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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 16, 2010 09:15 PM UTC

Stop this man!

  • 68 Comments
  • by: Alan

(Who needs Dr. Evil when you have Doug Bruce? – promoted by Colorado Pols)

The city of Colorado Springs is the adopted hometown of right-wing crusader Doug Bruce. Thanks in part to local ballot initiatives sponsored by Bruce, restrictions on the ability of the city to meet basic needs have seriously harmed Colorado Springs–and adversely impacted the quality of life of every resident. The area’s chronic shortfalls for basic services like health inspectors, police and fire, and even streetlights have repeatedly made national news.

Now, we’ve learned that Bruce wants this reality for all of Colorado.

Last week, a judge found that Bruce has been deeply involved with three controversial initiatives proposed for this November’s ballot (Colorado Springs Gazette, 6/11/2010). Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101 are some of the most radical and destructive changes ever proposed for our state. A product of simpleton "drown government in a bathtub" ideology, these initiatives would slash taxes and vehicle registration fees to unsustainable levels and make it virtually impossible for state and local government to finance new construction. They have been denounced as dangerous and irresponsible by virtually every local government and fiscal policy group in the state, as well as leaders from across the political spectrum.

We don’t know what will happen in court. What we do know is that everyone–Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative–must join together to stop these destructive initiatives. Start by signing our pledge to OPPOSE Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101:

http://progressnowcolorado.org/StopBruce

Doug Bruce doesn’t want you to know he’s behind these initiatives. For weeks, Bruce has made a mockery of the law, actually hiding from process servers to avoid being compelled to testify. It’s gone so far that even Colorado’s Republican Attorney General is seeking a contempt of court citation against Bruce. Despite his comical attempts to evade the law and obfuscate the truth, the court has found that Bruce was intimately involved with the planning and collection of signatures to get these initiatives on the ballot.

Bruce’s surrogates are believed to have broken the law getting these initiatives on the ballot. Despite the large and costly petition-gathering campaign that was clearly employed to obtain the number of signatures required, none of the campaigns involved ever reported any expenses! It’s another shocking display of flagrant contempt for the law. But nobody ever accused Doug Bruce of being stupid, and until the legislature can put real teeth in Colorado campaign finance law, we have to assume that the fight is on all the way through to November. Take the first step: sign our pledge to OPPOSE Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101 today.

http://progressnowcolorado.org/StopBruce

We will keep you up to date with the progress of court battles over these initiatives, and provide you with ways to take action to protect your community.

We can’t lose this one. If the unthinkable happens, and any one of these destructive ballot measures is passed into law, Colorado will be irreparably harmed. These initiatives are not intended to solve any problems, they are only meant to do damage. That is not a responsible way to confront the issues we face, something both liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on.

Thank you for standing up when it matters most. This is one of those times.

Tweet
Share

Comments

68 thoughts on “Stop this man!”

  2. Since when did vehicle fees become necessary for a functioning democracy? There was a time, not so very long ago in the grand scheme of things, when we didn’t even have cars.

      1. will start the rally cry against horse and buggy registration fees. I remember a time when men walked slightly less than upright and had no knowledge of equestrian training or use of horses for transportation.

      2. I’ve always advocated extreme measures against all traffic offenses, primarily because they almost all seem to be committed by drivers of cars.

    3. slashing use of new fangled technology.  We can all join organic farming and recycling communes,  break out the mules, oxen and horses and shut down big oil for good, right BJ?  Oh and then we can all solve our healthcare affordability problems with organically grown chickens but we’ll have to settle for that good old 19th century low tech medicine. And dentistry.  Ouch.  

      BJ, I have a suggestion.  Get off the talking point blogs for a few months, read some books, formulate something coherent.

    4. Since when did vehicle fees become necessary for a functioning democracy?

         Some of us, who do have cars, do believe that registration fees and fuel taxes are necessary to build highways, however.

         BlowJ, every day in every way, you’re getting dumber and dumber.

    5. are unavoidable, Death and Taxes.

      Most of the thinking people Know, that for a functional government, Taxes must be paid.

      for the rest, theirs Doug Bruce.

    6. Some actual facts and numbers:

      One metro county’s revenue on specific ownership tax would fall 98% – from $33 million to $455,790.

      Just in case you didn’t know, specific ownership tax helps supplement revenue for things that the state and feds don’t pay for, like libraries, special districts, fire districts and schools. The amount going to schools in this county would fall from $17.8 million to $241,113. Not very good for poor Junior when his per pupil funding drops to around $3.50.

      On the vehicle registration fee, the county would lose $23.5 million. Since the state has little or no money to provide safe roads and bridges, counties and cities need HUTF funding to supplement the lack of revenue. The amount the county has to spend on fixing roads and bridges currently isn’t enough at $11.3 million. After Prop 101, know how much they’ll have to spend on keeping bridges safe? $0.00

      And these numbers just reflect if Prop 101 passes…

      Anyone who believes these measures are of benefit to Colorado and the taxpayers is seriously in need of a new perspective on life.

  3. .

    I think there was an administrative hearing before an ALJ, which is not quite the same as a judicial proceeding before a judge.  

    So it’s not 100% accurate to say a judge came to any finding concerning Bruce and these amendments, since no Judge has been involved yet.  

    The distinction may seem small, but it puts the to lie many of your key assertions.

    The hearing was fundamentally about a bunch of lobbyists asking that the identities of all supporters of these petitions be revealed, while they concealed their identities.  Goose, meet Gander.

    Was Grueskin fighting for better governance, or for better opportunities for lobbyists ?

    The purpose of these amendments isn’t really to shrink government to a size smaller than a bathtub.  The intent is to force governments at all levels to comply with the existing TABOR law, which provides for all manner of tax increases.  They just have to be voted on.  

    These amendments are surgically targeted at taxes (and taxes that courts have labeled as “fees”) that have been raised in contravention of that law.  

    .

    1. …”ALJ” means “administrative law judge.”  And an ALJ has found that Bruce was behind these amendments, notwithstanding his cowardly and illegal attempts to admit this fact.

      So, the following statement of yours is not “100% accurate”:

      So it’s not 100% accurate to say a judge came to any finding concerning Bruce and these amendments, since no Judge has been involved yet.

       

        2. If you would like, you could check on yer googles to see if “judge” really means “judge” or not. ALJ’s can take testimony and make factual or legal rulings. But that’s just according to U.S. Code, so maybe you have a better source?

        3. Note that in Butz v. Economou 1978 and Federal Maritime Commission v. S.C. State Ports Authority 2002, SCOTUS ruled that ALJ’s are “functionally comprable” to Article III judges and are often comprable to trial judges.

          Teh wikipedia references real sources and trumps teh google.

          1. .

            G reality,

            thank you for the citations that undermine your argument.   QED.

            .

            For Ernie’s edification,

            if an ALJ is “functionally comparable” to something, it is not that thing, but it’s pretty close, in some regards.  

            A Judge derives their authority from Article III of the Constitution.  They try matters of law.  

            An ALJ derives their authority from Article I.  They do not try matters of law.  They try matters of administration.  They cannot, for example, issue contempt citations, because they do not preside over courts of law.  

            .

            So why didn’t anybody admitted to the bar or any paralegal (dozens play in this sandbox) get my back on this ?

            .

                  1. I never called myself a judge because I thought it was unduly snooty, but I hope that the people who appeared before me felt that I was judgelike, in that they felt like they got an impartial hearing and a fair decision.  

                    A lot of my colleagues did like to be called “Judge Whoever,” though.  I thought they were awfully pretentious.

            3. have you ever heard of “Administrative Law”? It’s a very popular course in law schools. There are four major sources of federal law: The U.S. Constitution, Statutes (passed by the legislature), Regulations (promulgated by administrative agencies), and Case Law (generated by court decisions). ALJs are held somewhat seperate from the administrative agencies to which they are assigned, in order to perform their quasi-judicial functions without impediment. They do indeed hear matters of law, and are the last recourse, generally required, before a case (on a matter of law) can be brought before an Article III appellate court.

              Regulatory law is such a bonified branch of federal law that it is protected by the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, and trumps even state constitutional law when the two conflict.

              Barron, this has become a bizarre habit of yours, claiming some rather idiosyncratic semantic absolutes, such as the notion that Civil Rights don’t include discrimination on matters other than those that you associate with “civic” activity, by which definition the lion’s share of the Civil Rights protected by The Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not really Civil Rights.

              Semanitc arguments are generally weak from the get-go, since they are a privileging of form over substance. They are even weaker when, even within the marginally useful world of semantic distinctions, the arguments are total bullshit, such as when someone asserts and defends the claim that a judge is not a judge.

          1. .

            I’ve had a case before an ALJ at the MSPB, and he made very clear to all parties that he was not a Judge.  

            As you say, an ALJ has zero Article III authority to try matters of law.  Ultimately it is Article III authority that makes someone a Judge.  An ALJ tries matters of administration, interpreting internal rules, not matters of law.  

            It IS in the name.  Exactly what does that prove ?  Can you say “Simon Cowell ?”  Do you know his job title ?  

            NOTE:  I made an error referring to Article I when it should have been Article II, as Steve correctly points out.

            .

            1. was exactly correct. If you (or the ALJ) want to claim that only Article III judges are “judges”, and that Article II “Administrative Law JUDGES” are not judges, you are welcome to. But the claim that something which you acknowledge is called “a judge” (and presides over a proceding which is extremely similar to an Article III court proceding) can’t be called “a judge,” is just a bit beyond absurd.

            2. is that “a judge” is “a judge,” and that someone needs to pause and think carefully before they make the mistake of arguing otherwise. Simon Cowell is a judge as well, a singing contest judge. If someone used the word in reference to him trying to imply that he was some other kind of judge, then that would be disingenuous. But there would be nothing inappropriate in saying, for instance, “I’ve watched many talent contests, but I’ve never seen a judge as harsh as Simon Cowell before.”

              Now, an Article II judge is not the same as an Article III judge, though an Article II judge is not as far removed from an Article III judge as a singing contest judge is. If your point was that an ALJ is not an Article III judge, then that’s what you need to say, just as if your point is that Simon Cowell is not a judge in any sense related to judicial or quasi-judicial procedings, then that’s what you would need to say.

              I didn’t read the original post, that made the original reference, so I don’t know if the poster was implying that an ALJ was an Article III judge or not. But I do know that “a judge” is “a judge,” and that anyone insisting otherwise is seriously semantically challenged.

    2. The law says that campaign contributions must be disclosed.  The basis of the complaint is that the group sponsoring the amendments reported no funding for the petition drive.

      That’s hardly how you tried to frame it.

      1. .

        whether the petition sponsors constituted an “issues committee.”

        There are rules for such committees, like disclosing campaign contributions, that do not apply to ordinary citizens.  

        I think that the petition sponsors were arguing that they were not an “issues committee.”  Maybe the people who hired Grueskin were an “issues committee ?”  We never found out who they were.  

        .

        While you are very close to what I think the basis of the complaint was, I think it is technically more correct to say that

        “the basis of the complaint was that the plaintiffs, who apparently are a bunch of Capitol Hill lobbyists, asserted that the individual citizens who sponsored the petitions were acting as a de facto “issues committee,” subject to the many rules that go with that status,

        whereas the defendants said that they were not as coordinated as an “issues committee,” so things like the reporting requirements did not apply to them.  

        Thus, in making the blanket statement

        The law says that campaign contributions must be disclosed.

        you have already assumed the outcome of the matter that went before the Magistrate/ ALJ for an administrative determination,

        the question of whether or not they were an “issues committee.”  

        .

        1. then please publish the names of the complainants.

          And if you wish to assert that the sponsors of these ballot issues were not issues committees, please discuss on what basis you make that assertion.

            1. .

              I’d withdraw the clarification about what an ALJ is, and is not, if I could.  I apologize if anyone took offense at my insensitive remarks.  They cut especially deep whenever I obliquely illuminate that core Progressive religious beliefs are not science-based, after all.

              So sorry.

              .  

              1. …of acknowledging that you haven’t the foggiest notion what you’re talking about.  Or else it’s your childish way of avoiding that fact.  Either way, grow up please.

              2. you are referring to, Barron.  That Doug Bruce is a dick? That we like functional infrastructure? I wouldn’t call those religious beliefs.  The latter is a lifestyle preference (I like being able to get from point A to point B safely) and I’m almost sure the former could be proved by well designed experiments employing observable phenomena to objectively demonstrate off the chart levels of dickishness.

                We could, for instance, send in news photographers and note his choice of a wide range of possible responses? Present him with happy, excited school children learning about the legislative process by advancing a harmless bill through the state legislature and see how long it takes him to make them cry?  The possibilities are endless.

              3. It is a core Progressive religious belief that A = A, and that the argument that A does not equal A is about as logically challenged as can be. I’m glad you’ve helped us get to the fundamental distinction between core Progressive religious beliefs (that A is A) and core Conservative religious beliefs (that A is not A). I think you’ve summed up the distinction nicely.

              4. To the extent that semantics is a science, it is a science which never claims that something called “A” cannot be called “A”. To the extent that it is not a science but rather a convention, then reference to science is an irrelevant attempt at misdirection.

                Ironically, core Progressive beliefs are precisely science based, and precisely opposed to blind ideological assumptions. We accept that the overwhelming evidence of global warming is, indeed, overwhelming evidence of global warming. We accept that the requirements of administering a complex modern economy are indeed the requirements of administering a complex modern economy (including knowledge of such detailed scientific dynamics as, for instance, how energy on an electrical grid is balanced and what kinds of administrative challenges that creates for regulating energy markets, or how aquifers and surface water systems are connected and how this affects prior appropriation laws regarding the two).

                Nothing is more tiresome than the anti-intellectualism and anti-reality arbitrary beliefs of modern conservatives, except, perhaps, the truly sickening tendency for those very people to try to perpetrate a Bizarro flip-flop of reality, claiming to have science on their side when science is not at all on their side.

                Do you know why all professions that deal with information or imagination as a core element of the profession (academe, journalism, the arts) are notoriously associated with Liberalism? Because informed minds tend to be aware of the nature of the complex and subtle systems that comprise us and our world, and to understand the nature of the challenge of navigating our collective existence within that reality.

                So make your arbitrary claims and bad semantic arguments, but don’t start claiming to have science on your side. It just ain’t so.

          2. .

            this cabal is hiding their identities, exactly what they found so offensive about the petition backers.  Maybe they are an issues committee ?

            Actually, I don’t know enough about it to say if they, or the defendants, are issues committees or not.

            I was just trying to derail the discussion by interjecting the actual issue under consideration.  Folks were having so much fun discussing an issue that was not even a part of the hearing, I just wanted to spoil their fun.  The administrative hearing was not about whether contributions were disclosed, or whether they had to be disclosed.  It simply examined whether of not the sponsors should be considered issues committees.  Boring.  

  5. Will this ruling from Judge Spencer require Colorado Pols to file as issue committee? CP is supporting or against an issue. They have taken a clear stance against prop. 101, #60 and #61. They use the web and allow others to use their website. This is what Spencer used to fine these people.

      1. No, Pols is not running a petition drive but they are opposing one. This requires filing of issue committee. This conversation is moot as rules only apply when they suit your cause.

          1. Actually the campaign finance laws set a 200.00 dollar limit. Does this website not cost more than 200.00 to operate? Usage of a website was the main expenditure the Judge used as grounds for fines.

            BTW I registered today. Maybe you should register as issue committee today? Purpose of issue committee: To oppose proposition 101, #60 and #61. Expenditures: Colorado Pols website.

              2. .

                this site prolly costs in the Millions to operate.  That doesn’t include the unquantifiable value of the participants’ contributions.

                .

              2. The Campaign fairness act does not grant exemption for editorializing. Also Colorado Pols stretches the definition of editorializing. If you support or oppose, an issue or candidate, you are required to file.  I understand you cherish your First Amendment Rights, we all do.  Nobody thinks political speech should be a crime; accept those that use the courts to further their own political agenda.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

155 readers online now

Newsletter

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