President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 22, 2006 08:19 PM UTC
44 Comments
It looks bad on Both Ways. I guess when your fundraising sucks as much as his does, you have to find *some* way of getting more cash in the door.
Or would it not be easier to allow people to give what they want to who they want, and just make tough reporting laws to be sure everyone knows who bought the politician?
This is funneling money to avoid the LAW. Have you ever studied the methods of the mofia? Doesn’t BothWays have ties to the Russian Mob?
Right Blue?
Not really, but…
How many people head over to the FEC website, or to Open Secrets to do a search on just who donated to the candidates? And who knows what “Clear Peak” or “Trailhead” really is? We can’t ban PACs, because they’re a useful part of the political process; and we can’t reasonably expect with our corporate structures to be able to easily trace campaign donations, either. In the end, reporting requirements alone don’t engage enough voters to make the difference.
As an aside, I don’t want my politicians to be bought by anyone. Small donations across the board or public financing just seem like the only ways to keep people honest, IMHO.
Surprisingly, I think I agree with Dan Willis. It would be much easier and doesn’t infringe on that whole “freedom of speech” thing that people get so worked up over.
I’d like to know who is whose’ pocket, but putting limits on people’s right to support and contribute seems unconstitutional.
Hey everyone, remember this from the Rocky, “John Marshall, Beauprez’s campaign coordinator, fired back: ‘This from the guy doing pirouettes around campaign finance law?'”
It was the Beauprez campaign that filed a lawsuit against the Holtzman campaign for what they called “campaign finance loopholes.” How can a campaign that made such a fuss about campaign finance law turn around and take $16,000 from someone?
Way to be hypocrites guys! Where is “Campaign Finance Loophole Crusader Gessler” in this mess?
This needs to be chalked up to yet another example of Bob wanting to have it, uh, shall I say, BOTH WAYS.
BTW – 2 LLC’s I can understand. Maybe 5 or 6 for a multi-tasking businessman.
BUT 25 LLC’S?!?
its known as hyprocrisy. RINO style.
Mark Campbell is a land developer. It is common and standard industry practice for developers to place each of their properties under a different LLC. Everyone does it, and for the Post to suggest it was just to skirt campaign finance laws shows an unbelievable lack of knowledge about how the development game works.
The Post should have done their research before they jumped to conclusions, as should everyone on this board. Has anyone looked at Ed Perlmutter’s campaign finance report? You would find the same thing, I am sure, since he has extensive support from the development community.
This is the law, and regardless of how many of you may not like it, that’s the way it is. So criticize the law and not Beauprez. To do otherwise just shows your true colors.
Each development sends $1000 to Beauprez? It’s still skirting the edge of the law; within the bounds, but not within the spirit.
You are right about industry practice, but that doesn’t keep this from smelling. If these are 15 effectively single-member LLCs, then as a matter of economic reality one person gave $16,000 to Beauprez’s campaign. It may be legal (although depending on just how Ritter’s donor list looks there may be some debate about that), but it clearly circumvents the intent of the law. Candidates don’t tend to suffer when 527s which support them clearly circumvent the law, becuase they can keep a certain distance. When they do it themselves it hurts more, particularly when they’re already suffering from a string of bad press and it just piles on.
It doesn’t look the best, but my point is that the Post is making a mountain out of a molehill simply because it is easy to bash Beauprez right now. I think that’s media bias and poor journalism. In addition my guess is that Beauprez doesn’t even know the particulars of these donations, so there is no deliberate effort to circumvent the system, which is what everyone here is suggesting.
My experience with politicians is that they generally want to…and go out of their way to…follow the law. Let’s stop the piling on and be fair about this, but I guess that’s too much to ask from the Denver Post.
It’s my understanding Bob doesn’t know the “particulars” of a lot that goes on in his campaign.
PS: Can I borrow the car tonight?
I agree its probably overblown (subject to knowing more details then I do know), although I think the charge of biased journalism gets tossed around rather too much. Its not like the press sweeps under the rug fundraising indiscretions by Democrats (think of all the attention Buddhists and iced tea got in 2000). Speaking of which I’m going to hold you to your comments in two weeks or whenever a similar article appears about Ritter.
In the meantime could you please tell Lauren that you already promised me the car tonight? She just won’t let up.
You know you’re grounded!
I agree the Dems get beat up in the press too, but the Ritter-Beauprez race seems pretty lopsided so far. But maybe I’m just paranoid:)
if that is the case, then anyone who works more than one job should be able to contribute money for each job that they are working.
This is yet another example of rich folks skirting the rules to their own benefit…
Jeez, I wonder how Gigi “my ass belongs to Bob” Dennis will rule on this one.
If any of you would take the time to look outside of your crystal glass houses, you would notice that Bill Ritter has taken money from LLC’s as well.
A lot of candidates do just like they do from PAC’s, small donor committees and individuals. One thing Ritter has done that Beauprez hasn’t however, is take money from unions that publicly admit to taking foreign national money.
Didn’t he take $25,000 from Mikhail Chernoy?
Very funny, PGM.
Did he get that contribution in rubbles or dollars?
small donor committee money from union small donor committees does not contain money from foreign nationals.
The fact that someone alleges that, does not make it true.
You’re right about that, with the Post would follow that logic. But what does make it true is a pile of evidence with names of foreign nationals listed as contributors by the union’s own internal documents.
In fact, here are some of the names:
Leonard Hernandez-Jimenez
Alonso Ontiveros
Juan Perez
Manuel Gutierrez
All contributed to one or more union SCC’s (per their own public filings) and yet none are US citizens.
Meanwhile, Beauprez gets accused of doing something legal.
should be SDC’s
Did you dig that up from the “research” that Politically Direct (Rob Fairbank) does? I would like some proof, not speculation.
Why don’t you comb through Campbell’s financial records of each of his LLC’s to make sure that he never once hired a “mexican national” to work for slave wages while he profitted.
And then, after years of profitting from slave wage labor, he turns around a few years later to bank roll a Republican who is running for Governor that already has the proven record in Congress to look the other way (when slipped a few thousand).
Would you vote differntly if that were true? Or would you continue your conservative rant?
…Only Democrats would fight to protect a system that forcibly takes money from union members and call a change to a voluntary system a destruction of individual rights.
to connect the dots for you folks, taking money from foreign national citizens is ILLEGAL.
…seem like a lot of risk PR-wise to raise an additional 16K. In the grand total of what will be raised in this race $16,000 is nothing, and Both Ways gets a bad press day, once again.
Don’t know EZMak. Why would Wrong Way Ritter do it then?
the “wrong way Ritter” thing is just plain stupid. Both Ways Bob has a nice ring to it.
…Ritter is having no problem raising plenty of money legally.
Campaign “reform” laws are:
1. Violation of the 1st ammendment to the US Constitution.
2. Full employment for lawyers.
3. Ineffective.
4. Unenforceable.
5. Stupid.
It is time to “shit-can” all laws regarding campaign financing, except one: full disclosure.
I want the best candidates that money can buy.
,dave
Finally some sense made of all this.
Unlimited donations and full, immediate disclosure is the only true campaign finance reform.
Huh! Go figure! The Libs on this site are doing nothing to expose Tim Gill, Pat Stryker and Jared Polis. . . . Now that’s fairness (just like Gay Marriage).
“The Libs on this site are doing nothing to expose Tim Gill, Pat Stryker and Jared Polis”
You’re right, the libs aren’t doing anything. I suggest you get busy with exposing the truth, Mulder (er, Padre).
….but betrays a latent concern…
…I might actually be right!
LOL!!!!
“I want the best candidates that money can buy”
We’re getting them.
US Senate campaigns run around $1 million or more. House races can run that much in contested areas. Governor races, even more. The Presidency – forget about it. Best candidates that money can buy…
I’m sick of the politicians money buys. I’m sick of the politicians crying about their freedom of speech infringement during campaigns. I’m tired of campaigns that don’t educate voters but mislead them. I hate 527s, shills and all the other bling bling associated with campaign messaging and strategy these days.
And I’m really friggin’ tired of both parties offering up rich, white people (mostly men) whose motivations fly in the face of fixing public campaigns in this country.
Not really…..look at all the $$$ spent on the ’02 Senate race and all we got out of it was Potted Plant Allard.
…I should say we have the best candidates the parties can buy.
I know people who want to run for office, would be great in office but would never subject themselves to the process. If you have made a mistake in your life, stuck your foot in your mouth, aren’t free of skeltons in the closet or don’t have thousands of dollars or connections don’t count on winning a political office in this country.
Political agendas have been moved from the hands of the people to the hands of party hacks (both sides) whose desire for power trumps civic duty.
“Yipee! Special interests and The Denver Post are spinning for us again!”
Or….
“Our special interests are better than your special interests!”