Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Supreme Court to hear 1st Amendment challenge to state’s campaign finance laws

Published May 7, 2013 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Supreme Court hears arguments tomorrow (Weds, 8 May 2013) in a 1st Amendment challenge to the state’s campaign finance laws (pursuant to a request to clarify the “scope & meaning” of Colorado campaign finance laws in an order issued by a Federal judge late last year).  According to a statement issued last Fall by the Center for Competitive Politics,

Senior Judge John L. Kane of the United States Court for the District of Colorado asked the state Supreme Court to “provide clear guidance… as to the scope and meaning” of provisions that have been challenged under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The request for clarification to the Colorado Supreme Court was issued due to a lawsuit challenging the state’s campaign finance laws as an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment.  The case, Coalition for Secular Government v. Gessler, No. 12-cv-1708, was filed in Federal court earlier in 2012.

The legal challenge raises important questions about political free speech, as summarized in the article, “Colorado’s Opportunity to Protect First Amendment Rights” (earlier published as a guest commentary on the Clear The Bench Colorado judicial accountability organization’s website) and as listed below.

Questions certified by the Federal judge (asked of the Colorado Supreme Court for clarification) include:

  •  Does the Colorado Constitution treat money spent on a policy paper, including one that suggests how the reader should vote on a ballot initiative, as the equivalent of money spent on political ads?
  • Does the state constitution entitle policy papers distributed over the internet to be treated in the same way as newspaper and magazine editorials for purposes of campaign finance law?
  • In light of a federal decision declaring certain groups too small to be regulated by the state of Colorado, what is the monetary trigger for an issue committee under the state constitution? Is it the roughly-$1,000 mentioned in the federal opinion? The $3,500 contemplated by CSG? The $200 mentioned in the constitution itself? Or another number altogether?

Colorado’s campaign finance laws are frequently used by well-funded special-interest groups as a tool to suppress political speech by grassroots organizations – facilitated by the odd fact that enforcement of the law is NOT prosecuted by the state, but rather by the individual (or organization) filing the complaint (effectively, it takes lawyers, time, and money to hold violators accountable for breaking the law).

Attempts at reforming Colorado’s campaign finance laws are invariably met with resistance from special-interest groups, many of whom are not subject to the same reporting and disclosure requirements that they support imposing on others.

Fortunately, some have fought for the preservation of political free speech, and have won some hard-fought victories in court.  One such recent court case originating in Colorado, Sampson v. Buescher, resulted in a Federal court (10th Circuit) holding certain sections of Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, provisions of Article XXVIII (the $200 trigger on reporting contributions) were held to unduly burden the rights of free association and free speech protected under the 1st Amendment, among our most cherished rights.

The Center for Competitive Politics statement sums it up nicely:

“For years, organizations in Colorado have been unsure how to comply with Colorado’s campaign finance rules, or have been subject to politically-motivated complaints for making minor errors,” CCP Legal Director Allen Dickerson said. “Some choose not to speak at all in the face of this situation. The Colorado Supreme Court now has the option of bringing a measure of predictability to some of the state constitution’s more difficult provisions.”

Our View:

Clarification of the confusing cloud of campaign finance laws in Colorado that challenge the Constitution, chill free speech, and curtail civic participation is not only welcome – it’s long overdue.

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 to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive 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.

Are Colorado’s “official” judicial performance reviewers violating state election laws?

Published November 5, 2012 | By CTBC Director

Colorado’s “official” judicial performance reviewers – the state’s “Commissions on Judicial Performance” and the “Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation” (COJPE) – are charged under state statute to

…establish a system of evaluating judicial performance to provide persons voting on the retention of justices and judges with fair, responsible, and constructive information about judicial performance… (C.R.S. 13-5.5-101)

Although one can certainly argue about whether the commissions, and COJPE, have fulfilled their mandate (Clear The Bench Colorado is among the many critics – including several former judicial performance commissioners –  who find the “reviews” or “narratives” produced by the commissions and COJPE actually provide little information of substance to help inform voters), not even advocates of the commissions and COJPE would seriously advance the notion that either is above, or not otherwise subject to, state law.

Yet the commissions, and COJPE – aided and abetted by others within the legal/judicial industrial complex – have repeatedly acted as though Colorado’s elections and campaign finance laws do not apply to them.

Many Colorado voters may remember the massively-funded (approaching or even exceeding $250,000) “Know Your Judge” campaign established to counter Clear The Bench Colorado‘s success in raising voter awareness during the 2010 election cycle.  Although the “Know Your Judge” campaign (self-described AS a “campaign”) raised and spent “big money” to influence elections, they did NOT register a campaign committee (a requirement under state law) even though they ran thousands of ads in support of candidates on the ballot. (Ironically, the “Know Your Judge” campaign escaped sanctions for their violations of state law in large part by claiming that their campaign advertisements were a purely “educational effort.”  Curiously, the legal-establishment special-interest groups funding the “Know Your Judge” campaign haven’t continued their “purely educational” efforts this year…)

The violations committed by the “Know Your Judge” campaign, blatant and brazen as they were, pale in comparison to the systematic and comprehensive violations of Colorado’s prohibition of electioneering activities perpetrated on an ongoing basis by the commissions and the COJPE in every election cycle.

Colorado election law prohibits

 …any electioneering on the day of any election within any polling place or in any public street or room or in any public manner within one hundred feet of any building in which a polling place is located, as publicly posted by the designated election official. As used in this section, the term “electioneering” includes campaigning for or against any candidate who is on the ballot or any ballot issue or ballot question that is on the ballot. (C.R.S. 1-13-714, Electioneering)

Since the “Blue Book” materials include the commissions’ and COJPE’s “Reviews of Judicial Performance” with “recommendations” advocating votes for “any candidate who is on the ballot” for judicial office, the presence of those materials at polling places constitutes a violation of Colorado election law.

As reported by the Law Week Colorado weekly (“ Judicial Branch Critic Files Election Complaint“), the Colorado Secretary of State’s office is investigating a complaint filed by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold noting that

“(COJPE and CJP) are systematically violating the prohibition on Electioneering activities by having their “recommendations” (advocating a vote) for candidates for judicial office (“retention”) placed at polling locations throughout the state.”
Adding insult to injury, these state offices – by using taxpayer money to advocate in election campaigns – are breaking another state law

by utilizing state (taxpayer) resources to produce and disseminate the electioneering materials, these organizations are violating state law (C.R.S. 1-45-117, State and political subdivisions – limitations on contributions) prohibiting the use of state funds to advocate “in campaigns involving the nomination, retention, or election of any person to any public office…”

 Why do we have political appointees (judicial performance commissioners are appointed by the governor, attorney general, state legislators and the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court – the latter seeming to have a conflict of interest) using taxpayer money to tell Coloradans how to vote?

What can you do about it? If you observe a “Blue Book” at your early vote center, mail-in ballot drop-off location or Election Day Polling Place, ask the election judges on site to remove the offending material, and file a complaint of electioneering activity with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office using this simple form: http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/HAVA/files/HAVA_complaint_form_05-15-08.pdf

You CAN make a difference – take a stand for election integrity and against the waste of your tax dollars by government officials trying to tell you how to vote.

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 to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive 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.

Speaking Out on Reforming Colorado’s Campaign Finance Laws

Published December 19, 2011 | By CTBC Director

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 15 December 1791

Abridging the freedom of speech – particularly political speech – has a long and sordid history, as the ruling ‘Establishment’ or entrenched special interests seek to suppress criticism and competition.

In “modern” and “civilized” times, the tools of repressing political speech have “evolved” from the brute force of physically preventing anyone from speaking out to the more subtle and “sophisticated” methods of legislating limits, building bureaucratic barriers, and piling on paperwork for “permission” in order to exercise what is a fundamental right.

A confusing cloud of campaign finance laws in Colorado challenge the Constitution, chill free speech, and curtail civic participation.

On Thursday December 15th, the office of Colorado Secretary of State held open hearings to receive public testimony (chaired by Secretary of State Scott Gessler) on rules changes oriented towards clarifying and reforming Colorado’s unconstitutional campaign finance laws.

A number of people – both supporting and opposing specific rules changes, and/or speaking out more generally on the topic of the impact of campaign finance laws on political speech and civic participation – submitted written comments, showed up in person to testify, or both.

Curiously, the people supporting the reforms to campaign finance rules largely spoke as individuals or as representatives of small, grassroot organizations, while those opposing the rules reforms almost uniformly represented well-established politically-active special interest groups (see below for list).

A common theme emerged regarding the complexity of existing campaign laws, and the resultant cost, burden and difficulty of compliance.

Some people – such as Colorado state senator John Morse – think that’s just “the price of transparency”:

(Video courtesy of Ari Armstrong of Free Colorado)

Organizations opposing rules changes to reform campaign finance laws at the hearing:

Curiously, none of these politically active organizations – NOT ONE – is subject to the same reporting and disclosure requirements that they support imposing on others.
(NOTE: the state Democrat and Republican parties are subject to some campaign finance reporting and disclosure requirements, but differ in some details)

In fact, the Colorado Statesman profiled some of these groups in a pair of articles last year:

Testifying in favor of rules changes to reform campaign finance laws at the hearing:


Clear The Bench Colorado director Matt Arnold testifies in favor of reforming Colorado campaign laws

The Revised Draft of Proposed Rules is posted on the Secretary of State’s website, along with written comments submitted in support or opposition.  Interested individuals or groups can still submit written comments to the Secretary of State’s office until Friday, 23 December.

Other videos on how Colorado campaign laws adversely impact free speech:

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 to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive 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.

Reforming Colorado’s Unconstitutional Campaign Finance Laws

Published December 14, 2011 | By CTBC Director

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 15 December 1791

Abridging the freedom of speech – particularly political speech – has a long and sordid history, as the ruling ‘Establishment’ or entrenched special interests seek to suppress criticism and competition.

Techniques have evolved from outright bans, gag orders, and brutal repression to a more subtle and “civilized” approach: suppression by regulation and legal intimidation.

In today’s Colorado, for example, your right to engage in free speech on political issues is not banned - perish the thought! – although to practically and effectively exercise that right, by collecting and spending money to reach a mass audience, you’ll first need to fill out a few forms…

Actually, you’ll need to do far more than that.  Under Colorado’s campaign finance regime, if you wish to speak out on issues or questions that may appear on the ballot, you’ll need to form and register an “Issue Committee” – as defined in Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII, § 2(10)(a):

(10) (a) “Issue committee” means any person, other than a natural person, or any group of two or more persons, including natural persons:
(I) That has a major purpose of supporting or opposing any ballot issue or ballot question; or
(II) That has accepted or made contributions or expenditures in excess of two hundred dollars to support or oppose any ballot issue or ballot question.
(b) “Issue committee” does not include political parties, political committees, small donor committees, or candidate committees as otherwise defined in this section.

Colorado’s ‘Campaign Finance Laws’ challenge the Constitution, chill free speech, and curtail civic participation

The amount of paperwork and resources (time and/or money) required in order to simply exercise a fundamental right (freedom of speech) is significant, and itself exerts a chilling effect on civic or political participation.  Individuals and small groups, particularly those becoming active for the first time, face a daunting amount of red tape: establishing and registering a committee, opening a separate bank account, keeping detailed financial records, filing frequent and detailed reports of contributions and expenditures – all under threat of fines and other legal sanctions for mistakes, no matter how minor.

Even if they DO follow the rules to the letter, committees may STILL be forced to defend their right of civic participation in court, thanks to the proliferation of legal attack groups (such as the grossly misnamed “Colorado Ethics Watch” – CEW, pronounced “sue”, it’s what they do) that exist solely for the purpose of harassing and diverting resources from ideologically opposed organizations.  The cost of defending against such attacks is another deterrent to participation.  Even a successful defense can cost tens of thousands, and even defeating an attack so completely without merit (in legalese, a “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” complaint such as the CEW attack on Clear The Bench Colorado) that the judge takes the rare step of awarding attorneys fees to the defense can divert scarce resources (and take months, if not years, to collect). [Ed. to date, CEW still refuses to pay what they owe to CTBC, continuing to contest the judgment against them all the way to the Colorado Court of Appeals]

Origins of Colorado’s Campaign Finance Regime

Interestingly, many of these restrictions on freedom of (political) speech are a relatively recent development.  In 2002, as part of the wave of “campaign finance reform” measures that swept in the subsequently-found-unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law on the national scene, Colorado voters were persuaded to vote for Colorado Amendment 27 (which became Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII).

Many of these so-called “campaign finance reform” measures have since been found unconstitutional, as violating First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association – in a word, censorship.  However, until challenged, many of the laws remain on the books – forcing individuals to fight for their fundamental constitutional rights in court.

Constitutional Challenges to Colorado’s Campaign Finance Regime

One such recent court case originating in Colorado, Sampson v. Buescher, resulted in a Federal court (10th Circuit) holding certain sections of Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII in violation of the United States Constitution.  Specifically, provisions of Article XXVIII were held to unduly burden the rights of free association and free speech protected under the 1st Amendment, among our most cherished rights.

The rationale behind Article XXVIII (as Amendment 27) was to reduce “disproportionate influence” over the political process by “large campaign contributions.”  The 10th Circuit held that Colorado’s $200 trigger for requiring committee registration and subsequent disclosure and reporting failed to meet the test of either “large contributions” or “disproportionate influence” that might justify public interest, and was therefore an unconstitutional  burden on the freedoms of speech and association protected under the First Amendment.

Rolling Back the Regime – Restoring Constitutional Protections

In response to the 10th Circuit’s ruling in Sampson v. Buescher, the office of Colorado Secretary of State (beginning under outgoing SOS Buescher, continued and successfully concluded under newly-elected Secretary of State Scott Gessler), pursuant to the Secretary’s constitutional rule-making authority under Article XXVIII, Section 9(1)b, proposed a rules change to raise the registration and reporting threshold for Issue Committees to $5,000 in order to bring Colorado’s requirements in line with the court’s ruling.

Last May, after soliciting and reviewing written comments and holding public hearings,  based on the overwhelming weight of public comment and testimony in favor of raising the registration and reporting threshold, the office of Secretary of State adopted the new rule on 13 May 2011.

Unsurprisingly, the rules change was challenged in court – by the perennial campaign finance attack group “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do), and advocacy group “Common Cause” which despite extensive political participation are not subject to the same financial disclosure and reporting regulations as the groups they attack.

Recently, Denver District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones ruled that Gessler “went beyond his authority” in adopting the rules change (Gessler is appealing).  Judge Jones (who is subject to a retention vote in 2012) had earlier “unloaded on Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler” at the initial hearing on the case – later admitting that he had not yet read the written briefs before issuing his critical remarks.

Pending the appeal, the office of Secretary of State is again holding public hearings (and accepting written comment) on these and other rules changes to Colorado’s campaign finance laws – most of which are oriented towards clarifying, simplifying, and/or reducing the burden on political participation.

The Revised Draft of Proposed Rules is posted on the Secretary of State’s website, along with written comments submitted in support or opposition.

Clear The Bench Colorado submitted a written brief in support of Proposed Rule 4 (clarifying requirements for Issue Committees) and Rule 20 (Redaction of Sensitive Information) and will offer verbal testimony at Thursday’s hearing as well.

(Hearing is scheduled for December 15, 2011 from 9:00AM to 12:00PM in the Blue Spruce Conference Room on the 2nd floor of the Secretary of State’s Office at 1700 Broadway, Denver CO 80290)

Written Comments

Additional commentary on Colorado’s campaign finance regime

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 to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive 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.

Colorado’s ‘Campaign Finance Laws’ challenge the Constitution, chill free speech, and curtail civic participation

Published May 17, 2011 | By CTBC Director

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 15 December 1791

Ruling elites – be they monarchs or oligarchs, dictators or demagogues, or even elective bodies purporting to represent the will of the people – have long sought to suppress criticism and competition through the use of laws or regulations restricting the right and ability of individuals and groups to organize and speak out effectively.

Techniques have evolved from outright bans and brutal repression to a more subtle approach: suppression by regulation and legal intimidation.

In today’s Colorado, for example, your right to free speech on political issues is not banned - perish the thought! – although to practically and effectively exercise that right, by collecting and spending money to reach a mass audience, you’ll need to fill out a few forms…

Actually, you’ll need to do far more than that.  Under Colorado’s campaign finance regime, if you wish to speak out on issues or questions that may appear on the ballot, you’ll need to form and register an “Issue Committee” – as defined in Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII, § 2(10)(a):

(10) (a) “Issue committee” means any person, other than a natural person, or any group of two or more persons, including natural persons:
(I) That has a major purpose of supporting or opposing any ballot issue or ballot question; or
(II) That has accepted or made contributions or expenditures in excess of two hundred dollars to support or oppose any ballot issue or ballot question.
(b) “Issue committee” does not include political parties, political committees, small donor committees, or candidate committees as otherwise defined in this section.

The amount of paperwork and resources (time and/or money) required in order to simply exercise a fundamental right (freedom of speech) is significant, and itself exerts a chilling effect on civic or political participation.  Individuals and small groups, particularly those becoming active for the first time, face a daunting amount of red tape: establishing and registering a committee, opening a separate bank account, keeping detailed financial records, filing frequent and detailed reports of contributions and expenditures – all under threat of fines and other legal sanctions for mistakes, no matter how minor.

Even if they DO follow the rules to the letter, committees may STILL be forced to defend their right of civic participation in court, thanks to the proliferation of legal attack groups (such as the grossly misnamed “Colorado Ethics Watch” – CEW, pronounced “sue”, it’s what they do) that exist solely for the purpose of harassing and diverting resources from ideologically opposed organizations.  The cost of defending against such attacks is another deterrent to participation.  Even a successful defense can cost tens of thousands, and even defeating an attack so completely without merit (in legalese, a “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” complaint such as the CEW attack on Clear The Bench Colorado) that the judge takes the rare step of awarding attorneys fees to the defense can divert scarce resources (and take months, if not years, to collect). [Ed. to date, CEW still refuses to pay what they owe to CTBC, continuing to contest the judgment against them all the way to the Colorado Court of Appeals]

Origins of Colorado’s Campaign Finance Regime

Interestingly, many of these restrictions on freedom of (political) speech are a relatively recent development.  In 2002, as part of the wave of “campaign finance reform” measures that swept in the subsequently-found-unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law on the national scene, Colorado voters were persuaded to vote for Colorado Amendment 27 (which became Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII).

Many of these so-called “campaign finance reform” measures have since been found unconstitutional, as violating First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association – in a word, censorship.  However, until challenged, many of the laws remain on the books – forcing individuals to fight for their fundamental constitutional rights in court.

Constitutional Challenges to Colorado’s Campaign Finance Regime

One such recent court case originating in Colorado, Sampson v. Buescher, resulted in a Federal court (10th Circuit) holding certain sections of Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII in violation of the United States Constitution.  Specifically, provisions of Article XXVIII were held to unduly burden the rights of free association and free speech protected under the 1st Amendment, among our most cherished rights.

The rationale behind Article XXVIII (as Amendment 27) was to reduce “disproportionate influence” over the political process by “large campaign contributions.”  The 10th Circuit held that Colorado’s $200 trigger for requiring committee registration and subsequent disclosure and reporting failed to meet the test of either “large contributions” or “disproportionate influence” that might justify public interest, and was therefore an unconstitutional  burden on the freedoms of speech and association protected under the First Amendment.

Rolling Back the Regime – Restoring Constitutional Protections

In response to the 10th Circuit’s ruling in Sampson v. Buescher, the office of Colorado Secretary of State (beginning under outgoing SOS Buescher, continued and successfully concluded under newly-elected Secretary of State Scott Gessler), pursuant to the Secretary’s constitutional rule-making authority under Article XXVIII, Section 9(1)b, proposed a rules change to raise the registration and reporting threshold for Issue Committees to $5,000 in order to bring Colorado’s requirements in line with the court’s ruling.

Following a period of soliciting and reviewing written comments on the draft proposed rule, the office of Secretary of State held public hearings to allow concerned citizens and groups to express comments, concerns, questions, and suggestions.

It is interesting to note that of those who submitted written comments, those in favor of the new rule (relaxing the threshold for registering and reporting committee activities) included over a dozen individual citizens, and no special interest groups.  Conversely, those submitting comments against the new rule (advocating for continued imposition of what has been ruled an unconstitutional infringement of free speech) were ALL representatives of special-interest groups and organizations, including:

(The full list of written comments submitted by interested individuals and groups before and after the hearing is available on the Secretary of State’s website)

Also of interest: NONE of the aforementioned special-interest groups, despite their professed zeal for “open, transparent, and accountable” practices including full disclosure and reporting of all contributions and expenditures, make their finances available for public view.  NONE.

Several individual citizens (but only a single representative of the above-listed special-interest groups, Jenny Flanagan of Colorado Common Cause) showed up in person to testify – almost exclusively (one exception) in favor of relaxing the threshold for Issue Committee registration and reporting).  Citizen activist Ari Armstrong (of Free Colorado) was on hand to testify, and also recorded testimony of others.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold submitted written comments before the hearing, and also showed up in person to testify (video courtesy of Ari Armstrong, Free Colorado)

Both written comments and oral testimony conclude with what I consider the most powerful argument against Colorado’s campaign finance regime:

In summary: the attack dogs, firehoses and truncheons previously used to harass and intimidate citizens wishing to exercise their rights of free speech and association have been replaced as tools by the more ”civilized and sophisticated” use of lawyers and bureaucrats with the power to impose fines & penalties - even imprisonment – instead of mere physical beatings.

The overall effect – intimidation and abuse of power – remains remarkably similar.

Following the overwhelming weight of public comment and testimony in favor of raising the threshold for Issue Committee registration and reporting, in what must be considered a victory (albeit incremental) for free speech rights, the office of Secretary of State adopted the new rule on 13 May 2011.

Additional commentary on Colorado’s campaign finance regime (H/T Ari Armstrong):

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 to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive 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.

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Mid-month Media Review: Colorado Supreme Court, judicial retention elections, and Clear The Bench Colorado in the news

Published November 15, 2010 | By CTBC Director

Clear The Bench Colorado and this year’s Colorado judicial retention elections – along with the subsequent selection of Justice Michael Bender (who was retained in office with the lowest percentage approval in state history) as the next Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court – continue to garner significant media coverage in the weeks following this year’s historic elections.

Numerous articles across the country continue to weigh in on the subject of judicial retention elections in general, with mention of the successful effort to oust incumbent state supreme court justices in Iowa and coverage of other statewide efforts which fell short (including our neighbor to the east, Kansas, and of course in Colorado).

Many of the articles note that this year’s judicial retention elections may be the harbinger of a real paradigm shift in how the public views judges on the ballot, with a growing movement to hold judges – particularly the more politicized and politically-active state supreme court justices – accountable.

Clear The Bench Colorado noted several of the relevant articles in our Post-Election Media Review post just after the elections, and in our last week’s post (“A New Era for Judicial Retention Elections?“) and most recently “A Tale of Three States” (comparing the judicial retention elections and outcomes in Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado) last Friday.

Judicial retention elections this year may well have been the most significant underreported political story of the year, with opposition and accountability efforts mounted in more states than ever before – which has some defenders of the status quo legal establishment worried.

A recent article published in The Palm Beach Post News (“Florida judges may be on political hot seat“) profiled the campaign to unseat two Florida Supreme Court justices against the backdrop of similar efforts nationwide:

Using e-mails, websites and YouTube videos, conservative groups waged a stealth campaign against Florida Supreme Court Justices Jorge Labarga and James Perry.

And some legal watchers are worried.

Among the “worried” legal watchers quoted in the article: former Colorado Supreme Court justice Rebecca Love Kourlis (executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, IAALS, which is the subject of a campaign finance complaint for their electioneering activities in support of Colorado’s incumbent justices this year).

“I think we’re going to see it more and more,” she said. “Retention elections around the country are becoming the new battleground.”

Colorado Supreme Court Goes on a ‘Bender’

The other significant news in the aftermath of this year’s judicial retention elections was the selection of Justice Michael Bender as the next Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.

As previously noted, Justice Bender – a close political ally and ideological inheritor of the mantle of outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who resigned rather than face the voters this year – retained his office by the narrowest margin in Colorado history for an incumbent state supreme court justice (along with his colleague, and ideological ally, Alex Martinez) less than a week earlier.  His retention in office was supported by an organization (the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, IAALS) in which he sits on the board (potentially violating the judicial code of conduct); the group is also the defendant in a pending campaign finance law violation case, which the group’s attorneys recently obtained a delay in bringing to a hearing (originally set for 12 November 2010).

Numerous media outlets around the state noted the selection of Bender for the Chief Justice slot with varying degrees of detail, including:

An interesting addition to the list of mainstream media outlets commenting on the appointment was the left-wing political gossip site Colorado Pols.  Normally I wouldn’t credit this collection of closed-minded chatty-kathies (literally; outside comments on the gossipy back-and-forth snark that passes as political discussion on the site are not allowed) with a link, but the insight provided by their reaction to the news (and partisan spin on it) along with their take on the significance of Bender’s appointment for the upcoming legislative reapportionment and Congressional redistricting battles (the Pols consensus view, with which I agree, is that it bodes VERY well for their side) is illuminating.

Stay tuned for more on that subject…

Although this year’s campaign (and election) is over, the fight to reform Colorado’s out-of-control legal/judicial complex continues.  In the near term, Clear The Bench Colorado is working to hold the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench accountable for their violations of Colorado campaign finance law.  Longer term, Clear The Bench Colorado will work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public.  For both of those endeavors, we would appreciate 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.

A Tale of Three States: Comparing judicial retention elections in Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado this year

Published November 12, 2010 | By CTBC Director

This year’s judicial retention elections were not just a hot topic in Colorado, but also in numerous states across the country.  Judicial incumbents faced opposition to their continued retention in office in states ranging from Alaska (where an anti-retention movement against one of the incumbent state supreme court justices got off to a late start and fell short of success) to Illinois (where the state’s Chief Justice came under fire by business groups fed up with consistent anti-business rulings) in states following the “merit selection & retention” model.

Perhaps the most interesting comparisons are among neighboring states Iowa (which succeeded, thanks to a well-funded, resourced, and politically supported effort, in ousting three incumbent state supreme court justices), Kansas (which failed to oust 4 incumbent state supreme court justices) and Colorado (which succeeded in  encouraging the reigning Chief Justice to resign, but fell short in removing the remaining three incumbent state supreme court justices on the November ballot).

An article entitled “A Judicial Tidalwave?” related the results of the Iowa ouster of three incumbent state supreme court justices to similar judicial-accountability movements in these neighboring states.  After covering the results of the Iowa vote (removing the three incumbents at the supreme court level while retaining some lower-court judges with similar voting records), the article addressed efforts in Kansas and Colorado, ascribing the difference in results to lack of support from existing organizations and groups (including the state party hierarchy, ‘business’ groups, & other ideologically-allied associations:

But despite their efforts, the Republican Party in particular, and even conservatives in general, failed to make this an election issue.

and lack of resources, particularly funding:

[in Colorado] all three justices were retained, though with only about 60% of the vote rather than the usual 70% plus. Unlike the effort in Iowa, Clear the Bench was hampered in its ability to conduct radio and television advertising by only raising $45,000 for its efforts.

The article concludes by noting:

In the end, though a good year for conservatives, the 2010 tsunami was powerless to sweep the judicial retention elections as it did other races. Time will only tell whether the successful anti-retention campaign against Iowa’s Supreme Court justices was an anomaly, or whether it can be duplicated here and elsewhere in the future.

Although this year’s campaign (and election) is over, the fight to reform Colorado’s out-of-control legal/judicial complex continues.  In the near term, Clear The Bench Colorado is working to hold the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench accountable for their violations of Colorado campaign finance law.  Longer term, Clear The Bench Colorado will work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public.  For both of those endeavors, we would appreciate 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.

Colorado Supreme Court embarks on a “Bender” as narrowly-retained Justice Michael Bender is promoted to Chief Justice

Published November 10, 2010 | By CTBC Director

In a development which bodes ill for the rule of law in Colorado (but which was eminently predictable – in fact, predicted by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold in numerous appearances and presentations) the Colorado Supreme Court earlier today announced the impending takeover of the Chief Justice’s position by Michael Bender, who must be viewed as the handpicked heir and ideological inheritor of outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey.

Justice Bender retained his office by the narrowest margin in Colorado history for an incumbent state supreme court justice (along with his colleague, and ideological ally, Alex Martinez) less than a week earlier; his retention in office was supported by an organization (IAALS) in which he sits on the board (potentially violating the judicial code of conduct) which is also under the cloud of a pending campaign finance law violation case, which may be heard as early as this Friday (12 November 2010).

As remarked in the Law Week article covering the announcement (“Bender Will Be New Colo. Supreme Court Chief Justice“),

Bender, like Mullarkey, is considered a member of the court’s liberal wing. He and fellow justices Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice earlier this month survived an effort by a political group, Clear The Bench Colorado, to oust them. The effort failed, but citizens in some rural counties voted to reject one or more of the three justices.

The article went on to describe some of Bender’s most controversial (and anti-constitutional) opinions, including two of the cases highlighted in Clear The Bench Colorado’s Evaluation of Judicial Performance for Justice Bender, the Barber v. Ritter “fees don’t count as taxes” case (which opened the door for the Colorado Car Tax – er, vehicle registration fee – increase) and the Lobato v. Colorado “judges get to decide school funding levels” case:

Bender is the author of some of the high court’s most controversial recent opinions. In November 2008, he wrote the opinion in the 4-3 Barber v. Ritter decision, which held that the transfer of special cash funds to the state general tax fund is not subject to voter approval under the state’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR. This has been criticized by conservatives as giving the state legislature free rein to circumvent TABOR by increasing fees instead of increasing taxes.

Bender also wrote the October 2009 opinion in Lobato v. Colorado, another 4-3 decision, which revived a lawsuit that alleges the state’s current funding scheme for public education violates the constitutional requirement that funding be “thorough and uniform.” If the lawsuit is successful, the state could be held liable for an additional $2.9 billion a year for public schools. Republican Attorney General John Suthers publicly came out against the decision, which he said “is not good news for the Colorado taxpayer.”

The article concluded with the most recent controversial decision penned by Bender, in the weeks leading up to the election (which Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll described at the time as “yet another reason why two justices up for retention should be bounced from the bench“:

In a decision last month that gained national attention, Bender authored the opinion in Montes-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which held that a person’s use of another’s social security number is not criminal impersonation. The court split 4-3 on the decision.

Now-Chief Justice Bender is also highly likely to follow in outgoing Chief Justice Mullarkey’s partisan footsteps in determining the boundaries of Colorado’s legislative and Congressional districts (via his appointment powers on the state-level reapportionment commission, and by continuing along the path set in the notorious Salazar v. Davidson redistricting case upholding a judicial power grab to decide Congressional redistricting).

Unfortunately, Bender’s contempt for the Colorado Constitution and disregard for the rule of law is likely to continue to define the out-of-control Colorado Supreme Court for years to come; an already discredited court truly “going on a Bender” as we enter the second decade of the 21st Century.

An “enthusiastic thumbs up” to retain a trio of incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices?

Published November 9, 2010 | By CTBC Director

The most recent edition of the Colorado Statesman uncharacteristically missed the boat entirely in highlighting the election results for the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices on this year’s ballot (possibly allowing the quest for quotable verbiage to overcome accuracy in reporting).

The article (“‘No!’ was on voters’ minds when it came to weighing in on ballot measures – But Supreme Court judges rate ‘thumbs up‘”) published last Friday (5 November 2010) began with the following lede:

Voters Tuesday night gave a resounding “no!” to eight of the nine measures on the 2010 ballot, but an enthusiastic “thumbs up” to retaining Supreme Court and appeals court judges.

An “enthusiastic “thumbs up” to retaining Supreme Court” justices on the ballot?

Hardly.

The percentage of “NO” votes recorded (approximately 40%, with some minor differences between each justice, and significant variation across different counties) was the highest ever recorded for any incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justice since unopposed retention elections were instituted in Colorado in the mid-1960′s; the incumbents’ retention in office was due much more to inertia (along with the taxpayer-funded incumbent-protection “retain” recommendations promulgated in the taxpayer-funded “Blue Book” pamphlets distributed to every Colorado voter) than to any “enthusiasm” for retaining these consistently anti-constitutional unjust justices in office for an additional 10-year term.

The electioneering activities of a consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups attempting to (and possibly succeeding in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench in violation of Colorado campaign finance law may have contributed to the outcome as well (it would certainly be ironic if the judicial branch incumbents were retained in office due to the illegal activities of their supporters in the legal community).

The Colorado Statesman article similarly erred in stating that the efforts of Clear The Bench Colorado advocated for the non-retention of the four incumbent Colorado Court of Appeals judges appearing on this year’s ballot; even the most superficial review of the CTBC Evaluations of Judicial Performance page would have confirmed CTBC’s recommendation for a ‘Yes’ vote on 2 of the 4, and no recommendation for or against the remaining two incumbents.  The mischaracterization is at worst malicious, more likely evidence of sloppy journalism.

However, the article at least concludes with otherwise accurate information and quotes on the subject from Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold:

The effort to oust the judges was led by Clear the Bench Colorado. Executive Director Matt Arnold said Wednesday the “other side” had spent money illegally to support the judges, and his resources got tied up in “frivolous lawsuits.” He attacked an editorial run in The Denver Post from former Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky that supported the judges, which Arnold said was full of “falsehoods.”

However, Arnold said his efforts got more people to pay attention to the issue of judicial retention than had ever happened before. Justices and judges got the most “no” votes on retention in history, with most around 40 percent. “It shows what can be done with raising awareness,” Arnold said. “If nothing else, what I’ve done is sparked attention to the issue, and I’m encouraged by it and by those who paid attention.” But in the end, “David didn’t have enough stones against Goliath.”

Although this year’s campaign (and election) is over, the fight to reform Colorado’s out-of-control legal/judicial complex continues.  In the near term, Clear The Bench Colorado is working to hold the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench accountable for their violations of Colorado campaign finance law.  Longer term, Clear The Bench Colorado will work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public.  For both of those endeavors, we would appreciate 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.

Search
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Links & Resources
Archives