My friend (and I mean that in the personal, as well as political/philosophical sense) Ari Armstrong is usually a reliably insightful commentator, and certainly an individual of principle. We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one…

First off, the article cited was not a necessarily an endorsement of Amendment 54; it was an endorsement of the ads supporting the “pro-Liberty” triad of initiatives last year (47, 49, and 54) - which were clever, and cute. C’mon, Ari - don’t you LIKE kittens and puppies?

All kidding aside: I fail to see how 54 - which introduces a means for voters to review sole-source contracts and only restricts political contributions as a condition of the sole-source contract - constitutes censorship. 54 does NOT prohibit sole-source contractors to “be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject” - it merely prevents them from offering “pay-to-play” kickbacks to those “making the buy” on $100,000+ no-bid deals. Entities that prefer to be political players have the option of not entering into a sole-source contract; entering into such a contractual relationship is strictly voluntary. Contractually accepting restrictions on political activity (for example, as a condition of employment) is a well established legal precedent (just ask an active-duty military member to express thoughts on the presidency or our “leaders” in Congress).
This is NOT censorship.

I emphatically agree with Ari that the best solution “is to restrict or eliminate no-bid contracts (and open contracts to bidding)” specifically (which Amendment 54 incentivizes), and “cut government spending and restore a free market” generally. Meanwhile, accepting corruption and “pull” as “just the way things operate” is morally indefensible, in my view.

Finally: Ari makes some good points on the details of the Amendment’s verbiage. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree on whether it is too broad, and whether some sections can and should be challenged. However – and this was the primary thrust of the article – there’s a right and wrong way to go about this. Like it or not, Amendment 54 IS THE LAW – it’s part of the Constitution – and cannot simply be arbitrarily set aside based on a judge’s preference. Upholding the Rule of Law also means upholding constitutional means of redressing wrongs; not by whimsy, or caprice, or preference - but by an orderly process of challenge, argument, and redress, not an immediate resort to injunctive relief.

Amendment 54 is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and of Article II, Section 10 of Colorado’s constitution:

Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.