U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(R) H. Scheppelman

(D) Alex Kelloff

70%

30%

10%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Shannon Bird

45%↓

30%

30%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 28, 2009 12:56 AM UTC

Jane Norton (alleged) ties to corruption exposed in financials

  • 47 Comments
  • by: Alan

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

POLS UPDATE: From the Colorado Independent:

Huttner also handed out a copy of the invitation for a Washington, D.C., Norton campaign fundraiser hosted by the candidate’s sister Judy Black and her husband Charlie Black.

The Blacks are part of the capital’s K Street lobbying elite. Judy Black’s clients include companies in the health care, oil and gas and banking industries. Charlie Black worked for tobacco, oil, and drug companies for decades, moving back and forth between leadership positions at lobbying firms and Republican political campaigns and organizations. Judy Black was national co-chair of the 2008 fundraising group “Women for McCain.” Charlie left the firm BKSH & Associates the same year to work as senior adviser for the McCain campaign.

“The fundraiser was hosted at The Monocle,” said Huttner, referring to the swank Capitol Hill restaurant known as a favorite site of lobbyist-lawmaker power lunches. “This is the place,” said Huttner. “It’s within steps of the Senate office buildings.”

Norton, he said, will not be working for the people of Colorado.

“She is the dream candidate of corporate lobbyists in Washington, D.C. They have undue interest in her campaign.”

Huttner renewed calls for Norton to sign a pledge to “fight the undue influences of special interests in Washington” and “reject any trips, gifts, campaign donations or economic benefits” that might come directly from or through her lobbyist relatives. The organization first asked Norton to sign the pledge when she announced her candidacy.

Original post follows.

At a press conference this morning, ProgressNow Colorado described how Norton’s first financial disclosures include corrupt DC lobbyists organized by her sister and brother-in-law, both of whom are DC lobbyists.  They revealed an invitation spearheaded by Norton’s relatives and the lobbyist money that followed.

The group also joined over 400 of its members in calling on former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton to sign the "Family Transparency Pledge" rejecting trips, gifts, campaign donations and benefits from relatives who are lobbyists.

"A puppet of corporate lobbyists in her family, Norton is the DC lobbyist’s dream candidate," noted Michael Huttner, Founder of ProgressNow Colorado, the state’s largest online progressive advocacy organization.  "It’s only been a month and already Norton has a record of surrounding herself with corrupt DC lobbyists."

Since the morning Norton announced her campaign, over 400 Coloradans have joined the call for Norton to sign the pledge.  She continues to refuse to sign it.

"We call on Jane Norton to stop placing DC special interests in Washington and sign the ‘Family Transparency Pledge’ today," stated Huttner.  "We believe that Norton needs to reject trips or economic benefits through her relatives who are lobbyists."

Norton has failed to sign the "Family Transparency Pledge":

I, Jane Norton, pledge to the People of Colorado, that I am committed to fighting the undue influence of special interests in Washington, DC.

Accordingly, I pledge that I will reject any trips, gifts, campaign donations or economic benefits that are provided to me through my relatives who are lobbyists by the companies that hire them to influence public policy.

Download a printable .PDF copy of the Pledge here:

http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/-/Family%20Transparency%20Pledge.pdf

Norton’s relatives who are lobbyists include:

Judy Black (Norton’s sister) is a DC lobbyist whose clients include those from the for-profit health care and medical device companies, oil companies, chemical companies and the banking industry. (Washington Post, June 10, 2004; U.S. Secretary of the Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, 9/10/2009)

Charlie Black (Norton’s brother in law) head of BKSH & Associates is a DC lobbyist and made a lucrative career of representing foreign oil companies, tobacco companies, drug companies, auto companies and defense contractors. (Washington Post, 12/31/2007; Business Week, 7/19/2004) and evenZaire dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.(People’s Weekly World, 3/1/2008)  Black is so deeply entwined with tobacco companies he is known in Washington as "Mr. Tobacco."

The well-connected Black used BKSH & Associates to cash in on the homeland security consulting bonanza after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He was a consultant to Ahmad Chalabi, the CIA-connected Iraqi whose lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction promoted Bush’s preemptive war on Iraq. BKSH also coached Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater USA, before he testified on his mercenary company’s massacre of scores of innocent Iraqis. (PWW)

A sample of Lobbyists in Norton’s Disclosures (amount date of donation):

Alex Castellanos $2400 on 9/29, a CNN talking head recently exposed for being a media buyer for America’s Health Insurance Plan’s (AHIP) during the health care debate, he was an adviser to Bush/Cheney 2004, and known for being the "father of the modern attack ad," was the creator of the race-baiting Jesse Helms "Hands" ad (Politico, 10/15/09; www.natmedia.com; Greg Sargent, The Plum Line, 10/15/08)

Kristen Chadwick $500 on 9/22:  She lobbies for the European Aeronautic Defense & Space Company (EADS). Her work for EADS came under scrutiny recently after it was revealed that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) had written letters to the Defense Department asking it to reconsider a contracting requirement seen as disadvantageous to EADS. Shortly thereafter, the Defense Department made the requested change, and EADS eventually won the $35 billion contract to manufacture the next generation of in-flight refueling tanker planes.(New York Times, 3/12/2008)

Rick Davis $2000 on 9/30, John McCain’s on-again-off-again 2008 campaign chief, was one of the Washington uber-lobbyists behind McCain’s political operation from Davis Manafort, who lobbied for Verizon and foreign governments, including some unregistered liaison work between Sen. McCain and a Russian oligarch (NY Times, 5/20/08; Washington Post, 1/25/08) Davis came under fire for his conflicts of interest as McCain’s 2000 campaign manager, since his clients SBC Communications Inc. and Comsat Corp. had mergers pending before Chairman McCain’s Senate Commerce Committee.(Politico, 7/11/07)

Frank Donatelli $1000 on 9/29, a former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee and recently elected chair of GOPAC, now a lobbyist and director of federal public affairs McGuireWoods Consulting, where his past clients have included Anthem and Verizon (www.opensecrets.org;www.mwcllc.com).  McGuireWoods was part of the legal defense team for indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and was fined $4,500 by the FEC in 2005 on an unrelated matter for failing to file a quarterly report for its PAC in 2004 (Richmond Times Dispatch, 11/24/05, accessed via Nexis 10/26/09)

Benjamin L. Ginsberg $500 on 9/29, GOP election lawyer who led the Bush-Gore recount, and currently a lobbyist at mega-lobbying shop Patton-Boggs LLP (www.opensecrets.org; www.pattonboggs.com).  Ginsberg resigned from the 2004 Bush campaign after it was discovered that he had consulted with both the campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but maintained, after the Kerry campaign filed an FEC complaint, that his dual roles were legal. (Roll Call, 8/30/04)

Susan B. Hirschmann $1000 on 9/30, a former chief of staff to Tom DeLay, who went from Congress through the revolving door to become a lobbyist at Williams & Jensen, where her clients include AstraZenica, Pfizer, and Wyeth (www.opensecrets.org; www.williamsandjensen.com)  At DeLay’s office, Hirschmann had worked with Jack Abramoff’s office to arrange a famous trip to St. Andrews golf course in Scotland, with her husband travelling on Abramoff’s credit card (Washington Post, 12/20/06).  Hirschmann was one of the top two congressional staff members to take privately financed travel between 2000-2005, totaling $85,000 over a 26-month period (Washington Post, 6/9/06; Center for Public Integrity, 6/8/06)

Bob Livingston $500 on 9/10, the one-time successor to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Appropriations Committee Chairman, who resigned from the US House during the Clinton impeachment after allegations of extramarital affairs surfaced.  Livingston became a lobbyist within a week of leaving Congress, founding the Livingston Group, which earned over $9 million in lobbying income in 2008 (Times-Picayune, 8/13/09, accessed via Nexis 10/25/09;www.opensecrets.org).  A report in 2007 claimed that a third of his firm’s income came from foreign governments (NY Times, 10/17/07)  Livingston was once part of a team of investors that tried to open a restaurant with Jack Abramoff before scandal broke and the deal fell through. (Roll Call, 11/17/05)

Scott W. Reed $500 on 9/25, Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign manager and now a lobbyist and founder of Chesapeake Enterprises  (www.opensecrets.org), has lobbied and consulted with numerous clients, including the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, who hired Reed along with Charlie Black (Real Estate Finance Today, 7/17/00, accessed via Nexis 10/26/09).  Other clients included American Taxpayers Alliance, a group that ran attack ads to sway the 2002 Illinois Supreme Court elections in favor of a pro-US Chamber of Commerce justice candidate. (Forbes, 7/21/03) Reed inherited the Saginaw Chippewa tribe of Michigan as a client from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff after Sen. McCain launched an investigation into Abramoff’s activities. (The Hill, 5/8/07)

Ed Rogers $500 on 9/25, chairman of The BGR Group, which he founded with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, lists Citigroup, the Kurdistan Regional Government, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Raytheon among his clients.  Rogers was exposed engaging in a campaign to undermine Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, contradicting the official policy of the White House in Iraq (www.bgrdc.com; www.opensecrets.org; CNN, 8/24/07)

Norton has yet to disclose why she never registered as a lobbyist:

Norton refuses to explain why she never personally registered as a lobbyist, even though she was the head of "Government Relations" for a health insurance lobbying organization. The press yesterday to the company confirmed Norton headed "the lobbying arm" of the company. (Colorado Independent, 9/14/2009;Washington Times, 9/14/2009)

Between 1994 and 1999, Norton was the Director of Government Relations for the Medical Group Management Association, the public policy and lobbying arm of a for-profit health trade lobbying organization.  (Denver Post, December 19, 1999)  Yet an extensive search of state and federal lobbyist disclosure records has not found any lobbying disclosure records by Norton. (U.S. Secretary of the Senate Lobbyists Disclosure Database and Colorado SOS Lobbyist Database) The entire time, it appears that Norton never registered as either a federal or state lobbyist.

Cross-posted from ProgressNow Colorado

Tweet
Share

Comments

47 thoughts on “Jane Norton (alleged) ties to corruption exposed in financials”

    1. The Colorado Dems just got handed a massive gift – they can beat up on McGinnis and Norton all in the same spot.

      McLobbyist and “K Street” Norton…I wonder if Penry and Buck team up on this>

  2. From what I see here, and admittedly I skimmed some of this, there is no basis for using the phrase “tied to corruption” in this diary title. Just because people have accepted lobbyist money from organizations you may find distasteful is not equivalent to corruption, or at least any legal definition of the word.

    I think where people’s money is coming from is important to know, and could be an important campaign issue, but let’s watch the rhetoric.

    Pols, you should either edit the title here or take it off the front page.

    1. ProgressNow tends to throw around the term “corrupt” so often and so loosely that the term is robbed of any meaning.  Are there no Progressive editors?

      1. Progress now and specifically Mike Hutner are not credible. I doubt he will lose his C-3 status dispite the fact he is a shill for a few very wealthy donors who are also trying to silence former Speaker Romanoff.

    2. but I agree with you, Raphael. I’m not seeing convicted organizations listed here. I’m seeing organizations with some shady and sketchy affiliations mentioned.

      Not quite sure there is enough proof being offered here to justify the attention grabbing headline.  

      1. don’t get me wrong here–there’s some incredibly damning stuff here and a lot of these donors speak to Norton’s apparent willingness to take contributions from the dregs of lobbying society. I just don’t think the proof rises to the level that it should to justify the title.

        But oh yeah, there is some juicy shit here.

          1. Allegations don’t cut it for me. Convictions do.

            But like I said, there is plenty of juicy stuff here and I’m not ignoring what I’m reading by any stretch.  

    3. That’s the only thing most reporters do to “keep it real,” after all. We’re not sure exactly why there’s this big distinction between “incredibly damning stuff” and the title of this diary, but that’s why we have a community.

      What this tale of “corruption” really needs is a Scott Shires appearance. Shires lets you remove “alleged” from most anything, he’s great like that.

  4. How many Democrats have signed that pledge, ProgressNow?

    Making politician siblings and spouses of siblings targets for investigation might backfire. Just sayin.

  5. “Norton has yet to disclose why she never registered as a lobbyist.”

    This sounds pretty illegal. Of course, not finding something in a database is not the same as showing it doesn’t exist, but it is enough to say “Questions are being raised,” which is the local standard.

  6. When I worked for Waste Management many years ago, they had Charlie Black on the payroll.

    They didn’t call Waste Management “the evil empire” for nothing.

    Jane Norton is well connected.  Unfortunately, she’s well connected to the worst of the inside-the-beltway world.  If you think she’s going to be representing the people of Colorado, instead of making Colorado a playing field for special interests, then you don’t know much about the world of the beltway.

    It’s “inside baseball” stuff for now.  It won’t be in a campaign.

    1. nothing personal though (I’m being nice today).

      I mean, really, what’s the rhythm? Trying “Ode to Joy” with it, but it doesn’t quite work. And now I’m out of ideas.

      1.    Just wondering.  Dick Wadhams liked to claim that he got Wayne Allard elected by running against “Millionaire-Lawyer-Lobbyist Tom Strickland.”

          Unfortunately, Wadhams didn’t originate the nickname.  That dubious honor belonged to Strickland’s primary opponent, Gene Nichols.

  8.    There’s a name from the GOP glory days!  Who can ever forget the Speaker-designate’s speech, in the middle the Clinton impeachment debate, confessing to his own adulterous affair and then announcing his resignation!

  11. Is there something real buried in all of this? Maybe. But ProgressNow needs to do some real work and find something specific. Because insinuation like this is B.S. and not only will people blow it off, but it will dilute the impact if anything real is found.

    This is the same crap thrown at Bill Clinton because of work Hillary’s law firm had done and boards she had sat on. I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now.

    1. ….I’d tie Norton and McGinnis together the same way the Right ties Reid and Pelosi together.

      “Millionaire Lobbyists working for the same out-of-control corporations that caused the financial meltdown.” And then put the itty-bitty type that avoids the lawsuit.

      This is a gift – and despite the pleas from the Leftie-verse on this site, the Dems can and will use all the negative advertising they can.

      1. We’re not expecting a “high-road” campaign from the GOP next year. Democrats with an interest in self-preservation know this and are sharpening their knives (see above). As we’ve said before, they should be careful to not totally single out Norton, since that focus can lend her credibility. Pay attention to Ken Buck, too.

        That said, Democrats more interested in quibbling among themselves over choice of words than the pressing need to engage a resurgent GOP should be considered a “gift” also–to the GOP.

        1. That said, Democrats more interested in quibbling among themselves over choice of words than the pressing need to engage a resurgent GOP should be considered a “gift” also–to the GOP.

          SO all of you make sure you toe the line.  No need for the line to be accurate.

          1. In “Calamity Jane’s” case Progress Now hasn’t even gotten to the best stuff.

            I think what MotR and others are arguing about is a matter of degree, how harsh the rhetoric should be at this early stage. I don’t think it’s a stretch to call all of K Street a “corrupt” system, but that may not be the thing to lead off with.

          2. Aren’t you the least bit worried that your potential US Senate candidate is connected with them?

            I mean, calling it “corruption” might be the wrong word, but the thought of our Senator having a direct line in her office to K Street is troubling.

            1. “Corruption” is inaccurate.

              By Huttner’s logic, anyone who has ever donated to any Dem Congressional candidate is corrupt as well, because the candidate will have received support from the DNCC, and so did William Jefferson.

                1. No.  

                  It’s how business is done now in Washington, and it’s no better (if not worse) under the Dem supermajority.

                  The largest spending bill (so far) in this nations history was written on K Street and passed without even being read by our elected reps.

                  If I were a Dem (yechh) I wouldn’t be so holier-than-thou about K Street.

                  Plus, it’s inside baseball.  Nobody but nerds like us who blog on snow days gives a crap.

                  1. Nobody is being holier than thou except for Progress Now (but they’re always like that). Most of the people on this thread agreed it was an incorrect line of criticism.

                    I just think it’s funny that you get to bitch about K Street when it’s beneficial to you, but when their firm is tied to your potential GOP US Senate candidate, it’s no big deal.

                    1. I distinctly remember you burning up Pols with angry posts about the stimulus bill.

                      I’m in favor of almost anything that will put R’s back in power and put a roadblock up to this crazy spending.  If Jane needs K Street to get elected, then good.

                    2. Actually, I had reservations, but you’re right, I wans’t the one really bitching about them. YOU WERE. Like I said, when it’s convenient for you, they’re terrible. When it’s not, you’re OK with them–more than that, you completely condone them.

                      Your “anything to get Rs elected” philosophy is totally disingenuous, and I don’t think you could accuse me of doing the same thing. I may not be a vociferous critic of every Democratic policy (I think if I was, I would probably be a Republican) but I call them out when it’s appropriate. I certainly didn’t condone K Street’s complicity with the secret nature of some of the legislation that was passed earlier this year.

                      When it comes down to it, that’s the exact same philosophy that you’re so upset with when it comes to Huttner and Progress Now. You’re really no different from them except you’re on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. Criticizing Huttner at every turn, while saying “anything to get my side elected” is beyond hypocritical.

                    3. I was mostly being a smartass about it, but you’re right.

                      I think I get frustrated at what a giant load of shit Huttner spews sometimes and totally gets away with.

                      Plus I know Jane and like her.  

            1. It’s your blog.  You can post anything you want here, accurate or not.

              I’ll bet more people on Pols read Huttner’s tripe than anywhere else in the real world.

              Congrats.

        2. I’d say it’s not even choice of words, but arguments over the definitions of words that are used.

          That’s why it’s so important for both Romanoff and Bennet to take the high ground when it comes to the primary campaign. If we’re not distracted by forming the ole circular firing squad, then we can concentrate on the Republican candidates for every race on the ballot.

          It’d be a shame to throw away the Democratic majority we’ve worked so hard to build in this state at both a local and Federal level over semantics.

  12. Huttner’s clever disclosures aside, they really aren’t much of a stunning surprise are they? How would any of this hurt her in fundraising? So, what’s the relevance? She may or may not have to address any of this in the future to the public at large, most of whom will be bored by the convoluted connections. She can easily obfuscate connections or side-step them, can’t she? I’m left with a big “so what?”

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

163 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols