Search Results for: coloradopols.com

We’ve just finished setting up the permissions for our newest front page guest editor, Voyageur, who begins his term of service today after winning last month’s election. Voyageur joins re-elected front page editor ProgressiveCowgirl, our longest serving guest editor who will mark an unprecedented two years of continuous service in June of 2013.

Just a reminder that later this month, Colorado Pols will make the transition to an all-new software platform and site design. We look forward to our editors taking advantage of the site’s significantly enhanced functionality once that process is complete.

In the meantime, write good content, and these are the smart folks we trust to promote it.

Colorado Pols is recapping the top ten stories in Colorado politics from the 2012 election year.

A multitude of factors, owing their existence to both liberal and conservative political philosophy as well as Colorado’s longstanding values of individual freedom and respect for privacy, led to our state taking what the Denver paper called a “brave, messy path” to legalizing the personal recreational possession, cultivation, and eventual commercial sale of marijuana in 2012.

Although the vote to pass Amendment 64 reflects a changing, more open-minded and liberal electorate in our state, it’s worth noting that the proponents of marijuana legalization in Colorado have traditionally been conservative-libertarians–such as attorney Robert Corry, long associated with the Independence Institute. On paper, championing marijuana legalization as a segue into recruitment of young voters to libertarian-right politics makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, most of the voters who are persuadable on this issue will not be attracted to what is generally perceived to be an intolerant Republican Party. The GOP itself was no proponent of marijuana legalization, either this year or in years past. Therefore the political benefit of the campaign to legalize marijuana principally went to Democrats, who won races across the state at the same time marijuana was legalized–even though elected Democrats in Colorado kept Amendment 64 at arm’s length almost as much as Republicans did.

If that wasn’t complicated enough, Amendment 64’s passage puts Colorado in conflict not just with a Democratic administration, but with the underlying philosophy of the primacy of federal law that Democrats take for granted in so many of their greatest victories: Brown vs. Board of Education. The Voting Rights Act. Even “Obamacare” itself.

At the same time, this isn’t about desegregating schools, or ensuring everyone has equal rights to vote, or even reforming health care via mandates on every consumer. In the last ten years in Colorado alone, over 100,000 people have been arrested for marijuana possession. There’s a compelling argument that the simple fact of such a mild narcotic like marijuana being illegal breeds contempt for other, necessary prohibitions of “harder” drugs, and undermines the law with each new generation. Although the fines for simple possession of small amounts of marijuana were quite low here in Colorado, convictions still can have major impacts on a person’s future career, and eligibility for assistance programs like federal student aid.

Bottom line: Coloradans considered in Amendment 64 the value of enforcement of the law regarding marijuana versus the harm caused by that enforcement, and decided it isn’t worth it anymore. A progressive, compassionate policy goal of harm reduction challenges federal primacy in a way that cannot be considered all that different from Southern states attempting to defy federal law on segregation–for reasons now condemned by history.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it. Our tendency is, as we have said repeatedly, to defend the will of the voters, and to not fear the distinction between this challenge of federal primacy and others in history–because that distinction justifies any superficial contradiction. This is a challenge from the states to federal law that, unlike segregation, is on the right side of history.

And that’s what made libertarians out of so many liberals this year in Colorado.

Ok, with session about to start, if you were in the House what 5 bills would you introduce? I’ll start it off with my 5:

1. Civil Unions
2. Call for a constitutional convention. That will work as well as any of the other convoluted suggestions. And it will be quicker.
3. Effective campaign finance reform. Either public financing or unlimited with full disclosure. Including Congressional elections in the state.
4. Create a legislative research group who’s job is to measure the effectiveness and ROI of legislation, departments, etc.
5. Invest in local start-ups. More jobs, better jobs, and the state turns a profit. What’s not to like?

Between now and New Year’s Eve, Colorado Pols is recapping the top ten stories in Colorado politics from the 2012 election year.

We and many others predicted in 2010 that Scott Gessler, a Republican election law attorney unexpectedly elected Colorado Secretary of State, would easily prove to be the most partisan and controversial chief elections officer in the state’s modern history. In the two years since, he has certainly lived up to that prediction.

What we didn’t predict is that Gessler would be so very, very bad at it.

The narrative of Gessler’s tenure as Colorado Secretary of State up to now is one of two tracks: spectacularly failed attempts at misusing his power for overtly partisan aims, and surprising brushes with relatively petty financial scandal that could actually prove to be the more immediate threat to his career and credibility.

Since taking office, Gessler has been a darling of conservative activists around the nation who are convinced, among other things, that improperly registered noncitizen voters are committing large-scale election fraud. Gessler has repeatedly thrown out dubious claims of “thousands” of noncitizen voters on the rolls in Colorado without supporting evidence. This fall, Gessler sent letters requesting verification of citizenship to some 4,000 registered voters (less than half the 11,000+ figure Gessler had touted the previous year), and of those 4,000 inquiries, Westword’s Sam Levin reports they have ultimately resulted in the cancelation of 88 voter registrations–and it’s not known how many of them had actually voted. Based on previous results, a very small fraction of those 88 at most.

Bottom line: Gessler has perhaps done more to disprove the myth of widespread election fraud from “noncitizen voters” than his liberal opponents. The pitiful results of Gessler’s two-year effort to root out what is a tiny number of problem registrations, while so many other unresolved issues with our elections surely have resulted in the loss of many more than 88 votes, is a stunning self-administered rebuke to the conspiracist right wing. It’s even worse if you consider Gessler’s fixation on this while actively obstructing legislative attempts to sensibly resolve the “inactive voter” controversy from 2011, which involved so many more people.

Combined with all the other questionable incidents in Gessler’s two years in office, from hosting a fundraiser to pay off fines levied by his office on fellow Republicans to his now-infamous remark that a “good election” is when “Republicans win,” and what you have is a man fundamentally making a mockery of a solemn responsibility–and not even doing that very well. It’s so poorly executed, and so obviously improper, that it’s really quite tawdry.

“Tawdry” also sums up the other emerging narrative of Gessler’s time as Secretary of State. Gessler’s very first controversy after taking office in 2011 was his announcement that he intended to keep working part time at his old elections law firm–a decision brought about, according to Gessler, by the hardship of living on the Secretary of State’s salary of $70,000 a year. While we and others are not unsympathetic regarding the low salaries paid some of our highest public officials in Colorado, Gessler’s proposed solution was a conflict-of-interest disaster waiting to happen. After a public outcry, Gessler announced he had changed his mind.

As it turns out, Gessler discovered other ways to beat the high cost of living! Questionable reimbursements for travel expenses to partisan events, including a “True the Vote” press conference in Washington D.C. and events surrounding and including the Republican National Convention in Tampa this year, are now the subject of both an ethics commission inquiry and a Denver DA criminal investigation. Another instance of Gessler “sweeping” the entire balance of his discretionary account into his pocket at the end of the fiscal year has raised more questions.

Republican friends tell us that Gessler is exceptionally intelligent, so most of what he does has presumably been thought through. What we can’t understand is the ultimate goal for him. He apparently doesn’t think he can really rise to a high post as an elected official, because if he did, he wouldn’t do things like empty the petty cash account. The easy-to-see political damage is tremendously more harmful than the trade off of a small amount of money, and he must know that. Gessler takes heat for his behavior over and over, but he doesn’t seem to care–which makes him dangerous for every other Republican.

So many controversies in only two years have led to calls for Gessler’s recall (a highly improbable prospect under Colorado’s stiff recall petition requirements)–and more recently, changing the office of Secretary of State into some kind of nonpartisan position. Certainly Democrats will mount an aggressive bid for the office in 2014, and many insiders expect Gessler won’t run again for the job–perhaps opting instead for a sacrificial lamb campaign against Gov. John Hickenlooper, followed by a return to much more profitable private practice.

But it’s been a wild ride, made less of a shock only by his repeated failures.

Empty U.S. House chambers.

Politico:

With the country teetering on this fiscal cliff of deep spending cuts and sharp tax hikes, the philosophical differences, the shortened timetable and the political dynamics appear to be insurmountable hurdles for a bipartisan deal by New Year’s Day.

Hopes of a grand-bargain – to shave trillions of dollars off the deficit by cutting entitlement programs and raising revenue – are shattered. House Republicans already failed to pass their “Plan B” proposal. And now aides and senators say the White House’s smaller, fall-back plan floated last week is a non-starter among Republicans in Senate – much less the House.

On top of that, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday that the nation would hit the debt limit on Dec. 31, and would then have to take “extraordinary measures” to avoid exhausting the government’s borrowing limit in the New Year.

Adds the Washington Post:

If anything, hope for success appeared to have dimmed over the Christmas holiday. The Republican-controlled House last week abdicated responsibility for resolving the crisis, leaving all eyes on the Senate. But senior aides in both parties said Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have not met or even spoken since leaving town for the weekend…

With no sign of urgency, aides in both parties predicted that failure was not just a possibility – it was rapidly becoming the most likely outcome. No significant movement was expected Thursday: Obama was scheduled to be in the air traveling back from his Hawaiian holiday for a good portion of the day, and the Senate wasn’t set to convene for votes until the evening.

Even if some miraculous breakthrough in the Senate could be achieved, another round of winter weather in the Washington, D.C. area this weekend could well disrupt air travel, making it difficult for House members to reconvene in time for a vote before the new year–and that assumes the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a body capable of passing anything the President would be able to sign. After the failure before Christmas by Speaker John Boehner to pass his “Plan B” alternative measure, a red-on-red disaster abetted by at least two Colorado Republican members of Congress, dysfunction seems to be the rule.

The public is becoming increasingly, undeniably aware of who is to blame for the impasse, as a poll released yesterday shows once again–Huffington Post reports:

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats got a moderate boost in approval ratings for their handling of the crisis. Obama’s rating on the negotiations rose to a majority 54 percent, while approval for Democratic leaders in Congress jumped to 45 percent. Republicans did not see similar gains, with their number holding nearly steady at 26 percent. [Pols emphasis]

Any shift in approval didn’t appear to affect the desire for bipartisan deal-making. Just 22 percent of people said either side should stick to its principles, while 68 percent called for a compromise.

And this is the key: President Barack Obama has already compromised. A casual look at the offers the President has made, both increasing the threshold of income at which higher tax rates would apply, as well as offering entitlement rate-of-growth cuts that have genuinely upset liberal Democrats, and there’s no question which side has offered more to get a deal. We don’t really think the administration can offer much more without putting itself in a situation similar to that faced by Boehner–a fact made even clearer by the intense public opposition to cutting institutions like Social Security and Medicare. One small upshot is that as the scale of what can be achieved with an intransigent GOP-controlled House diminishes, so do the cuts.

Politically, it’s critical to understand that this is not 2009. There is no upwelling of conservative opposition brewing as was the case with the then-incipient “Tea Party.” The country has been through years of exactly this kind of obstruction and brinkmanship since Republicans retook control of the House in 2010. The voters want solutions. They are tired of rhetoric. What the polls show is a growing fatigue with Republican intransigence, and a growing understanding that it is Republican intransigence at the heart of much of their frustration with government.

It is not “bias” to acknowledge when one side is plainly losing.

Between now and New Year’s Eve, Colorado Pols is recapping the top ten stories in Colorado politics from the 2012 election year.

On Wednesday, October 3rd on the campus of the University of Denver, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney squared off against President Barack Obama in the first of three debates. Attended by an audience of DU students and a few politically connected non-students, it was a high profile moment for one of our state’s finest educational institutions.

As for President Obama, the consensus view is the Denver debate was not his finest hour.

Our live-blogger covering the event, as our readers know, didn’t think Obama had done all that badly, though we conceded at the time he “left a lot of points on the table and missed some opportunities to really clobber Romney.” It became clear in subsequent days, though, that the public overwhelmingly judged Obama the loser in this debate, appearing detached and even a bit annoyed with having to deal with an over-the-top fiery (and factually challenged) opponent. It has subsequently been acknowledged that Obama’s bookish and unengaging demeanor in the Denver debate was a deliberate strategy–one that is widely judged to have backfired.

In the 50-year history of televised presidential debates, only perhaps one or two are considered to have ultimately impacted the outcome of the election. The most frequently cited example is that of John F. Kennedy demolishing a sickly-looking Richard Nixon on live television in 1960. After Obama’s consensus-view loss to Romney in the first debate, Obama’s poll numbers indeed took a hit: but the fact is that Obama was in the lead prior to this debate, and he went on to win the election. By that simple standard, and despite the massive effort by Republicans to hype it into something more, the Denver debate was just a footnote. A debate performance only makes it into the history books when it relates to the candidate who ultimately won the election.

Does that mean there was no harm done, despite the fact that Obama ultimately prevailed in the election? Of course not, because in all probability there was some amount of electoral harm done–the loss of momentum following the Denver debate, albeit temporary, may well have cost Democrats incrementally down the ticket in other races around the country. Obama’s performance contributed to uncertainty among Democrats–as well as giddy hope among Republicans–that was in both cases unfounded. If the Obama campaign knew they would have more opportunities to take the fight to Romney in subsequent debates, it’s clear in retrospect that they misjudged just how much soft-pedaling they could get away with in Denver.

That said, the end result confirmed the fundamentals of this race, which the presidential debate at the University of Denver did little or nothing to alter.  

Between now and New Year’s Eve, Colorado Pols is recapping the top ten stories in Colorado politics from the 2012 election year.

Late on a Wednesday evening in January, Denver police attempted to stop a vehicle not far from the state capitol with legislative license plates they had observed driving erratically. The vehicle didn’t stop immediately, but proceeded several blocks before coming to an awkward stop near a bar frequented by state legislators, lobbyists, journalists and staff called Prohibition.

From that moment, the career of Republican Rep. Laura Bradford of Collbran began to unravel. Early reports from the Denver Police Department–later retracted under less-than-forthcoming circumstances–indicated that Bradford may have evaded arrest for driving under the influence by invoking legislative immunity granted to lawmakers during the legislative session.

Rep. Bradford was immediately stripped of her committee chair, and effectively made persona non grata in her caucus by Speaker Frank McNulty until she was “cleared” by the Denver Police Department and a subsequent ethics committee inquiry of wrongdoing (at least wrongdoing pertaining to abuse of her position). Bradford, despite her initial contrition over the incident, felt that she was being unfairly treated by McNulty throughout the process, and even briefly threatened to defect to Democrats–a lethal prospect for the GOP’s one-seat House majority.

In the end, though many questions about the conduct of both Rep. Bradford and responding Denver police officers remain unanswered, she was cleared; but not before her erratic response to the situation had rendered her politically nonviable in the eyes of Republicans both in Denver and her district. In March, Bradford announced she would not seek re-election.

The story of Laura Bradford has an amusing epilogue: Bradford’s Republican successor in HD-54, Rep.-elect Jared Wright of Fruita, has already perhaps set a new standard for disgrace on the campaign trail that nonetheless did not prevent victory. Wright, exposed as a lazy and dishonest police officer who lived embarrassingly beyond his taxpayer-funded means and was begged by fellow Republicans to pull out of the race, may be about to make former Rep. Bradford’s brush with scandal and intra-party intrigue a pleasant memory by comparison.

On the upside, it might not be as big a deal now, in a Republican minority.

It’s amazing what you can learn from an exhausted reindeer stopping by the barn for a hot mash before making his long journey back to the North pole. Straight from the reindeer’s mouth (by way of a certain Progressive CowPony acting as translator), a special Christmas bulletin on Santa’s visit to Colorado politicians’ households. Although some of Colorado’s elected officials landed on the naughty list, Santa (concerned that a lump of coal would be mistaken for a lobbyist’s gift) dropped personalized presents down the chimney for several figures of political prominence. Here’s a sampling:

Governor John Hickenlooper: Cheetos and goldfish.

State Senator Brophy: An industrial strength slingshot, so those melons won’t go unmolested after gun control passes.

Secretary of State Scott Gessler: One threatening letter, which may be used to escape responsibility for one future abuse of public funds.

Congressman Jared Polis: A partridge in a pear tree. He already had everything else…

Representative Max Tyler: Family-sized box of Enstrom’s milk chocolate toffee.

Congressman Ed Perlmutter: Winter coats for his staff, currently freezing in their mandatory ponchos.

Representative Jonathan Singer: Get-out-of-trouble-free card permitting ONE, and ONLY one “joint committee” or “high stakes” pun about Amendment 64 on the House floor.

Brian Watson: Free entry into an adult spelling bee.

Lang Sias: A newer edition of Photoshop for better sign clean-up the NEXT time he’s heralded as a “rising star” when jumping into a clearly lost race against a solid incumbent.

Attorney General John Suthers: A raise, pre-wrapped for regifting to the next person to hold his seat.

Representative Dan Pabon: Diapers and one good night’s sleep.

Secretary Ken Salazar: Large punch bowl, to be filled and kept handy for the next time a journalist upsets him. What are you talking about? He just offered that reporter a festive beverage! See, there’s another gallon of it right here, have a cup.

Congressman Mike Coffman: Body double willing to occasionally talk to CD6 constituents.

Denver Post Editorial Board: A list of people who may possibly run for Congress in 2014, besides the incumbents–with two years’ lead time, who knows, maybe they’ll endorse one.

If anyone else has Christmas intel on what Colorado’s boldface names found under their trees, post it in the comments…

UPDATE: FOX 31’s Eli Stokols answers one question:

Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, and Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, both planned to vote against Boehner’s “Plan B”, which was pulled from the floor Thursday night after Boehner failed to whip enough members of his divided GOP caucus in line…

According to talking points Lamborn gave his staff to pass on to constituents who bombarded the office with phone calls Thursday, the congressman “cannot support Plan B because it fails to give tax relief for one class of Americans.

“President Obama campaigned on a pledge to raise taxes, and Congressman Lamborn does not wish to assist him in raising taxes on any Americans,” the talking points continued. “Congressman Lamborn would like to see the Bush tax rates extended permanently for all Americans.”

Gardner, who is viewed as a rising star within the House GOP caucus but is closer to Majority Leader Eric Cantor than Boehner himself, “was not going to vote for it because it didn’t address spending at all,” according to spokeswoman Rachel George.

—–

Updating the fiscal cliff battle, Politico reports on yesterday’s dramatic failure in the House as Speaker John Boehner tried unsuccessfully to get the votes for his “Plan B” tax bill.

Things were so bad for Speaker John Boehner Thursday night, support for his Plan B tax bill so diminished, the limits of his power with his own party laid bare, that he stood in front of the House Republican Conference and recited the Serenity Prayer.

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

…It was supposed to be a moment of strength, a way to drag Obama and the Democrats toward them in the high-stakes fiscal cliff negotiations that have Washington teetering on the brink. Instead, it showed the world that either Boehner couldn’t bring 217 of his own members to his side, or they were unwilling to be led by him in this fight.

Yesterday’s failure by Speaker Boehner to pass his alternative measure significantly weakens his negotiating position. We haven’t heard whether any Colorado GOP representatives were part of the revolt; we expect that will come out soon enough. The House is reportedly on notice to be ready to head back to Washington, but this story indicates they may not reconvene before 2013–after the “fiscal cliff’s” mandatory spending cuts and tax increases have kicked in.

Rep. Mike Coffman had this to say to The Hill as the dust settled:

[A]fter a day and a half of intense lobbying on the part of the GOP leaders, rank-and-file members were stunned to learn that Boehner’s team was giving up the fight.

“I’ve never seen anything like it where leadership just completely backed down. I guess they made an assessment that the people who were no votes were entrenched no votes, because otherwise I think they would have just pulled it and they would have worked it longer,” Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman (R) told The Hill.

Coffman called the meeting “awful.” “It’s the first time I’ve ever seen leadership retreat. It was a real shock – the Speaker looked shocked,” he said.

It’s difficult to predict what’s going to happen next, but Boehner can only effectively negotiate as the leader of the House of Representatives if he has the power to lead. Otherwise it’s honestly not clear on whose behalf he is “negotiating.” Either way, Boehner’s leverage to continue demanding entitlement cuts opposed by the voting public in exchange for bringing his caucus along on a deal may have just evaporated. How many moderate Republicans would need to defect to a Democratic solution? It’s not that many, folks.

And Rep. Coffman’s remarks on yesterday’s failure to pass Boehner’s plan oblige us to consider whether speculation about Boehner’s speakership imploding is coming true.

For eight years, Colorado Pols has set the standard in this state as the most widely read and discussed blog devoted to coverage of Colorado politics. Almost 19,000 blog posts and nearly 500,000 comments later, this site has become an invaluable property for news and opinion about our state’s politics, and the collective wisdom of our authors and community members has become a trusted institution all by itself.

In January of 2013, we’re making major upgrades. We’ve been working for months on a complete redesign of Colorado Pols, and migration to a new software platform. For users, this will mean an enhanced experience, and far better organization of content. You’ll retain your same usernames and passwords once the conversion is complete. Front-page editors will still promote posts to the home page. Over time, we hope to roll out exciting new features, but in the meantime we’ve worked hard to preserve the community you’ve spent years inhabiting.

Best of all, this is a work in progress, and puts us in a position to be better responsive to requests from readers for future improvements. Use this space to freely discuss the types of features you’d like to see in an ideal Colorado political blog, and we’ll see what we can do.

We had great front page guest editors for the 2012 election season. Thanks very much to ClubTwitty, ProgressiveCowgirl, and SSG_Dan for their contributions to our blog in the last six months. Colorado Pols is the most read and discussed political blog in our state for eight years and counting because of our robust community of readers, and our elected front page guest editors represent the qualities we value in all of you.

We will hold an election for two new front-page guest editors this weekend, December 22nd and 23rd. The new editors will start on January 1st, and barring anything unexpected will hold their positions through June of 2013–at which time we’ll have another election. We’ll conduct one poll of nominees, and the top two finishers from that poll will win coveted front page editor spots. Our current editors are automatically renominated unless they decline.

Use this thread to nominate candidates for the two guest editor positions available. We’ll finalize the list of nominees tomorrow evening.

To learn more about the privileges and expectations of our guest editors, read this post, and feel free to ask questions. As always, we will be watching closely to ensure the election is fraud-free, so we remind readers as we do every time to not bother trying to cheat. We’ll catch you, and our whole community will join in humiliating you and everything you stand for.

We’re obliged to note Westword’s report out yesterday:

Secretary of State Scott Gessler has faced a lot of pushback for his efforts to identify immigrants who are illegally on Colorado’s voter rolls. But over the summer, those criticisms escalated to a new level when he received multiple violent threats, some targeting his family. Through an Open Records request, we now have new details on one disturbing phone call and the subsequent investigation — and more information is expected this week.

While the threats took place over the summer — and death threats toward politicians are not all that uncommon — these cases have a lot of significance now and will continue to be important in the coming months.

Why?

Because Gessler, a Republican and the state’s chief election officer, is currently the focus of criminal and ethics investigations, both the result of complaints from Colorado Ethics Watch, a watchdog group that has closely scrutinized Gessler on a number of issues. Based on open records requests it filed with the Secretary of State’s office, in October Ethics Watch alleged that Gessler had misused state funds for travels outside the scope of his office.

As Westword’s Sam Levin reports, a call placed to the state’s election information line last August turned into a long rant about the letters Gessler sent over the summer to registered voters he dubiously “suspected” may not be citizens. The caller said Republicans “should be shot in the head,” and indicated that “many people” know where Gessler’s family lives.

The call was investigated by the CBI, but Denver DA Mitch Morrissey declined to press charges. Investigation reportedly reveals this person made a similar threat toward Rep. Doug Lamborn last year, and Levin’s retelling of the CBI report paints a picture of a harmless, albeit very stupid, crackpot. That said, we don’t think anyone will dispute the necessity of taking any such threats made against the Secretary of State or his family seriously.

In terms of the investigation(s) underway regarding Gessler’s alleged misuse of discretionary funds, however, Westword’s Open Records Act request explains only one detail among numerous questionable incidents–from using these funds to attend partisan events at all, to “sweeping” the account empty at fiscal year’s end in a check to himself. Sympathy for Gessler over threats made against him or his family, which we’ll say again are totally unacceptable, doesn’t extend to excusing unethical or illegal behavior on his part.

But if any of you happen to recognize this crackpot, please let him know he’s not helping.

During the recently-concluded election season, we spoke a few times about a new right-leaning “nonpartisan government watchdog” operating out of the offices of the arch-conservative Independence Institute. The Open Government Institute of Colorado made news this spring after filing a complaint regarding now Rep.-elect Dianne Primavera over a fundraiser invitation that mistakenly included the name of former Rep. Anne McGihon, alleging “Ms. Primavera solicited unlawful contributions from lobbyists.”

Not long after this complaint was filed, we were leaked hidden-camera video of OGI director Jessica Peck speaking at a luncheon of the Colorado Republican Business Coalition in honor of Rep. Mike Coffman. In this video, Peck makes absolutely no secret about OGI’s partisan goals and origins, and even claims to be working on projects to “benefit you,” meaning Rep. Coffman, “in your endeavors in November.” The video is now the subject of an IRS complaint alleging a violation of OGI’s 501(c)(3) “nonpartisan nonprofit charity” tax status.

Now, it won’t surprise our readers to learn that IRS investigations take a very long time to proceed, and as of this writing we don’t know the status of that complaint. But this week, a judgment was handed down in the case filed by OGI. And it’s a judgment that Ms. Peck surely isn’t happy about. Excerpted, read it all here:

This matter is a complaint pursuant to Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, sec. 9(2)(a) and the Fair Campaign Practices Act (“FCPA”), Section 1-45-101, C.R.S. et seq. Jessica K. Peck, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Complainant and Mark G. Grueskin, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Respondent…

Western United Realty, supra, at 1066 approves of the discussion of attorney fees in International Technical Instruments, Inc. v. Engineering Measurements Co., 678 P.2d 558 (Colo. App. 1983) and notes specifically the fact that the party against whom attorney fees were assessed in that case “conducted no discovery whatsoever” and “nominally attempted to establish its … claim at trial.” This description equally applies to the Complainant’s efforts in this case. [Pols emphasis]

The ALJ therefore concludes that claim 1 also lacked substantial justification in that it was substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, and substantially vexatious…

The case for attorney fees in relation to claim 2 is clear cut; no effort was made to present evidence in support of this claim.  “[A] claim … is groundless if the allegations in the complaint … are not supported by any credible evidence at trial.” Western United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063, 1069 (Colo. 1984). In Colorado Citizens for Ethics in Government v. Commission for the American Dream, 187 P.3d 1207, 1219-1220 (Colo. App. 2008) the Court upheld an ALJ’s imposition of attorney 8 fees on a party in a campaign finance case where the party dismissed a claim at hearing. At 1220 the Court cited Engel v. Engel, 902 P.2d 442, 446 (Colo. App. 1995) and Bilawsky v. Faseehudin, 916 P.2d 586, 590 (Colo. App. 1995) for the proposition that an action may be substantially groundless even though dismissed on the morning of trial.

In this case, the Complainant only acquiesced, through counsel, to the Respondent’s motion to dismiss claim 2 after the presentation of his evidence. Claim 2 lacked substantial justification in that it was substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, and substantially vexatious. The Complainant never voluntarily dismissed the claim (a basis not to assess attorney fees per Section 13-17-102 (5)). Section 13- 17-102 (6) is inapplicable as the Complainant was represented…

It is therefore the Agency Decision of the Secretary of State that no violation of Section 1-45-105.5(1)(a)(I) has been proven. It is furthermore the Agency Decision that the Complainant and the Complainant’s counsel are jointly and severally liable per Section 1-45-111.5(2) for the $17,712.38 amount. [Pols emphasis] Complainant’s counsel only is responsible for the $400 of attorney fees related to the additional expense on December 11, 2012.

In short, the OGI’s case against Rep.-elect Primavera was so bad that the judge has awarded about $18,000 in attorney’s fees to McGihon and her lawyer Mark Grueskin. Short of frog-marching somebody, we really don’t know how much more of a repudiation can be legally delivered in a case like this. After every right-wing mouthpiece in the state took up the cause, berating reporters into covering it, today you know the case against Primavera was so “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” that OGI has been ordered to pay for wasting everyone’s time.

We’ve heard rumors that OGI Colorado has already, for all practical purposes, shut down operations. So hopefully there’s still $18,000 in the bank to collect–we’d hate to see the private citizen who nominally filed the OGI’s complaint get stuck with the tab.

For our part, the thoroughly delicious irony is entertainment enough: thousands in donations to OGI, meant to “help Mike Coffman,” instead going to Mark Grueskin. And it’s a lesson to Republicans, licking their wounds after yet another losing election cycle in Colorado, envious of the “Colorado Model” of Democratic-aligned activist and message groups that OGI was meant to help replicate for the GOP. OGI may have been set up as the right’s Colorado Ethics Watch, but it filled the role more like Bizarro Superman. Suffice to say, this is not the path to victory.

UPDATE: Whatever a lopsided majority may say in polls, they apparently don’t live in Rep. Cory Gardner’s district. From the conservative website Newsmax.com:

Over-regulation and too much spending is plaguing the economy, Gardner said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV.

“I’m frustrated, [and] my constituents are frustrated, because they see Washington doing the same exact thing,” he said. “This was the most predictable crisis anybody could ever imagine. So, months ago we knew this was going to happen. It got closer, closer, closer and here we are now days away instead of months away and we’re talking about kicking the can down the road, and the American public, the constituents I represent, they’re tired of it. They want to see tax rates that are lower, not higher…” [Pols emphasis]

It’s a very safe seat, after all.

—–

Politico reports on the latest development in ongoing negotiations to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” at the end of this year. It should be noted that Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner made a new offer Friday, which includes a big at-least rhetorical concession:

“The President and the Speaker are meeting at the White House to continue their discussions about the fiscal cliff and balanced deficit reduction,” according to an identical statement issued by aides to Boehner and Obama [Monday].

Boehner jump-started the talks with a proposal Friday to boost marginal tax rates on income over $1 million, in what was a significant departure from his party’s no-new-taxes plank.

Democrats described the movement on rates as “progress,” but cautioned that a deal is not imminent because of the high income threshold and proposed cuts to Medicare, including raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67. Obama wants tax rates to rise on family income above $250,000 a year, and he has not publicly embraced cuts to Medicare beneficiaries in the latest round of talks.

As we and most media coverage has noted throughout these negotiations, public opinion polls show overwhelming support for allowing the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire on income greater than $250,000 per household. At the same time, polling is tepid at best on any move to cut Medicare, Social Security, or other so-called “entitlements” valued by the middle class.

So what we have is Boehner agreeing, belatedly and only partly, to one piece of the public’s desired solution, using that as leverage to demand things the public doesn’t want.

Boehner needs robust changes to the hugely popular seniors health program to sell any kind of tax-rate increase to his conservative-dominated Republican Conference. [Pols emphasis]

The public’s failure to embrace cuts to popular institutions like Medicare and Social Security isn’t due to a lack of trying. The Fix The Debt campaign, Alan Simpson dancing “Gangnam Style,” and the millions spent trying to make Hugh Jidette a household name have all dismally failed to turn Americans into voters willing to accept Ryan Plan-style austerity. They know better.

This means Boehner and the Republicans are in a desperate political conundrum. The real constituency supporting sweeping entitlement cuts is exposed as embarrassingly small and ideologically motivated. Boehner must hold out for cuts to popular programs that the public doesn’t want–cuts only supported by a small minority for uningratiating reasons.

No doubt this latest smallish concession from Boehner seems rudely shocking and offensive to Grover Norquist, and other “starve the beast” ideological opponents of anything that doesn’t “shrink the size of government.” The lesson in this, however, may not be Boehner’s concession, but how far the Republican Party has drifted from the mainstream of public opinion.

In  a post Thursday, I discussed a conversation between two local talk-radio hosts and Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Page Editor, Wayne Laugesen.

Unfortunately, the good folks at KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado thought I unfairly presented their show as attacking every garden-variety environmentalist under the sun, not just the radical fringe.

I disagree, but I’ve posted more of the exchange between Laugesen and the KLZ hosts below, including more insight into Laugesen’s thinking on whom he’s referring to when he talks about “radical” environmentalists. Warning: he’s pretty vague, as some suspected on ColoradoPols and elsewhere.

I’d love to meet the soccer-mom environmentalist from Jefferson County who feels good about the Republican Party after hearing this conversation on conservative talk radio.

If the KLZ radio hosts, and Laugesen for that matter, really cared about the toxic effect of talk radio on the Republican Party, here’s a suggestion on how they could begin to do something about it.

Have an actual debate! Bring a mainstream environmentalist on the show, for example, when you talk about radical environmentalists or environmentalism as religion. Refuse to be a guest unless more than shades of conservative gray are present. I’m not saying this never happens, but do it more often, please.

Chances are, when the echo chamber starts echoing on talk radio, it’s turning off most of the electorate. That’s when you need to bring in an opposing view.