Sep 11 2008
Amendment 54, 49, and 47 Critics Distribute Questionable Ad
One of People’s Press Collective’s readers sent us a scan of a campaign flyer she received from Protect Colorado’s Future:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Now, I’m no election law attorney, but isn’t it illegal in Colorado to use public employees in their official capacity for campaigning purposes? I’ll let others handle the misleading claims, but if the ad inappropriately uses a public official, hasn’t PCF’s political posturing placed the officer in an awkward position?
Shameful.
Tom Lucero of Clean Government Colorado is not happy about this ad, and has challenged Jess Knox of Protect Colorado’s Future to a debate on the contents of the PCF’s ad:
Many supporters of Amendment 54 called the office complaining of a grotesquely misleading mail piece. Many of the supporters are registered Unaffiliated and Democrat. When the office received a copy of the mail piece, Campaign Chair Tom Lucero was so taken aback that he immediately challenged spokesman for Protect Colorado’s Future to a debate to answer for his campaign’s disgusting mail piece. “Our opponents have taken politics in Colorado to a new low. To suggest that Amendment 54 would prevent law enforcement from advocating for the equipment that they need is absolutely shameful,” said Lucero. “Jess Knox needs to explain to real Coloradans how Amendment 54 will prevent law enforcement from advocating for equipment. In fact, our opponents have been completely unresponsive when approached by the media about the details relating to Amendment 54. Now is their opportunity to stand with me and answer to the citizens of Colorado. I will meet any time, any place, with an agreed upon moderator under any format. Let’s have a real debate about why our opponents insist on protecting a culture of corruption in Colorado.”
September 13th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I’d like someone to explain EXACTLY what these amendments are meant to do from a non-biased standpoint without using any deception. It would make it much easier to decide how to vote.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
What are the admendments? I will not “vote no” on something that has not been explained.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
There’s a ton of info (pro and con) on each initiative at Ballotpedia.org:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_2008_ballot_measures
September 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Please let us know what the exact wording of the amendments is. Otherwise I cannot agree with your ‘vote no’ - even though I expect I will agree to vote no.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:11 am
[...] Colorado’s Future’s original No on Amendment 47, 49, and 54 scanned mailer, a commenter noted that the officer in the picture wasn’t wearing an “official” police [...]
September 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
screw the police they are whine bully’s they think they are tough with their badge and gun they aint shit i will absolutely vote yes on these amendments
September 25th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hrmph. Now the Colorado Future people have firemen in their flyers, but they still don’t explain what these amendments will do.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Colorado Jones, go to http://www.cleangovernmentcolorado.com for more information on Amendment 54. I also think there’s a good website at http://www.shakedowncolorado.org/issues-08/ that explains all the ammendments.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Thanks Clean Man. So it sounds like the Colorado Future people are against these 3 amendments because it will take the union’s edge away in campaign money? It seems like individuals and corporations already have lots of restrictions that don’t apply to unions?
September 28th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
If Amendment 47 passes, it will mean Wal-mart wages and benefits for everyone!
September 29th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Walmart wages and benefits?
September 29th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Walmart! Booga! Booga!
September 30th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I guess Wal-Mart is pretty scary. That yellow smiley face is freaky!
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
[...] a refresher, Protecting Colorado’s Culture of Corruption’s Future’s first flyer slamming Amendments 54, 49, and 47 stated: For officers like Jeff Shaw - our safety is his top [...]
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
[...] taken a page out of the Ritter playbook, but instead of using children as props, they are using policemen, firefighters, and nurses to employ their scare tactics. That a whiff. Either that smell is [...]
October 31st, 2008 at 10:01 am
[...] the misleading, contentless mailers with the Firefighter Union Boss, Police Officer Union Thug, and Teachers and Nurses Union BAs just aren’t enough for Protect Colorado’s Culture of [...]