A source in El Paso County tells me that this Saturday’s John McCain-Sarah Palin event in Colorado Springs has long since exhausted its 10,000 ticket supply and has put thousands more on waiting lists. I’m told this is bigger than President George W. Bush’s appearance in Colorado Springs in 2004 - not surprisingly, as the conservative base has received its biggest jolt of inspiration since Ronald Reagan was running for President.
Also, remember in last night’s speech when Sarah Palin pointed out that her husband is a member of the United Steelworkers Union? Today, National Right to Work sends an open letter to Todd Palin informing him that he is inadvertently helping to fund attacks against his wife but can get some of that money back. This might get some media attention.
Big Labor … hmmm. Is that another reform effort Sarah Palin will lead?
Peter Blake yesterday wrote a great Rocky Mountain News column about one of the major initiatives on Colorado’s statewide November ballot - Amendment 49:
As [Jon] Caldara, head of the Independence Institute, likes to put it, government would no longer be able to act as “the bagman for political special interests.”…
No doubt passage of No. 49 would make it more difficult for unions to collect dues. But Caldara said that in the age of automatic bank transfers, union members can easily arrange to have dues deducted if they want. “Taxpayers don’t have to be on the hook for doing the accounting, the bookkeeping and collection work for special interests and their lobbyists.”
Caldara maintains it’s a conflict of interest for, say, school board officials to be funneling money to local unions through paycheck deductions and then getting a check back from the same unions in the form of campaign contributions.
Government employees can arrange to stop dues deductions from paychecks now, but it can be a difficult process.
(Full disclosure: I also happen to work for the Independence Institute, which has provided the intellectual ammunition behind the Ethical Standards Initiative.)
I must say I’m glad I initially had the wrong information about who John McCain’s running mate would be. Sarah Palin was the best pick. What’s everyone else saying? Well, it’s rare to see such unanimous sentiment asserted. Here goes:
Steven, the New Conservative, who long has been championing Palin to be McCain’s running mate, now says her selection was a “bad idea” … for the Left
The Denver Post’s David Harsanyi writes: “Palin is the most libertarian Republican that’s been on a major ticket for a long time. This ideological storyline should appeal to many Western voters.”
Andrew Boucher really likes this aspect of Palin’s story: “For me, the biggest selling point is that she went after her own party when she saw that they were corrupt.”
Now is the time to take some of that energy brought by the Palin selection and donate something to the campaign. Hey, did Barack Obama make some sort of big speech this week?
I came across a great site that features anti-democratic tactics of Leftist organizations: blocking efforts to collect signatures, frivolous lawsuits, and other threats to free speech. Occasionally highlighted is the efforts of a group called By Any Means Necessary to try to shut down Colorado’s Civil Rights Initiative. The radical fraud group ACORN is also regularly featured there. Stay tuned to this site, especially as the election approaches.
Earlier I linked to the audio of former Governor Bill Owens and former U.S. Senator Hank Brown giving their endorsements of Amendment 49, Colorado’s Ethical Standards initiative. Compliments of Ethical Standards Now, here is a longer version of the Hank Brown Amendment 49 radio ad set to YouTube video - “Amendment 49 keeps lobbyists in line”:
(Full disclosure: I also happen to work for the Independence Institute, which has provided the intellectual ammunition behind Ethical Standards.)
The latest edition of Budget & Tax Newshighlights an important case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court about a clean elections law from Idaho:
In 2003, the Idaho Legislature passed the Voluntary Contributions Act, which banned the collection of political contributions through government payroll systems throughout the state. Nothing in the law prohibits union members from contributing to candidates by choice, and nothing in it prohibits unions from engaging in politics.
Policy experts view the law favorably. Noted Ben DeGrow, an education analyst with the Independence Institute, “Governments should be focused on performing vital services for taxpayers, not on acting as a bill collector for private groups–especially groups that are lobbying officials and funding political candidates.”
The Colorado Supreme Court may have given the Colorado Education Association (CEA) a pass from the state’s electioneering laws, but the Landmark Legal Foundation has taken the same evidence to file a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service that the union violated its tax-exempt status.
Two of Colorado’s most respected political heavy hitters - former Gov. Bill Owens and elder statesman former U.S. Senator Hank Brown both have endorsed Amendment 49 (Ethical Standards Initiative) on the November ballot:
Government should not be the bagman for special interests. Amendment 49 will prohibit governments from bundling money from public employees’ paychecks and delivering the cash to special interests who use it to lobby politicians. Government should be using our tax dollars to provide crucial public services, not to funnel money to political organizations. Amendment 49 keeps lobbyists in line.
Bill Owens gave a thumbs-up to Ethical Standards when he guest-hosted the Mike Rosen Show last week: Listen to the audio here.
You may have heard it already on the air, but Hank Brown has recorded a radio ad for Amendment 49: Listen to the audio here.
(Full disclosure: I also happen to work for the Independence Institute, which has provided the intellectual ammunition behind Ethical Standards.)
It’s not often I break news on this site, but just remember it was reported here first: As of today, the entirety of Colorado state government is officially unionized. Previously, the “Colorado WINS” union coalition won the right to represent six of eight occupational groups in state government - despite being outvoted by the “don’t give a crap” coalition.
While political junkies in Colorado await the results of candidate primary campaigns, results from mail-in ballot elections for the final two occupational groups of Colorado state government were counted and tabulated today. Via an email from the state labor department, here are the results (which should be posted here shortly):
Financial Services Group:
Colorado WINS was successful in this election. Here is the vote count:
Yes: 405
No: 325
Professional Services Group:
Colorado WINS was successful in this election. Here is the vote count:
Yes: 1,783
No: 1,208
In both cases, fewer than half of eligible employees voted, and fewer than 25 percent voted for employee representation. Interestingly, these two contests were closer than any of the previous six - more participation overall. Combined with the results of previous elections, here is the final tally of state workers on the question of receiving exclusive union representation from “Colorado WINS” (H/T Mike Antonucci):
In favor of unionizing: 7,669 (24.0%)
Against unionizing: 2,952 (9.2%) Don’t give a crap: 21,353 (66.8%)
So the Denver Postis suing Gov. Bill Ritter for access to his personal cell phone records? While I’m a strong proponent of transparency in government, it would seem this is slightly over the line.
Over at The Colorado Index, a watcher writes “in defense of Bill Ritter.” The typically conservative blogger is no big fan of either the Governor or the Post. A watcher especially has problems with the way the latter has responded to his quest for legal ethics reform.
Ritter should disclose any calls he made related to state business in accordance with the law even if they were on a private phone, but he should also not have to disclose every time he called his wife or golfing buddy. This case seems like it would benefit more from arbitration by a neutral party that could shield Ritter’s privacy in his personal life while releasing records of public interest rather than a blanket lawsuit.
Look, I’ve been plenty critical of Bill Ritter here on my blog, and for good reason: for everything from raising property taxes in violation of the state constitution to imposing unionization on state government through executive order. But there ought to be a fair compromise solution that requires the Governor to disclose the official calls while preserving a reasonable measure of privacy.
Then again, I am intrigued at the possibility of finding out what the Denver Post is searching after that has ultimately led them to file this lawsuit. Here’s hoping for justice both for the people of Colorado and their chief executive.
A common and repeated tactic of the Left this year has been to throw frivolous legal challenges at ballot initiatives they don’t like in an effort to keep Coloradans from deciding the issues themselves. Well, last Thursday the Denver Business Journal reported that a judge has tossed out legal complaints against one certain initiative:
A Denver District Court judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit from opponents of Amendment 47, the so-called “right-to-work” ballot initiative that would bar labor unions from collecting mandatory dues in workplaces that engage in collective bargaining.
Incidentally, the same publication endorsed Amendment 47 only days before (subscription required). Meanwhile, Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard has an informative piece on the Right-to-Work battle in Colorado - including some of the complex political undercurrents that are spilling over into the ballot campaign. It’s a worthwhile read. The Weekly Standard piece mainly focuses on the determined and principled work of young Jonathan Coors in pushing the fight forward.
Fundamentally at stake is the individual worker’s right to decide whether or not (s)he wants to support a union. Labor leaders themselves admit that Right-to-Work means they lose a big share of income: mostly from the fees imposed on non-members who have to pay up or lose their jobs.
Secondarily, there is documented evidence to show that Right-to-Work states outpace forced union states in economic growth. But opposing Right-to-Work is not enough for union leaders. To try to force supporters to withdraw Amendment 47, they have submitted signatures for four economy-busting initiatives of their own.
When the facts are looked at closely and fairly, Amendment 47 merits support hands-down. But you can expect Big Labor to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars confusing and misleading voters who would otherwise be inclined to support workplace freedom.
It will be interesting to track the success of Amendment 47 - cited in Barnes’ article as registering 70-percent support - as Election Day in Colorado draws near.
Legal ethics reform, anyone? You won’t hear Colorado Ethics Watch crowing about that issue - not with the trial lawyers’ association sitting on their side of the partisan fence.
Regular readers of this blog and followers of the Colorado political scene generally are aware of Gov. Bill Ritter’s executive order that has given union leaders the keys to state government. Already the “Colorado WINS” labor union coalition has ridden the popularity of the “don’t give a crap” mentality to become the “exclusive representative” for a majority of state workers.
Right now, two elections are pending that would unionize the remaining 9,500 Colorado state employees. Disturbed by the “don’t give a crap” mentality and wanting his fellow public servants to judge the union’s promises for themselves, state employee Dave Ohmart has started the tongue-in-cheek group “Colorado Loses.” He has a regular e-mail list of interested state employees that continues to grow. Ohmart created and received permission to hang posters like this one around his office: Read the rest of this entry »
In Colorado, today is the last day initiative proponents can hand over their signatures to the Secretary of State to certify measures on November’s statewide ballot. By the end of the day, we should have a fairly clear idea of how crowded the ballot will be — though we have to await the roughly two-week certification process.
Another measure to clean up the government contracting process turned in more than 120,000 signatures a few days ago, and figures to make the ballot, too - likely as Amendment 50.
Last week we learned that Big Labor was planning to turn in signatures for four economy-busting measures. Yet, as Jessica Corry explains, the conservative side still figures to have the advantage: “Even if all four of these initiatives make it on to the ballot-hardly a certainty at this point-conservatives will still maintain a 7-5 advantage when it comes to the initiatives voters see on this November’s ballot.”
Meanwhile, The Denver Post’s scenario of a record-setting ballot length isn’t likely to happen. But tomorrow we should know much better.
Backers of a proposal to bar no-bid government contractors from contributing to political candidates submitted more than 125,000 signatures to the state Wednesday….
Colorado state government granted more than $386 million in contracts without taking competitive bids over the past year, said Tom Lucero, campaign chairman of Clean Government Colorado.
This practice drives up the price of services, and current law that lets these contractors pad the campaign accounts of officials who may award the contracts creates tremendous cynicism among voters, said Lucero, a University of Colorado regent.
Like Amendment 49, this is a great idea to promote clean government. But the fact that it also targets the interests of government employee unions also makes it the target for some well-financed opposition. Read the rest of this entry »
News came yesterday that Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is indicted. If Republicans should have learned anything from the 2006 election, it’s to purge the pork and corruption from their ranks.
This story reminds us that neither major party has anything approaching a monopoly on sleazy politicians, but also gives the GOP an opportunity to distinguish itself by valuing integrity over seniority. Speaking of seniority, no Republican has served longer. It’s time for that tenure to come to an end.
Of course, actual guilt or innocence has yet to be determined in the Stevens case. But politically speaking, he’s damaged goods. Someone in the GOP needs to discreetly ask Ted Stevens to step aside and allow a fresh face to step forward. I’m still waiting to see who that might be.
A few days ago I had a conversation with some non-political family members about the pains of hosting a national political convention. One of them lives in the Twin Cities. The rest of us live in and around Denver. Doubtless this means some inconveniences and annoyances for denizens, regardless of whether it’s the Republicans or Democrats coming to your town.
Several Denver City Council members are questioning why the Democratic National Convention Committee has a contract with the city to fill up their fleet of vehicles with tax-free fuel.
The $466,000 contract, only $9,700 of which has been paid so far by the DNCC officials, allows them to use the city’s car wash and gas stations for their vehicles. The city’s fuel pumps should be used by government employees only because they don’t charge $.40 cents per gallon of state and federal taxes.
I’m not a lawyer, but this sure sounds like an unethical use of government tax-exempt status. Local media ought to give it further examination. And what about Denver mayor John Hickenlooper? The article cites Hick making a false claim that a similar deal was in place between Minneapolis and the Republican National Convention. What will the city do about the contract?
In the meantime, the rest of us private citizens pay $4 a gallon for gasoline, Democratic party officials get a standard 10 percent discount that takes resources away from funding our highways and other transportation needs. The DNC hasn’t even arrived in Denver yet, and you can already start to feel the public resentment and seething begin to rise.
It’s still early in the campaign cycle, but the political group known as Protect Colorado’s Future has already hung the banner of “Liar” around its neck. It’s hard to see how much more credibility the group will have as the election season heats up. Protect Colorado’s Future is overwhelmingly funded by a coalition of labor unions. The commercial it aired is designed to attack Right to Work (Amendment 47) and two initiatives that have yet to be certified on the ballot.
