U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
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%
August 11, 2008 07:10 AM UTC
71 Comments
Jared, what committees do you plan to seek a seat on if you should happen to win?
The committees that best overlap with my areas of interest and expertise are:
Science and Technology
Education and Labor
Natural Resources
I would certainly be thrilled to serve on any of these committees.
Jared Polis
http://www.polisforcongress.com
Under normal circumstances, I would think the Science and Tech committee makes an awful lot of sense (especially given the national labs within the District).
But I fear that, given the current energy “crisis”, the genesis of most national energy policy legislation will be the House Energy & Commerce Committee. As well, that committee generally holds the purse strings. Very little energy policy will pass without the imprimatur of Big John Dingell, if past experience is any indication.
I think there is a very good case to be made (in terms of leveraging the relatively limited amount of political capital of a Freshman member) for seeking a seat on House Energy & Commerce before Science & Tech.
Assuming victory tomorrow, I’d love to discuss this further.
Energy and Commerce is literally the hardest committee to get on, short of Ways and Means (the tax committee) and Appropriations. And some years it’s even harder than those two. There’s almost no chance a freshman from a safe seat gets that appointment.
But “hard” is hardly a reason not to try. Someone gets the slot. In some ways, Jared’s preciousness may be just what is needed to increase the chances that CD2 gets the seat.
. . . but I think you meant to refer to his precociousness, eh?
Must have been a Freudian slip… 😉
Jared,
Couldn’t you just make a several hundred thousand dollar contribution to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and purchase a seat on those committees from House Leadership?
After the State Board of Education and this race, you clearly know how to advance politically through your checkbook. . .
It’s kind of ridiculous that someone who takes good ideas and puts them to action, creating jobs and wealth for himself and others, who makes a concerted effort to give back to the community that gave him those opportunities, who champions campaign finance reform and eschews the financial influence of PACs and special interests and who is hamstrung in fundraising by the very fact that everyone knows he has millions of dollars of his own to support his campaign…
…is so derided by individuals who have less to say about his policy positions than they do about his largess. Do you have a point?
Well said Chris.
It’s disgusting to me that the rich, ruling class in this country can buy and sell political offices with their wealth. I’m entitled to my opinion, regardless of whether I think all three candidates are blah.
It’s just not acceptable that Jared outspent his opponent for the State Board of Education by over $1 million to $10,000, and then won by less than a percentage point earlier this decade. He bought that seat, plain and simple. He’s doing it again right now. I was merely making the point that if what you say is true, and unlike his opponents Polis is pure and unhampered by the wants and desires of contributors because he is self-financed, he should then buy those committee seats as well from the House Leadership. I assume that you would defend Bruce Benson dropping $3.4 million on himself in the 1994 governor’s race? I think that was unacceptable too.
On a side note, let’s see Mr. Cooper, you start a profile at ColoradoPols on Aug. 6, 2008 and are all over the board defending Polis. You claim to be an “energy expert” who happened on the site days ago, now you immediately defend Polis on every post. Not at all believable.
My only question is are you paid or volunteer staff? One can assume you are paid staff, since Polis has bought everything else he can get his hands on… My suggestion is to assist your boss by knocking on doors, no person posting to ColoradoPols is undecided in the CD-2, if they are even a voter at all.
has been knocking on doors and talking to the voters of CD-2 for the entire campaign. He has worked tirelessly to listen to them so he can better represent them in Washington.
Karl Marx would probably agree with you Disinterested, but in America you can spend your money however you want.
Below is a direct cut and paste from the 8/7/08 draft of the DNC Platform:
“We support campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests, including public financing of campaigns
combined with free television and radio time.” (Emphasis Added)
Looks like the national party also disfavors the buying of seats, whether they are individuals (entrepreneur or oilman), unions, or corporations.
Does not prove your point. If anything, it makes mine. JFG and Will Shafroth have taken money from PACs, Jared has not. Public financing would make it harder for those people to take money from PACs. A single, individual candidate is not a special interest.
Also, Jared supports public financing.
..you’d have seen that I already answered this ad hominem attack. I do not work for Jared Polis in either a paid or volunteer capacity.
I am principal partner in a consulting firm that does energy policy analysis and I was the former Executive Director of the non-profit Network for New Energy Choices. My interest here stems from running into a rather curious connection between one of the nuclear industry’s top lobbyists and campaign contributions to Joan Fitz-Gerald (which I found while researching domestic uranium mining for an article for the William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review).
Also, I am an impassioned Democrat who enjoys lively discussions with other impassioned Democrats and who is particularly interested in new congressional members who may sit on the committees of jurisdiction over the energy policy issues on which I work.
But this isn’t about me. I have no allegiance to Jared Polis. I just think that the arguments launched against him are (largely) ludicrous and unfair. If similar criticisms were waged against Will Shafroth I would be defending him just as vociferously.
Now, quid pro quo…who are you and why should we care?
Some people just can’t stand that there are actual, intelligent people who do good work, AND blog on a political insider site.
I give it a 0% chance you’re telling the truth. As for me, you don’t need to care who I am, I’m just a dude that makes less than $40K a year working in a non-profit.
I just happen to say BOO to people who buy political offices, like Jared, Frist, Herb Kohl, Corker, Bill Foster and the like. Because Jared is the largest offender of self-financing in the entire country, I of course say BOOOO to him the most.
And I’ll believe Jared is for public financing if he can honestly say he didn’t high five his staff when the millionaire amendment was tossed this summer. He actions dictate that he seized upon that opportunity in an effort to outspend his opponents (who are frankly also lame candidates) by pouring several million more into his campaign.
Again, in the absence of public financing or some other aggressive campaign finance reform, what do you expect someone who refuses to take special interest money and who everyone knows has millions of his own (how do you convince those folks to give you $2300??) to do? Why is it such a bad thing that he believes in himself and his ideas enough to self-fund them?
No one in this country can BUY an election. They can buy communication. But the voters still get to choose. They have to buy what he’s selling. So unless you are alleging that Polis is buying votes or unless you are accusing the voters of CD2 of being so stupid they are helpless in the face of Polis ads and direct mailers, then I don’t see what your point is…
with chris, I can attest that he indeed has a lot of expertise on energy. On some things, i.e., nuclear power, he and I are worlds apart. But he is in no way, shape or form a shill.
Read the discussion at http://www.coloradopols.com/sh… – the historical data indicates that dumping your own money into a race does not buy the seat.
. . . and Jared loses despite his efforts to buy the seat.
To Jared for outlining policies that Congress desperately needs. If you’re still answering questions, Jared, I have one for you: should you win the Congressional seat, would you seek re-election in 2010? Some have suggested that since you will be a junior Congressman with no seniority right away that you will get bored and want to be in charge somewhere else. I’m not saying that’s what I expect, but I thought you could share your plans for the future (should you win the Primary election.)
I certainly expect that if elected this time around, I would run for re-election.
I look at this period of my life as focusing on public service and giving back. While whether I serve for ten years, twelve years, or some other period of time depends as much on the will as the voters as my own willingness, it is important to the district that I serve long enough to be effective, but not so long that I become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Jared Polis
…how much time will pass before you become part of the problem?
I’m just playing witcha! That particular platitude of yours made me chuckle.
I’d be honored to vote for you, if I lived in the 2nd CD.
Short of that, I’ve given you money for this campaign and hope to someday be able to vote for you when you seek higher office (Senator Polis or Governor Polis perhaps)!
Best of luck on Tuesday!
But trying to buy a seat in Congress for $5 million makes me sick to my stomach. If you can’t convince people and organizations that you are the right person for the job then you do not deserve to win. Writing yourself a $5 million check says that you felt you needed to throw money at this election to achieve your desired result. It’s disgusting.
…can only buy air time and printed materials and the like to get one’s message out. It can not buy votes. So, if Jared wins on Tuesday, won’t it – by definition – be because his message was effective at convincing people and organizations that he is the right person for the job? Or are you alleging that he is somehow buying votes?
writing checks to voters, buying an election in our system of government is not possible.
If Polis (or anyone else, for that matter) wants to spend his money on a campaign for office, he can do it. It is, afterall, his money.
Further, he isn’t beholden to his campaign contributors.
to his constituency. JFG and Shafroth both have lobbies that they will necessarily have to be beholden to (labor, NEA and environmentalists respectively) if they are sent to Washington. Jared doesn’t take PAC money, and he will not let the special interests dictate how he works if he is the next Congressman from CD-2.
They force politicians to vote for clean water, renewable energy, and roadless wilderness. Darn those special interest.
Wait I want all those things, does that make me a special interest?
Maybe not, but you’re in their pocket.
Open Secrets breaks down contributions through the last filing:
Jared Polis PAC contributions $21,250
Will Shafroth PAC contributions $6,500
The Polis contributions are from “ideological” PACs, as are a good chunk of Shafroth’s. Still, what’s the basis for the sanctimonious line that Polis hasn’t taken PAC contributions, when he’s taken more than Shafroth?
Fitz-Gerald’s PAC total dwarfs the others, of course:
Joan Fitz-Gerald PAC contributions $258,050
If I agree with a PAC, it’s a good PAC. If I disagree with a PAC, it’s an evil PAC.
but for some, apparently, if they agree with a PAC, it doesn’t really count as a PAC.
I don’t know where Open Secrets is getting its information. You can check the OFFICIAL FEC filings here – http://www.fec.gov
According to the official filings, Polis has taken NO PAC funds. Can you tell us what PAC Open Secrets is claiming has contributed to Polis?
This is incorrect. Jared has taken no PAC money at all. Unfortunately, the FEC reports in question use the same line for two very different things: Donations from PAC’s, and from other candidate committees (they do this because candidate committees are legally speaking PAC’s.) So Jared has taken some money from other federal candidates, like Angie Paccione and, I think, Peggy Lamm. That’s where that line comes from. He has taken no PAC money from any ideology.
Thanks for clearing that up. It’s a good thing none of those candidates’ PACs took any money from what you define as a “PAC”, or your comment would be total BS…
Oh wait, Paccione took $421,000 from PACs in 2006. Looks like there’s about 15 unions that contributed heavily to her, the same evil ones backing Fitzgerald.
http://opensecrets.org/races/c…
It’s just laundered money, plain and simple, you can’t say Polis hasn’t taken cash from special interests at all.
Give us public financing and get rid of all the corruption, particularly the self-funders!
but if it is a PAC we like, we’re supposed to pretend it isn’t a PAC, right? Don’t you know, the rules are different for those who can afford different rules?
But we don’t have that yet….so what do you expect him to do?
And if your “laundered monet” argument is true, then try to explain the weird connections between the nuclear/uranium mining industry and the 3 different mining industry PACs contributing to Fitz-Gerald….what is there interest with her?
Both Fitzgerald and Polis are dirty…
disinterested, you sure do comment a lot on CD-2.
He’s taken PAC money too. So whose hands are clean enough to represent CD2, in your opinion?
are you serious?
1k from a grass banking PAC (which I support)
5k from a PR firm that probably wanted campaign business (I don’t know if they got anything).
Jared took more money from pro-voucher bundlers and swiftboaters.
Shafroth is as clean as you can get when you raise $1.3 million. $6k is nothing.
Principle is principle.
Either you believe that special interest/PAC money should not be involved in electoral politics or ALL of it should be allowed. Where do you start drawing the line? PACs that you agree with? Amounts that can’t REALLY affect the race?
What of the 527 funds working on behalf of Shafroth? So long as no one can prove collusion with the campaign, they can spend with abandon on “issue” ads on his behalf?
Don’t get me wrong. I think Will is pretty clean. But I think Jared is too. But the point remains the same…
….cuz you know, right now, contributions are allowed up to a certain limit, but banned thereafter. But according to your reasoning, this makes no sense. Either all contributions (including corporate) should be allowed with no limit or else all should be banned.
Which is it?
But this line of discussion was never about me. I’m not running for office, am I?
I think candidates should voluntarily reject contributions from PACs, largely because the disclosure provisions make it so easy to “hide” where the money is actually coming from. Bundling, is perfectly legitimate because the contributions can be traced to a particular voter.
So far, Polis is the only one to eschew PAC money.
…with righteousness, I thought. My bad, it must not have been you.
…is a principled stand. Yes, your bad. But that’s ok.
…you will disappear as soon as your pleading on behalf of Jared is no longer relevant, I presume? Yes, that’s OK, too.
for you. Being wrong both on Polis’ victory and on my going away. It must be full of disappointment and all. Sad. Tear.
I will whack them for PAC money representing things I don’t believe in.
I have no problems with PACs if they represent my interests. That’s why disclosure matters so much.
Aside from a snark or 2 I don’t really hit Polis on his self funding. The only time I really hit him on it was when the self funding was in kinds from one of his companies, which I found problematic on many levels–he has since cleaned it up.
I don’t think Polis is dirty (although the offshore fund was disturbing and he never answered questions about it to my satisfaction), my problem with him has always been hubris leading him to ignore reasonable criticism and his good idea/bad execution style.
As to 527s I want to improve the disclosure process, but I don’t see how you can limit them much in a way consistent with the 1A unless you add liability defamation.
I think the ability to make “pants on fire” statements within both 527s and campaigns themselves has to stop.
Restrictions on 527’s would be violating 1A. In fact, I worry that limits on individual contributions dot he same. PACs not so much – because corporate entities do not have the same 1A rights as individuals. But, that’s why I think all of this is cleared up with voluntary rejection of funds by candidates. I think that voluntary action deserves some credit.
But, I wonder why you (Jared) feel you can be more effective as a member of Congress than continuing to use your personal wealth to effect systemic change. I have long dreamed about finding myself the holder of great wealth. My goal would be to find organizations doing great work and I would support their efforts. I have never thought I would use a financial windfall to fund my political campaign so that I could be mired in partisan gridlock with little chance of effecting real change.
In Congress, the pendulum swings left and right and the degree to which positive change can occur depends greatly on which party holds the power. Unfortunately, I don’t see great positive change coming from Congress. Even if the Dems end up with a majority in Congress and a Dem president, I still don’t have faith that positive change will occur (same is true if the Rs claim Congress and the presidency). I don’t see Congress as a great place to make great change. However, I do feel that people with incredible wealth can join together and create incredible positive change not only in the U.S. but in the world (think Gates Foundation and the funds from Warren Buffett).
So I ask, why do you think you’ll be more effective in Congress than if you continue to use your personal wealth to create systemic change? Will you phase out your personal philanthropic efforts in favor of legislative efforts? Do you no longer feel philanthropy is a good way to effect systemic change?
Last November the Governor was roundly hammered for establishing a ‘partnership’ process and conditions by which the Unions (ColoradoWINS) could come into state government, develop membership, and represent via bargaining.
Do you support the executive order the Governor executed?
I’m concerned when you’re actually speaking your mind, as shown below, than a calculated political posting, which you published above. This demonstrates one of many reasons why people should have grave concerns about you, your record, your thoughts on the privilege and how your wealth has bought your way into this race as a serious contender.
I don’t get it…isn’t this clip showing how Polis’ business acumen has created wealth for many investors? And clearly his comment about “causing a recession” is him joking (note the wry smile as he says it).
Am I missing some nefarious hidden message here?
you post the whole video, with context, instead of chopping it up and making it seem worse than it actually is? I’m sick of words being taken out of context using ellipses, and people creating lies by clever video editing. We don’t even know what he’s referring to, when this video was taken, or where it comes from. I’m surprised that you don’t try to accuse him of illegal gambling while you’re at it.
And I did it for one reason: Amendment 41. As you can tell from my Pols name, I was directly affected by Amendment 41 because I was a state employee until June, when I retired. Your Amendment 41 was every bit as short-sighted and pernicious as TABOR. You sold it as bringing ethics into state government, but the true effect will be to hamstring low-level state employees who have no effect on policy decisions.
You were warned that this would happen, but you went ahead and sold this bill of goods to the voters anyway. I don’t doubt that you had a good motive for pursuing Amendment 41, but the fact is that you wrote a bad initiative, you sold it to the voters, and it’s now part of our state Constitution. I therefore do not trust you to write or back good laws in Congress. That’s why I voted for one of your opponents.
is like saying acne is as bad as cancer. No way.
TABOR was a crippling blow to state government, and 41 didn’t come close to it. However, TABOR and 41 were sold to the voters as terrific measures that would pay huge dividends to the citizens: TABOR by requiring citizens to vote to raise their own taxes and 41 by cleaning up government. Both had side effects that were well known (and in the case of TABOR, specifically intended) by the sponsors, but were not communicated to the voters (at least not to the 99% of voters who don’t read the blue book). So voters voted for TABOR thinking they would get to vote on tax increases, and they got spending limits that nearly crippled state government 5 years ago. Voters voted for 41 thinking they would get the legislators out of the lobbyists’ pockets, and they got a constitutional provision that prohibits state employees at the lowest levels of state government AND THEIR CHILDREN from accepting gifts, scholarships, or other things of value.
Did Jared Polis intend to put state employees and their families in this box? I don’t know, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I will not, however vote for him for any office ever, unless the person he’s running against is Doug Bruce. Then I’ll knock on doors and wave signs for him.
Yes Jared should get a share of the blame on this. But there were lots of people, including the RMN (an my blog) that pointed out A-41 was brain dead. Yet people voted for it.
It was not hidden, voters were just lazy. They deserve the lion’s share of the blame.
Polis orchestrated a campaign of misinformation knowing the impact of A41. People believed the ads.
Bush Orchestrated a campaign of misinformation to get us into Iraq, does that mean the president is not responsible for the Iraq war. By your logic, the voters deserve the lion’s share of the blame.
Oh my, how unusual. Danny, every campaign has misinformation coming from both sides. We see it daily in the McCain vs Obama ads. That is never a legit excuse for the voters not taking the time to actually look at an initiative they are voting on.
NO way!
A41 was, and is, a huge step forward for clean, transparent, and yes, progressive government (liberals can never compete with conservatives when it comes to giving away free stuff). 2/3 of CD2 agrees. I respect your opinion, PERA, but you are completely misinformed. A41 does NOT prohibit state employees or their children from accepting gifts or anything of value. That canard was long since dismissed by the state supreme court, and was only “in” the language thanks to some highly inflammatory readings by people with a reason to kill the amendment, i.e. high-priced lobbyists.
The plain language of Am. 41 prohibits state employees and their immediate family members from accepting any gift or thing of value over $50. IIRC, District Court Judge Habas said it was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed Judge Habas and sent it back to her. The reason the court reversed was because the ethics commission had not met and promulgated rules yet. The final member of the commission had not been appointed before I retired, and I don’t know what (if any) action the commission has taken since then.
So, the supreme court did not dismiss my interpretation of the language of 41, and neither did my former boss (the Attorney General) or the lawyers at the legislative legal council who opined that it meant exactly what it said.
…your interpretation of the state supreme court opinion is total bullshit.
respectfully yours,
J.
I understand the A41 debate and how some interpretations of the gift restrictions could inadvertently affect state employees that were not intended to be limited by the law. But I really don’t understand what the fuss is. If there are exceptions for gifts from friends and family, what is/was the major problem in your case, PERA?
41 prohibits state employees and their families from accepting any gift or thing of value unless they provide equal or greater consideration. In other words, I could accept money or whatever as long as I provided goods or services of equal or greater value in return.
I could receive gifts from friends and family members, but only on special occasions. No problem; my husband’s not the kind of guy who shows up with magnificent gifts for no reason.
But…41 also applies to my family members. My husband is a school teacher. If I were still a state employee and he won the Teacher of the Year prize, the plain language of 41 would prevent him from accepting the money. My son wanted to go to Catholic high school, and if he had received a scholarship before I retired, he couldn’t accept it.
That’s what the fuss is about. That’s why the people who understood the scope of the amendment were riled up.
If the ethics commission promulgates rules that would allow employees and their families to accept the things I described above, and if the supreme court said those rules were a valid interpretation of the amendment, then it won’t be a big deal. If the court says such rules are contrary to the amendment and invalidates them, then that will be a huge deal for many state employees and their families.
Because all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
😉