The new web site is up, www.protectcoloradosfuture.org. This organization is in place to help us defeat the work for less lobby. Please sign up as a member and help us stand up against these attacks on middle America.

At the heart of the divide is the typical false premise that giving employees contractual rights is not good for them. This is already an "at will" state where most employees can be fired anytime for almost anything, ie, without "just cause", but that is not good enough for the work-for-less lobby, the so called "right to work" crowd. They are is a conglomerate of powerful corporate entities with a front group based in Virginia. Their purpose is to cripple labor unions and to keep the practice of democracy in the workplace an elusive goal for as many people as they can. They will demonize unions with double talk and clever slogans and glorify union busting under the scared umbrella of all that is "business friendly".

Employees in work for less states make an average of $5,333 less than those in free bargaining states. Their benefits are greatly decreased and their job security is generally non-existent. Unionized workers are simply better off and claims to the contrary ignore the basic facts. A key point is that labor activists bear no ill-will towards business or fair levels of profit. We understand that business and labor are mutually beneficial partners when balance and cooperation exist. Those of us who represent labor seek only to empower employees as an inclusive component of business and not as an expendable tool.

The individual freedom argument used work for less lobby and others is a sham. Federal law already protects the rights of non-members. Nobody has to join a union or engage in union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. In a union shop however, the democratic principle of majority rule does require non-members to pay a fair share expense fee if they choose not to join the union.

Organized labor is a primary avenue to bridge economic inequality and the imbalance of opportunity between average people and Wall street. The labor haters should stop pretending to care about workers by branding labor unions as the enemy. Anybody who takes a non-political look at the facts knows who is truly on the side of employees and that is the unions who set the standards for labor protections.

Cross Posted (partially) Colorado Confidential

Okay, don't gloat.

Colorado gift law revived

The Colorado Supreme Court today reinstated Amendment 41, the controversial measure that limits and bans gifts to government officials.

The court ruling reversed a Denver District Court preliminary injunction which stopped the ban from being implemented.

"Amendment 41 is back in effect," said Nate Strauch, spokesman for Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.

The court ruled the challenge by a group of public officials was premature because the ethics commission meant to enforce the amendment was never put in place.

Strauch said only four of the five commission members have been selected so far.

When the commission is completed, it will start promulgating rules to enforce the amendment and hear cases, he said.

Then, the plaintiffs could file a new lawsuit if they felt the amendment caused them harm, he said...

This is exactly what Amendment 41's opponents didn't want. Sagely Pols weigh in:

What many of 41's opponents fear most is the Ethics Commission prescribed by the law being successfully established, since it is likely to shake out the more alarmist hypothetical cases posed by 41's detractors as baseless and establish operating procedures that administer the law fairly. What the Supremes said essentially is that commission has to be established now, and a actual sanction made before the case is "ripe" to be adjudicated. Amendment 41's defenders at Colorado Common "Curse" Cause insist that the commission will demystify the "scare tactics" used by opponents and show that Amendment 41 can work constitutionally, dramatically changing the discussion.

What, you mean the sky won't fall after all? You mean all that nonsense about kids denied scholarships...is going to be proven just that? That the will of an overwhelming majority of Colorado voters...might actually be followed?

Be still my heart.

See also:

Washing my hands of Amendment 41
Imagine that -- Amendment 41 is doing its job
Post's devastating criticism of Amendment 41 obstinates
Amendment 41: thank you, Speaker Romanoff
Amendment 41: "lobbyist-driven hysteria"
Amendment 41: now here's an interesting idea
Amendment 41: don't believe the hype, hard numbers edition
Colorado Confidential demolishes Amendment 41 hypocrisy
Amendment 41: don't believe the hype, part III
Amendment 41: don't believe the hype, part II
STOP the passive aggression on Amendment 41
Amendment 41: don't believe the hype, part I

The current system for forming unions and bargaining is broken. Corporations routinely block workers' freedom to decide for themselves whether to form unions to bargain by intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing workers.

The Employee Free Choice Act would restore workers' freedom to make our own choice about whether to have a union and bargain for a better life--without interference from management. The legislation, which the House has passed, would:

* Strengthen penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate workers;

* Establish mediation and binding arbitration when the employer and workers cannot agree on a first contract; and

* Enable workers to form unions when a majority signs union authorization cards.

* Bring needed balance to the American workplace.

Today, CEOs get contracts that protect their pay and benefits--but they fight tooth and nail to keep workers from having the same opportunity. As a result, good jobs are vanishing and health care coverage and retirement security are slipping out of reach. Only 38 percent of the public say their families are getting ahead financially, and less than a quarter think the next generation will be better off.

This bill passed the House. Please contact your Senator to urge their support. This legislation is vital to the progressive movement .

We had a little fun with 'Foxy' the fox today... NO, not That Kind of Fun!

We heard that Frontier was doing a Campaign Interview style promo for the 'Foxy' Frontier's Favorite Animal at the Civic Center today across from the City Hall. So we thought this would be great test of our Concept of Instant Vigils.

We flew downtown and did a 'one indian' to their 'circle the wagons' maneuver. The media types applauded my arrival but grumbled later when they had trouble getting a shot without our signs in the background.

Our sign on one side said.

Call Foxy and tell her to
Stop the Iraq War
and impeach Bush

and on the other side

Call Foxy and say
Stop the War and
impeach Bush.

Amazing the amount of eyeballs these signs got.

It was Fun...
you all shoulda been there.

Maybe next time, eh! Join Us.
Impeachment can be fun.

John

WeeklyVigilsToImpeach.Us
Link

ProgressNowAction Member
Link

In case the papering over multi-million dollar fiascos, facilitating Beauprez's easy primary, enacting GOP lawyer briefs verbatim, and straight-up contempt for compliance with law didn't convince you,

Voting machines "expert" says he's not

Under the gun to meet tight election-day deadlines, the Secretary of State's office certified a kind of voting machine for Jefferson and Mesa Counties that does not meet state requirements.

The information comes from the deposition of John Gardner - the man appointed by Gigi Dennis as an expert and charged with certifying the machines.

But Gardner testified he is not an expert in the areas required by state law. He also admitted that the Secretary of State's office was under pressure to certify the voting machines because counties had already purchased them...

Last thing I needed to convince me an absentee ballot is mandatory this year.

It's a pretty serious thing we're dealing with here -- eye-popping abuse of power, every important function of her office in neglect (or worse), and no check on what she's doing since she's out in a few months and her only oversight is helping her pull it off. Positively Byzantine, friends.

Worst-case scenario is a pardon, right?

Buried deep in the Saturday business section of the Rocky, Rep. Morgan Carroll offers some cogent insights on health care in America.

Health care hijacked by insurers, hospital interests, lawmaker says

"For the last 10 years, businesses, consumers, everyone have been saying, 'Health insurance costs are outrageous - they're killing us. It is a financial crisis.' And for 10 years, largely out of desperation, we've listened to insurers. Their solution has been to further deregulate the industry and increase competition. So we've removed consumer protection and oversight, we've put in a zillion different barriers in the name of tort reform, and we've capped damages in medical malpractice cases. The result? We've sold everybody's rights down the river, and our health care costs have gone through the roof."

Read it all -- mandatory.

So I don't know what's going to happen in Connecticut. There's enough I don't know about Connecticut politics to fill a warehouse.

But something profound has already happened there -- and the geography is incidental. Can I, you ask, maybe imagine other places where the progressives might gang up and give the public actual choices? Honest people who can tell the truth, win elections and take back this whole everloving country?

Let the sellouts be on notice either way:

DSCC will back CT Dem nominee

In a serious blow to Sen. Joseph Lieberman's (D-CT) reelection campaign, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is likely to back the winner of the Democratic primary in Connecticut, meaning that Lieberman may be left without national allies for campaign money.

A senior Democratic party official confirmed that the DSCC is unlikely to back Lieberman should he lose the primary to Ned Lamont, a more progressive contender in Connecticut who has garnered support from bloggers and has catalyzed his campaign around Lieberman's aggressive position on Iraq.

You see, this isn't infighting. It's much, much cooler than infighting. It's also a proud Colorado tradition, from fiery Dean/Miles precincts in 2004 to the coinage of silver at sixteen to one.

So to arms, underdogs! The epilogue to this story is that you might not always be...

We told you has was going to do this. 180-degree rotation has been achieved, Houston:

Beauprez switches Amendment 38 stand

Congressman Bob Beauprez withdrew his support Friday for a controversial ballot measure that is opposed by much of the business community, prompting a leading supporter to accuse him of betrayal.

Beauprez, the presumed Republican candidate for governor, announced Friday that he will not support Amendment 38, a so-called "petition rights" constitutional amendment that would make it easier for citizens to challenge local government decisions through initiative campaigns. Beauprez endorsed Amendment 38 in April.

His change of heart outraged Douglas Bruce, the anti-tax crusader who endorsed Beauprez earlier this year. Bruce said Beauprez was earning the "Both Ways Bob" label given him by former primary opponent Marc Holtzman.

"He certainly is living up to his reputation," said Bruce, a prominent backer of Amendment 38. "I'm shocked somebody with that reputation put on his shoulders would casually throw away a written promise."

Really? You're...shocked, Mr. The Bruce? We're not shocked.

Should note here once again that we support Beauprez's flip-flop on Amendment 38, which we have always believed to be irresponsible public policy. Having said that, we felt that way from the beginning about Amendment 38 because we read the damn thing. We read the damn thing because as people who try to insert ourselves into Colorado politics we have an obligation to know what the hell we're talking about. We take that knowledge, add our progressive convictions and presto! You know where we stand, and tomorrow you still will.

As for "Both Ways Bob," well...this is pretty much what we mean, folks. Caveat emptor. No slideshow necessary.

In Texas, Republicans are cheering today's victory for partisan reapportionment treachery. There are some other states, no doubt, where eager plans to screw over the minority-party enemy are now being assembled.

In Colorado? Gosh, Republicans say...could we get this applied retroactively to about three years ago?

Ruling portends ugly redistricting battles

"Wow. What a surprise," said former state Sen. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood. "Am I glad I'm not down there any more to go all through that."

Anderson said the ruling will make the legislature even more partisan and petty.

"You only have 120 days (in a session) and if you end up fighting congressional boundaries the whole time that's not good," she said.

Anderson has regretted her role in the 2003 redistricting effort sprung on Democrats in the waning days of the session.

"It brought so many bitter feelings to the legislative process that have never been healed," she said. "Worse, it inspired the Democrats to take the majority -- and they did."

Attempting to gain partisan advantage though manipulating electoral districts is wrong. What the Colorado Republican majority did in 2003 was appalling -- perhaps matched only by the contempt they routinely show for their own primary elections. Having said that, this situation is dripping with irony. Wouldn't you agree?

The moral: be careful what you wish for, righties -- and the timing of when it's granted.

This is an seriously bad decision.

[The Supreme Court] ruled 7-2 that state legislators may draw new [electoral district] maps as often as they like -- not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.

The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control.

That was acceptable, the justices said...

After Texas decided to redraw its congressional district boundaries, two other states -- Colorado and Georgia -- also undertook a second round of redistricting.

"Some people are predicting a rash of mid-decade redistricting. I am skeptical," said Richard Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School. "It would be seen as a power grab in a lot of places."

Hasn't been to Colorado recently to know that's the point. From the dissenting opinion:

Justice John Paul Stevens took the opposite view.

"By taking an action for the sole purpose of advantaging Republicans and disadvantaging Democrats, the state of Texas violated its constitutional obligation to govern impartially," he wrote.

Again...that's the point with these people. It's not about a level playing field or a fair system anymore. It's about taking and holding power, not democracy. And every two years you'll run the risk of getting shuffled into electoral meaninglessness. It takes a few minutes to sink in: this decision opens the door to subversion of our representative system of government.

There are enough differences between the Texas case ruled on today and Colorado's 2003 redistricting fiasco that it may well not result in the overturning of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in that case. You can bet they're gonna try.

But if that doesn't work, the next reapportionment power grab is never more than one general election away now. To paraphrase Leonard Cohen, you can see the future, brother: it is murder.

Whether it's high-priced lobbyists in Washington DC corrupting members of Congress with freebies or state legislators in Colorado conditioning votes for campaign cash, it is clear that now is the time to act for higher ethical standards.

A coalition of public interest and ethical government advocacy groups is preparing a ballot initiative in Colorado to restrict the activites of lobbyists looking to curry favor with politicians. Common Cause is spearheading this campaign with state leaders including ProgressNowAction Board member Jared Polis.

Key elements include:

A complete ban on gifts from paid lobbyists to elected officials and government employees

A $50 limit on gifts to politicians and government employees from non-lobbyists

A two-year revolving door provision that bars a statewide elected officeholder or state legislator from lobbying for two years after leaving office

A five-member independent ethics commission to hear complaints, assess penalties, and issue advisory opinions

To win this campaign, we have to collect over 100,000 signatures before the end of July and we need your help to do that. Collecting signatures is simple and fun - not many people decline to sign a petition banning gifts from lobbyists to politicians!

Click here to volunteer to collect petition signatures for the ethics in government initiative.


A representative from Common Cause will contact you directly to discuss how you can help.

Thanks for taking some time to support this critical issue. Read the press release announcing the campaign.

This just in;

REP. MORGAN CARROLL LOBBY REFORM BILL
SIGNED INTO LAW BY GOVERNOR

Denver - Rep. Morgan Carroll's, D-Aurora, bill to reform the state's lobbying practices was signed into law by the governor today. It was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder.

HB 1149 expands existing requirements pertaining to lobbyist disclosures for more transparency, accountability and better checks-and-balances in government. A study by the Center for Public Integrity last year found that Colorado received a near-failing grade when it came to lobbying disclosure.

"I'm glad that the governor agreed that the people have a right to know. "said Rep. Carroll. "The more we keep what lobbyists do in the dark, the more the public distrusts how government operates, and this new law will shine some light on the process. This bill was about earning, and deserving the public's trust in their government."

According to Sen. Tupa, "This new law will provide greater accountability into the role of lobbyists at the State Capitol. Now taxpayers will know who's paying these lobbyists to influence the legislative process. Colorado residents deserve to know this information, and thanks to HB 1149, now they will."

Thank you! Thanks to hundreds of our users who wrote their representatives and told them that lobby reform matters. Thanks to Governor Owens for seeing the wisdom in signing it.

Above all, thanks to Morgan Carroll, who had the courage to go up against entrenched interests on both sides of the aisle and get this bill over the finish line.

A great day for good government in Colorado.

HB-1149, Rep. Morgan Carroll's bill to require Colorado lobbyists to disclose information about their clients and the bills they're involved with is awaiting the Governor's signature.

We had hundreds of members write their Representatives and Senators in support of this bill, which was vital in getting it over the finish line. Send him a message right now that clean government in Colorado matters.

Link

Great work, folks. Hundreds of letters have been delivered to the Colorado Senate, urging them to pass meaningful lobby reform.

We've proven to them that ethical government matters (some of your representatives would have you believe otherwise).

Senate backs measure for lobbyists' disclosure

Hired lobbyists would be required to disclose information about their clients, the bills they're pushing and their activities at the Capitol under a measure that won the Senate's initial approval Tuesday...

Senate Republicans opposed the bill, even though the House had weakened it by stripping two provisions: one would require a one-year "cooling off" period between leaving public office and become a lobbyist, and the other would compel lobbyists to report campaign contributions of $100 or more.

Still, the bill would require lobbyists to disclose the bill numbers of legislation they're working, their clients' position on legislation and any direct business relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers.

Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, led the fight against the bill, arguing that it's unnecessary because reputable lobbyists already disclose such information to the secretary of state.

He said the bill would ultimately hamper lawmakers...

Depends on what it's "hampering." Hampering the peddling of influence? Hampering the secret dealing that screws ordinary citizens because they don't have a lobbyist? Considering the source, I'd say that's the point.

About five minutes ago, final vote 43-21. Great news.

Denver Post covered yesterday's successes.

Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, speaking Friday at the Conference on World Affairs:

Wirth urges grass-roots movement

"The failures of government following Hurricane Katrina and the invasion of Iraq have shattered the confidence that our government can deal effectively with modern problems such as climate change, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and disease," Wirth said.

The need for grass-roots movements has little to do with the power held by a Republican party that has rendered America "the sulking and isolated giant it has become," Wirth said.

Wirth views the current leadership as having undetermined America's interests abroad to the extent that "Abu Ghraib threatens to displace the Statue of Liberty" as the American moral beacon in the world's collective consciousness.

But, he said, grass-roots efforts have been the American engine of deep-rooted change for decades.

"The civil rights movement did not come from senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee," Wirth said.

An interesting email that surfaced today.

Dear Friend,

If you're getting this message you're probably a Democrat. You might not be. It doesn't matter. This email isn't about party politics. It's about something even more important.

You might be a big-D Democrat or you might not not be. But you're almost certainly a small-d democrat. You believe in and respect open government, clean politics, and basic decency in the public realm.

Clean politics and basic decency are under attack in Colorado, from a group called Trailhead. Trailhead, bankrolled by five and six figure checks from wealthy donors, is launching round after round of false, malicious "robo-calls" all across the state, targeting 10 competitive districts held by Democratic legislators. Robocalls are cheap and easy to do, and Trailhead has enough money to launch a lot of them. They already have. We know they want to continue.

Democrats have always contested Republicans, and Republicans have always contested Democrats, in the realm of ideas and they always will. That's small-d democracy, and it's a good thing.

But blatant falsehood is something else, something beyond the pale. Trailhead continues, in conspiratorial tones, to accuse Democratic legislators of taking "secret payments." There simply are no "secret payments," and Trailhead knows this.

What Trailhead is doing is beyond the pale. They need to be called to account for it.

   Read More »

Monday there will be a hearing before House Health and Human Services Committee 1:30 P.M. for HB 1193 (Whistleblower Bill).

Colorado lacks a unified reporting process and clear whistleblower protections for healthcare workers who report concerns regarding substandard medical treatment. Workers should never be fired for doing the right thing. This protection is fundamental so healthcare workers feel safe in coming forward to raise and address concerns regarding patient care.

This bill will streamline reporting protocol and prohibit retalliatory firings against these workers who come forward with concerns regarding patient care. When workers feel too threatened or intimated to come forward, it keeps hospitals and providers in the dark about red flags, and makes it difficult to prevent or detect negligence before it's too late.

Under the Gold Dome, I suppose they feel insulated from the corruption scandals wreaking havoc in GOP-undermined Washington.

I suppose they think that nobody cares about influence-peddling and lobbyist-driven corruption in Colorado. It's just a flyover state, after all. Polls say nobody out here in the hinterland has ever even heard of either Jack Abramoff or a legislative "office account."

So naturally, when Rep. Morgan Carroll appeared before the House State Affairs Committee yesterday to place some limitations and disclosure on the pervasive influence of lobbyists at the Capitol, her bill was savaged and poisoned by self-interested politicos from both sides of the aisle.

Proposed reforms prompt ire, changes

Colorado lawmakers gutted a lobbying- reform bill Tuesday by removing the mandatory one-year "cooling off" period that would be required before a lawmaker could return to the Capitol as a lobbyist.

House Bill 1149, sponsored by freshman Democratic Rep. Morgan Carroll of Aurora, emerged from a contentious committee hearing stripped of major provisions and amended in a way that allowed House Republicans to crow that they are the champions of fighting special interests...

Carroll's original goal was to give the public more information about the interactions between lobbyists and lawmakers. What survived was a bill that lost the support of most Democrats on the committee.

"I think without all of that totally confusing, convoluted amendment gamesmanship, the bill was probably going to die," Carroll said. "But now, for very ironic reasons, it's lived in a form that if it's not fixed, I'll kill my own bill."

Carroll's bill called for more thorough reports from lobbyists about their clients and the bills they were trying to influence.

More than 15 people - including a Republican lobbyist, a Longmont carpenter and a former college professor - showed up to testify on behalf of her bill. No one opposed it.

No one except, it appears, a few self-interested politicos on the State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee.

Most lawmakers on the committee were not friendly to Carroll's bill. Coleman said the extra disclosures are unnecessary because lawmakers already make filings to the secretary of state.

Rep. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, said lobbyists don't influence his votes.

That's right, folks: government corruption might be the biggest story in the country, there might be ample evidence of all kinds of corruption in Colorado state government, from electeds to agencies -- but according to Dave Schultheis there's nothing to see here. Take his word for it and don't let the door smack you in the ass on your way out, citizen.

We can do better than this, a message that should be delivered without partisan distinction.

Colorado received a near-failing grade from the Center for Public Integrity on our lobbying laws and oversight. This is a non-partisan good government organization geared toward accountability and better government for the public. Colorado received 60 / 100 on our report card (59 is failing).

I am running HB 1149 which will be heard in House State Affairs committee on Tuesday Jan 31, 2006. This bill fixes the conflict of interest and disclosure laws in Colorado so we are much closer to best practices (rather than failing practices). While Colorado has functioned better than some other states, these reforms are needed to PREVENT corruption and scandal from arising in the first place.

The fate of this bill will depend on public input. The folks under the dome may not see the same need for these reform measures as the public. This should be a non-partisan issue because ethics in government should be a high priority for everyone.

Specifically the bill requires:

-1 year cooling off period for elected officials and department heads before becoming lobbyists
-disclosure of any direct financial relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers
-clarification for greater disclosure of lobbyist "clients" / "employers" / "principles"
-disclosure of bill numbers lobbyists are working and the positions taken (support, oppose, monitor) which would be available to the public on every piece of legislation
-disclosure of campaign contributions to candidates or elected offiicials