ciruli said. "These are the toughest, most damaging things that can be done, and in these lower-profile races, can be very effective."

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News