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%
April 02, 2014 11:13 AM UTC
37 Comments
Free speech! Too bad for you, libs.
Absolutely.
Any fool with several million can now buy it for almost nothing . . .
Polis is greatful you are thinking of him.
Still celebrating from yesterday?
. . . "any fool" isn't a summons . . .
LMAO
There is no freedom where a few billionaires can but the government of their choice. It makes the entire Constitution just a dog and pony show so"'the people" (poor schmucks) can think they live in a Republic in which they govern via democratically elected representatives.
I meant buy, of course.
Are you referring to Mike Bloomberg and Tom Stenner?
Or perhaps the 4 locals who turned Colorado blue?
Don't let the fact get in the way of your socialist rant.
BlueCat didn't make this partisan. Why do you assume he supports liberals who make large contributions? Also, you support socialism everytime you eat a vegetable grown in this country.
Because I have read many of her postings.
Check your talking points. Its not 'Stenner'.
LMAO…
Don't bother. He doesn't know what socialism means.
Oh and he thinks Nazis are socialists because Hitler's party used the word in their name. All you'll get from AC is talking points and his idea of a terrific argument is to say, whatever it is, Dems do it too. He doesn't realize that's admitting that it's wrong and he's got no way to defend it except to say everybody else is just as bad. He's almost always wrong about that but it's the best he can do. He claims to have a 98th percentile IQ but he doesn't seem to do anything much with it. That's our AC.
My word…how ignorant can you be?
You are celebrating the acceptance of the Russian model of governance by our Supreme Court. Must be why you have such a man crush on Putin ?..wait a minute…he just got a divorce. You two aren't like..an item..or something…are you?
If money equals speech, then speech is no longer free.
For fun, places where speech is not free:
1. Schools
2. Prisons
3. The military
4. Courtrooms
Probably a good reason why I try to stay out of those fun places anymore. 🙂
The First Amendment is a wonderful thing. I support it.
I support the First Amendment too. It does not say money is speech. It took a particular activist mix on the Supreme Court to place that concept into the intrepretaton of the Amendment.
After Sheldon Adelson's dog show in Vegas the other day for GOP hopefuls looking to score a patron, this decision is going to cause some hurt feelings for sure. If a guy with essentially unlimited funds to donate to campaigns and no regulation forcing him to be strategic about it still doesn't decide to back you, then it's kind of personal isn't it?
This would seem to be a problem with the squishy middle.
The law as overturned set an arbitrary limit on multi-faceted contributions. The majority didn't see a good reason why the cap was set at the level it was set overall, especially since the contribution limits were so varied by just what campaign or PACs you donated to. Since they can't make new law, they struck down what was in front of them.
Of course, the intent of the law was to prevent one donor from unduly influencing the entirety of the national election through direct campaign contributions, and IMHO the current law did at least set that boundary.
Ironically, if the law had limited direct campaign donations to the donor's resident district, it might have passed the Court's scrutiny. (One person, one vote could have been invoked, for example.)
Open up the floodgates and let the money spew forth. Let the political ads on TV become so gigantic that everyone tunes them all out.
The money will find a way because the ROI on the investment is incredible. The trick is not to limit the money, the trick is to reduce its impact.
"The trick is not to limit the money, the trick is to reduce its impact."
Agreed.
Now this is funny…
Big Donors Fear Shakdown After Decision
"Stop me, please . . .
. . . before I donate again"
???????
I'm having visions of Sheldon Adelson cowering behind his desk….
The problem isn't that people will tune out the political ads, it's that they will tune out politics altogether leaving only the most activist and richest to get involved and vote.
That's their plan…
And how the hell does one do that. Exactly?
What I mean is, how the hell does one limit political impact, not money:
""The trick is not to limit the money, the trick is to reduce its impact." –
I think that this is one of those buzz phrases that means almost nothing. If I'm wrong, show me how.
I’m mystified…
Well just as soon as you figure out how to not limit money but limit its impact, let us know how that's going to work.
Snatch this
pebbledonation from my hand, Grasshopper . . .There has to be a connection to assholes and rope and that sort of thing going on here. Aunt Ruby just dumped the slop bucket in the trough, them hogs is a’gonna go wild.
+1
Part of me is hoping this turns out to be the biggest Ponzi scheme/wealth redistribution program in the history of the country. Billionaires will be fleeced by political operatives with promises of "buying the government" they want, and then when events in Washington take their Constitutionally designed course of accomplishing next to nothing, Members will say "what could we do?" Members will then laugh all the way to their fat campaign bank accounts where their incumbency will make them impervious to even the Adelson's of the world. My concern then is NOT that the billionaires will rule, but that the rulers will be billionaires.
Rule by billionaires…think Russia. No wonder our right wingers are so in love with Vladimir Putin. Corporate mafia have taken over there….we're next, I guess.