That was my point, Ryan. They take pains to make the people in the ads LOOK official, so that the voters who see the ads and don’t look at them closely will draw the conclusion that they ARE taking an official position on the issue, as a profession rather than as individuals. While making it just clear enough to the careful observer that the insignia, etc. aren’t “real” (FOP badge vs. a real police badge) to cover their backsides in case anyone calls them on it. They know exactly what they’re doing with this.

Your point, though, is well-taken. It would be illegal under Colorado law for them to endorse or oppose ballot initiatives in their official capacity as a government employee (i.e., in uniform).

I think it’s pretty simple what they’re trying to do, give people the IMPRESSION of an official
police or firefighter endorsement by using carefully devised look-alike uniforms. Oh sure, if you look
close (with a magnifying glass) you can find telltale signs that they aren’t “real” uniforms (Shaw’s FOP
badge for example), but PCF is betting on the visual first impression and the tendency of people NOT to look
that closely. They expect people to look at it and think “Firefighters and cops are officially against 47,
49, and 54!” not “A couple of cops and firefighters wearing look-alike cop and firefighter uniforms
on their own time are individualy against 47, 49, and 54.”

It’s dishonest. And the ad doesn’t even say anything about the amendments. They might as well
be mailing around glossy brochures with pictures of cute frolicking puppies under big red letters proclaiming
“These amendments will force Colorado to repave I-70 with dog fur!”. It’d be about as honest and
informative.