Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Amendment 54 - Ban some from the political process

by: DavidThi808

Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:33:00 AM MDT


Amendment 54 will prohibit certain government contractors from contributing to a political party or candidate for the contract's duration and two years thereafter; prohibit contributors to ballot issue campaigns from entering into certain government contracts relating to the ballot issue; apply the prohibitions on campaign contributions and ballot issue contracts to any contractor with a government contract or contracts that does not use a public and competitive bidding process soliciting at least three bids and with a total value greater than $100,000 in a single year; and‚ apply the prohibitions on campaign contributions and ballot issue contracts to a labor organization holding a collective bargaining agreement with a state or local government.

Further info at Colorado Ballot - The misnamed Restrictions on Campaign Contributions from Government Sole-Source Contractors Initiative
DavidThi808 :: Amendment 54 - Ban some from the political process
Arguments Against
The broad scope of the measure could have far-reaching consequences for contractors, political candidates, and elected officials. For example, an individual holding a covered contract with one local government could be penalized for making a contribution to a candidate in a separate jurisdiction. To avoid violations and penalties, candidates and political parties will have to monitor each contribution to ensure that it is not made by a sole-source government contractor, or by the contractor on behalf of a relative. Furthermore, Amendment 54 establishes penalties that are severe relative to the offenses, including loss or disqualification from office for elected or appointed officials.

Amendment 54 proposes an inflexible approach to government contracting. Different regions and levels of government throughout the state have varying contracting needs and access to providers of goods and services. Because rural cities and counties typically have fewer contracting options than urban communities or state government, the measure presents unique challenges for small communities and their service providers. For example, if one organization in a small community is the only available contractor for community services, the organization would have to choose between accepting a contract and participating financially in the political process.

Arguments For
By prohibiting campaign contributions, Amendment 54 ensures that business interests, labor, and other covered government contractors do not influence policy decisions through campaign contributions.

Vote NO! Devastating Impact Vote No
There is the germ of a good idea in this initiative, that companies that receive large sole-source contracts cannot contribute to ballot issue campaigns. (Contribution to candidates are also limited, but those have such low limits per person anyways that this would not have much impact there.)

It's interesting that these ultra right-wing "small government" conservative groups then propose complex initiatives to be a rigid straitjacket added to our constitution. Yet usually they state they are in favor of unlimited funding of (their) candidates.

This proposal removes a class of large companies and unions from the political process. I'm sure it was "coincidental" that these groups being removed tend to be liberal in their outlook - yeah right. This is pure and simple and attempt to remove some political funding sources from the Democratic party.

Naked political power plays should not be added to our constitution.

In addition, to continue with the incredibly successful Colorado Labor Peace Act of 1943, this (and the other 6 peace act violators) must be defeated.

Ballotpedia
If you want to make Ballotpedia a more evenhanded discussion of this initiative (it presently is biased in favor of it) click here register, and you can then edit the page.
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Amendment 54 - Ban some from the political process | 57 comments
According to Tom Lucero,
the key backer of 54, it is so extreme it would prevent Xcel energy from spending company funds on a franchise election.  I used to work for Public Service Co. and helped in some such elections. Money spent does NOT come from your electric/gas bill, because the PUC won't include it in the rate base. It, rightly, comes from the stockholders.  Because a franchise, by definition, is a "sole source" this threatens x-cels ability to do business in Colorado.  As the holder of 730 shares of X-cel in one of my retirement accounts, I am not amused.  It might also derail the public private partnerships on commuter rail lines that may be the salvation of FasTracks. A very, very, dangerous amendment to the business community.
Bob I have to tell you; you have really outdone yourself with that little nugget.
As a shareholder of any company, where do you suppose your gains come from if not the end consumer?

A very, very, dangerous amendment to the....Democratic Party!

[ Parent ]
Too bad you are so ignorant of the law, Loan Shark.
The PUC allows XCEL to earn a certain rate of return on invested capital.  By law, only certain expenses can be included in that rate base.  Franchise election expenses are among those that cannot be excluded. They come out of portion of income that would otherwise be alocated to dividends, and are thus paid by shareholders.  What you are advocating in your ignorance is socialism --
the only alternative to an Xcel franchise is municipal condemnation of the distribution system follkowed by municipal (socialist) operation, as is done in the People's Republic of Colorado Springs!
Your ignorance of, and hatred for, business is unbelievable.  
[ Parent ]
above should read
 Franchise election expenses are among those that cannot be INcluded.  
[ Parent ]
888-OUR-HRBB H&R Block
I don't think they allow blogging from Federal Prison.  If you do your own taxes, given your accounting skills demonstrated in this last post I fear you may end up there.  I don't want that.  Please get help.

Before I take the time to go into the corporate structure; I'm going to attempt to use the Socratic Method to help you come to my conclusion:
1.) IF THE PUC ALLOWED EXCEL TO EARN ZERO ON INVESTED CAPITAL.......What would the stock price be?
2.) Would you own your 730 shares in your retirement account?
3.) What other source of revenue, other than from the consumer is paying the rest of the dividend you mention?

I know you love car analogies.........By your logic you could argue that GM, Ford, and Chrysler don't transfer the cost of steal on to their customers they "just reduce the dividends."

I truly pity your blindness to this; however it does shed some light onto the idea of how anyone could possibly argue that Corporate Taxes are not passed onto the consumer.  Thus, any increase on taxes to corporations is a tax increase to the people who consume the product or service the company provides.  We'll get to that in a few days with Amendment 58.  

This is way off topic, perhaps you could open a thread "Bob needs help with Finance 101 Homework" Brush the dust off your finance and accounting books Bob, you're going to need them.

[ Parent ]
give it up, shill boy.
Your ignorance of the law is matched only by your ignorance of economics.  You probably think Nassau Senior is a retirement community in the Bahamas.
[ Parent ]
Really?
Why don't you enlighten me with your economic prowess instead of being such an absolute Jerk because I disagree with you.

It seems that you like to play the brilliant professor role here on Pols and simpletons like redstateblues let you get away with it.

Prove it!

Name the business you have run!

Answer each of the questions above!  

Or admit that you are the "shill" and quit being such an elitist.  You've been spending far too much time with people that agree with you.  Calling people names, sarcasm, and pouting doesn't work in the real world.  

[ Parent ]
Hey!
I ain't no simpleton. I passed me the third grade and it only took two tries!

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)
[ Parent ]
"Calling people names, sarcasm, and pouting"
worked pretty damn well for Sarah Palin at the Republican Convention.

"I am B.J. Wilson, and I am a troll."
[ Parent ]
Loan Shark,
you wouldn't know the real world if it bit you on the nose. I don't answer questions from imbeciles who think general motors is a regulated monopoly. Nobody gives a damn about your opinion because it's a wholly ignorant one.  Even your mother groans when you open your mouth.
[ Parent ]
Xcel should not have to go to election by the public ... what is representative government for ... time to change this law

[ Parent ]
Individual Impact?
My reading of this Amendment is it affects the political involvement specifically of the company/organization. It would not affect individual contributions (unless the individual is the one receiving the contract).

I do not believe that corporations are people (contra the Supreme Court) and do not think they have a right to make political contributions. So as long as this does not affect individual contributions, it seems like it could be useful in preventing quid pro quo arrangements. Perhaps the problem is that it is not expansive enough and thus introduces a partisan bent in that way?

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis

Read the definitions of who is covered in the text
Some, not all individuals involved in an organization are covered.
[ Parent ]
prohibits contributions by FAMILY MEMBERS of contract holders
From the actual text of the amendment, those prohibited from making political contributions to candidate committees, political committees, small donor committees, political parties, or other entities (proposed Section 17(1) -- p 2, lines 3-4) includes not only executives of corporations with single-source contracts or labor unions, but family members of same (p 1, line 19):

Section 2(4.5) "Contract holder" means any non-governmental party to a sole source government contract, including persons that control ten percent or more shares or interest in that  party; or that party's officers, directors or trustees; or, in the case of collective bargaining agreements, the labor organization and any political committees created or controlled by the labor organization; (p 3, lines 4-7)

Section 2(8.5) "Immediate family member" means any spouse, child, spouse's child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, stepparent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, niece, nephew, guardian, or domestic partner; (p 3, lines 8-11)

[ Parent ]
Let me get this straight
The same bozos who fight against gay marriage included "domestic partner" in the prohibited group. Talk about hypocritcal.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
In defense of my fellow members of the bozo community, david
this is basically Independence Institute/Dennis Polhill. They are basically against government but I've never heard them bash gays.
[ Parent ]
You mean the VRWC is not a monolith?
[ Parent ]
If by monolith you mean
a unthinking block of stone, you may have been right the first time.
[ Parent ]
Yikes
Apparently the short summary is not always a sufficient measure of the initiative. I'd be ok with this if it only applied to the organization, but including the individuals makes it a non-starter.

I think that makes 3 or 4 initiatives where an initial sympathy towards a yes vote has become a no vote. Guess there is some logic to the default no on ballot initiatives, eh?

Those things that make the ballot classified as Referenda tend to be pretty responsible though, I guess there is something to this representative democracy thing. ;-)

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis

[ Parent ]
:)
That's why you want to vote yes on Ref. O.  Most of these initiatives deserve to go down to defeat, but if nothing else we need to make it harder for them to get in to the State Constitution.

"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 ]
Doesn't
this violate the 1st amendment?

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)
yes
It's the height of hypcorsiy for right-wingers to be pushing this after all of their kvetching over McCain-Feingold and Amendment27 here.

I blogged a bit about this last week at my place,

http://steampoweredopinions.bl...

http://steampoweredopinions.bl...

[ Parent ]
Nice Steve
I think I may have actually gotten the notion from reading those exact blogs.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)
[ Parent ]
thanks for reading
Glad some folks are finding SPO worth their while. I think my girlfriend just appreciates me venting to the computer and not to her every day ;)
[ Parent ]
My wife
often stares through me while I talk to her about this stuff. She's into it too, but not with the same fervor that we have.

There's definitely a quota on how many times I can check Pols in a day though. :)

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
My wife
Would do the same thing if she really knew how often I was here!
[ Parent ]
Ahh yes Haners
Pols-related deception, the cornerstone of any healthy marriage! :)

I always tell her that if she just started commenting here too, then she wouldn't be so upset when I was checking the site. She says that she would, but that she doesn't want to get torn a new one by you guys.

I wish she would though because her views on stuff like unions and education are much more in line with the Republicans here than my own.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
Vote "NO"

What's good for the Goose…………..
As one of the "right wingers" I think you are referring to, this seems to just level the playing field.  There isn't a politician alive that could undo McCain/Feingold.  

Not even if you called it a tax, gave it a letter and handed it to Hickenlooper.

Many concessions are made; I think it is a tragedy these are made on the Constitutional level and affect people's 1st Amendment rights.  But right now the system heavily favors those candidates and issues on the left.  An unbiased and objective look would tell you that if we want to continue a dual party system where we have a debate about issues from two perspectives, this amendment needs to pass.

Now if you want a one sided government that picks the winners and the losers, I would caution you that while it may be great when you are in power.  But political winds shift and shift often.

In this state, why can't corporations and LLC's contribute to a candidate?  I agree that corporations should not be classified as individuals.   But we tax them separately; why shouldn't they have representation of their own?

To David's point about if it is coincidental that this targets groups that are "liberal leaning."  Of course it does, they are the only ones left.  That is why you are up in arms over this; it takes away your political monopoly.    

Awww
That is why you are up in arms over this; it takes away your political monopoly.

Somebody call the wahhhhmbulance.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
Sophomoric at best
You do however realize you're admitting that the left currently has a political monopoly?
[ Parent ]
Especially with that Democrat Bush in the White House!
Someone took the Republican National Convention message a little too seriously.

"I am B.J. Wilson, and I am a troll."
[ Parent ]
This message brought to you by a shill
who just argued with a straight face that General Motors is a regulated monopoly whose prices are set by the Public Utilities Commission. You just can't make this stuff up, my friends!
[ Parent ]
I see your point...
Or at least I would if this were an article in The Onion.

I mean, it really is too bad we have to ignore the United States Constitution so that we can maintain "party parity".  The tragic fact is, we Republicans can't hack it on a level playing field where we have a registration advantage in the state, won the past two Presidential elections, and controlled Congress for 11 of the past 13 years.

If you need to talk about it some more, the number is 1-800-555-WAAA!

"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 is subterfuge pure and simple
The last line of the first paragraph of the story is what this amendment is REALLY all about: it will "apply the prohibitions on campaign contributions and ballot issue contracts to a labor organization holding a collective bargaining agreement with a state or local government."

So basically no union with a labor contract with a local government (like RTD bus drivers and mechanics, or teachers, or police, or firemen) will ever be allowed to contribute to a political campaign.

What a load of crap.  

See redstateblues above
Awww
That is why you are up in arms over this; it takes away your political monopoly.
Somebody call the wahhhhmbulance.
______________________________________
by: redstateblues @ Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 13:00:08 PM CDT
[ Parent ]  
[ Parent ]
I'm not saying anything
about the amendment. I'm saying that we have a political monopoly because WE ARE RIGHT.

The voters of Colorado agree.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
Maybe you are right........
I don't think you are but I don't claim to know everything; but there have been countless dictators, kings, queens etc. who thought they were right too.  All I am asking for is a level playing field to debate the issues.

Right now you have a political Finance monopoly because all of the right leaning sources have been carved out.  Now that amendment 54 is going to affect your ideological counterparts you are upset.  Sounds like sour grapes to me.  Maybe you should call the whaaaaaaambulance.  

[ Parent ]
Wow
You could probably teach me a thing or two about sour grapes.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)
[ Parent ]
Wow, Bob you are really a mean person!
I can handle the repeated abuse that you spew out day after day.  But do you really want to reduce yourself to the level of "Yo Momma" Jokes, I don't think so.  

When you bring my mother into the conversation I have to say you appear to be classless like a vile sack of rotting excrement that has been regurgitated by a hyena.  Please don't do that again, keep all future personal attacks and their content aimed at yours truly, you degenerate.  - Sorry, did I say all that out loud?

Your assertion was that when Excel spends money on a franchise election it doesn't come from the dollars that you and I pay our utility bills with?  Did I somehow misunderstand this or is that your assertion?  

I assumed from your holier than thou presence here on pols that you would at least act like a reasonable and intelligent person.  I am not questioning your intelligence, yet I seem to have been mistaken.  A reasonable person could and would have deduced from my comments that I was pointing out the flaw in your argument that "Money spent does NOT come from your electric/gas bill, because the PUC won't include it in the rate base. It, rightly, comes from the stockholders."  

I'll ask once again: where does the money come from if not from consumer?  I don't care how you slice the bill or what is listed on the statement.  

Perhaps my question threw you off; maybe you will agree with me that:  If there were no consumers the company wouldn't have the money in the first place.  

You then gratuitously interjected a hint at how wealthy and savvy you are you are "As the holder of 730 shares of X-cel in one of my retirement accounts, I am not amused." As if you were trying to impress us, well I'm not impressed with all of your retirement accounts let alone "one" of them.

Face it Bob you're wrong.  At least propose a new premise or something, rather than just refusing to answer me while you have stated you are "ignoring me."  It's disingenuous to your faithful believers here on the blog.  Stand up, present an idea that doesn't include an insult and let's have it out.  Drawing a completely irrational conclusion from the assertion I presented is not an acceptable response.

I'm not sure how many others you have been able to bully off of this site by not answering questions and hurling insults involving people's mothers, but I will not go away and I demand that you answer my question.  If you do not I will take your silence as a concession and will plague you with a reminder every day.  

You did successfully avoid having to debate the proposed amendment though.  Well done Bob!  See you tomorrow.

Wow...
Glad I've taken a few days of "relaxed posting" here...

I'd like to just congratulate you on being perhaps the most obdurate, rabid party-über-alles hack to populate this blog in a long, long time.

"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's very unfair
Nancy L. Whats-her-name was equally bad.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Yeah, okay...
But she wasn't quite as obnoxious about it.  Or maybe it's just Bob's ability to get under Lone Wolf's skin that's got him all riled up.

"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 ]
Just vote YES, like 51%+ of the rest of us will
Might it crush some GOP fundraising, yes. Will these businesses not like the restriction, yes. Will they thus change their behavior, yes.

Is that good, yes.

Hey David
Forgive me if this has been discussed elsewhere, but have you seen your post used in mailers FOR Amendment 54 under the heading "This is what the left is saying about Yes on 54"?

(You radical lefty:)

No way!
Oh, can you post a picture? That would be priceless.

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie
[ Parent ]
I would if I could
but that would be above my pay grade.  Har har.  

I have a scanner, but I don't know how to post pics on this site.  Lame I know.

[ Parent ]
I would love to mock you right now
but I just learned how to embed videos last week. Talk about lame. :)

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie
[ Parent ]
"Embed videos"
Are those the naughty ones?:)
[ Parent ]
Shut it.
Perv. :)

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie
[ Parent ]
LOL!

[ Parent ]
Man, I've MISSED you.
I'm so happy to see you today.  

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie
[ Parent ]
Thanks Middle!
When I got that flyer I had to come in and post.  Connecting David to radical lefties made me laugh.  

I've missed you too!  Quick, pass a hanky!

[ Parent ]
Sniff, sniff.
Hanky? I don't need a fucking hanky...sniff.  

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie
[ Parent ]
Getting it from both sides
All those posters on DailyKos and SquareState think I'm a right-wing tool for being against 53/55/56/57 and then the right does this. People's heads are going to explode...

Yes, please post a copy if you can.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Now, David. You know what they say.
When everybody has a beef with you, you must be doing something right. :)

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie
[ Parent ]
Or everything wrong
Hopefully I usually fall in the first category.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Amendment 54 - Ban some from the political process | 57 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com

Active Users
Currently 31 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 "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

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

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 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

Ultimate Politics

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat



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