Campaign Finance Complaint Filed Against "Dr. Evil" Initiatives

15 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

High-powered elections lawyer Mark Grueskin, representing the committee Protect Colorado’s Communities, today filed a complaint alleging significant violations of Colorado law by proponents of Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101–better known as the “Dr. Evil” initiatives. Release follows: says Grueskin, “You don’t get three initiatives on the ballot without spending thousands of dollars – or winking and nodding while someone else does it for you.”

We don’t have a good answer either–how does one collect hundreds of thousands of signatures without spending any money? That’s some real “sharks with frickin’ laser beams” for you. Who knows what they’ll actually accomplish with this complaint (we never get our hopes up about these), but the appearances are shady enough that opponents would be fools not to try.

Issue Committee Calls on Proponents of Anti-Government Measures to Disclose Donors

“Money was spent putting these measures on the ballot. The public has a right to know who is footing the bill.”

DENVER, CO – Protect Colorado’s Communities-an issue committee filed with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office to oppose Amendment 60, Amendment 61, and Proposition 101-filed a complaint with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office this afternoon alleging the proponents of the three anti-government ballot measures spent well more than $200 to print and circulate petitions to place the measures on the ballot and failed to report the donors who are behind their effort.

“You don’t get three initiatives on the ballot without spending thousands of dollars – or winking and nodding while someone else does it for you,” said Mark Grueskin, attorney for Protect Colorado’s Communities. “The law is clear: the public has a right to know who is funding these anti-government efforts. These complaints just ask, what – and who – are these proponents hiding?”

“Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61, if passed, would initiate the most vague and reckless overhaul of state and local fiscal policy that Colorado has seen in almost 20 years”, said Tyler Chafee, the Registered Agent for Protect Colorado’s Communities. “These measures would certainly put an end to any hope that Colorado had of recovering the jobs we lost in the economic downturn. I think the people of Colorado deserve to know who is really behind such a radical set of disastrous fiscal policies.”

15 thoughts on “Campaign Finance Complaint Filed Against “Dr. Evil” Initiatives”

DavidThi808 says:

January 5, 2010 at 3:43 am

While I think these would be devastating for Colorado, I also support the right for anyone to put anything up for a vote if they meet the requirements.

And while I agree that it strains credibility that this was accomplished for $200.00 – it is possible. And I don’t think we should require people to prove innocence just because we think something is unlikely.

Here’s hoping that PCC has some actual evidence to back up their complaint. Because otherwise it’ll be thrown out, and should be. But that also makes it harder for someone else who comes later with actual evidence.

So good luck PCC, but you better have something more than “we don’t think it can be done this way.”

Log in to Reply
1. Danny the Red (hair) says:
  
  January 5, 2010 at 4:02 am
  
  Printing, paid circulators, lawyers?
  
  Not possible even using volunteer lawyers and labor.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Jack Burden says:
  
  January 5, 2010 at 5:00 am
  
  I also support the right for anyone to put anything up for a vote if they meet the requirements.
  
  Weren’t you a strong supporter of Ref O?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. DavidThi808 says:
    
    January 5, 2010 at 6:31 am
    
    I support anyone using the process to put something on the ballot. I also support making the process a bit more rigorous.
    
    Log in to Reply
3. Half Glass Full says:
  
  January 6, 2010 at 2:13 am
  
  He’ll do what it takes not to get this lawsuit thrown out. There’ll be depositions. I would love to see the transcript of a deposition of Douglas Bruce done by Mark Grueskin.
  
  Log in to Reply
redstateblues says:

January 5, 2010 at 4:07 am

as the first election-year lawsuit of the decade? First of many, of course.

Log in to Reply
RedGreen says:

January 5, 2010 at 4:33 am

George W. Bush, that’s who.

Log in to Reply
1. Half Glass Full says:
  
  January 6, 2010 at 2:11 am
  
  I can just picture him in the White House, watching that flick over and over. I’ll bet the asshole spent five more times watching Austin Powers flicks then he ever spent reading the 9/11 Report. Make that ten times. Twenty.
  
  Meanwhile, Obama is poring over hundreds of pages of information about the recent bombing attempt.
  
  Log in to Reply
gaf says:

January 5, 2010 at 5:32 am

The links for #101 and #61 took me to the #60 complaint.

Log in to Reply
Leonard Smalls says:

January 5, 2010 at 6:34 am

I’m still not clear how these passed the single subject requirement though. I had been expecting a challenge on those grounds.

Log in to Reply
Walter in Denver says:

January 5, 2010 at 7:45 am

right until we don’t.

Log in to Reply
1. RedGreen says:
  
  January 5, 2010 at 7:48 am
  
  cheating.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Gilpin Guy says:
  
  January 5, 2010 at 3:58 pm
  
  if it is done by liberals or community activists like ACORN. Otherwise it is OK and winky winky we all know that playing hardball means crossing the line sometimes.
  
  Cheaters are as American as Dick Cheney and those who play by the rules are wimps who deserve to be slaughtered.
  
  Log in to Reply
Majority Moderate says:

January 5, 2010 at 8:04 pm

He doesn’t believe in campaign reporting. See the attached article from the Colorado Springs Independent:

http://www.csindy.com/colorado…

Log in to Reply
Half Glass Full says:

January 6, 2010 at 2:09 am

Log in to Reply