Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Millionaire's Amendment Tripped in CO-2

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 16:45:59 PM MST


UPDATE: Today's reports clarify that only one candidate benefits from Polis' triggering the "Millionaire's Amendment." Joan Fitz-Gerald, who sent out the release below blasting Polis, actually raised too much money to qualify for the exemption.

Will Shafroth can now circle back with his maxed-out donors for more money, but at this point Fitz-Gerald can't. We did a quick (and very sloppy) count of donors who had maxed out to Shafroth, and we came up with well more than 100. Even if Shafroth only gets 50 of them to up their donations to the new max, he'll quickly raise more than $200,000.

Colorado Pols :: Millionaire's Amendment Tripped in CO-2
According to a press release from the campaign of Democrat Joan Fitz-Gerald, fellow Democrat Jared Polis has contributed enough money to his own congressional campaign to trigger the "Millionaire's Amendment." From the press release:

Despite signing a pledge on May 25, 2007, on FEC Form 2 not to exceed $350,000 in personal contributions to his campaign, today the campaign of Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald received notice from Jared Polis that he has broken that pledge. As of today he has contributed a total of $398,106.87 of his own personal funds to his campaign tripping the 'Millionaires Amendment.'

All rhetoric aside, this is a big - if not entirely unexpected - development in a three-way primary that is already the most expensive in the country. Polis is spending money faster than he can raise it, which may be why he has been forced to contribute so much of his own money so soon. The ramifications of this benefit both Fitz-Gerald and Will Shafroth, who can now go back to their maxed-out donors and ask for more money, mitigating any advantage of Polis' vast personal wealth.

It was not unexpected for Polis to contribute this much of his own money, but to be forced to do so in March gives his opponents plenty of time to capitalize on the Millionaire's Amendment. Polis' campaign is spending considerably more money than his opponents, but they probably should have held back if they weren't raising the money to cover their expenditures.

Full press release from Fitz-Gerald's campaign follows:

Despite signing a pledge on May 25, 2007, on FEC Form 2 not to exceed $350,000 in personal contributions to his campaign, today the campaign of Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald received notice from Jared Polis that he has broken that pledge. As of today he has contributed a total of $398,106.87 of his own personal funds to his campaign tripping the 'Millionaires Amendment.'

Fitz-Gerald for Congress campaign manager, Mary Alice Mandarich, made the following statement:  

Voters are not looking for someone to buy this election. Voters want a voice for change like Joan Fitz-Gerald. They are looking for someone who understands their struggles for health care, a good job and education for their kids.

How can voters trust Jared after he has broken a pledge on his signature issue of campaign finance? He purports to believe in a level playing field and fairness in funding elections, but now we know this is not the case.

Jared owes the voters of this district the truth: I challenge Jared Polis to tell the voters how much of his own money does he intend to use to try to buy this election?

           To review the FEC Form 2 where Polis pledged not to exceed the $350,000 limit:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-b...

To review the FEC Form 10: "24 hour notice of expenditure from candidates personal funds," see attachment.

In 2002, Congress passed the "Millionaires' Amendment" as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)

Share this post:

another error
Bad timing for this to come out on the eve of the big Assemblies. It sure seems that Jared may have been less than candid on the FEC Form 2.  This may be just one more in a string of self inflicted Polis wounds. But, lets not judge until we hear Polis's response.

Exceptionally bad timing
Whether or not this will make it to the ears of the delegates in time for the vote on Friday - or whether the JFG campaign manages to raise it at the Assemblies - is another matter.

But if it's true and the Fitz-Gerald campaign takes advantage of it, the timing on this couldn't be worse.  I'm trusting Mary Alice to have done the math before issuing the press release - hopefully it's not "The Math".

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating


[ Parent ]
Dumb, dumb, dumb
If this is true it's really dumb just before the 2 county conventions that matter. And for what? He's going to hit 30% and in August no one will remember the actual percentage each gets.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

I'll tell you why
He did this because he had to. He is running out of money plain and simple.

By the way, I heard  that there is some technical reason that Joan can't actually take advantage of the increased fundraising. Something about having raised too money from PACs.  


[ Parent ]
errr
too much money

[ Parent ]
...
As someone who is not a lawyer ( as red loves to point out)  I have done enough work with the FEC to know the rule.

It is all based on how much someone raises and how much they put in. Joan cannot raise any extra at this point in time.

Joan has taken over 20% of her total cash flow this far... and is 3rd in money from personal donors.

It looks like to me that Polis is just going to balance the money from Oil and Gas and the Special intrests.  


[ Parent ]
Worry not, I accept you as an expert on campaign finance
I believe that people who work with a law understand a law better than lawyers that don't work with that law.

Being a Lawyer just gives you the tools (hopefully) to read unfamiliar laws and interpret how judicial decisions affect specific fact situtations.

As to the PAC issue: the vast majority of her PAC money came from labor which doesn't bother me. The money she took from banking and energy I find more troubling (but not as troubling as swiftboat money), but then again I don't worry about it because I like Will Shafroth.


[ Parent ]
If you like Will
You should be happy with the result of all of this. From what I understand, Joan can't take advantage of the triple fundraising limits...but Will can.

[ Parent ]
No surprise, but bad timing
If you looked at his year end FEC report it was clear he was going to go to his pocket.

His fundraising started strong as he tapped his low hanging fruit (wealthy friends, including some icky ones[McVaney, Cranberg, swiftboaters], a bit of netroots money from Armstrong astroturfing [which has evaporated as has become clear that all three are progressives] and gay activists) which is mostly legitimate(I'm not comfortable with swiftboaters and some of the other icky donors.  However, its just a start.  He has not done enough to build a local small donor base: he has run the clinton/mccaulif strategy.

The one thing I find disingenuus is that he said he didn't intend to go over the $350k limit when he basically spent 3 times the statewide funding limit for the SBOE.


His "Statement of Candidacy" is not a pledge
Clearly, JP never "pledged" not to spend his own money.  It is clearly just an "intent" not to do so.

Joan has all of the special interest coming out for her - oil and gas, mining industry and big pharma have put up over $175,000.
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureS...

That raises big concerns for me, since we are now seeing the effects of the mining industry in Colorado.

I would vote for a guy that is beholding to his values and the values of the voters, before I would vote for someone beholding to special interest.


NOW seeing the effects of mining?
As I recall, this state has been seeing the effects of the mining industry since before it became a state.  Seriously, is this new?

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place.  And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans. - Douglas Adams

[ Parent ]
Clearly......JP never pledged???????
Jared again changes the rules - What part of "I certify that this statement is true, correct and complete" do you not understand?
Jared has already put in more of his own personal funds than Joan has raised through PAC money.

Jared is his own special interest and will try to buy this campaign. Please do not insult the voter's intelligence by telling us that Jared's certification of his statement as true, correct and complete doesn't mean that he really did not intend to honor his word. Jared is outrageous!


[ Parent ]
Nice Move
It is clear Joan's people do not understand an intent in may and how things can change over time. There is no binding part of the form from the FEC.

You can tell how upset they are by how ready they are. My money is on the fact that they are freaking out and know the writing on the wall that Jared is going to win this.  


.
"the writing on the wall" ? or the writing on the check?

[ Parent ]
Jared is going to "win" this?
Don't you mean Jared is going to "buy" this?

Afterall that when I spend my own money it usually means I'm buying something.


[ Parent ]
Danny...
I respect your views on things but because you are a lawyer it does make you any better to offer a a view on who is going to win and who is not going to win.

I will take the bet jared wins this in the end.


[ Parent ]
Fair enough
Thanks for the kind words on my views and for the record I see myself as more of an analyst than attorney.  I think Jared has a good chance of winning (money allows you to fix problems, self inflicted or not), but that is not the real question for me.

The real question is who will be the best legislator, which in my opinion breaks down as two questions:

1.  Ability to think critically about issues. I think Jared is smart, and I am impressed by his willingness to think laterally.  However, he has no sense that there are often negatives to innovation and pushes ahead with new idea simply for their novelty.  This could be a product of his youth, his hubris or simply the structure of his industry.

2.  The ability to accrue power and influence in the house. Here's where I think the real problem is: I don't think Jared will stay in the house longer than 6 years and it takes 6 years to get any power at all.  Jared bores easily and that will not help get him through the drudgery of sub-committee meetings and the anonymity of the being a junior house member.  Its not the only factor: his intelligence helps, but Jared has not shown the ability to raise money, which is important to gain power (though he could spread his own money around).

I think Will is the best legislator, because he's smart, he's likeable, he's been able to raise big money despite being the deep underdog, and he's probably willing to stay long enough to get some things done.

JFG was an effective legislator in Colorado because term limits force a different style of politics--a style that would be unworkable in washington  


[ Parent ]
On the flip side...
Ability to think critically about issues. I think Jared is smart, and I am impressed by his willingness to think laterally.  However, he has no sense that there are often negatives to innovation and pushes ahead with new idea simply for their novelty. This could be a product of his youth, his hubris or simply the structure of his industry.

You've got 465 votes in the house. I'm very happy to see one member who will consider possibilities that others never even think of. This works very well in the high-tech industry and could be a very useful feature in the House.

I don't think Jared will stay in the house longer than 6 years and it takes 6 years to get any power at all.  Jared bores easily and that will not help get him through the drudgery of sub-committee meetings and the anonymity of the being a junior house member.

Could be. But maybe someone who wants to make things happen faster and more efficiently might actually effect some useful changes in the system - and get some things resolved quicker. With the problems we face I'm reticent to say lets take a 2o year approach to fixing them.

And the same for JFG - her M.O. of we're going to fix this now, not over the next 4 years, would be a welcome change in Washington. Either could go down in flames, but they also could be successful and that to me is well worth the risk.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!


[ Parent ]
I would rather have a strong gentle voice for progressives that speaks reasonably (think a feingold for the environment)
who will stay around and convince moderates and conservative dems to listen to their better angels than a risk taker who is as likely to be marginalized as Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or my personal favorite historical figure James Traficant.

[ Parent ]
Good point
Polis would be marginalized just like the folks you listed.  

[ Parent ]
I overstated the case
I have more respect for Jared than that, I was simply pointing out that "novelty" is not generally a good thing in congress.

[ Parent ]
Can someone say "Jon Corzine?"
Call it what you like.  JP can't buy votes...but if people choose to vote for him after he spends a ton of cash, is there something "wrong" with that?  If he blows through a gazillion dollars and wins, I'm pretty sure when he's being sworn in next January it won't matter...

[ Parent ]
.
Yet another example of Jared doing whatever he wants that his politically to his advantage regardless of what he has said in the past. He will say or do whatever and then play dumb over and over again. Iraq fiasco, etc... Tomorrow the story will read yet again from Wanda "Jared didn't mean to say that he would limit his own money..."


A pattern is emerging
JFG and JP fight with each other.

Will Shafroth sits back and is the beneficiary. If JFG cannot raise more money and Shafroth can he likely will be the top money raiser this quarter.

Shafroth's TV ads on his site are the best and almost every one of his major donors will now max out at the higher level. Mike Feeley's newest check to Shafroth is probably already in the mail.


So who will be the next to trip the Millionare amendment?
Of the candidates running in the 4th, 2nd, 5th, and 6th my money is on Armstrong his dad could donate the $350k without cracking open his wallet.

Willie can spend his own $$$ but not Daddy's
   The First Amendment exception to campaign finance restrictions only allows the candidate himself or herself to self-finance, not a parent or sibling.  
  Daddy Armstrong, of course, could make a substantial cash gift to Junior (who could then spend the money on his campaign) but that would trigger gift tax consequences on amounts over a certain annual per donee limit.  (It was $10,000 per year was tax-free; I'm not sure if that's still the limit.)
  This was the likely reason why Seymour Holtzman couldn't spend money directly on the Little Fella's gubernatorial campaign in '06 but instead financed the anti-Ref. "C" issue campaign which coincidentally (or not) featured Little Marky in its ads.



[ Parent ]
P.S. Obviously Daddy Armstrong could follow in Seymour's footsteps and finance at 527 to grill Coffman and company
   Although after violating the Eleventh Commandment, Bill Armstrong will never be able to look that picture of Ronald Reagan in the eye again.

[ Parent ]
My second bet behind Armstrong would be Rayburn in the 5th
He put in over $100k last time in his campaign and it appears he has a better or at least more experienced machine this time.


[ Parent ]
News story confirms
CBS 4 news story confirms that the triggering of the millionaire's amendment will only benefit Shafroth and not Fitz-Gerald. You should fix your story Pols.

The move triggers an advantage for fellow candidate Will Shafroth under the 2002 law know as the ''millionaire's amendment'' aimed at leveling the playing field for candidates with less personal wealth.

Shafroth will now be able to triple the limit of individual contributions to his campaign allowing him to collect $6,900 from any person, rather than the usual $2,300 limit.

http://cbs4denver.com/colorado...


I understand a voter's fear of a millionaire buying a race.
The fear that an empty suit will spend so much money that he will obfuscate the issues and prevail over the underdog who really represents the people.

But that is not just not the case in this race.  

As far as the issues are concerned, these candidates agree on 90% of the issues.  They disagree on immigration and public financing of campaigns, JP wants it, JFG doesn't.  JFG wants to  immediately pull out of Iraq, JP wants a timetable.  JFG wants to end No Child Left Behind (How?), JP wants considerable reform. There are others...but nothing major.  The other distinctions are what they bring to the table,  philosophically and experientially.

This pledge business really needs to be seen for what it is. An opportunity to take a hit on JP.  And why wouldn't JFG's campaign do it. It's the smart play. But I bet all candiate's wrote down they they intend to spend $0 on their campaigns. Who wouldn't? JFG put in 30K already.

But JP has been campaigning like a real grassroots candidate, all 3 have; Running all over the district seven days a week. It's not like his supporters are one issue voters voting for the pro life or family values candidate.

JFG is a good candidate and is taking advantage of her assets and her connections to PACS are assets.  Many of those PACS are good ones, some, not so good. Connections to those PACS are a result of being an establishment candidate and for being a good legistator for a pretty long time. She is bringing that to the table

JP has loads of money.  He's a visionary in the tech and entrepenuer field. He's bringing that and then some to the table.  And it's all perfectly legal.

The rub for me at least is that JP favors public financing of campaigns, JFG does not.  Many say it would help level the playing field. And until there is such a law, why wouldn't a candidate put their own money. And I personally have no problem voting for JP in this race cuz he is actually a well rounded, good intentioned candidate, like they all are.


You are wrong Neil....
JFG put $15,000 in the race not $30,000. As far as PACs are concerned, PACs are working people who represent themselves as a unit because as individuals they do not have the clout that millionaire's have to influence candidates. The typical contribution of someone who donates to his or her PAC is under $100.00. These are nurses, firemen, city workers, teachers, all from the middle class who have a chance to participate in the system.

If Jared favors public financing, why is he so desparate to buy this race? One million to the school board race, hundreds of thousands to amendment 41 and the defense of 41, $569,904 to "Yes on Amendment 30" and $47,500 to the proponents of Amendment 23. If this is a candidate who is in favor of public financing, he must mean public financing for everyone else except for millionaires.


[ Parent ]
I may have JFG's figure wrong.
But am I wrong about how much she said she intended to put in the race back in 2007.  If she intended to put in 0$ and then put in 15K, is that any less wrong than what JP did?

I felt I was clear that some PACS are on the right side of the fence. The middle class workers you mentioned do need leverage and PACS currently provide them.  But it is the Oil and Gas money, and Pharmacutical money from PACS that concerns me. PACS are not simply the conuduit of money for middle class workers that you paint them to be.  JFG has received 175K from PACS and that is a big reason she opposes campaign finance.

41, ethics in Gov, 23, $$ money for K-12. These are not candidate campaigns. I believe that it applies to campaigns. I'll find out. And they are good amendments.

JP is currently running against an opponent who opposes campaign finance reform, and gets a ton of money from PACS.  Why in the world would he not use his money to help him win. Should he not use his money, have no leverage, and lose to someone who would only perpetuate the special interest influence that has simply begun backing the Dems in Congres who have the majority?

You have to use the rules in existence to change them.

And saying that he is just buying the race and not acknowledging his grassroots campaigning is a plain inaccurate evaluation of this race.


[ Parent ]
So... Joan is Two Faced
So here you go... Multi millionaire Joan Fitz-Gerald cries foul and slams Jared Polis.

Joan Fitz-Gerald does the same thing as jared and puts 0 on her form.

As you can See here -

http://i270.photobucket.com/al...

Then puts in 15,000 dollars of her own money in... Hmmm. Two faced as can me from the Special Intrest Princess


Whoops
Be not me... Sorry no coffee this morning.

[ Parent ]
And this is the same how?
I think every candidate in a major race has put in at least some "reasonable" amount of their own money; given the current finance system, I almost think it's expected.

$15,000 is not $358,000.

The Dean, Paul, and Obama campaigns have all proven you can compete with as much PAC money as is put into a competitor's campaign without dipping into your own money.  I am actually surprised, given the pervasiveness of Jared's campaign online, that he's had to do this.

The reality is, the rules are the rules.  Joan is using her connections to raise money - I can't see her becoming beholden to the oil and gas industry, though she has accepted money from them - and so long as Jared keeps his own money within the ballpark, I don't see where that hurts him except against Will.

And that's where the potential problem arises, I think.  Joan may not get a lot of mileage against this (maybe, maybe not), but Will Shafroth could make some serious inroads against Jared based on it.  For now though, the timing was bad, but the response - if it gets out into the media before the weekend Assemblies - is relatively good from his campaign.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating


[ Parent ]
...
Joan is calling foul and in the end she is doing the same thing.  

[ Parent ]
Also
Jared has raised more money from personal donors than Will or Joan.  

[ Parent ]
Partisan, much?


"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

[ Parent ]
Whoa there pardner
Read the form. The question is how much ABOVE the threshold amount of $350k the candidate is going to spend. Joan put 0 and has spent 0. Will put 0 and has spent 0. Only Jared has spent more than the total he put.

[ Parent ]
Yet another case where I want a recommend button
Thanks for the clarification.  The wonders of distributed news processing manifest once again - yeay, blogs.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

[ Parent ]
Re-read the declaration....
The commitement is that no candidate exceed a $350,000 donation from themselves to their own campaign.Candidates can donate any amount up to that threshold. Polis signed that it was true,correct and complete that his intention was not to exeed the $350,000. Sure he is free to change his mind, but why sign the document?

BTW, you are a little snide with the :"two faced" and "special interest princess" when it is clear you have no understanding of the millionaires's amendment.


[ Parent ]
I find it hard to believe
that campaign finance really needs to be this complex. All we end up with is a situation where each of 3 candidates can claim that 2 are doing something wrong while they are clean. These are the kinds of things that don't even get cleaned up until AFTER an election and still no one can really say anyone has done anything wrong.
The more campaign finance laws there are the more violations there are.

Huh?
Are you saying that campaign finance laws are bad because some people break them? That's like saying the more laws there are the more broken laws there are. True...but so what?

[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?







Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com


Active Users
Currently 1 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search



Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
  More >













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



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols Penalty Box



Yard Signs!



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Business Word

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Labor Blog

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 Dems

Colorado Senate GOP

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

eleXn

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Junction Daily Blog

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

TRACER Campaign Finance

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat


Colorado Pols is wholly owned by Colorado Pols, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com

Powered by: SoapBlox