Yesterday I received a strange mailing from a group called Taxpayers for Liberty. (Many of my fellow conservative, politically-active Colorado friends likely received the same.) It’s a self-described 501c4 organization with a Denver P.O. Box and an executive director named Andrew O’Neill — I’m almost positive it’s not this Andrew O’Neill.

I will take time later today to scan and post the four-page letter, along with the attached questionnaire and reply form, so you can see the mailing for yourself. It looks a lot like your standard political fundraising letter, with short paragraphs and heavy on underlined text and bullet points. Suffice it to say, the group Taxpayers for Liberty is very fond of Ken Buck, while railing on Jane Norton for not returning the questionnaire and Tom Wiens for filling out the questionnaire identically but having a voting record, or something like that.

Let me add here that the Taxpayers for Liberty questionnaire leaves a lot to be desired in its ability (or lack thereof) to meaningfully distinguish candidates from one another. For the most part, the 12 statements are largely factual in nature and focus on perspectives of existing problems without proposing or suggesting what type of solutions are needed. So at best, the answers might tell us all the candidates agree on the nature of the problem. Okay … then what?

So who is Taxpayers for Liberty? A search on the Colorado Secretary of State website finds the group originally was registered last November to one Sue Rehg of Loveland, a Republican activist and currently listed as a Larimer County co-chair of Ken Buck’s campaign. Last month the group switched registered agents to Denver attorney Adam Kehrli, no doubt to help make sure the language of the letter complies with electioneering regulations on 501c4 groups.

But this information only leaves many other questions unanswered — such as how large the group’s list or expenditure is. I’ve contacted representatives of the three leading Republican U.S. Senate campaigns to see if they have any insights or reactions to offer. But if anyone else out there has valuable information to add, please feel free to add to the intrigue.

Here’s a scanned copy of the actual letter. Click Fullscreen for an easier read:
?March 5, 2010

Studio 12 “Tea Party Movement”

Wednesday, February 17 at 8:00 pm on Channel 12 / 12.1

Host Tamara Banks explores what’s brewing with the emerging Tea Party movement. Is this a growing political party or just a group of angry citizens who are fed up with the government? And what effect will the tea party have November’s big election? Those questions and viewer phone calls on the next STUDIO 12.

Guests:

• Dr. B. Leland Baker Author of Tea Party Revival: The Conscious of a Conservation Reborn
• Judson Phillips Founder and President of Tea Party Nation
• Ross Kaminsky Libertarian-leaning blogger on Rossputin.com
• Don Christenson Evergreen/Conifer Tea Party organizer
• Amanda Teresi President & Co-founder of Liberty on the Rocks, a pro-liberty coalition of twenty-somethings

If you watch live, you can participate in the program and share your views on the Tea Party movement by dialing 303-296-1253. Otherwise, set your DVR. Then, once you’re done feeding your secret love for figure skating, you can go back and watch tonight’s Studio 12 to get up-to-date.

Then Bennet sticks out his neck, kowtows to Barack Obama to cast a losing vote for Craig Becker and back-door union card-check, only to get this news shortly thereafter:

Ex-CO House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D) received 2 key labor union endorsements this week, less than a day after his primary rival, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), made a play to rally them to his side.

The CO Teamsters and UFCW announced that they are throwing their weight behind Romanoff in the Dem primary, citing their “long-standing relationship” with him. The 2 are among the largest unions in the state.

If labor leaders back up their words with funds and foot soldiers — even though they may be at historically low numbers here in Colorado, unions still are politically formidable — we could have an interesting primary on our hands.

Not bad from a Republican point of view.

Can Erick help do the same for Ken Buck here in Colorado? Perhaps. The Weld County DA has a lot of catching up to do on the fundraising front.

Is Buck (or someone else) the grassroots candidate? You help decide by casting your vote before tomorrow (Friday) at 5:00 PM on the latest survey of Colorado’s political temperature.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks. Yet somehow it escaped even the watchful eye of the Denver Post’s “The Spot” blog. Oh, well….

It was also on this day that the Senate voted 60-39 to increase the national debt ceiling by another $1.9 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

It is the largest debt ceiling increase in U.S. history — in human history, in fact — totaling even more than the projected federal budget deficit for 2010, which CBO states will be an eye-popping $1.35 trillion….

The vote was straight down party lines, with Senate Democrats enabling the Barack Obama administration to continue the federal spending spree, putting my children and grandchildren deeper in debt. Yes, that means the Appointed One Michael Bennet on his 2010 U.S. Senate Farewell Tour, and Mark Udall — he of the “dirty politician filter.”

Another reminder for Colorado’s fiscal conservatives, limited government supporters and liberty lovers to get involved and support the GOP candidate who you believe best fulfills your values and can unseat Bennet. Let’s keep the momentum going.

For this distinction, The Hill rates Perlmutter as one of Congress’s fundraising losers, noting that Frazier’s “$219,000-to-$215,000 advantage in the fourth quarter was slight, but it serves as notice that a district that began as an afterthought could see a race.”

Meanwhile, Lang Sias has filed his report: He raised $30,914. To be fair, Sias wasn’t in the race for the entire October-December reporting period (his first contribution was received on November 2). Nearly half his contributions come from the Washington DC area — including $5,000 from John McCain’s Country First PAC and $1,000 from Joe (brother of John) McCain.

Saturday I highlighted the Democratic House seats in the Colorado state legislature most vulnerable in the upcoming election. Today the House voted (with a 37-27-1 Democratic majority) to approve eight of the “dirty dozen” tax hike bills on: Direct mail (1189); Candy and soft drinks (1191); Software downloads (1192); Online sales (1193); “Non-essential” food containers (1194); Insecticides, pesticides and bull semen (1195); Alternative fuel vehicles (1196); Corporate net operating losses (1199).

When push comes to shove, I can give a pass on HB 1196. As for the other seven, it’s interesting to see which Democrats exhibited momentary symptoms of common sense and voted No … and which Democrats did not. Among those who voted Yes on every one of the tax increases:

• Sara Gagliardi (27)
• Dianne Primavera (33)
• Debbie Benefield (29)
• Max Tyler (23)
• Jeanne Labuda (1)
• Judy Solano (31)

In the case of the first two, you have to wonder if Democratic leadership has already signed off these two seats as Republican pick-ups. As for the last four (and possibly others), they’ve handed a giant issue to their opponents or potential opponents.

Additionally, other vulnerable incumbent Democrats voted for nearly all of the tax increases. Dennis Apuan (17) voted for everything but the soda and candy tax (HB 1191). The only no vote from Christine Scanlan (59) and John Kefalas (52) was against the online sales tax (HB 1193). Jim Riesberg (50) and Randy Fischer (53) cast a vote for every tax hike except the one on agricultural products (HB 1195).

The Democrat running for re-election in the most Republican district, Joe Rice (38), voted against two of the “dirty dozen”: software downloads (HB 1192) and online sales (HB 1193). Unaffiliated representative Kathleen Curry (61) also voted against those two bills, as well as the food containers (HB 1194) and agricultural products (HB 1195) taxes.

As interesting proof that at least the Democrats are good at whipping the caucus into shape, Rep. Wes McKinley (D-Walsh) voted against nearly all of the tax increases except for HB 1193. He was the deciding vote in favor of increasing taxes on online sales.

So while many vulnerable Colorado Democrats have put themselves in bad shape politically by supporting most or all of the “dirty dozen” tax hikes, even the one or two who voted on the right side more often than not ended up enabling the entire package to pass.

Now on to the state senate, where the drama gets played out again. Will any Democrats (21-14 majority) in the upper chamber have the courage to cast the deciding vote against even one of these destructive policies? Don’t bet on it.

I have tried to make the point before — if inartfully — that some of the “dirty dozen” tax hikes are worse policy than others. The fact they are being rammed through so quickly with so little deference to the concerns of large numbers of citizens showing up in protest has earned them all the “dirty” appellation.

But now, at last, we have a thoughtful analysis from the Tax Foundation’s Mark Robyn that carefully distinguishes nine of the bills: Bottom line? Seven are bad, two are good.

I commend this piece to everyone involved in the debate. The majority Democrats are fixated on raising revenue to prevent cuts to government programs and personnel — even though in some cases, the bills they are pushing are bolstered by overly optimistic fiscal notes that don’t take into account changing business and consumer behaviors. They refuse to see the unintended consequences of private-sector job losses and cutbacks.

On the other hand, Republicans ought to consider conceding ground on the two bills deemed good policy by the Tax Foundation. If any of my fellow fiscal conservatives and limited government supporters can refute Mr. Robyn’s analysis of why HB 1196 and HB 1198 make good legislation, I’m open to listen. (Let me say I’d like those two bills more if they were offset by a modest across-the-board tax cut to make them revenue-neutral, but so be it.)

I think GOP leaders making the distinction would be a sound move politically. Most of the bills are very much worth opposing, and stridently so. But recognizing the differences strengthens the cause.

But the subject also came up about the Obama administration’s efforts to backdoor the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (aka card check) through the appointment of SEIU lackey Craig Becker.

One advantage of this approach? Fellow Democrats in Congress like the indecisive appointed junior U.S. Senator Michael Bennet wouldn’t have to take an obvious position that either offends the Obama administration or the overwhelming number of Coloradans (and a majority of Colorado union members) opposed to this destructive proposal to re-write labor laws.

It would just add to the growing “backroom” Obama M.O. Michael Bennet then might want to consider writing the President a thank-you note — and while he’s at it, urge him not to make any more campaign visits after February. Then again, Bennet would have to vote on Craig Becker’s confirmation — so with the clear message of what Becker stands for, Bennet won’t be completely off the hook.

More notable is that Frazier very nearly raised as much money just from individual contributors ($215,074) as Perlmutter did altogether. The incumbent Democrat brought in nearly half his take from PACs and political committees — including PACs belonging to corporations, trade groups, trial lawyers, labor unions and various liberal interest groups ($103,100 vs. $112,101 from individuals). Even with all the special interest heft that often comes with incumbency, Ed Perlmutter was narrowly outraised by Ryan Frazier.

Of course, GOP frontrunner Frazier still has plenty of ground to make up. Perlmutter has $1,045,319 on hand, compared to Frazier’s $280,355. It’s an uphill battle for the challenger, but the momentum is slowly starting to move in the right direction.

Demonstrating individual fundraising prowess, combined with a strong showing through the Republican primary process, should eventually open up more outside group donations to Frazier’s campaign. Meanwhile, though, people who live in Colorado are speaking more loudly with their pocketbooks to support Ryan Frazier than Ed Perlmutter.

The only other active Republican candidate to file a fourth quarter FEC report was Michael Deming, who raised $229 and has $341 on hand. According to the FEC website, Lang Sias, Jimmy Lakey and Mike Sheely had no reports to file.

With very few guests, it should be a good three hours of enlightening discussion and entertaining political banter. Go here to listen live.

• David Freddoso at the Washington Examiner points out that Senate Democrats very quickly have killed President Obama’s very modest “spending freeze” proposal before it barely had a chance to get going.
• Speaking of Obama, my PPC friends are licking their chops at the prospect of The One coming to Denver to stump for our appointed junior U.S. Senator Michael Bennet.
• Speaking of arrogance, guest writer Don Rodgers at Reclaim the Blue calls out Democrats in our state legislature for their hubris, after shoving through four of the Dirty Dozen tax bills on Wednesday (and are scheduled to hear the rest starting this morning) as a prelude to their dying political majority.
• Speaking of death, the New Ledger’s Benjamin Kerstein gives Howard Zinn, the very recently deceased Marxist historian of A People’s History infamy, a harsh critique more grounded in reality than the one Zinn gave to the United States to manufacture his own career.
• Speaking of harshness — yes, as Lynn Bartels blogs for the Denver Post’s The Spot, the Independence Institute is having its own “Biggest Loser” weight-loss competition — no, I’m participating in the “Biggest Gainer” competition instead.

Have a great Friday!

First of all, I have to commend to you the Secretary of State’s work in creating the new TRACER campaign finance website, which is a more user-friendly, valuable tool than its predecessor. On the lighter side, while it’s imperative for candidates and committees filling out important disclosures to cross their t’s and dot their i’s, someone should have checked on TRACER’s main page to ensure the same level of accuracy:

Yes, I did send a note through the Secretary of State’s automated form to notify them of the error:

FYI – On your web page http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/HomePage.aspx, the word Transparency as the title of the acronym TRACER is misspelled as “Transparancy.”

Look, I’m going to be “transparant” with you, too. I have an obsessive proofreading gene — if it ever gets out of hand, I may have to seek professional help. Anyway, now back to more serious business.

The Scott Tipton Campaign for Congress is honored to announce the endorsement of Congressman Jason Chaffetz from Utah’s 3rd Congressional District. “Congressman Chaffetz has been a leader in the grassroots and conservative movement,” Tipton said. “I am proud to align my values, my dedication and my passion for taking back this country with his.”

Congressman Jason Chaffetz: “I would like to announce my endorsement of Scott Tipton for the 3rd Congressional District of Colorado. After serving in Congress for the last year I know now, more than ever, that Washington needs a man like Scott Tipton who will fight for conservative values, defend our principles and uphold our Constitution. Scott Tipton is the type of leader we need to defeat John Salazar this November.”

“Congressman Chaffetz’s endorsement, as well as the substantial grassroots support our campaign has received since I entered the race in November, is putting us on the track to take back the 3rd Congressional District,” Tipton said. “I would like to thank Congressman Chaffetz and all of those who have given me support and encouragement as we work to defeat John Salazar.”

Reading a quick sketch of Jason Chaffetz’s bio and watching his Tax Day Tea Party speech in Salt Lake City will let you know why the new Utah Congressman is a hero of the grassroots Tea Party movement.