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%
April 14, 2009 08:11 PM UTC
15 Comments
it so amazing how really strong and serious this Ethics Committee is.
I bet every legislator is shivering in their boots after they gave the smack down to Coffman.
REALLY?
all of these ethical lapses and ya can’t see anything even worthy of a censure?
REALLY?
This looks like the Wal Mart version of an Ethics Commission.
Based on the thin witness list, it didn’t seem like CEW really went to the wall on this.
No comment on a lot of things in this 🙂
“By its ruling today the IEC set the bar dangerously low for ethics in the state and Colorado voters should be gravely concerned about the precedent set by this decision. Mr. Coffman unapologetically admitted in his testimony at the hearing that he knowingly hired the same firm to launch his congressional campaign that was simultaneously lobbying on behalf of a voting system vendor during the system certification process. Ethics Watch also established through documentary evidence and testimony that Mr. Coffman was fully aware that his elections technology director was running an unlawful side business and did nothing to stop it. The IEC ignored this evidence, including a statement from Mr. Kopelman himself that proved Mr. Coffman’s knowledge. The IEC did not see fit to reprimand Mr. Coffman for these textbook examples of a conflict of interest, sending an alarming message to all Colorado public officials that ethics standards in this state are still toothless.
Also concerning is the IEC’s disregard of the constitutional requirement that it conduct an investigation of all complaints. In this case, the IEC conducted no investigation, did not allow Ethics Watch to engage in any discovery, yet raised the burden of proof and then claimed a lack of evidence as a basis for its ruling. It is abundantly clear that the IEC does not intend to fulfill its duty to serve as Colorado’s ethics enforcement commission.
On the positive side, thanks to Ethics Watch’s complaint, Mr. Coffman was finally forced to answer for his actions in front of the voter-established commission. We hope this puts all public officials in this state on notice that unethical behavior will still be identified, examined in front of the voters, and reviewed for possible sanctions. Ethics Watch will continue to pressure the IEC to do its job and hold public officials accountable for their standards of conduct through legal actions and by empowering Colorado citizens with vital information about the activities of their state and local government.”
as it is the first IEC complaint resolved on the merits, and thus is the sole and first impression precedent on every issue addressed.
Didn’t Bill Ritter set the bar on this one with Kolomitz? Just sayin.
They demonstrably violated the law — Kennedy solicited lobbyists for $$ during session and Pommer just fessed up to tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Has Ethics Watch filed a complaint against either? How this group maintains nonprofit status with the IRS is mind-boggling.
CEW has taken Pommer to task on his lack of timely campaign finance reporting. They’ve been mum on Kennedy so far.
Unless it’s an egrarious case, then there should be an investigation but the penalty should be left to the voters. Yes a safe district means the voters are unlikely to punish Coffman if what he did was seriously wrong, but that is the perogative of the voters.
And this was not a slam-dunk case. It is a judgement call as to how serious it was and how appropiate Coffman’s response was. We elect human beings and they are imperfect, make mistakes, and see things their way. I don’t want an appointed body requiring perfection. The response to this belongs at the ballot box.
you can’t have the non partisan office in charge of administering elections hiring the same company that operates the voting machines to be in charge of their congressional campaign.
We all now of the well documented irregularities of diebold machines.
don’t you think Will Armstrong is wondering how trustworthy the voting machines in this year’s cd 6 election were?
at the very least, it is a conflict of interest.
we the voters can ‘punish’ some officials by voting them out of office, however, this was not about seeking a criminal conviction, merely a way to warn Coffman and others who follow in his footsteps that this kind of behavior does warrant a ethical investigation and censure.
And, furthermore, there still is the fact there was a violation of the law.
that last part is oh so lovely:
“immediate remedial action” translation, when Ethics watch shined a spot light on the serious issues with Coffman’s office, he then said, ‘oh shit’ and took action.
Remember this is the same Coffman who continued to purge voters, even after a judge ordered him not to.
http://coloradoindependent.com…
if nothing else, Ethics Watch at least got Coffman to cease and desist.
‘know’ not ‘now’
and furthermore there is still the fact that there may have been a violation of the law.
but I still don’t like the idea of anyone other than voters removing an elected official unless it’s a very very clear case.
On the flip side, I do like the mechanism to force the investigation because as you said, it does put Coffman and others on notice that if they are trying to do something wrong, there will be an investigation and there can be penalties.
…to “remove” an elected official
Just asking, you know?
Wait, you mean temporally or spatially?