Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Amendment 41 Injunction Reversed

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:22:28 AM MST


Lunch at The Palm, anyone? Who's buying? From the Colorado Supreme Court this morning:

Court's conclusion:

Today we hold that Amendment 41, as adopted by Colorado voters in November 2006, is self-executing. The Amendment's independent ethics commission was intended to implement and enforce its provisions, separate and apart from any further action of the legislature. We also recognize that Governor Ritter is a proper party defendant in this case. Nonetheless, because the preliminary injunction was issued before the Commission came into existence, and before it had the opportunity to act in furtherance of the Amendment, we find that Plaintiffs failed to present a ripe as-applied constitutional challenge. We do not address the other issues on appeal. We uphold the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss on the proper party and self-execution issues. Because the district court did not have the jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction, however, we reverse its order and direct the court to vacate the preliminary injunction.

At the top of the list, we would count the chief beneficiary of today's ruling as CD-2 candidate Jared Polis. We would say so, since clearly Amendment 41 is the stick political insiders have been beating Polis with since it was passed in 2006 and is broadly viewed as the chief reason for his falling out with Democratic leadership, but we're waiting to see if he responds magnanimously--or with the kind of spiteful arrogance about 41 that put off former friends to begin with. UPDATE: Polis responds.

The chief losers from today's decision are in all probability the "sky-is-falling" chorus that dogged Amendment 41 into injunction over the past year. They are partly right to minimize the ruling as not addressing the merits of the case, but it's not that simple.

What many of 41's opponents fear most is the Ethics Commission prescribed by the law being successfully established, since it is likely to shake out the more alarmist hypothetical cases posed by 41's detractors as baseless and establish operating procedures that administer the law fairly. What the Supremes said essentially is that the commission has to be established now, and an actual sanction made before the case is "ripe" to be adjudicated. Amendment 41's defenders at Colorado Common "Curse" Cause insist that the commission will demystify the "scare tactics" used by opponents and show that Amendment 41 can work constitutionally, dramatically changing the discussion.

But if there's anybody out there who already has a well-formed opinion about Amendment 41, it's our distinguished readers. Like Rush Limbaugh loves to say, tell us what to think.
Colorado Pols :: Amendment 41 Injunction Reversed
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Amendment 41 Injunction Reversed | 56 comments
The preliminary injunction is vacated ...
So, Amendment 41 is self-executing and has been in effect since it passed? That could be a problem. Sure hope the members of "the Commission" get paid because this is going to be way too much cr*p to take for nothing.
clever by half
Opponents of 41 have stalled and dragged their feet. Now it turns out the stalling tactics were too clever by half.  It will likely be at least six more months before the State Supreme Court now rules on the constitutionality of 41.  
[ Parent ]
"So, Amendment 41 is self-executing and has been in effect since it passed?"
I suggest you read the ruling before commenting, and you wouldn't have to ask that question.

"America is not yet lost. But the Senate is working on it."--Paul Krugman
[ Parent ]
Sounds like a big "punt" to me
I love it when a Supreme Court refuses to decide on an issue and instead takes a technical "out".

Leaves everyone in doubt over the substance of the issue, possibly injuring many.

Well, all you government employees, be careful out there.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

Problems
could have been avoided by a well written amendment in the first place or by dealing with th whole thing in ordinary legislation.  That's why I voted against it even though, no more free stuff from lobbyists makes a good sound-bite. The devil was in the failure to address ambiguities that are clearly a problem. It was a lousy amendment.
[ Parent ]
This is a total punt
Ripeness is a total cop-out.

What Ripeness means is someone has to get hurt in order for a suit to go forward.

A fireman's kid has to lose a scholarship.

A climate researcher has to be denied the Nobel prize.

A retiring parks and Rec worker has to get a watch and be brought up on ethics charges.

Everytime I start warming to Polis, I am reminded that his personal weaknesses have had a negative impact on this state.

[ Parent ]
Re: Polis
Everytime I start warming to Polis, I am reminded that his personal weaknesses have had a negative impact on this state.

I was about to write something similar. Polis has a very thin record, which isn't necessarily a negative in and of itself. That said when your thin record includes A41 that's a big negative.

It was poorly thought out and poorly written. The flaws were obvious and predictable. That Polis so closely aligned himself with this reflects very poorly on his judgment. That he then attempted to buy his way out of the mess via high-dollar lobbyists and consultants demonstrates that he has a significant blind-spot when it comes to his personal actions. Neither is a good quality in a Congressman.  

[ Parent ]
Ok guys
67% of Colorado voted for this... just because the state govt and lobby community dislikes us, do not discount what this can do to clean up Colorado.  
[ Parent ]
Once upon a time, there was a bill
aimed at what the voters thought they were voting for this time.  I want to say it was run by Romanoff before the majority switch, it died in the first committee.  Can't remember all of the details, but there it is.

This was a poorly drafted amendment that has more unintended consequences than actual, workable rules.  It also leaves out a lot of government that people think out to be covered, it's only the rule for state employees, not city, not county.

Of course people voted for something billed as Ethics in Government, everyone wants ethics in government, we all agree on that.  And yes, we all wish that voters would read and really understand what they are voting for, but we, as a people, don't.  Just because people vote for it doesn't make it perfect.

[ Parent ]
First of all
I don't think Polis actually wrote the amendment. But that's a minor point. If judicial and legislative action, together with some good old common sense on the parts of the commission members, solves all the ridiculous "worst case" hypotheticals that get thrown around, then literally ALL you have is the fact that you disagree with A41 on its merits. Well, 2/3 of state voters disagree with YOU and think A41 will have very POSITIVE impacts on the state. I really don't think there's anything else to say, and you're entitled to your opinion.

By the way, "arrogance" means, precisely, substituting your judgment for those of 60% plus of the state's voters.

[ Parent ]
If you ask the people who voted for this if they intended
kid's to be denied scholarships

nobel prize winners to be denied their prize

Employee's of the government who clean up trash in the park to be denied retirement gifts.

I think most would say "that's not what I voted for"

I think people voted for 41 based on a capaign, paid for by Polis, that implied that the ammendment only covered elected officials and maybe bureacrats with budgetary control.  I would have supported that as well, but I actually read the ballot iniatives.  

Anyone who voiced these concerns was vilified as being "pro-lobbyiest" or in the "pocket of special interest".  As a lawyer I believe the law should be followed, which is why I want good laws written.  I found calling me names insulting and implying I was dishonest for opposing this law offended by sense of honor and that is why hammer so hard on this issue and its supporters.

[ Parent ]
Danny, you're absolutely right.
And since when do we make laws that leave the details up to a changing body?  "Oh, they know what we mean."  Why make new laws at all?  Why not just get rid of all law books, put a couple of ideas on some napkins and let judges go to town?  How's that for worst case?  "Oh, they know what we mean."  Worst argument ever.
[ Parent ]
No kids have been or will be denied scholarships
That's just fear-mongering pure and simple and you should be ashamed of yourself. It's cover for those who just disagree on the need for ethics reform. Well, tough. The voters are on our side. The truth sucks, sometimes.
[ Parent ]
All opinion at this point.
The only reason there have been no consequences yet is that there is no ethics commission yet.  But, the ethics commission has every right to act on events taking place after the enactment and before its formation.

There are no facts except that people have declined scholarships or refused to grant them out of concern about Amendment 41.

Indeed, the AG's opinion is that Nobel Prizes come squarely within the intent of the act, and that is as close to definitive as any ruling is at this point.

[ Parent ]
Right, that's why the people fighting for clarificiation
continue to accept gifts.  Wait, that can't be right because most of the people fighting for clarification have never accepted gifts.  Try another road...

You seem to think that we are attacking ethics, we are not, we are attacking the drafting problems.  A huge part of a legislator's job is figuring out how to make the least ambiguous law possible.  It's not easy, and when people don't bother, it makes for bad law.  The truth sucks, sometimes.

[ Parent ]
Why is it that any time you point out A41 is flawed you are accused of fear mongering?
I am all for ethics.  A good ethics law would have been easy.  We already had a bribery ban, but if people wanted a gift ban we could have limited to elected officials and employees with budgetary authority.  those are the people subject to lobbying.

As to scholarships, they are banned on a plain reading.  If people choose not to enforce it that is a different matter.  Personally I don't see the point of passing laws if we are not going to enforce them.  Unless the purpose is to give a politician a piece of feel good candy to run on.

Please tell me specifically what I should be ashamed of? wanting quality laws?  wanting unambiguos laws? wanting our laws enforced?  Preventing unitended harms to government employees?  Helping our universities recruit the best faculty, faculty that may be up for the nobel prize?

[ Parent ]
Well said.

[ Parent ]
2/3rds of the people supported the Iraq war at the start
We know how that turned out.

If people are given full information they make different choices.

Bush sold the american people a bill of goods on Iraq and they supported it:  Polis sold colorado a bill of goods on 41 and they supported it.

People change their mind when they see the full story.

[ Parent ]
People supported TABOR too
because the only thing they were basing their decision on was the government couldn't raise taxes without a vote of the people.  That is what they voted for.

The more significant part of TABOR (all 1200 words) had to do with all this ratchet down and caps on revenue growth despite how much revenue was coming in.

Again, asking voters why they voted for TABOR in '92', they said they didn't want their taxes raised without their permission.

Reducing a complicated and involved constitutional amendment to a single sentence sound bite is a good way of passing something but not a good way of governing.

The fact is that ANY government employee cannot accept a gift from anyone other than a family member.  That is not about cleaning up government, and I do not believe it is what people voted for.

So to say that the fact that 67% voted for this misses the point.  67% of the people voted for the single sentence sound bite.

[ Parent ]
Well said!

[ Parent ]
This is supported in retrospect?
Well, 2/3 of state voters disagree with YOU and think A41 will have very POSITIVE impacts on the state.

They agree with the idea, not the results.  If you have something to support what that says, I'd love to see it.

[ Parent ]
And
Did the court not hold up 41?  I guess it can't be that poorly written.  
[ Parent ]
You do not understand: it was not upheld on the merits
the injunction was vacated due to lack of ripeness (no one has been hurt yet).

As written it denies scholarships, the nobel prize, retirement gifts and  host of other things to people that have no budget authority and are not subject to the lobbying ban.  

BTW A law can be constitutional even if it is poorly written.

[ Parent ]
The court specifically said
that it was not opining on the merits or constitutionality of the law.  It restricted its ruling to vacating the injunction.
[ Parent ]
The opinion describes the law as a
"sphere of uncertainty."  This isn't precisely an endorsement of its clarity.

Also the court did not hold up 41, it simply said that it would decide on its validity later.

[ Parent ]
Wish they'd be more pro-active
Questions of Constitutionality are, theoretically, one of the prime concerns of top-level courts.  They should have taken the Legislature's request for a declaration on the issue seriously.

Ripeness is a cop-out, yes, but imagine the number of frivolous lawsuits if we threw it out as a legal principle.  Every law on the books would be subject to challenge with a very low standard to qualify for a hearing.  Sigh.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
This Will Come Back Again
It is critical to note that the Court vacated the injunction on "jurisdictional grounds" because there had been no adverse decision against anyone yet.  The basis of the Court's punt on the as-applied challenge is that the Commission was not in place and therefore had not made any adverse decisions.  You can bet that this issue will be back in Court once the Commission is established, and hands out its first decision (thereby giving a district court proper "jurisdiction" to issue an injunction).
Sad
It's sad that a well thought-out, and more importantly, entirely correct post like this gets lost among the shouting matches on either side of it.
[ Parent ]
I hate to say
Almost a million people voted yes on 41, It passed 62.57 % to 37.43 %. The Court should let the will of the people happen.  
Nobody doubts that it was passed and
that the people of Colorado want ethics reform.

What the damn measure means, however, remains entirely unresolved.  

The only definitive rulings so far are the District Court judge who ruled that it was a true gift ban, whose decision has since been vacated, the General Assembly who says it is a bribe ban, and the AG who has made some opinions on the meaning (leaning towards a true gift ban, with caveats, but taking a different position in litigation with a narrower reading).  None of those can safely be relied upon.

[ Parent ]
Well over 60% of people in the south
in the '50s said segregated schools were desirable.

It didn't make it right.

The point of our state and federal constitutions is to protect a minority viewpoint from majority will, where the majority will violates  the rights of a minority.

[ Parent ]
I agree ienforce amend 41!
Then we can hear how stupid Commen Cause was for selling us this Yugo and hopefully the next time C.C. pimps us no one will buy.
Of course
The voters are stupid, and your friends who are lobbyists are much smarter.

How could the Court have missed this?

[ Parent ]
This was a post following an article from the Rocky
Tuesday, February 20 at 12:09 PM

"Amendment tinkering, once again" Senate President Joan Fitzgerald is quoted as saying, "...and quite frankly, the citizens need to do a better job of educating themselves on what these ballot measures really do."

I am offended that Fitzgerald thinks I'm an uninformed voter. I certainly knew what I was doing when I checked the Yes box next to Amendment 41 on Election Day. I was supporting meaningful ethics reform for Colorado. I was taking a stand against the freebies, trips, and gifts given to legislators to influence their decisions. I was also aware that the "unintended consequences" were primarily the handiwork of lobbyists. Amendment 41 was never about stopping scholarships, and now the courts agree.

I apologize that, much like rest of us "uneducated" voters, you now must pay for your own lunch, but it is time for the Legislature to step up and do their job by passing implementing legislation that upholds what the voters wanted in the first place: ethics reform. It is truly sad that Fitzgerald won't support the will of the voters, and truly offensive for her to assume her constituents are uneducated because they support ethics.

Perhaps voters need to further educate themselves before voting Ms. Fitzgerald into office. Shame on you, Joan and any other legislators who think they are above their constituents.

Michael Guarnieri
Denver

I think the voters know what they are doing.  Just as the knew what they doing in the South in the 1950s and just as certain politicans knew what they were doing when they voted to send our young people to war.  Ignorance is never a good excuse.

[ Parent ]
Guarnieri's letter doesn't sound informed.
It indicates that he, like most supporters of Amendment 41 thought that he was "taking a stand against the freebies, trips, and gifts given to legislators to influence their decisions."

The gift ban is half way sensible when applied to legislators (and for that matter political appointees).  For them, a ban on all gifts from lobbyists and a ban on significant gifts from other people makes a good deal of sense.

But, to apply the same standards that apply to legislators to rank and file government employees like college professors and file clerks and state patrol officers is absurd.  It is that overbreadth to which Joan Fitz-Gerald's comments apply.

Of course, if folks like Polis are right in their after the fact quarterbacking of the Amendment, which calls Amendment 41 a mere bribery ban, then Guarnieri's claim that he was "supporting meaningful ethics reform" was likewise ill informed.

The point of a gift ban is to presume a violation of the public trust in certain situations by banning gifts to people who have sufficient power for the impact of gifts to be relevant, but Amendment 41 as intepreted by those who support it fails to do that by requiring proof of a violation of public trust.  

[ Parent ]
Punt Two.
The General Assembly passed a bill requesting a declaratory judgment immediately from the Colorado Supreme Court, and didn't get one.

Then this suit has been dissmissed on procedural grounds as not ripe.

The Colorado Supreme Court has made clear in its opinion that it wants to ethics commission (still awaiting a final appointee) to weigh in before it rules, although it isn't clear if the issue will be ripe when the rules are issued or only when someone is tagged for violating them.

This is bad for Polis, as it keeps uncertainty and the accompanying ill will alive.  A ruling upholding the measure on a restricted basis (i.e. as a bribe ban), or finding it unconstitutional by giving it a more plain reading (i.e. as a gift ban), or even finding it unconstitutional even with a restrictive reading, or constitutional with a narrow reading, would have allowed all involve to unify behind what most people actually wanted (a true gift ban applicable only to the big wigs).

It is bad for government employees and for anyone contemplating gifts to them, who still don't have a straight story that can be counted upon to hold up in court.

It makes the commission's job harder too, as it must do the yeoman's work of interpretation that the Colorado Supreme Court declined to engage in, most notably whether the state statute enacted to implement the amendment is a constitutional interpretation of the statute or an unconstitutional deviation of the amendment's terms.

The only obvious winner here is the Colorado Supreme Court that keeps its hands clean for now.  I suspect that they hope that the entire problem will just go away somehow.

big win for Jared
Good solid win for Polis. I am surprised that he has not already been posting. Obama's attacks on lobbyists have worked.
I agree
Jared has done something to stop gifts and such to the Govt... Unlike Joan who is the Special Interest Princess
[ Parent ]
Tabor, anyone?
Like Tabor, 41 was ambiguous, badly drafted, and deliberately designed to cripple the governmental process.  Polis is a rich-make that very rich!-guy who really doesn't think that poor people have any business being elected officials.  41 is a way to make elected office even less appealing-no free lunches, no baseball tix, none of the meaningless but pleasant perks that go with petty elected office.  It goes a way toward assuring that all elected offices are held by the comfortably well-off-lawyers, retired folks, spouses of the wealthy.  The assumption that a free lunch, or a Bronco ticket, will somehow influence the votes of legislators is both insulting and stupid.  When legislators are bribed, it's a lot more subtle, and a lot more profitable.  They get lucrative jobs, consulting contracts, etc., etc.  The poor saps who are grateful for lobbyist buffets and small gifts are unlikely to share in the big piles of loot-but the big dogs know where the bones are.
ad hominem
Good to see the ad hominem attacks from A41 backers are still in full effect.

Andrew and Danny have both done a good job of arguing this from a legal perspective. It has nothing to do with not wanting ethics reform (though when pressed on the issue Polis could never articulate 1 example of crooked deals in Colorado that this Amendment would fix) or how many people voted for the amendment. It's about a law that goes far beyond it's stated purpose and will have a negative impact on the lives of very ordinary state workers and the quality of our higher-ed system.  

I wish they would stop playing political football with ethics reform
The people of Colorado, Common Cause, Jared Polis, Joan Fitzgerald (and every other elected official who opposed this), and even those evil lobbyists all SAY that they want the same thing: a gift ban on state legislators and decision-makers.

As far as I can tell only the people of Colorado and Common Cause (and THEY goofed up the text) actually want that.

Contract and industry lobbyists oppose A41 because it limits their access to legislators. Let's be real, they don't care THAT much about firefighters' children.

Jared Polis supported A41 to brand himself as an ethical reformer in the run-up to the CD-2 race. He might also support ethics reform but it wasn't the main reason he financed A41. I get a little nauseous every time he wraps himself in righteousness.

Joan Fitzgerald opposes A41 because if it fails, it makes makes Polis look bad. She may actually be concerned about the unintended consequences, but rather than use her power in the Senate to work towards a real solution, she let this fester (and no asking the Supreme Court to make a summary judgement doesn't count). Scoring political points on the backs of the voters and the public servants she is claiming to protect is just ugly.

I supported Polis' A41 efforts (believing that its flaws have been exaggerated and could be worked out by the Ethics commission) and Joan was a very effective champion for the issues I cared about in the Senate for years. Unfortunately, both are squandering goodwill by using this issue to attack the other.



"And reality has a well known liberal bias"-Stephen Colbert

That's actually a very balanced view
As a lawyer I look at this in a very technical manner and that's why I am so vocal about my opposition.

I also get angry anytime someone impugns my honor by calling me names or saying I am against good ethics or for corporate interests.

[ Parent ]
just in case...
I definitely did not intend to suggest that.

Merely from reading your posts on this blog for the last few years I know that is not the case.

One quick question for your lawyerly expertise. Could this whole mess be fixed with a referred measure clarifying the intent of A41 and striking/amending the offending language?

If so, why isn't somebody (anybody from Common Cause read this blog?) doing this?  

"And reality has a well known liberal bias"-Stephen Colbert

[ Parent ]
Truthfully the question is outside of my expertise
And I didn't mean to imply you were a name calling.  I meant to complement you on your balance.
[ Parent ]
A41.5 is the way to go
The hope was, originally, that the CO Supreme Court would rule in a way that would encourage a Referendum or Initiative in the spirit of what you suggest - a clarifying amendment to A41.  The preferred solution would come from Common Cause, because they were the source of A41.  A referred solution from the Legislature will be viewed, IMHO, more negatively and would not have as great a chance of passage.

This decision doesn't encourage Common Cause to do the legwork, unfortunately.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
that makes a lot of sense
including the part that the cleanup amendment should come from Common Cause both for it's chances of success and for the health of that organization.

Whether they gather petitions or sponsor a referred measure in the leg it seems like it would do a lot to repair relationships with many who should be their natural allies.

"And reality has a well known liberal bias"-Stephen Colbert

[ Parent ]
Don't let Common Cause off the hook.
My recollection from this long standing debate is that the drafting was actually done by a lawyer or lawyers affiliated with Common Cause.

Indeed, Amendment 41 is textbook Common Cause in that the goals are worthy and the execution is ineffectual, something that sums up the vast majority of ethics reforms and campaign finance reforms in the past two or three decades that Common Cause has supported.


[ Parent ]
Wait till you see the latest from Mark Grueskin (Common Cause's lawyer) and company
Initiative 62 - approved by the title-setting folks today: would require any company firing or even suspending an employee for poor performance (or worse) to offer the employee arbitration. And if the company loses - if it can't show "just cause" for its decision - it has to pay the employee's attorney fees!

Man oh man this sounds like a golden egg for plaintiffs' lawyers, professional arbitrators (who will be in hot demand), and incompetent workers. Not to mention people who clean up "violence in the workplace" incidents.

Well, if you think cleaning up "violence in the workplace" incidents
trumps fairness, by all means vote against the initiative.

Personally, I think that's a red herring.

I think that employees getting screwed by their employers is a much bigger problem.

I wonder how the average Joe out there thinks?  That's who's going to be voting on this.

Anybody out there ever been screwed by an employer?  Did you have any recourse?  Did you wish you had some form of recourse?

I may be wrong, but I think that's how people are going to decide.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009

[ Parent ]
I've been screwed - and I think this is awful
Speaking as a business owner now - I think almost everyone who's been fired thinks they were screwed over. And it won't stop it, it will just add additional termination pay in return for the employee agreeing to not sue.

Where it will have a big impact is on boderline hires. Someone who you think might work out, but you are not sure. You will then have to kiss most of those job offers goodbye.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

[ Parent ]
This could turn out terrible for Polis
Lets say it moves forward and in late July the commission say no scholarships for children of state employees.

If that happens - Jared goes down in flames.

On the flip side, if the commission comes out with a set of rules people likeand in late July they bust some legislator playing games with "donations" - Jared gets a big boost.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

Agreed
It's too early to figure out who benefits from this ruling, though I think Jared stands the most to lose.  Simple probability says there are more everyday government employees that could sue based on a gift ban than there are truly corrupt officials.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878
[ Parent ]
I totally disagree
I was an Edwards supporter because he was trying to clean up Washington. I am now supporting Obama because he is trying the same thing.

I support Jared more because really in the end he is trying to fix the problem. We can all debate 41 but the one thing that you have to give him is that he trying to fix a broken system.

Joan was not fighting against this to protect anyone, it was so she could get the perks of being a state senator. It is very Clinton of her to stand in the way of change and then attack 41 for a year.  Now she is pointing to how she changes things... How does she change anything?


[ Parent ]
Bull... (n/t)


"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878
[ Parent ]
Question re Amendment 41 and Gifts
To you lawyers out there - as a government employee,  I read Amendment 41 and then looked up legal definitions of the term "gift". As a nonlawyer, I do not understand why, if the legal definition of "gift" means something given without expectation of reciprocal consideration, how the term "gift" is valid in A. 41 since it requires that "gifts" of $50 or more are forbidden UNLESS consideration is given in return.

Doesn't the requirement that consideration be given invalidate or at least change the concept of "gift"?

Also, if my child is awarded a scholarship, how on earth am I, the governmental employee, supposed to provide a reciprocal consideration for the scholarship? (I went through college once already, I'm not doing it again for my child!)

Finally, how does this affect scholarships at all, since there is no requirement that parents pay for a college education for their adult child? If a parent decides to gift all or part of a college education to a child, what difference does that make to A. 41? Since my adult child (18+) is not a governmental employee, how is it that A41 applies to his financial dealings at all?


I think you're mis-reading it
A "gift" with reciprocal consideration is called a bribe, and it falls under a separate section of the C.R.S..


"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878
[ Parent ]
Amendment 41 Injunction Reversed | 56 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com

Active Users
Currently 19 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search

Colorado Pols Network




















Stay home if you have flu symptoms. Visit www.cdc.gov/h1n1 for more information.


RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Relevant Links

Back Roads to the White House

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

Denver Post

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political Gravy

Politics West

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Rocky Mountain News

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

State 38

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

Ultimate Politics

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Washington and the West

Western Democrat



 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by www.ColoradoPols.com, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com
Powered by: SoapBlox