Joanne Kelley reports on the Rocky Mountain News Stump blog:
Supporters of Amendment 49 filed a campaign finance complaint over $2,800 of “in-kind” contributions a teachers union committee made to a group fighting the ballot measure.
The complaint alleges the Colorado Springs Education Association’s issue committee made contributions to a group created to address statewide ballot issues when the teachers’ committee was created to promote issues in its own district.
“I find it disturbing to see the teachers union funnel resources earmarked for local education issues into a fight against statewide political issues they don’t happen to like,” said Colorado Springs resident and former school board candidate Reginald Perry, who was named on the complaint filed with the Secretary of State’s office.
But a spokeswoman for the Colorado Education Association said the law allows the teachers union committee to support or oppose both state and local ballot issues.
“The (teachers) committee has the same purpose as Protect Colorado’s Future,” said Deborah Fallin of the Colorado Education Association.
The same purpose. Really? The purpose of the teachers union committee? “Promote ballot issues in School District 11.â€
The purpose of Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future? “Support initiatives #57; #62; #73; #74; #75 and #76. Oppose Amendments 47, 49 and 54.â€
They sound different to me. It’s sad that words cease to have plain meaning to the likes of the Colorado Education Association. And it’s sad (but not surprising) that the group fighting Ethical Standards would break campaign finance laws to get out its deceptive messages.
Aren’t Amendments 47, 49 and 54 on the ballot in District 11? Is District 11 not part of the State of Colorado? They sound the same to me. It’s sad that words cease to have plain meaning to the likes of the Independence Institute and its education gofers.
Wow, that’s a stretch of logic. Thanks for sharing.
Not a stretch of logic at all. Proposed Amendments 47, 49 and 54 are on the ballot in District 11 and they potentially affect District 11 teachers. If the proposed amendments are deemed to be of significant importance to the District 11 teachers, why isn’t it appropriate for the teachers union committee to make contributions to the people who are trying to defeat 47, 49, and 54?
The stretch of logic is arguing that the teachers cannot donate $2,800 of their own money to help defeat anti-union proposed amendments that are supported, financially and otherwise, by the Independence Institute and its (undisclosed) donors and big-money out-of-state supporters.
Forget about 49 for a moment, This is why 54 is so wrong. The Independence Institute and.or their supporters want to silence teachers unions from expressing their viewpoint, so that the Independence Institute and their supporters have no opposition to their point of view in the state house.
It may be appropriate. But it isn’t legal as the campaign finance law stands. I’m no fan of all these campaign finance laws. But it is the liberals who have gotten us into the mess with all of them.
In District 11, it’s also legal for the union to take full dues equivalency from non-members and use the money on political action. This isn’t appropriate, either, but it’s legal. And right now the law is enforced. A non-member teacher who had a sudden death in the family and missed the deadline to opt out of this automatic deduction
While we have to enforce them now, maybe you’ll join with me to change both laws. 49 would help solve the latter by putting the power to make membership dues decisions in the hands of individual teachers and other employees rather than using our taxpayer-funded resources to enforce payment to a group someone doesn’t even support.
Of 49 and 54, I like 49 better. (The Independence Institute has almost nothing to do with 54, by the way.) 49 does absolutely nothing to silence the voices of anyone. As seen above, in some cases it does the opposite. 54 only affects sole-source government contractors. Are teachers sole-source government contractors?
A look at the recent history of Colorado presents real worries that I.I. might “have no opposition to their point of view in the state house.” It’s flattering to think a group so small could be so influential when the statist tide is rising against us on so many fronts.
But to the point, why should some lobbying groups have the privilege of government payroll collections, while others don’t? If the political playing field is leveled, doesn’t that make interest groups (and ultimately governments) more accountable to the taxpaying citizens who pay their bills?
OK, Sure. You’re the “Education Policy Analyst” for the Independence Institute, and you have no idea that proposed Amendment 54 would affect teachers unions in any way?
Teachers unions are thousands and thousands of little guys and gals who would never have the time to individually “lobby” their legislative representatives. I.I. is a front for all sorts of big-money interests who want to remain behind the curtain, so that the wizard(s) cannot be identified. Level the playing field with 54? You are joking, right?
My apologies if I didn’t communicate it clearly. You may wish to go back and read it in context. 49 levels the playing field. 54 is about opening up the government contracting process.
Can teachers unions be considered sole source government contractors? If so, then 54 would affect them. Can teachers be considered sole source government contractors? I highly doubt it, but if so, then 54 would affect them. Though I’d be interested to hear how. And yes, I distinguish teachers from teachers unions. You conveniently have conflated them. That’s a discussion we can have later, if you want. But for now, I’ll just say if teachers unions represent the interests of teachers anywhere near perfectly, then 49 would scarcely be more than a temporary inconvenience at worst.
“I.I. is a front for all sorts of big-money interests who want to remain behind the curtain….”
As long as you remain convinced of that, nothing I say will be persuasive. Of course, it’s quite silly. It reminds me of the union leaders who published propaganda saying that we were “spending millions of dollars to destroy public education in Colorado.” That’s wrong on so many levels. Oh, well.
There are plenty of people – rich and not-so-rich – who donate to the Independence Institute. Why don’t you come by to our lush, palatial digs sometime? Keep it up, though. Our supporters love this stuff….
Does the II disclose who their wealthy patrons are? We’re not talking about the facade on the building now; we’re talking about financial support. Didn’t Caldara fight hard to avoid disclosing any information regarding the II’s backers?