Colorado’s Amendment 54 Critic is a Hypocrite

by wesley | 11:42 am, September 9, 2008 | 40 Comments

As originally reported by Face the State this AM…

Amendment 54 (Clean Government Colorado) was attacked over the weekend by Jess Knox, spokesman for Protect Colorado’s Future, for accepting out-of-state money. Here’s what Knox said in his Channel 7 interview with Tyler Lopez, “When you have these out-of-state, or narrow corporate interests trying to divide Coloradans, it’s bad for all Colorado,” said Jess Knox, wearing a pin that says, “No on 47, 49 and 54.”

That’s cute. Really it is. First I’d like to know what, exactly, this guy knows about us Coloradans. According to Face the State’s investigation, he’s worked on campaigns in Maine for more than 10 years. He also worked for Gore in the 2000 New Hampshire primary. And furthermore, he worked for John Edwards for President until the campaign went bust in January and he moved here to fill the executive director position with Protect Colorado’s Future. Swing states seem to attract the weirdest people in an election year. This guy knows nothing about our interests as Coloradans.

And that’s not Jess Knox’s only dirty little secret. His organization receives more than 67% of their funding from out-of-state donors. In fact, of the $3.3 MILLION dollars they’ve raised, over $630,000 has been contributed by the Service Employees’ International Union. I know what you’re thinking. Local chapter, right? Uh uh… records show –wait for it– from Washington, DC! Since you’re from out that direction Jess, maybe you can tell all of us Coloradans how Washington, DC knows what our interests are?

So what exactly is this Jess Knox guy trying to pull over on us Coloradans? Well, he’s trying to make Amendment 54 out to be a bad thing. He’s right it is a bad idea… that is, if you’re a corrupt contractor who is awarded more than $100,000 in no-bid contracts from your favorite corrupt, dirty politician. If you’re one of those scumbags who gets politicians to give you bags of money in no-bid contracts, then yeah, Amendment 54 sucks because it is going to prevent you (the scumbag corrupt contractor) from contributing to corrupt political campaigns – in Chicago, they call this bribery. I also like that Amendment 54 would set up a database of no-bid contracts the government awards so that we Coloradans could see exactly which companies are given our tax dollars that we work hard to earn. As a Colorado taxpayer, I want honest businesses to have the opportunity to compete for big government contracts that our taxes pay for and I want the government transparency to be able to see where our money goes.

Comments

Curious Stranger
September 9th, 2008 @ 2:43 pm

And of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I’m sure you’d like everyone to know that the sole source of funding for Amendment 54 is Howard Rich, a real-estate tycoon from New York who has run afoul of election law in recent years for “pervasive fraud” in gathering signatures.
Curious Stranger
September 9th, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

Specifically, of the $1,496,646.51 raised by Clean Government Colorado, $1,496,000,was contributed by Rich’s “non-profit” organization, Colorado At Its Best. The remaining $646 was contributed on July 2nd by Coloradans – and by Coloradans, I mean employees of the Independence Institute, whoever they invited to that particular party and “Ask First Centennial” which appears to be some Independence Institute affiliated organization with no filings evident with the secretary of state.
Curious Stranger
September 9th, 2008 @ 3:38 pm

Ask First Centennial’s address traces back to the same office used by the Trailhead Group and its gaggle of shady 527’s last election cycle.
Curious Stranger
September 9th, 2008 @ 3:43 pm

Oh, and the registered agent for Howard Rich’s front group is a senior fellow and “pavement expert” at the Independence Institute, Dennis Polhill.
Amber
September 9th, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

I just received this misleading flying in the mail from “Protect Colorado’s Future” It says that “Amendments 47, 49, and 54 will handcuff Public safety official”. Also it will prevent Cops from having the proper armor on to protect them from bullets. They also use and have a picture of Jeff Shaw Deputy Sherriff from commerce city, CO and his picture endorseing the message. I wander how much they had to pay him to do that, how corrupt.
wesley
September 9th, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

@ Curious Stranger
An out-of-state, evil, real estate tycoon conspiracy theory? That’s brilliant! But you left out the aliens. And the cattle mutilations. Hold on while I grab my tinfoil hat… okay, got it on. Now the government won’t be able to read our thoughts while we talk about this…

So Captain Curious, since the post is about Jess Knox’s statements, let me try and lead you back on topic. Tell me this: are you defending Jess Knox’s hypocrisy, his ridiculous comments, or are you just making up conspiracy theories against an amendment that’s going to shut down the backroom deals that screw Colorado taxpayers? Really, now I’m the curious one. Are you here because you’re rooting for the corrupt politicians or are you cheering for the crooked, scumbag contractors who bribe them? Just want to get the record straight so I know where you’re coming from.
randomridge
September 9th, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

Ouch.

So, what are you saying, CS, that it’s bad for Clean Government Colorado to take funding from a private individual to help locals fight corruption in CO, but it’s peachy for INVOLUNTARY funds yanked from union members in other states to fund a pro-corruption movement without their say? And for a honcho of that movement to dismiss his opponents on that basis, while being a “carpetbagger” himself?

Curious, indeed!
Curious Stranger
September 9th, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

“An out-of-state, evil, real estate tycoon conspiracy theory?”

It’s not a theory, all but ~$600 of the donations to Clean Government Colorado (click on reports to see the contributors) come from a non-profit called Colorado At Its Best. The directors of Colorado At Its Best are Howard Rich – or as you called him, the “out-of-state, evil, real estate tycoon”, Dennis Pohill of the Independence Institute and Chris Baker, who I can find no useful reference to anywhere. Its all nicely sourced there, feel free to point out any incorrect information.

I have no idea who Jess Knox is, and frankly could care less about this particular petition. I just don’t like the way the Independence Institute funnels out-of-state, anonymous, corporate money onto the ballot in Colorado, using a mechanism that was meant to be used by the citizens of Colorado. And the way I express my disgust with the Independence Institute’s subverting of democracy is by calling them on it every time I see it.
clean man
September 9th, 2008 @ 5:50 pm

hey doesn’t that postcard violate fair campaign act. I thought you couldn’t use people in their official capacity to endorse ballot issues? btw, i received the mailing too and i’m having a hard time figuring out how cleaning up corruption or allowing workers to decide whether they want to join a union has anything to do with receiving bullet proof vest. curious in colorado???
randomridge
September 9th, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

“meant to be used by the citizens of Colorado”

Um, the people doing the work on 54 ARE Coloradans. Unlike Jess Knox. Who is a carpetbagger. And a hypocrite.

So, by pushing a citizens’ initiative, the Independence Institute is “subverting democracy”, but an out-of-stater coming here and working to sway Coloradans to vote against the thing at the behest of powerful out-of-state interests (and being a hypocrite while doing it) is the model of
people-power?
Curious Stranger
September 9th, 2008 @ 8:38 pm

The folks paying the bill certainly aren’t Coloradans. And the Independence Institute isn’t pushing a citizen’s initiative, they (or at least a senior fellow there) are providing a front company – “Colorado At Its Best” – to funnel corporate money to a variety of initiatives without having to reveal who is paying the bills. That is the sole purpose of “Colorado At Its Best”, to hide where the money comes from. This same front company has been used in just about every election cycle since 2004 to funnel secret money to Howie Rich’s cause of the year.
wesley
September 9th, 2008 @ 9:40 pm

Ugh. Okay Matt, let’s take a step back from your complicated, fantastical story of manipulation and secrets. I’m going to try one last time to help you get back on topic. I don’t buy your statement that you “could [sic] care less about this particular petition.” You’re unhealthfully obsessed with Amendment 54. I’m going to ask you again, which result of Amendment 54 do you disagree with? Are you against the amendment because the corrupt politicians get screwed, or is it because the crooked, scumbag contractors bribing them get screwed? You obviously support one of these two groups, so tell me: does one of them sign your paychecks?
Curious Stranger
September 9th, 2008 @ 10:05 pm

Wesley, this is the first time I’ve ever posted anything about Amendment 54. If by “unhealthily obsessed” you mean I spent 20 minutes or so doing the basic research at the SoS website to figure out which particular group of anonymous donors was behind this particular initiative, then yes, I admit I have spent 20 minutes thinking about amendment 54.

And please don’t project your complexes on me. I don’t work for either side. Neither side “signs my paychecks”. I’m an individual who is against anonymous donors buying their interests onto the Colorado ballot. A “citizen’s petition” that is *entirely* funded by anonymous money is not getting my support. Without knowing who is paying the bills, I have no way to judge their motives.
Curious Stranger
September 9th, 2008 @ 10:07 pm

“complicated, fantastical story of manipulation and secrets”

20 minutes of searching on the SoS is not complicated or fantastical. Go try it, you might learn something about what – and who – you’re voting for.
Curious Stranger
September 9th, 2008 @ 10:57 pm

Let me also just state that in general, I’m not in favor of government by constitutional amendment. That used to be a conservative position. Why do we bother electing representatives if we don’t trust them to legislate? So this initiative has 1 strike against it in my book before I even hit the SoS’s website.
randomridge
September 10th, 2008 @ 8:25 pm

Jeez, CS, you sound like a robot posting for ProgressNow.

So, if you’re against government by constitutional amendment, doesn’t that make you
against “democracy”? What happened to “power to the people”? And while we’re at it,
does this mean you’re voting against 55 and 56?
Curious Stranger
September 11th, 2008 @ 8:13 am

I assure you ProgressNow has no problem with government by amendment. It if makes it easier to argue with me by pretending I am ProgressNow, more power to you.

As “conservatives” seem fond of pointing out, but only when it serves their purposes, we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. We have representatives that are supposed to do the legislating for us, but “conservatives” seem content today to legislate by constitutional amendment and then complain that their legislators aren’t doing anything.

As far as 55 and 56, I’ll probably not be voting for them. 55 would seem to be promoting an individual right, something that is more appropriate for a constitution, so it still has a chance. 56, I like the idea, but would prefer to see it as a statute, not an amendment. At least I know where the supporters money comes from and can judge their motives appropriately.
Beethoven
September 13th, 2008 @ 3:12 pm

In reference to the mail out flyer; Deputy Shaw is not a Deputy for Commerce City, in fact he is a
Denver Deputy Sheriff and Vice-President of their Union (FOP LOdge 27). His current assignment is as
a warehouse clerk at the County Jail. What danger does he face at 2:00 a.m.? A paper cut perhaps,
a bullet highly unlikely. Look carefully at his ‘badge’ and you will see he proudly supports the FOP
as written on the badge. Talk about mis-leading . . .
Beethoven
September 13th, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

On another side note; you do realize that Denver Deputies can only enforce laws as applicable to their
assigned duties as a Detentions Deputy or as specifically assigned. They can not enforce traffic codes,
make arrests while off duty, or even give you a ticket. Hell, the dog catcher in denver can give you a ticket,
what does that say for this piece of mail??
Ben
September 15th, 2008 @ 8:04 pm

I’d like to see people source their information.

CS wrote: “And the Independence Institute isn’t pushing a citizen’s initiative, they (or at least a senior fellow there) are providing a front company – ‘Colorado At Its Best’ – to funnel corporate money to a variety of initiatives without having to reveal who is paying the bills. That is the sole purpose of ‘Colorado At Its Best’, to hide where the money comes from.”

I know very little about Colorado At Its Best. But the Independence Institute has nothing to do with it. You seem wedded to bizarre conspiracy theories, though.

Regarding Amendment 55 and 56 you write: “At least I know where the supporters [sic] money comes from and can judge their motives appropriately.”

Do you know where the supporters’ money comes from? Thousands and thousands of anonymous workers all over the country, whose money was taken from their paychecks – in many cases involuntarily – to support and oppose amendments many of them have never even heard of. The fact that this apparently doesn’t concern you is quite telling.

As far as the other fact … Beethoven, what is your source for all the information on Jeff Shaw and the sort of work he does? Thanks.
Curious Stranger
September 16th, 2008 @ 9:37 pm

Dennis Polhill, senior fellow at the Independence Institute,is the registered agent for Colorado At It’s Best. The majority of donations to Clean Government Colorado other than Colorado At It’s Best (all ~$600 of them) come from the Independence Institute – Jon Caldera, Pam Begnino (your boss?) and Ask First Centennial.

And of course, there’s the fact that Polhill and Caldera jointly filed the paperwork to get the intiative underway. Are we supposed to believe this is all coincidence?

“Do you know where the supporters’ money comes from? Thousands and thousands of anonymous workers all over the country, whose money was taken from their paychecks – in many cases involuntarily – to support and oppose amendments many of them have never even heard of. The fact that this apparently doesn’t concern you is quite telling.”

How do you know that? Oh, because the proponents of the bill chose to disclose their donors. And you can then make a decision based on that. You’re suggesting that I should be concerned about this, but not about the fact that I can’t get the same information for the measures opponents? How do I know the opponents funding didn’t come from Bob Schaffer’s cocaine sales to the Department of the Interior (to continue the unsupported speculations introduced over at Schaffer v Udall)?
Curious Stranger
September 16th, 2008 @ 9:52 pm

Incidentally Wesley, are you the same Wesley Dickinson now listed as a sponsor of the initiative? At what point did you get involved? On January 9th, Jon Caldera and Dennis Polhill were listed as the proponents of the measure when it was submitted to the Legislative Council in January. According to the Secretary of State, however, Wesley Dickinson and Tom Lucero are now listed as the proponents. What happened to Jon and Dennis? Clearly they are still supporters of the bill, why were their names removed? Perhaps you can clear up, for Ben, the Independence Institute’s involvement?
Ben
September 17th, 2008 @ 11:59 am

Wow, CS / Matt, be careful about coming unhinged from reality. First, your links to the Secretary of State’s website didn’t work, but I accept what you wrote there at face value. At one time, the campaigns for Am49 & Am54 were joined under the committee Clean Government Colorado, and I believe some I.I. employees gave some of their own money on their own to that committee. Jon & Dennis are experienced with Colo’s I&R process – my guess as to why they carried Am54 through Title hearings, etc.

As far as why the proponents’ names may have changed, Am49 supporters later decided to go their own way, start their own committee, etc. It’s the far more heavily funded union opposition that’s trying to link all 3 initiatives together (including Am47). So no, it’s not all coincidence, but neither is it a grand conspiracy. You have no idea how I.I. works – but thanks for flattering us beyond our wildest imagination.

But if you’re still sold on the grand conspiracy theory, please by all means go ahead and tell us all about it – feel free to include links to Elvis sightings, 9/11 Truther websites, grainy Sasquatch photos, old National Enquirer covers, and stories of “moon landings” in remote desert film studios, along with multi-page animated flowcharts that implicate the Trilateral Commission, Halliburton, Karl Rove, the Bilderbergers, and the Knights Templar in the scheme. But be sure to put on your tinfoil hat first. It will continue to amuse.

Down to brass tacks: Why do you feel impelled to divert attention away from the issues of Am49 & Am54 to make your flimsy and fantastical case? And why are you obsessed with anonymous funding from one side and completely dismissive of anonymous funding on the other? Hmm….

(And when you start spewing slanderous nonsense about non-existent cocaine deals that you cooked up in your fevered imagination, nonsense that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, it’s clear to everyone here reading your comments just how empty and void is the opposition to Am49 & Am54.)
Curious Stranger
September 17th, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

“First, your links to the Secretary of State’s website didn’t work”

That is odd. If you copy and paste the first link, it seems to work. Alternately, search for “Colorado At Its Best” here. Try here for the second link showing the sole source of non-Colorado At Its Best donations to Clean Government Colorado.

“As far as why the proponents’ names may have changed, Am49 supporters later decided to go their own way, start their own committee, etc.”

We’re here talking about 54, not 49. I haven’t spent much time looking at the funding for 49. If I get bored, maybe I’ll do that in the next few days. 54 still subsists entirely on donations from the anonymous money laundering nonprofit run by Independence Institute fellow and Caldera co-petitioner, Dennis Polhill, and New York real estate tycoon Howie Rich, who has similarly “co-sponsored” legislation with the Independence Institute in the past.

“Down to brass tacks: Why do you feel impelled to divert attention away from the issues of Am49 & Am54 to make your flimsy and fantastical case? And why are you obsessed with anonymous funding from one side and completely dismissive of anonymous funding on the other? Hmm….”

As I’ve said repeatedly, I have very little interest in the issues actually on the ballot. Obviously, the Independence Institute does. My sole interest here is to shine some light on the Independence Institute’s central role in the anonymous money being dumped onto the Colorado ballot cycle after cycle. There is no anonymous funding on the other side that I’ve found (to quote you, “I’d like to see people source their information”) It’s coming from unions with very clear motives.
wesley
September 17th, 2008 @ 5:29 pm

Incidentally, Matt Cable, yes, I am. I got involved after reading the initiative and realizing that the end result would be stopping the crooked, scumbag contractors from bribing the corrupt politicians by stopping the return payoffs/kickbacks from those politicians to the contractors in no-bid contracts with my tax dollars.

Matt, I need you to focus. I’ll apologize for the snark and sarcasm in my previous responses; apparently they were too distracting. Let me ask you for the third and final time: since the initiative is on the ballot in November, which result (focus here, we’re talking results) of Amendment 54 do you disagree with? Are you against the amendment because the corrupt politicians get screwed, or is it because the crooked, scumbag contractors bribing them get screwed?
Curious Stranger
September 17th, 2008 @ 6:21 pm

And I’ll tell you again, I’m against the amendment because it is funded by anonymous money laundered by the Independence Institute… and because its an amendment, when a statute should do. Incidentally Wesley, you aren’t listed as a donor to Clean Government Colorado. If you, listed as a proponent of the bill, aren’t paying the bills… who is?
Curious Stranger
September 17th, 2008 @ 6:28 pm

And Ben, save me the indignation. Clean up your own house before complaining that the neighborhood smells funny.

“Voters will likely forgive the use of drugs, but will they forgive a candidate who was involved in the sale of drugs? That is a different ballgame.”
Curious Stranger
September 17th, 2008 @ 8:15 pm

Amendment 49’s backed by Ethical Standards Now. They were established one day before the latest reporting period ended, so no financial information is available. The next report is due in a week and a half, so I’ll be sure to check back here then. In the meantime, the registered agent is Michelle Austin (a friend of Jon and yourself Ben? Perhaps she can answer some of the questions you have) who is also the registered agent for Clean Government Colorado. I think it’s safe to assume we’re going to find more anonymous Independence Institute laundered money behind this one.
Ben
September 17th, 2008 @ 10:16 pm

Matt, shall we assume therefore that you are offended by the thought that the Independence Institute might be opposed to corruption in the government contracting process? You know Am54 could be a good idea to promote ethics in government. Yet you are troubled that a lot of the money supporting Am54 came from out-of-state and not troubled that a lot of the money opposing Am54 came from out-of-state. Maybe you don’t realize how incoherent your argument is (or how feebly you keep trying to distract from the issue at hand), but keep it up.
Curious Stranger
September 17th, 2008 @ 10:34 pm

Am I not speaking english? I am offended by the Independence Institute funneling anonymous money onto the Colorado ballot, cycle after cycle. The anonymity is the problem. I don’t even have a way of telling if the money is from out of state! Am I to assume you would have no problem if the opponents had funneled all of their donations through a non-profit in an effort to shield their names?
tljames
September 17th, 2008 @ 11:26 pm

“I don’t even have a way of telling if the money is from out of state!”

Oh? Haven’t you spent the past week stating that it DID come from out of state?

Consistency, Matt. Please review your ProgressNow talking points so you can stay on-message.
Curious Stranger
September 17th, 2008 @ 11:46 pm

I’ve stated that Howie Rich, the man behind Colorado At It’s Best is a real estate tycoon from New York. I would assume that some of the money comes from him, but of course, none of us know where the money comes from – because it’s anonymous. It could come from anywhere. You seem to find anonymous money preferable to money that you know, through disclosure, comes from out of state. It’s interesting that you’re supporting a campaign to hold politicians and contractors accountable for their donations, because to do otherwise would encourage corruption, but you don’t hold the campaign itself to the same standard.
wesley
September 18th, 2008 @ 7:22 am

Alright Matt, I’ve tried to engage you in intelligent discussion over Amendment 54’s results; which has failed. You’re sticking to ProgressNow’s talking points and are apparently incapable of independent thought – that being said, you have been well-trained and are quite adept at question deflection. I asked you three separate times what RESULT of Amendment 54 you disliked; and you’ve dodged my question three separate times. I’ve already wasted too much time on you. Go back to trolling PPC and other blogs like a good little ProgressNow-paid Zombie, because our conversation is over. Goodbye.
Curious Stranger
September 18th, 2008 @ 10:51 am

And I’ve tried to engage you in intelligent discussion of Amendment 54’s goals – goals which we can’t ascertain because we don’t know who is paying its freight.

I don’t read their website, so I suspect you are more familiar with ProgressNow’s talking points than I am (could you point me towards them?), and I’m definitely not trained by anyone to muddy up the waters – unlike your team of Leadership Program of the Rockies trained professionals.

But, if you insist on talking about results, explain to me why this couldn’t be implemented as a citizen initiated statute, rather than an amendment? Would you support amending the US Constitution for this same purpose (and for all the other Independence Institute sponsored purposes on the ballot as amendments this year)? Isn’t amending Constitutions an explicitly non-conservative position? How does the ostensibly libertarian Independence Institute explain its support for the expansion of government power represented by stacking amendment after amendment on top of each other?

Isn’t this sort of behavior yet another example of the basic ideological corruption at the core of today’s Republican Party? A party that supports “limited government” but expands government to its largest levels in 40 years? A party that claims to support individual rights, but instead actively campaigns to limit individual rights for electoral gain? A party that claims to want to fight corruption, but instead gives us Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Ted Stevens and … the best part, Sarah Palin as a reformer? A party that until yesterday, was against Wall Street regulation, but today we’re supposed to accept is suddenly interested in protecting individual investors despite all evidence to the contrary?
Curious Stranger
September 18th, 2008 @ 10:56 am

Incidentally, is there anyone actively participating in this thread that isn’t in this picture? Wesley, for some reason you didn’t sit for the 2007 picture, so you’re excused.
Peoples Press Collective » Amendment 47, 49, and 54 Lies Just Keep Coming.
September 18th, 2008 @ 12:10 pm

[...] No on Amendment 47, 49, and 54 scanned mailer, a commentor noted that the officer in the picture wasn’t wearing an “official” police badge. Protect Colorado’s Future dressed him up in an officer-looking costume. What is it that [...]
Joba
September 18th, 2008 @ 7:09 pm

People with a Yes position on these have not sent me insulting propaganda. Didnt Pro-Union group, Protect Colorado’s Interest, not think I could look these issues up on the web, read the actual amendments, and think for myself? Its ok to have reasonable free speech, thats your right and I will protect it, but dont tell me flat out lies such as “…these new rules would stop first responders from joining together to advocate for critical measures” That is a very insulting lie. I read the amendments, can any of you union people tell me what wording in Amendment 47,49, and 54 “stop” ANYONE from doing their jobs, gathering in their own interest or advocating for better equipment? I can see how these initiative make union members think more about where their money is going and what benefit they receive. Perhaps Union leaders dont want members to think about that. 49 is stupid anyway since the way around it is for union members to schedule a direct withdraw from their checking account, just like some people do with their mortgage or credit card bills or gym memberships. There is no cost for this for the union members.
tljames
September 18th, 2008 @ 8:06 pm

FYI: the formal language of amendments 47, 49, and 54 can be found in the links on this post.
zombiehunter
September 25th, 2008 @ 3:42 pm

hahaha. that zombietime.com link is awesome!
Curious Stranger
September 28th, 2008 @ 10:21 pm

“Amendment 49’s backed by Ethical Standards Now. They were established one day before the latest reporting period ended, so no financial information is available. The next report is due in a week and a half, so I’ll be sure to check back here then. In the meantime, the registered agent is Michelle Austin (a friend of Jon and yourself Ben? Perhaps she can answer some of the questions you have) who is also the registered agent for Clean Government Colorado. I think it’s safe to assume we’re going to find more anonymous Independence Institute laundered money behind this one.”

Unsurprisingly, I was completely right! (don’t mind the expired session messages, just click the link a second time and it will work, it’s an error on the SoS’s side). All of “Ethical Standards Now”’s money comes from the Independence Institute. Who gave the Independence Institute the money? Who knows? Jon Caldera doesn’t want us to know whose paying the bills!

Colorado’s Amendment 54 Critic is a Hypocrite

Comments

Featured Posts

Follow PPC

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

National Debt Clock

Advertise Here!

Categories

Archives

Meta

Blogroll

Contributors