CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

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
December 13, 2009 01:21 AM UTC

Morgan Carroll Interview

  • 53 Comments
  • by: DavidThi808

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

I got the chance to interview Morgan Carroll yesterday. How someone can be that positive & energetic after years in the sausage factory is amazing. And in the unusual (unique?) category, her entire discussion was about increasing participation in the legislative process by citizens without a word about Morgan Carroll. Not even a word about her specific legislation. Nothing about her at all until I started asking her some questions that drove the conversation that way.

So the first 20 minutes or so were about participation – and how legislation is poorer for a lack of any participation by the voters. The average bill gets zero comments from citizen. Most of the rest get one. Now granted, some of the legislation is a snore-fest but still, this is not participatory democracy.  

Now, citizens don’t participate but the lobbyists sure do. This was a real eye-opener to her when she first started in the legislature. She at first was wondering who are all these people and why are they affecting my legislation. Morgan sees this problem not as one of the individual lobbyists, but a system where the legislators are term limited, but the lobbyists are not. Where a legislator makes 35K/year while a lobbyists makes 35K/mo. Where the legislators have little to no staff while the lobbyists have substantial staff. It’s a very lopsided power structure.

And her list went on. One biggie is the legislators are having to work through 800 bills while a lobbyist is focused on 8. That difference in mind share is a tremendous advantage. You also have the lobbyists funding campaigns, controlling many endorsements, etc. In many cases all of the substantial research on a bill comes from the lobbyists because they’re the only ones with the staff to perform the research. This even reaches the extent where lobbyists will write a bill and then look for a legislator to introduce it.

To counter this she wants to see the legislature do a better job of reaching out to people, letting them know what is going on, letting them how they can testify on each bill. Morgan says she has seen votes flip when citizens, even a few, show up and testify on a bill. Constituents have a lot of potential power, but rarely exercise it.

The lobbyists are there on each bill, but plain old constituents, rarely seen. Yet the voters have a lot more influence that the lobbyists when they choose to exercise it. Senator Carroll’s biggest example of this is the eminent domain where the lobbyists (all from the developer & construction industry) said that eminent domain was fine with everyone. But there were a number of voters who showed up opposed to eminent domain – and they got the bill flipped to restrict when it can be used.

She also talked about how critical it is for legislators to read every bill. She’s one of the few in the legislature who does this (in Hawaii I think my mom is the only one who reads each bill in full). But for the others, just taking the summation, in many cases they are voting the opposite of how they would vote if the understood the details. (Part of this is getting legislators to actually read the legislation. But equally important is getting voters to look at it as then you have other eyes reading the legislation in full.)

Morgan said this is why she does not leave the floor to talk to lobbyists, because when the amendments are brought up you need to be on the floor reading the amendments and figuring out what that does to the legislation. She is worried that people will be upset with her for this practice – I told her on the contrary, the voters respect her for this and wish the other legislators would follow the same practice. (If you appreciate the fact that she doesn’t leave the floor for lobbyists, please shoot her a fast note at morgan@senmorgancarroll.com)

{next 30 minutes off the record – and hence no recording} We got into a discussion about new ways to bring about citizen participation on legislation. Morgan is very open to trying to make effective use of the web and a lot of this could have a significant impact on what legislation is passed and how it is amended. I don’t want Republicans, and lobbyists (but I repeat myself), seeing what is coming. So we’ll have to wait and see during this upcoming session if the Democratic legislators implement these ideas – and if so how effective it is.

{back on the record} – I asked Senator Carroll if she will be running for Governor in 4 years. She said that she would like to be governor someday but there is still a lot of legislation she wants to get passed and that can better be done in the Senate. She talked through the pros & cons and how she weighs it out so I think she is sincere in saying that she is not presently planning on running. But my guess is come 2013 she will face the decision of “now” or wait 8 more years – and will go for now (2014).

As to how good a governor she would be? If I had to pick today who I wanted taking over after Ritter’s second term – I would easily pick Morgan. She is independent, smart, thinks for herself, fights for all of us, and wants to take Colorado into the future as a state that invests in its people. Equally important, she also has an incredibly positive high-energy personality that is perfect for the leader of a state.

First published at Morgan Carroll Interview

Would you vote for Morgan if she ran for Governor

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

53 thoughts on “Morgan Carroll Interview”

  1. I think Sen. Carroll has some work to do if she wanted to run for Governor, but I would be proud to support her. She’s an interesting person. Definitely one of my favorite elected officials.

  2. We need more high energy, smart, independent-minded elected officials like her.  But at this point, my first choice for Governor in 2014 is Cary Kennedy.

    As for more citizen involvement in vetting legislation, I can see where web access and feedback would be an incredibly powerful tool, if done fairly (on line blue book analysis).  

    Not sure I’d allow it to be anonymous, however.  The paranoid don’t get a vote on such matters in my book.

    1. But Morgan has pushed the envelope more in terms of trying to effect some real change. Part of that is due to the different offices they hold – but with Morgan we have a clearer picture of what we will get.

      1. It strikes me as an odd tradition, but for whatever reason, the Treasurer’s office has been a pretty common stepping stone to the Governor’s office.

        But despite the relatively low profile, I have to admire her brilliance at preserving the state’s funds through all the recent market meltdowns.

        We’ll be hearing much more from her in the next few years.  We’ll certainly know what we’re getting before 2014.  But I’d be happy to see both throw their hats in the ring, and may the best candidate win.

        BTW, it could also be AR’s next shot at being Lt.G.

        1. Checking back to 1905 – the last term of Alva Adams – only two Governors, Owens and Romer, previously served as Treasurer. Serving in the state Senate, or as a judge, has been a much more common path.

  3. The committee hearings happen during the day, when most people are working. The legislative process is complex, and bills often are laid over or delayed at the last minute, so someone who planned to take an afternoon off from work to testify on a bill often finds the schedule changed at almost the last minute.

    Only rarely do committees leave the hallowed marble hallways of the Capitol to hold hearings in other parts of Colorado. As a result, people who live outside the metro area don’t have the same opportunities to deliver their opinions in person.

    Letters and emails to legislators can affect bills, but not nearly to the extent that a handful of ordinary folks testifying in person can. I spent many years observing the Legislature firsthand (yes, I was paid to be there), and I was surprised at the impact a few citizens can have on certain bills. Once in a while, they even beat the lobbyists, which is a pleasure to see.

    I don’t know what the solution is to the problems I’ve mentioned here, but I suppose that’s why we have representative government. At some point, we the people have to trust our lawmakers to do the right thing when they head off to the Capitol to ostensibly represent us.

    1. to be in the room when HB1341 (reorganizing the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission)was passed in a senate committee. It was quite a moment; I will always remember it.

    2. If someone has a webcam then when their scheduled time hits – they just do gotomeeting and they’re testifying. No schedule problems, no location problems.

      I don’t know if the legislature would go for it – but it’s a very solvable problem.

  5. I realize you’re making a joke there, Dave, but I hope you know how wrong that observation is. Democrats have just as many entrenched, status quo-seeking interests as Republicans, and they are well represented by lobbyists.

  6. ….for two legislative sessions.  What an incredible experience, both for the overall glimpse into our law making, and to work with such a champion of the people.

    Morgan’s father was also a lawyer and a legislator.  The fruit didn’t fall far from the tree.

    Every evening that I worked, the last thing was to look at the agenda for the next day and then pull all the folders for those bills.  That night, she would read them, or the amendments that have been offered.  I’ll cut the lazy legislators some slack and say perhaps you don’t have to read every word, but damn, at least look through it.

    The monies allocated to the legislators is woefully inadequate.  They can’t even afford one full time aide at a miserly salary!  The office supply budget is similar, sometimes it’s just easier to pay for that inkjet (privately bought) cartridge than go through the hoops.  This is why the R’s used this underfunding to try to permit lobbyists to “help” with office expenses.

    Not only would I vote for Morgan for guv, if at all possible I would move back to work for her.  You can be sure the corporate lobbyists will work super hard to defeat her.

    1. I held back initially on this thread, hesitant to chime in with just more of the same high praise, but some people deserve it. And, given the meager salary that Colorado state legislators make, the least we can do is augment it with our loudly expressed appreciation, expecially when such appreciation is so well-earned. Morgan is a shining example of what a state legislator, or a public servant of any kind, should strive to be. We’re extremely fortunate to have her.

      2. Don’t you know that?

        Two letters in today’s local paper saying that the way to create jobs is for government to get the hell out of the way.

        I think I can guess what those writers listen to on the radio.

        2. From today’s NYT obit  on Paul Samuelson:

          The textbook introduced generations of students to the revolutionary ideas of John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who in the 1930s developed the theory that modern market economies could become trapped in depression and would then need a strong boost from government spending or tax cuts, in addition to lenient monetary policy, to get back on track. No student would ever again rest comfortable with the 19th-century nostrum that private markets would cure unemployment without need of government intervention.

          That should be the case, but unfortunately it’s not. Apparently this obit has been in the can waiting for a top for quite some time. As we know all too well, laissez-faire fundamentalism has been making an alarming resurgence over the past three decades (driven not by data, of course, but rather by superstition and right-wing demagoguery).

          Anyway, rest in peace, Dr. Samuelson. Count me among the millions who enjoyed your textbook as an undergrad.

          1. has never, since at least the 1930s, been as popular among economists as among pseudo-economists. The marginal movement within the discipline toward it, led by Milton Friedman, has since ebbed considerably, with most economists recognizing the substantial and inevitable major role that governments must play in managing modern market economies. In an issue of The Economist magazine about 18 months ago (sorry, no citation), 80% of American economists favored Democratic over Republican economic policies. And American economists are, as a group, far to the right of world economists.

            The Economist magazine itself, founded as a vehicle for championing free markets, is quite consistent in its condemnation of the fiscal folly of the American far-right, and acknowledges that government has a substantial role to play (favoring, for instance, universal single-payer health care as the most economically rational option).

            John Maynard Keynes essentially founded modern macroeconomic theory, and, despite the false but vigorously promoted meme that Keynesiasm is dead, no paradigm has ever displaced Keynesian analysis as the foundation of macroeconomic theory. All college macroeconomic textbooks are explanations of Keynesian theory.

            In microeconomics, meanwhile, transaction cost economics has come to dominate the field. Transaction cost economics, developed and championed by Nobel Prize Winners Ronald Coase, Douglass North, Oliver Williamson, and Elinor Ostrom (to name just a few), explores how the driving imperative of reducing transaction costs sometimes favors hierarchical (eg, governmental and corporate) involvement in a market economy as the economically most efficient solution to particular challenges.

            Political democracy requires as high a degree of economic literacy as possible in order to function most effectively. Here’s hoping we move in that direction.

              1. but there’s a pension scheme named after Hayek: “The Hayek Pension,” which is a compulsory pension savings which decreases inversely to after-tax life-time earnings (with wealthier people getting little or no pension). I don’t know if Hayek actually designed it, but it would seem likely, given the name.

          2. Samuelson’s book was the standard text in a couple of my Economics classes.  Definitely opened my eyes to the need to understand market behavior and applying the right tools to mitigate the more extreme swings.

            Although I don’t see much commentary from the Right on this thread, let me throw out a few simple questions to see if they are merely lurking:

            Does anyone feel that professional sports would be better served if there were no umpires or referees?  

            Why can’t these extremely well-paid athletes be entrusted to regulate their own games?

            Isn’t it in both their best interests, as well as that of the fans, that the games are unimpeded by any rules or regulations that any individual player is unwilling to impose upon themself (the heck with their teammates)?

            Would that just leave us with a single sport — Rollerball?

            1. is to get everyone to admit that we all believe in government regulation. No market at least since the invention of nationally-backed currencies has ever been unregulated. Our modern markets are as robust as they are because we have such currencies, and a government to both back them and to define and enforce property rights. These government regulations vastly decrease transaction costs, and grease market exchanges.

              Once you get past the empty rhetoric and false dichotomy of “regulation v. no regulation,” we can address the real question: how much and what kinds of regulation? The economist’s answer is: Those regulations which increase efficiency, and address market failures.

              Our complex, high-tech economy requires an elaborate and sophisticated regulatory architecture to function with maximum efficiency, and with vigilance vis-a-vis past and potential market failures. And the very robustness of markets in the production of wealth, which is complemented by the equally robust production of positive and negative externalities, demands as a part of that regulatory architecture reasonable and well-designed attempts to internalize those externalities within the dynamics of the market system itself.

              This should be the starting point of the discussion, the part that is obvious and (in a rational world) non-controversial. From there we can begin to ask how much we want to compromise the market’s robustness in the production of wealth in order to balance that positive function with other values, such as sustainability (dealt with to some extent in internalizing externalities), and equitable distrubution of real opportunity.

              This is the kind of calm, rational discussion a responsible democratic electorate should be having, instead of raising billboards insinuating absurd allegations about the validity of the president’s birth certificate, and spewing shallow and ill-informed platitudes about how much better the world would be if we just got the government out of the way.

              The government is one tool (or set of tools) in our tool kit, our agent, imperfect and limited as all tools are, to be used as wisely and appropriately as possible. The discussion should be over how to do that, not whether it should be done.

              1. …  and give the kids in the back of the room a chance to make up answers as absurd as the simplistic questions I posed.

                Besides, would the Broncos have won if they didn’t have all those pesky penalties to deal with?

                  1. It doesn’t look like the Aynnie Randies want to come out to play anyway.

                    Maybe my simple illustration of the correlation between sports’ and business’s inablity to self-regulate turned on a lightbulb.

                    One can only hope.

                    But I will agree with anyone, left or right, that the rules and regulations should be administered expertly and fairly.  

                    The main bone of contention is in deciding the aggregate net benefit of any given rule or regulation.  But that’s why we have politics and political parties.

            2. You say that like it would be a bad thing.

              Seriously- wouldn’t the officials be present but buyable?  I’m thinking it would have been a lot easier to buy the Series in 1919 to buy the umpires.

              1. is that everyone’s in the game. The utterly undemocratic invention of judicial review saved the United States from the almost inevitable disintegration of failing to give anyone the last word. But who would claim that the judiciary is not political? Certainly, the administrative sub-branch of the executive branch of government doesn’t resemble an umpire at all: It is far more accustomed to running the football up and down the field, depending on who is in the oval office. Gag rule for agencies receiving federal money? Yes-no-yes-no, as the presidency bounces back and forth between parties.

                What a wonderful world we live in!

  7. She doesn’t represent me she represents the people of Colorado and truly cares about doing what is right for the State of Colorado.  

    You will get no argument from me on singing her praise.  She deserves it.  

  8. I am Proud Morgan Carroll was my rep. I met her many times at community meetings. I would drag my entire family to the polls to vote her for Governor on election day.

  9. over 3 yrs ago. (She was Rep. Carroll then). I was immensely impressed by nearly everything she said as well as how she said it. My only disappointment was (and still is) that she doesn’t represent my district.

    I would love to make the difficult decision about whether to support Carroll or Kennedy for Governor. Also, I look forward to the two of them leading the discussion over the next four years of where we should be taking Colorado.

    We will have two bright and progressive visions of the future to contrast with the Penry CSB.  

    1. ….as TR’s progressive movement.

      Socialism is an economic system and I don’t think she’s ever advocated a state run economy.

      Of course, nuances…no, outright major definitions, always seem to escape those of your ideologies.

  11. I know Senator Carroll and have attended her Town Hall meetings and coffees, even though I don’t live in her district. I am impressed at the work she does at these formats and others for the purpose of empowering the average citizen to have a voice in their government, because as was pointed out in the interview, you can bet the lobbyists make sure their voice is heard.

    It’s unfortunate but true that due to the lack of resources available to legislators (low pay, “part time job” that for some like Senator Carroll is almost full time, and virtually no staff) lobbyists and special interests become inordinately influential in the legislative process. Until recently I was all for term limits on legislators, but in conversations with Senator Carroll, I am now beginning to see the deleterious effects and unintended consequences of term limits on the legislative process.

    I think Senator Carroll would make an excellent governor for Colorado, and if she would choose to run I would fully support her.  

  12. Morgan has the technical skill to interpret legislation.  Not every legislator is equally skilled.  However, most are good on their committee bills

    But think about how much they have to read over a very short time frame.  800 bills, plus the long bill, plus the engrossed, reengrossed, revised, rerevised and draft bills is a tremendous number of legal documents in 4 months.  For the non lawyers in their first few house terms the work is overwhelming.

    There are only 13(?) lawyers out of the entire 100 legislators, that means everyone else had to learn how to read and understand what bills even mean on their own.  I commend their efforts and their diligence for a job that pays 30k and has one 1/2 time staffer  

  13. Feel like I have entered the Ms. MC worship cult.  Yes, legislators get most of their information from lobbyists, and their challenge is to weed through the crap and find the truth.  But in a state with no staff and little funding for research that is how you learn things.  If MC doesn’t want to talk to lobbyists who, while biased, often have the best information, where does she get her info?  Most of the time she has a preconceived notion of where she wants to go on an issue, and doesn’t want to be bothered with any new info that might change her perspective.  Additionally, that broad brush of “lobbyists are sleazy” includes public interest/non profit lobbyists as well as state employees.  Cary Kennedy is thoughtful and really listens to folks.  MC already knows everything.  Or so she seems.  But the left just loves to coo over her.  Don’t get it. I will say this, she is a good floor fighter, and since she and Anne McGihon left the House, there are few Dems who are any good at that.  

    3. I talked to her for about an hour and found her incredibly open to new ideas. Now if you’re a tobacco lobbyist and are upset that you don’t have her at your beck & call – that’s one of the reasons the voters appreciate her.

    4. I know more than a few lobbyists, and I have no problem with saying that I wish that more of our elected officials were more like Morgan Carroll in respect to their interactions with lobbyists.

      Furthermore, who cares if she snubs lobbyists. IMO, Morgan Carroll does more to interact with her constituents than nearly all of her colleagues in the GA. They, and the state, would do well to follow her examples.

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

249 readers online now

Newsletter

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