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*

(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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 13, 2007 06:00 PM UTC

Brown: "Clarify" Amendment 41

  • 16 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Cooler heads may yet prevail in the pitched battle over “Jared’s Law,” the Associated Press reports:

University of Colorado president Hank Brown said Monday that he thinks lawmakers could help make sure that everyone from college students to professors aren`t hurt by a strict new ethics law passed by voters.

Amendment 41 bans lobbyists from buying meals or any gifts for state lawmakers but it also bans non-lobbyists from giving gifts worth more than $50 to state or many local employees or their families. Employees of cities or counties that have their own ethics guidelines are exempt from the law.

Brown, who’s backing a legislative effort to clarify the law, said it allows for children of government employees or professors to accept things like scholarships or honoraria as long as they give something of equal or greater value in return. He said lawmakers have the authority to define that idea — which Amendment 41 calls “lawful consideration” — so there’s no confusion about what is and isn’t allowed…

Rep. Rosemary Marshall, D-Denver, declined to provide a draft of the legislation she’s sponsoring with Sen. Steve Ward, R-Littleton, but said it could be introduced today. Marshall said it would define what is allowed under the law but said it wouldn`t roll back any of the limits on lawmakers and lobbyists.

The real question is, who loses if the cooler heads prevail?

Comments

16 thoughts on “Brown: “Clarify” Amendment 41

  1. Once this issue settles down, then I wonder if the state will consider Hefley’s ideas about public financing of the elections?

    As it is, the money that is spent on a campaign is ridiculous. A set amount for all candidates would make sense if we want politics to be honest.

      1. public financing of the elections?

        Yeah Right, like anyone will go for that.  The races in Colorado cost way to much money to provide  public financing for the elections.

        1. Yes, they are out of line. That is why public financing is needed to cap this. Every candidate can only spend so much and it ALL comes from public funds.

          The interesting thing about it is that it will let us know who is capable of doing good management. If you can not spend a limited amount of money wisely, then why should you be elected? I am willing to overlook the public money being spent if it means that we will have honest and good candidates. These days (or maybe always), candidates just buy the elections due to our ignorance. We need to stop that.

          1. their oft stated reason for their gifts is to merely support the democratic process, let them throw their money into the publicly funded campaign coffers.

            What? Oh……..

      1. I have yet to see a poll that supports what you say concerning the public support, yet, I see politicians everywhere saying that.

        Why would SCOTUS rule that unconstitutional?

  2. are all the chicken littles in the media (online and print) who claimed the sky is falling because of Admendment 41, but even that will be forgotten pretty quickly.  The truth is this 41 is more symbolic then anything elese it really wont change or effect many people’s life.

      1. From where I sit, it is mostly Dems who are fighting this and trying to get thrown out. I was fully expecting it to be Owens et.al, but somebody pointed it that they have been doing NOTHING with it. Of course, the fact that they are keeping quiet and not supporting it, says that they are allowing a rope to be made and knotted. And I would say that some dems are helping them on it.

    1. This will not blow over any time soon.  The fact this needed a ‘fix’ doesn’t bode well for Polis.  This is a big anchor around his neck.  This is a very big deal and the ill feelings and anger will last for a long time.

  3. “Employees of cities or counties that have their own ethics guidelines are exempt from the law.”

    Can someone clarify? Wouldn’t this provide a relatively easy out for city/county employees?

    1. Denver for example, a home rule city/county, already has an ethics commission, so Denver city/county employees are held to the Denver standard.

      One way for local governments to ‘get around’ A-41 would be for them to adopt said ethics guidelines as a means of clarifying the intent themselves. 

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

60 readers online now

Newsletter

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