U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
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*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
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) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 17, 2006 09:30 PM UTC
10 Comments
It’s ironic that some of the most strident supporters of Amendment 41 (Larson & Tupa) want to be the first to violate it.
Mark Larson clearly said he would not resign in The Post story. Read the last paragraph a little more thouroughly.
Saw it. It’s ironic because he campaigned for 41 but didn’t realize it would apply to him when he sent his resume to Ritter for a cabinet job.
It’s not in law yet? It would just be hypocritcal.
Get it straight!
To what specifically are you referring?
Cabinet officers shouldn’t lobby anyway. That’s the job of the Governor’s liaison, who should represent all of the government agencies.
In an earlier Colorado Pols post and in a Rocky article. And the prohibition is on “representing” not “lobbying”
And the prohibition is on “representing” not “lobbying”
They idea of this provision was to stop an ex-gov. from being able to use their contacts for lobbying purposes. So why do you draw a distinction in this?
A lobbyist is a person who has that as their living and they often represent more than one client. They must register at the Sec. of State’s office and make periodic reports there.
It is easy to represent someone at the Capitol but not be a lobbyist. It is common to have people who regularly show up at the Capitol to try to sway legislation that affects them personally or professionally and they are usually representing some group they belong to or company they work for. But they are not technically lobbyists.
So Amend. 41 afects a lot more people than just lobbyists. It affects and organization or company who tesitfies on bills in committee. They will not be able to have as their spokesperson anyone who has been a legislator in the past two years.