Colorado Independent

Monday Media Review: Clear The Bench Colorado in the news

Published April 25, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The wheels of justice grind slooooooooowly…

Approaching the one-year anniversary of the initial “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) attack on Clear The Bench Colorado via filing a campaign finance complaint (a complaint which was later held to be “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” – in other words, completely lacking legal merit – in court, although CEW tried again and got a judge to buy their argument a couple of months later), a final resolution on the many issues surrounding the case(s) – including the court’s award of legal fees payable by CEW to Clear The Bench Colorado, which they’ve so far refused to pay, despite owing us since July – drags on.

Several news articles last week picked up the story again when the Colorado Secretary of State – continuing his predecessor’s position that Clear The Bench Colorado rightfully relied on guidance to file as an Issue Committee, not a Political Committee as CEW alleged CTBC should have done instead, despite guidance to the contrary – filed an amicus brief in support of the appeal entered before the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Naturally, CEW cried foul – whining about the intervention and attempting to spin the story (with the aid of the Colorado not-so Independent media mouthpiece) to try to make Secretary of State Scott Gessler look bad. However, even the left-wing spin machine Colorado Pols admitted not only that “Buescher’s staffers advised Clear the Bench to register as an issue committee” but also that

The Secretary of State’s office has an obligation to provide public interpretations of the campaign finance laws to the public, candidates, and committees. Here, the previous Secretary, Bernie Buescher, told Clear the Bench to register as an issues committee. The ALJ said he wasn’t bound by Secretary Buescher’s opinion, which the ALJ believed was wrong. The brief addresses only one issue, which is whether or not the ALJ was bound by the Secretary’s interpretation of the campaign finance laws.

Bernie Buescher is the supervisor of the attorney who filed the brief. That attorney is without a doubt the best and most ethical attorney in the State of Colorado. If you can find anyone who has ever been involved in a case with Maurie who disagrees, I will eat my laptop. That’s easy to say, because you won’t find anyone.

It’s common for an administrative agency or officer to file a brief defending the power and prerogative of that agency or officer. I don’t remember any cases where the officer previously represented the party that would benefit from the decision if the court decides the way the officer argued, though.

If Clear the Bench came before Secretary Gessler and Gessler participated in a decision involving CtB, then I would be all over that in a heartbeat. That would be a clear conflict of interest. That’s not what’s going on here, though. This is just a brief telling the Court of Appeals that the ALJ should have done what the previous Secretary said.

All spin aside, it is clear that “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) is desperately on the defensive in all aspects of this case – losing the judgment on the issue of attorneys’ fees, losing the attorney who successfully argued CEW’s round 2 complaint (working pro bono for CEW, Aaron Goldhamer of Sherman & Howard, LLC – as he dropped CEW as a client), and now likely to lose even that transitory “win” on appeal. The organization has been discredited not only for transparently partisan bias, but for their lack of effectiveness in arguing cases (the former acceptable to their financial backers, but the latter – litigative and legal incompetence – the one inexcusable sin).

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s so-called “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.

Week(end) News in Review: Clear The Bench Colorado, judicial “merit” selection & retention nationwide and “CEW round two”

Published September 28, 2010 | By CTBC Director

Media coverage of Clear The Bench Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court, and the issue of “merit” selection & retention of judges nationwide came in a veritable torrent over the weekend, instead of trickling in over the course of a week…

Leading off the weekend’s coverage of Clear The Bench Colorado was, somewhat surprisingly, the New York Times lead editorial (by none other than NYT publisher A. G. Sulzberger himself!) online on Friday 24 September and again on page A1 of the Saturday 25 September print edition. The editorial (“Voters Moving to Oust Judges Over Decisions“) noted:

Around the country, judicial elections that were designed to be as apolitical as possible are suddenly as contentious as any another race.

Among the three “judicial elections” profiled in the piece discussing the “merit selection system” (which Sulzberger appears to uncritically support, despite concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the process as it has been implemented in several states, especially Colorado):

…a conservative group called Clear the Bench Colorado is citing a host of decisions in seeking to oust the full slate of justices on the ballot there, urging voters, “Be a citizen, not a subject.”

Sulzberger bemoans the “the amount of money spent on retention elections this year” upsetting “previously quiet judicial elections” around the country. Rather than applaud the increase in transparency and accountability now being applied to an increasingly active and powerful one-third of our government, and the exercise by citizens in many states of their constitutional right to hold incumbent government officials accountable, Sulzberger quotes an academic who maintains that the retention vote was only “meant as an extreme measure.”

However, a leader of the movement to oust Iowa justices on the ballot this year (coincidentally, also three) ably summed up the mood and motivation of the nationwide judicial accountability movement:

“It sends a powerful message,” he said, “That if justices go outside the bounds of their oaths, if the justices go outside the bounds of the U.S. and state constitutions they’re going to be held accountable.”

Meanwhile, back at the ranch…

The weekend news on the judicial (non)retention front was dominated by the stunning Friday afternoon announcement by the administrative law judge (technically, an appointed executive branch employee) hearing the series of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) attacks on Clear The Bench Colorado that the rules under which we have operated for over a year now have to be changed.

The judge’s ruling – contrary to over a year of established practice, “reams of documentary evidence” and the testimony of the office of Secretary of State Elections Division director that Clear The Bench Colorado properly filed as an “Issue Committee” – decreed that, although we properly acted on guidance issued by the Secretary of State’s office, CTBC must RE-file as a “political committee.” Kinda late in the game for a complete rules change, wouldn’t ya think?

The ruling can be read as an attachment to the article by Law Week Colorado (“Clear The Bench Colorado Subject To Contribution Limits, Judge Decides“), one of the first to go to press on the issue.

Around the state, the story was also covered by:

Grand Junction Sentinel (“Judge rules against group named Clear the Bench“),
Westword (“Colorado Ethics Watch wins Clear the Bench case, but still may have to pay some legal fees“)
Colorado Independent (“Judge rules against Clear the Bench in campaign finance case“)
CBS-4 Denver television (“Colo. Group Fighting Judges Loses Funding Dispute“)
Fox-31 KDVR television (“Clear The Bench Colorado, a group fighting judges, loses funding dispute“)

Nationally, the story was picked up by:

Associated Press (“Clear The Bench Colorado, a group fighting judges, loses funding dispute“)
Huffington Post (“Clear The Bench Colorado Subject To Contribution Limits, Judge Decides“)
State Politics.com (“Judge rules against Clear the Bench in campaign finance case“)
UPI (United Press International) (“Judge rules against Clear The Bench in campaign finance case“)
Washington Examiner (“Colo. group fighting judges loses funding dispute“)
even the Rockford, Illinois Register-Star (“Colo. group fighting judges loses funding dispute“)

… and that’s just on Friday!

On Saturday, some news outlets expanded their coverage, including this piece by the Colorado Independent (“Gessler shocked by Clear the Bench campaign finance smackdown“) which, despite the overwrought and hyperbolic title, actually provides some insight into the case and background on the overall issues at stake.

A more sleepy (or sports-obsessed) Sunday saw one additional article:

Eagle County Times (“Does this seem right – to you?“)

On Monday, the coverage ramped up again, with new and expanded articles:

Westword: (“Clear the Bench’s Matt Arnold: Court win for CO Ethics Watch a victory for big $ over little guy“)
Colorado Independent: (“Clear the Bench ruling limits donations in key weeks before election“)
and nationally, profiled on the George Soros-funded “Justice At Stake Campaign” site: (“Colorado Ouster Group is ‘Political,’ Judge Rules“)

Curiously, despite ALL of the coverage – in print, online, on the air – statewide and nationally, Colorado’s “newspaper of record” (the Denver Post) spilled not one drop of ink covering the story. (Perhaps they were distracted by noise from the loud and raucous celebrations upstairs by their $1.6 Million/year renters when the Colorado Supreme Court ‘unjust justices’ heard the news from real journalists).

Fortunately – despite setting a terrible precedent, and ensuring that the “big money” in judicial retention elections will continue to be non-transparent and unaccountable (such as the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands spent already by legal establishment special-interest groups promoting a “retain” campaign for judicial incumbents) – the ruling has little effect on the ongoing activities of the state’s only grassroots judicial accountability organization, Clear The Bench Colorado.

Clear The Bench Colorado has been consistently open, honest, and above-board in educating the public, and has scrupulously followed the rules under Colorado campaign finance law for over a year. In a campaign that has been conspicuous for its LACK of big-money interests and “large contributions” (Toro is whining about two - TWO! – contributions exceeding $500), CTBC has acted with complete transparency and absolute accountability to educate voters as to their right to hold judicial incumbents accountable for their performance in office, and to shed light on the records of judicial incumbents at the highest levels – providing substantive information on which voters can base an informed decision.

The legal establishment and the political ruling class don’t want you to get informed; they prefer to keep you in the dark, or failing that, convince you NOT to exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and soon-to-be-minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Published September 27, 2010 | By CTBC Director

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

Late last Friday afternoon, Clear The Bench Colorado was stunned by the news that Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer (as an executive branch employee, answerable to the governor and not subject to a retention vote himself) set aside the documentary evidence, testimony by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold along with the Elections Division director at the Colorado Secretary of State’s office AND the clear letter of the law to rule in favor of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) in what the same judge had earlier characterized as a “frivolous, groundless, & vexatious” attack (er, “campaign finance complaint”).

Despite reliance on over a year’s worth of guidance issued by the office of Secretary of State (as confirmed in numerous documents and in witness testimony provided in hearings on 15 September) reached after “numerous” internal policy meetings and much research that Clear The Bench Colorado was, is, and ought to be properly characterized as an “Issue Committee” under campaign finance rules; CTBC’s scrupulous compliance with all rules, regulations, and reporting requirements for over a year; and dismissal of CEW’s earlier complaint as “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” – the judge changed course and found for CEW in their latest round of attacks, changing the rules in the final quarter of play.

Changing the rules at such a late date – mail ballots go out at the same time Clear The Bench Colorado has been directed to re-file as a political committee – and in direct contravention of the guidance upon which CTBC has relied for well over a year makes a mockery of the process of citizen civic engagement. As noted by Clear The Bench Colorado lead attorney Scott Gessler,

“That’s just crazy, that ruling,” said Gessler. “What kind of crazy system is that, when you can’t trust what the Secretary of State tells you? [This ruling] means you have to hire a lawyer to do anything- to get involved at all in the political process.” (Colorado Independent, 9/25/2010)

From documentation provided by the office of Secretary of State:

Colorado campaign finance and Judicial retention

While judges are considered “candidates” for the purpose of campaign finance law in Art. XXVIII Sec. 2(2) of the Colorado Constitution, the question of the retention of a judge is a yes-or-no question. Therefore, a committee organized for the purpose of advocating the retention or removal of a judge is advocating for a yes or no vote on that question, rather than advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate. A committee organized for such a purpose is akin to a committee advocating for (or against) the recall of an elected official, which would register an issue committee under 1-45-108(6), C.R.S. To that end, a committee established for the purpose of supporting or opposing the retention of a judge or judges is properly registered as an issue committee for campaign finance purposes. Such an entity would not be considered a political committee, because political committees are established for the purpose of “support[ing] or oppos[ing] the nomination or election of one or more candidates” (Art. XXVII Sec. 2(12)(a)). [emphasis added]

Adding insult to injury, the judge’s ruling is granting “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) more time to pay Clear The Bench Colorado what they’ve owed since July than time for Clear The Bench Colorado to re-file under “political committee” status or to appeal the ruling.

Naturally, Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) is trumpeting the ruling as a great victory, declaring in a press release Friday:

“The law does not permit a wealthy few to unduly influence the judicial retention process through large contributions against judges and justices whose rulings they don’t like. Ethics Watch prevailed today in setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”

Ironically, the ruling “achieves” the exact opposite: big-money special interests will now be more prone to attempt to influence judicial retention elections behind the scenes, using vehicles other than the open and accountable “Issue Committee” organization types such as Clear The Bench Colorado.

In fact, big-money legal establishment special-interest groups are already active this year in promoting a “retain” vote for judicial incumbents (including, prominently, the three Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the ballot this year). They’re just significantly less honest about their intentions…

In a campaign that has been conspicuous for its LACK of big-money interests and “large contributions” (Toro is whining about two – TWO! – contributions exceeding $500), acting with complete transparency and absolute accountability to educate voters as to their right to hold judicial incumbents accountable for their performance in office, and to shed light on the records of judicial incumbents at the highest levels in order to provide substantive information on which voters can base an informed decision, CEW’s attacks (and the judge’s ruling in this case) do the Colorado electorate a great disservice.

CEW’s Toro is right about one thing: “Judges are… subject to corruption” via the influence of big-money special interests keeping them in office.

The expenditure of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) by legal establishment special-interest groups comprised of the very lawyers appearing before the judges they are supporting in office is much more likely to exert “undue influence” and raise the potential for “quid pro quo” corruption.

The Colorado Bar Association (COBAR) has already spent over $50,000 this last month (by their own admission) joining three other legal establishment special-interest groups (likely spending a similar amount, although the exact figures have not been made publicly available) in mounting an “education” campaign (electioneering without using the “magic words” of “vote yes” or “vote NO“) to prop up incumbent judges and justices. In one month alone, they’ve spent more than CTBC has in a year. Combined, these special interests are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in television, radio, and print ads providing “nonpartisan information about the performance of judges seeking retention” that, curiously, ALL supports a “retain” vote.

Another effort, sponsored by prominent Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin and other partisan attorneys (the “Colorado Judiciary Project”) is also spending large amounts (again, because this group formed as a “social welfare organization” their expenditures are NOT publicly available) supporting the judicial incumbents before whom they argue cases. Conflict of interest? Nah!

Ironically, these legal special-interest efforts come on top of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars used to produce and distribute the one-sided and shallow “reviews” perpetrated by the (taxpayer-funded) commissions on judicial performance evaluation – which, again, advocate 100% of the time to “retain” Colorado Supreme Court justices in office.

NONE of these expenditures – hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the retention of judicial incumbents in office – are transparent and accountable to the public.

Did Friday’s ruling really succeed in “setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”?

Hardly. It just provided cover for the big money that’s already comfortably ensconced in the process – erecting additional roadblocks to shedding light on the fact, and restoring accountability to the judiciary.

Yet another reason that now more than ever – it’s time to Clear The Bench, Colorado!

Friday Funnies: Sick Puppies at Pols, Barry takes my bet – reaction to Monica Marquez pick for Colorado Supreme Court

Published September 10, 2010 | By CTBC Director

Reaction to Governor Ritter’s selection of Deputy Attorney General Monica Marquez to become Colorado’s next supreme court justice (replacing outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would resign rather than be held accountable by voters this November) and concerns expressed by Clear The Bench Colorado regarding her positions on important constitutional questions ( Marquez advocated in favor of the 2003 judicial takeover of legislative redistricting authority in the Salazar v. Davidson redistricting case, argued that “fees” are not taxes in the Barber v. Ritter case (which led to the 2009 Colorado Car Tax – er, vehicle registration “fee” – increases), has sought to restrict the 1^st Amendment rights of citizens seeking to speak out on ballot issues in recent and ongoing cases, and is also the lead attorney in yet another attempt to impose an unconstitutional tax increase on Colorado Citizens) ranged from the superficial (short spots on most local television: CBS4, KDVR31) to the basic (“Ritter picks Monica Marquez for Colorado Supreme Court“, Denver Post) to the informative (“Monica Marquez Supreme Court selection disappoints Clear the Bench’s Matt Arnold“, Westword) to the predictably shrill and misleading (left-wing propaganda outlet Colorado “not-so” Independent accusing CTBC of a “diatribe” against Marquez and making up non-existent “attacks on her ethnicity or sexual orientation” – the last refuge of scoundrels: playing the race and sex card).

It took the juvenile minds (er, mouths) at Colorado Pols, though, to come completely unhinged in their response. Going off the deep end and reaching a new low in rabid incoherence, the puerile Pols piece (“Clear the Bench” Blows the Dog Whistle – does that make sense to anyone sentient?) perceived a “code-word reference” in the Clear The Bench Colorado critique of Marquez’ positions on constitutional interpretation and exclusively advocacy-based career path. (Code words? Can they even perceive how fringe and paranoid that sounds?) Attempting to sling mud (er, doggie droppings) by insinuating “just beneath the surface, you can see it’s a bit ugly” makes them look like – well, a bunch of sick puppies.

On a more humorous (and uplifting) note – among the many calls I fielded for interviews yesterday was a lengthy and wide-ranging chat with Colorado Springs Gazette house liberal Barry Noreen (at the end of our conversation, I told him that he’s really a closet libertarian in many respects, which got a chuckle). I’m curious to see what he ends up writing, since we wandered off-topic a bit; I think that he was trying to get a sense of what drives me personally (and motivates Clear The Bench Colorado). No decoder ring necessary – it’s about upholding and defending constitutional principles and the rule of law. He did end up taking my bet (offered in response to an earlier, and more adversarial, critique he had mailed, when he asserted “these justices will be retained with ease”). Our bet: if any of the Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot is non-retained, or squeaks by with 60% or less of the total vote, I win; otherwise, he wins. (The stakes: a six-pack of beer, winner’s choice).

Looking forward to enjoying some beer on Barry, after November 2nd – and it won’t be the cheap stuff. ;-)

Colorado voters have the chance to make history, stand up in defense of our constitutional rights (and don’t forget, get Barry to buy me beer) this year. Exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice; soon minus ringleader Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

CEW and Colorado “not-so” Independent continue tag-team “disingenuous” spin on campaign finance reporting, continuing baseless (and erroneous) attacks on Clear The Bench Colorado

Published May 24, 2010 | By CTBC Director

“First they ignore you; Then they ridicule you; Then they attack you; Then you win.” Mohandas K. (Mahatma) Gandhi

Clear The Bench Colorado is firmly within the 3rd phase of Gandhi’s aphorism; following the filing earlier this month of an unfounded “campaign finance complaint” by notorious leftist attack group “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) “picked up” as “news” primarily by the left-wing propaganda outlet Colorado “not-so” Independent, the CEW/CnsI tag team continues to spin any related news developments into yet another attack on Clear The Bench Colorado.

The most recent example turned up in an article published earlier today by the Colorado “not-so” Independent previewing the scheduled signing by Governor Ritter of “three influential bills into law Tuesday” (“influential bills?” where did the CnsI reporter learn to write?) in which the reporter really had to stretch to create a connection with which to attack Clear The Bench Colorado:

Another bill will require campaign issue committees to disclose the same donor information as candidate committees. Colorado Ethics Watch recently highlighted the topic in pointing out possible problems of mis-categorization, arguing that issue committee Clear the Bench Colorado, which is asking Coloradans to vote supreme court justices off the bench, is about candidates not any one issue, and that it should be confined to candidate finance restrictions. Ethics Watch says the practice of non-disclosure of large donations to judicial campaigns could allow criminals to purchase safe judicial havens. The new bill would require disclosure.

One problem: the bill in question (HB10-1370) does not mean what the reporter thinks it means. (Inconceivable!) ”Donor information” is NOT a subject of the bill at all; the “Disclosure Requirements” included in the bill simply refer to formalization of a mandate to include the name of the sponsoring Issue Committee on any communications in order to avoid “perception of purposefully anonymous interests attempting to influence the outcome of the election”:

1-45-108.3. Issue committees – disclaimer. (1) AN ISSUE COMMITTEE MAKING AN EXPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ON A COMMUNICATION THAT SUPPORTS OR OPPOSES A STATEWIDE BALLOT ISSUE OR BALLOT QUESTION AND THAT IS BROADCAST BY TELEVISION OR RADIO, PRINTED IN A NEWSPAPER OR ON A BILLBOARD, DIRECTLY MAILED OR DELIVERED BY HAND TO PERSONAL RESIDENCES, OR OTHERWISE DISTRIBUTED SHALL DISCLOSE, IN THE COMMUNICATION PRODUCED BY THE EXPENDITURE, THE NAME OF THE ISSUE COMMITTEE MAKING THE EXPENDITURE.

Clear The Bench Colorado has ALWAYS – even in the absence of any formal requirement to do so – included the name of the organization (along with contact information, including our website) on all of our communications, because we believe in and practice transparency and integrity (full disclosure). Clear The Bench Colorado has never felt the need to hide behind “anonymous interests attempting to influence the outcome of elections… through the expenditure of large sums of money.”

Ironically, the integrity and transparency of the Clear The Bench Colorado movement to restore accountability to our judiciary contrasts markedly with “the practice of non-disclosure of large donations to judicial campaigns [which] could allow criminals to purchase safe judicial havens” exemplified by the recent formation of the 501(c)4 organization formed by former justice Dubofsky and Democrat lawyer Grueskin to defend incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices in response to the growing momentum and resonance of Clear The Bench Colorado, as that organization does NOT have to disclose sources of funding to the public. They are completely unaccountable.

Strangely, “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) seems to have no issue with the “expenditure of large sums of money” to influence judicial elections by such anonymous, unaccountable organizations.

It is time for “We The People” to restore accountability to our judiciary - exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Help to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses Colorado Supreme Court on the John Caldara Show May 12th

Published May 15, 2010 | By CTBC Director

Need more reasons why voting “NO” on the four Colorado Supreme Court justices up for re-election this year are the MOST important votes you can cast in this very important year for Colorado Politics?

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discussed the impact of Colorado Supreme Court rulings leading to a massive expansion of government power (at the expense of YOUR constitutional rights) and vastly increased taxation (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases and of course the Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase, along with the dominant role of the Colorado Supreme Court in determining the boundaries of our legislative districts (at both the State and Federal level) – deciding how YOU will be represented in Congress and in the Colorado Legislature – on the Jon Caldara radio show Wednesday May 12th.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold also discussed the recent formation of a heavily-funded (but unaccountable to the public) organization formed specifically to defend incumbent judges as a counter to the growing momentum and success of Clear The Bench Colorado in raising public awareness of the issue of judicial accountability, as well as the “cheap political stunt” of the groundless “campaign finance complaint” filed by the left-wing attack group “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) and the Colorado Secretary of State office’s characterization of the CEW complaint and CEW Director Luis Toro’s comments as “disingenuous” (which is a polite way of saying, “lying through his teeth”).

Listen to the podcast of the show

The Colorado Supreme Court – and particularly, the Chief Justice – exercises enormous power (”clout”) over the lives of Colorado citizens. The current majority has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not exercise this power with restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights – ruling consistently against individual protections and in favor of expanded government power. Upholding tax increases (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, or the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws) imposed without the required vote of the people, enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” (such as the Colorado Car Tax), expanding eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, and grabbing the (legislative) power to draw up voting districts (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) – this court is acting like rulers, with you as the subjects; re-writing the laws, instead of upholding them.

Be a citizen, not a subject - exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Colorado Secretary of State’s Office Responds to Colorado Ethics Watch Complaint, Slams CEW Director Toro as “Disingenuous”

Published May 12, 2010 | By CTBC Director

Despite the best efforts of the “progressive” spin machine (aided and abetted by pretend news organization the “Colorado Independent”), developments in the spurious “campaign finance complaint” by notorious leftist attack dogs “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) against the grassroots judicial accountability organization Clear The Bench Colorado continue to blow up in the attack group’s face.

After several publications noted the complaint’s complete lack of merit and characterization as a “cheap political stunt” (since Clear The Bench Colorado followed the Colorado Secretary of State’s guidance in filing (correctly) as an Issue Committee), the fake journalists (actually paid propagandists) of the Colorado Independent shifted the spin (and attack) to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office. In an article basically accusing the nonpartisan, professional staff at the SOS’s office of sheer incompetence (“SOS Staffers gave bad advice to Clear The Bench“), “Independent” writer John Tomasic attempts to spin coverage of the CEW complaint away from the facts of the case to highlight CEW Director Toro’s charge that “SOS staffers… provided demonstrable bad advice” to Clear The Bench Colorado.

Toro’s baseless accusation – and the Colorado Independent’s shoddy “reporting” – drew the ire of the unjustly accused staffers at the Colorado Secretary of State’s office. In a strongly worded response sent to the Independent (obtained by Clear The Bench Colorado sources), the office fired back, debunking both the basis of the CEW complaint and CEW Director Toro’s playing fast and loose with the facts in the complaint and in his public statements (characterizing his comments as “disingenuous”, which is a polite way of saying “lying through your teeth”):

As we discussed on the phone, attached is a copy of the agenda for the Campaign Finance Advisory Panel from June 18, 2009. The second topic on this particular agenda deals specifically with judicial retention committees. This advisory panel is comprised of people like Martha Tierney, Mark Grueskin, Ryan Call and Richard Westfall, not to mention groups like Ethics Watch, League of Women Voters and Common Cause. The goal is to vet rulemaking and identify campaign finance issues before they become big legal issues. In fact, members mostly raise key issues and are encouraged to do so.

I have to take issue with Toro’s review of events related to this decision. Either Toro just plain forgot about this advisory panel meeting or he’s being disingenuous in his comments because Ethics Watch was represented at that meeting and participated in this discussion. To insinuate that our staff makes these kinds of policy decisions in a vacuum is simply not fair or accurate. We find this advisory panel to be incredibly useful in reviewing and discussing policies.

All attempts by CEW and the “Independent” to spin the facts aside – the Secretary of State’s office carefully considered the facts, invited debate and discussion (with participation from a variety of groups across the political spectrum, including “Colorado Ethics Watch”) and reached the considered conclusion that Clear The Bench Colorado should file as an Issue Committee. Case closed.

Now more than ever - stand with Clear The Bench Colorado in defense of your constitutional rights. Exercise your right to vote “NO” on the 4 ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business from against eminent domain abuse, your right to fair representation in government, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on retaining these unjust justices on the bench for another 10-year term!

Former Colorado Supreme Court justice (and current full-time activist) Jean Dubofsky & Democrat Party lawyer Mark Grueskin roll out the big bucks to counter Clear The Bench Colorado

Published May 10, 2010 | By CTBC Director

Coming close on the heels of a spurious “campaign finance complaint” by notorious leftist attack yap dogs “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) against the grassroots judicial accountability organization Clear The Bench Colorado, the announcement this weekend (at the Colorado Bar Association board of governors meeting) of a well-funded group formed specifically to counter the growing momentum and success of Clear The Bench Colorado in raising public awareness of the issue of judicial accountability in Colorado provides a nice ironic twist.

(The COBAR even claimed – with a straight face – to be “neutral” on the Clear The Bench Colorado campaign, despite placing “Item No. 13, [Executive Director] Chuck Turner’s report on the status of the “Clear the Bench” campaign on the agenda.”) Neutral? Rrriiiiiiggghhhttt…

The story was broken in an article posted by Law Week Colorado earlier today (“Dubofsky said to plan response to Colo. Judge Non-Retention Campaign“):

Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky and Democratic Party lawyer Mark Grueskin are forming a nonprofit group to educate voters about the judicial performance evaluation process in light of an anti-retention campaigned led by Clear The Bench.

Dubofsky’s and Grueskin’s move to form a 501(c)4 organization was disclosed Saturday at the semi-annual meeting of the Colorado Bar Association board of governors. The name of the group wasn’t revealed.

The formation of this organization is certainly an interesting development in light of the baseless complaint filed by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) bemoaning the “potentially unlimited funds” that could flow to Clear The Bench Colorado due to the Secretary of State’s office having designated Clear The Bench Colorado as an Issue Committee.

Unlike Issue Committees – which must operate under the disclosure requirements of Colorado campaign finance law, providing transparency of funding and expenditures – the 501(c)4 organization formed by Dubofsky and Democrat lawyer Grueskin does NOT have to disclose sources of funding to the public. They are completely unaccountable.

Will “Colorado Ethics Watch” file a complaint against this shadowy organization for the “corrupting influence” of the huge sums of money it will expend in support of the retention of incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices?

Don’t hold your breath.

“Colorado Ethics Watch”, the “Colorado Independent” (which is an anything but “independent” left-wing propaganda mouthpiece, tasked with providing a veneer of “news” coverage respectability to political spin and mudslinging attacks), and now the latest (as yet un-named) addition of the shadowy Dubofsky/Grueskin Colorado Supreme Court incumbent protection group, are all part of the network of left-wing (“progressive”) organizations known as the “Colorado Democracy Alliance” (CoDA), formed to dominate all aspects of Colorado government. Operating at the edges of public awareness (skirting transparency, public accountability, and the ragged edges of campaign finance and other laws), these groups coordinate their actions towards advancing the “progressive” agenda statewide (with significant success so far; read The Colorado Model (by Fred Barnes) and, more recently, The Blueprint (by former Rep. Rob Witwer & Reporter Adam Schrager) for an analysis of the success of these groups in Colorado – and beyond).

In a way, I suppose it’s flattering – all of these groups and resources (and massive amounts of money) arrayed against little ol’ me: Underdog (er, Clear The Bench Colorado).

Not bird nor plane nor even frog…

Friday Funnies – Clear The Bench Colorado celebrity spokespup contributes to Gulf Coast oil spill cleanup efforts

Published May 7, 2010 | By CTBC Director

Whew! The Clear The Bench Colorado crew has had a busy week… time for a humor break.

First, a quick recap of “the week that was”:

Although the “Mary-mandering” bill to enable the legislature to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities for Congressional redistricting to the courts advanced out of the House (where a legislator’s use of the term “Mary-mandering” to – correctly – describe the bill in floor debate raised a bit of a stir) to the Senate this week, it has not (yet!) come to a final vote. Perhaps just as well, since many of our legislators appear to have little knowledge of how the judges who will be taking over for them in exercising this important responsibility are appointed to the bench.

Fortunately, despite legislative ignorance (and willingness to turn over responsibility to others), there are some good judges out there who apparently believe in exercising their proper role of applying and upholding the law – as a 3-judge panel on the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the University of Colorado’s illegal ban on licensed concealed carry.

Finally, on the same day (May 5th) as hearing the good news that the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of upholding state statute, Clear The Bench Colorado received the even better news of an attack (er, “Campaign Finance Complaint”) by the ludicrously misnamed “Colorado Ethics Watch” organization (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do). We’ve enjoyed watching CEW’s “cheap political stunt” and “pathetic political ploy” (as noted by other respectable new organizations) backfire, as their complaint is laughably baseless and without legal merit – and we can think of no greater endorsement of our actual ethical compliance and political effectiveness (they are scared, aren’t they?) than being attacked by this completely discredited smear group. (Have they actually ever won a case?)

But on to more important things…

Clear The Bench Colorado celebrity spokespup Nola has been following the news about the oil spill threatening her birthplace (New Orleans) along with the rest of the Gulf Coast with increasing concern. Witnessing another episode of government ineffectiveness (that time, predominantly city & state government failures – along with a less-than-stellar Federal response – this time, despite lessons learned from Katrina and improvements to our response capabilities, an even worse Federal government failure to act) she decided that she would step up as a private citizen to do her part.

dsc_1714nolaasks Nola asks, “what are YOU doing to help our country?”

Nola went in for a trim in order to donate her most prolific resource (hair!) to help save the Gulf Coast. She also collected the hair trimmings of countless canine companions to send in to help – contributing to help form some of the most effective (and eco-friendly) oil-absorptive measures ever designed & used: the “Oil Spill Hair Mat” (for more information on this citizen-designed innovation, and now you can help, check out the “hair mats info” page here).

Become an informed, involved, and active citizen (Nola does her part; can you do less?). Conduct your own evaluation of ANY official (including judges) asking for your vote, based on how (and whether) they follow the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Better informed, Yes, you can exercise your right to vote “NO” on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business from eminent domain abuse, your right to fair representation in legislative districts, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions – and vote “NO” on retaining these unjust justices in the upcoming November elections!

CEW complaint against Clear The Bench Colorado noted as a “cheap political stunt” by news coverage, showcases desperation tactics of status quo defenders of Colorado Supreme Court

Published May 6, 2010 | By CTBC Director

“First they ignore you; Then they ridicule you; Then they attack you; Then you win.” Mohandas K. (Mahatma) Gandhi

Clear The Bench Colorado has now officially graduated to the 3rd phase of Gandhi’s aphorism, after yesterday’s filing of an unfounded “campaign finance complaint” by notorious leftist attack yap dogs “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do).

The left-wing attack machine was arrayed in full force yesterday, in a concerted (coordinated?) barrage of allegations, insinuations, and misleading statements chock full of omissions – attempting to create an “echo chamber” effect for CEW’s slung mud by publishing CEW’s press release more or less verbatim in multiple venues as “news”. The artificial echo chamber (echo-turf?) continued today with no less than two articles published in the Colorado Independent (formerly known as Colorado Confidential) (Campaign to replace state Supreme Court justices draws ethics complaint and “In a firey (sic) blog post Clear The Bench dismisses ethics complaint as politics“) along with a number of other websites & blogs barely worthy of mention.

Granted, it’s hard to take seriously a publication that can’t even spell “fiery” correctly [UPDATE: the headline has since been fixed, but the URL retains the original mis-spelling] but fortunately some real journalists (and reputable publications) have also picked up on the story.

Actually, the spurious CEW complaint was first brought to the attention of Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold by a phone call from reporter Michael Roberts of Denver’s Westword alternative weekly seeking comment (proving that good investigative journalism still has ONE home in Denver print media). Obviously attempting to steal a march (along the lines of Mark Twain’s quote “a lie travels around the world before the truth gets its boots on“), CEW issued a press release at the same time they dropped the complaint in the mail (and, after reviewing the complaint, it’s apparent that CEW spent more time on the press release than on the substance of the complaint – which is so baseless that it’s not even worth awarding a day in court).

Roberts’ Westword article this morning highlights the “pathetic political ploy” perpetrated by CEW, and notes that Clear The Bench Colorado followed the Secretary of State’s guidance in filing as an Issue Committee:

“When we were exploring the type of committee to file under, we asked the Secretary of State for guidance, and they recommended that we file as an issues committee. And we followed their guidance.”

Moreover, Arnold argues that “Colorado Ethics Watch knows about this.”

“They telegraphed their punch,” says Arnold, who hadn’t heard about the complaint until he was contacted by Westword. “Now that we’re becoming successful and starting to bring in larger amounts of dollars, they decided they’re going to go after us.”

Roberts closes his article by quoting Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold’s statement that “it’s a clear sign of desperation — and a clear sign that they’re very concerned about the success of Clear the Bench Colorado.”

Another (reputable) publication covering the issue is the legal affairs journal Law Week Online. After getting suckered into printing the CEW press release yesterday (and missing CTBC’s response due to a communications snafu), Law Week Online published a more balanced and comprehensive article this afternoon, getting the whole story both directly from Clear The Bench Colorado and from the Secretary of State’s office. The Law Week article also highlights the nature of the CEW complaint as a “cheap political stunt” and confirmed the accuracy of our response:

“They [Ethics Watch] know very well that the Secretary of State issued guidance with Clear the Bench Colorado to file as an issue committee,” Clear the Bench director Matt Arnold told Law Week Colorado.

“This is a sign of desperation on their side. They are concerned that we are gaining momentum. They are concerned about the resonance and welcome we are receiving from Colorado citizens that are becoming aware of this very important issue.”

Clear the Bench posted a longer response to the complaint on its website.

Arnold’s claim that he received guidance from the Secretary of State’s office is substantiated [emphasis added] by an e-mail the office shared with Law Week, posted below. According to the e-mail, members of the Secretary of State’s campaign finance team rejected Clear the Bench’s original filing as a political committee on the grounds that its stated purpose of “Judicial Retention” was “too vague and would also classify them as an issue committee.”

Finally, Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold was contacted by the Denver Post’s judicial beat reporter Felisa Cardona (who, back in February, wrote the front-page Post article noting that “Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in elections” as she follows the story. It remains to be seen whether her bosses at the Denver Post will allow her to publish a follow-up article or if they’ll continue to favor the interests of their largest rent-paying tenant over the interests of truth and news coverage (the Post appears to remain stuck in Gandhi’s first phase – c’mon, guys, wake up and smell the story!). [Ed. as of press time, not a peep from the Post]

So, to summarize: CEW’s latest attack fits an ongoing pattern of unsuccessful, politically motivated “ethics” complaints designed to distract, disorient, and sling mud in the (vain) hope that something might stick. Ultimately, they don’t care if they win or lose the case (their lopsided loss-win ratio bears this out), since their priorities are (1) smear, (2) frame the media debate and gain attention, (3) divert resources & attention, (4) intimidate, and (5) maybe (if they get lucky) occasionally win a case.