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
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
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
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 25, 2006 06:17 PM UTC
22 Comments
I was listening to someone from Colorado Citizens for Ethics in Government on Jay Marvin’s show this morning, and they had some interesting revelations about the LLC flap…
The main one is, they apparently have documentation that the Beauprez campaign is encouraging individuals to donate through their LLCs in order to circumvent individual campaign restrictions.
CCEG apparently uncovered the scheme because all of the LLCs point to a single address, the contributions are consecutive in the election finance reports, were made on the same date, and the names of the LLCs all contained a single keyword. In the case of the second individual mentioned on Jay’s program this morning, all of the LLC addresses contained the line ‘c/o Eric Bush’.
Apparently, CCEG’s request to the SoS office involves determining how many people are involved in each of the LLCs in question, under the theory that a single-member (or single-family) LLC would be equivalent to an individual contribution.
Federal law considers contributions from LLCs to be individual contributions from the LLC’s partners, split equally among the partners. The law the Governor vetoed in 2005 was designed to match the Federal law.
Geez man! Don’t you get it yet?
http://www.coloradop…
There is no circumvention here, period!
It is partisan politics which seeks to make a mountain out of a molehill.
WHERE’S THE BEEF!?
I actually changed my mind a bit. I’ve already said that I don’t think the LLC trick is technically illegal on its own – I agree with you on that.
But if CCEG has documentation that have the Beauprez campaign encouraging the trick for the specific reason of circumventing individual contributions, it almost certainly is illegal, and it’s not just the individuals that will have to answer, but also the Beauprez campaign.
….and thanks, by the way, for your acceptance of my legal argument.
But I believe it is not at all unethical to offer an individual who wishes to give more a legal alternative which is available to them.
If we don’t like the LLC provision, change the law (even if that must be done with a super-majority).
to willingly and knowingly subvert a law, even if through a legal loophole.
Is required union membership ethical?
It’s not a legal “loophole.” It a legal way to give more money. The problem is the system, not the personal ethics.
….Unlimited donations and in-kind gifts with full, immediate disclosure under pain of criminal penalty if not fully and immediately disclosed. Remove all other means of giving except direct contributions to candidates. Loopholes gone. Environment open.
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical.
Most campaign finance laws are an infringement on our rights of free speech and association anyway. So if you find a ‘loophole’ in it(that was specifically signed off on by Common Cause) then it is very legitimate, legal and ethical.
Transparency and 24hr reporting.
It’s black letter law, as they say, that when the owner of a corporate entity himself disregards the legal fiction that the corporation is a separate “person” and treats the funds of the entity as his own to use for his own purposes, the “corporate veil” may be pierced and the actions of the corporation treated as the actions of the owner. If these owners were, to use Phoenix’s phrase, making donations through their LLCs, then there’s a very good argument to make that legally speaking they were making the donations themselves. Maybe the argument’s been tried and failed elsewhere, I don’t know, but the Beauprez camp may have gotten some supporters onto pretty thin ice.
That said, with Katherine Harris, I mean Gigi, in charge, they probably figure thin ice is a safe place for a republican to be.
Chantell Taylor ED, of CCEG was great on Jay Marvin’s show. http://www.coloradof…
I hope the Gigi Dennis is ready cause the heat is on. She’s a partisan Hack and will exposed as such. The Attorney General should get involved, oh wait, he’s a partisan hack too. Maybe we need the federales to come in cause the Colorado GOP won’t police itself.
Out of a sense of fairness here, are there ANY partisan hacks among Dems in this state?
I wait with baited breath for your non-partisan hack answer.
of course there are partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle – wait, in a month or two this site will be filled with them.
Here’s a nice definition from somewhere out on the web: “a politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends.”
I’m more than willing to admit that I’m partisan – I’m an active member of the Democratic Party. But I’ve already shown a willingness to criticize my own party members, and I’ve shown a willingness to admit to the vagueness of some of these actions. I think that my considered opinion should at least be given some weight rather than have to continually respond to the cry of “partisan hack!” when it has no basis in fact.
However, I’m also willing to call a spade a spade. Gigi Dennis’s rules on small donor committees, volunteer time, etc. are legislating by the Executive; that’s Unconstitutional. Co-ordinating those legal changes under the direction of political campaigns and partisan 527 groups is called being a “partisan hack”.
Furthermore, if the Beauprez campaign is co-ordinating circumvention of the individual contribution law through a legal loophole, that is called “abusing the system” and possibly “criminal conspiracy”.
PHX…I agree with your statement…….again (never thought it would come to this). I also believe you when you say you will be critical to your party. I do believe you are merely partisan and not a “partisan hack.”
Two things with which I disagree:
1) Dennis has done nothing more than given an opinion on the law (legal for her to do) which cannot be corrected by a court. That’s the process. Is it done for partisan purposes–yes and no. It benefits Rs to be sure, but I’m convinced it’s a good decision.
2) http://www.coloradop…
How do you then respond to the fact that the Lege considered the issue that Dennis ruled on and declined to enact a law that specified it? That has legal standing and precedence in a court of law as evidence barring exactly the kind of ruling that Dennis issued.
BTW, even Mike Coffman disagrees with you. He and Ken Gordon have both come out and said that Dennis overstepped her authority.
From the Rocky Mountain News article:
“Dennis said she has done nothing wrong. The real problem, she said, is Amendment 27, a voter-approved campaign finance initiative …”
Yes, Ms. Dennis. Tell us how you really feel.
They just can’t seem to keep quiet. They approve all these damned Amendments and then I have to go around fixing it up so my friends aren’t inconvenienced…
….I need to look at this info further and get back with you.
For those of you like these numbskulls http://www.squaresta… who accused Trailhead of lying…
should read this: http://www.greeleytr…
Looks like they were telling the truth after all!
What does this prove? Have you studied law at all? Just because a group of corporate attorneys oked the commercials does not mean that they are not libelous and as the article mentioned they can be held liable for knowingly playing libelous material. Now the question remains do they know that it is libelous? A matter for the courts, but by giving their consent, they can still be sued, an injunction can be filed and the ads can still be pulled. This proves nothing.
What’s that expression? Money talks, bulls**t walks…
Via a tip to PEEK, I was directed to a May report that flew under my radar: Are Dick Cheney’s Money Managers Betting on Bad News?
According to Kiplinger’s, the Cheneys, who may be worth close to $100 million, have invested the vast majority of their wealth overseas, in markets that do not fluctuate based on the U.S. dollar:
Vice President Cheney’s financial advisers are apparently betting on a rise in inflation and interest rates and on a decline in the value of the dollar against foreign currencies. That’s the conclusion we draw after scouring the financial disclosure form released by Cheney this week.
The Cheneys’ money is not in a blind trust but, according to his advisers: “the vice president pays no attention to his investments.”
Perhaps. What we DO know is that he and his boss pay no attention to the well-being of the economy at large. Besides, what’s nearly as flabbergasting as the possibility that Cheney chose to invest outside of U.S. markets is that he didn’t bother to direct his money managers to keep his money domestic. Oh Dick.
Here’s a clip from an interview with Ron “The Price of Loyalty” Suskind (emphasis added):
He talks to Dick Cheney at the end, after O’Neill says, “We really need an economic policy, we don’t really have one.” And he confronts the president and says, “We don’t need this second giant tax cut.” And Dick Cheney says to O’Neill, “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the midterm elections. Our due is another big tax cut.” And I paraphrased the end. This stuns O’Neill because all of the facts, as O’Neill has read them and many others, show that deficits have guided fiscal policy for 20 years. Those are the kind of dialogues that define this man’s journey and really the journey of many in the building.