Dec 18 2008
In all the wrangling over a replacement for Ken Salazar, something seems to be getting left out: where in all this maneuvering are the interests of Coloradans being considered?
Apparently those are of secondary (or lesser) importance to the power interests of the Democrat Party and its obsessive-compulsive need to pander to identity-group factions.
Dec 06 2008
Actually, for thin-skinned local “progressive” talk show host Jay Marvin, it sounds like it was over before it began, thanks to a snobby Mark Udall being insufficiently appreciative of Marvin’s free campaign efforts on his behalf:
The last draw came election night. Udall had won and beaten Bob Schaffer. I was broadcasting live from the Democratic ballroom at a downtown hotel. My producer, John Turk, went up to Udall’s press secretary Taylor West to ask for in interview. We were told no. Now keep in mind I had given this guy money, had pitched for him on the air, and had even carried water for him when some of his votes got him into trouble with his core.[emphasis mine]
Where were the TV stations when the election campaign was going on? Did they even lift a finger to help this guy.
The worst part of it was after all we gad done for Mark Udall on the air, John Turk was treated like s***, he was only doing his job–and we were denied an interview with the newly elected Senator. It was only after I got in a yelling match with Udall’s campaign manager were we granted a short, tense live interview on the air.
There were many more incidents of the Udall minions walking all over Mary and myself.
I’m not going to go into the rest here. Let’s just say Udall is a phony. He is cold, and has a well crafted image that covers who he really is. And let me also say I will never have this man on my show again as long as I’m on the air in this market.
How perceptive.
I can only suffer Jay Marvin for very short and widely spaced intervals. But I’m sure that if I were a regular member of his audience I wouldn’t much appreciate being told now, a month after the election, that he was merely “carrying water” for a candidate he loathed and didn’t believe in, and covering up the guy’s political liabilities in order to keep the more left-leaning members of the audience placated and willing to vote for him. In essence, he was trying to fool the audience just long enough to get “the Democrat” elected…and now has the poor taste to bluntly state as much.
Since I’m not a member of his regular audience (thank heavens) I can laugh about it instead. Let the backstabbing begin…
ADDENDUM: This part of Marvin’s post also caught my eye, as an illustration of how different Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer are as men:
What she found in the campaign HQ was not pretty site. Interns–for many of them it was their first job–were treated with disrespect and arrogance. Several times Mary was told to out and out lie to people on the phones…
Udall is a cold removed man. Here’s an example. He would come to the Denver campaign office be led down a set of stairs to an office where the door would be shut and he’d make his pitch calls for money.
The whole time Mary was there he never once stopped to thank or say hello to any of the kids busting their butts on his behalf.
I happened to stop by the Schaffer call center in Arvada at around 3pm on election day, and discovered Bob Schaffer himself making a visit on his rounds that day through his campaign offices. He was cheerfully thanking the volunteers, chatting with them here and there as he made his way through the room, addressing many of them by name (apparently from memory). He even took the time to record with me an impromptu interview for PPC…and then to re-record it when I discovered the camera had malfunctioned (which it also did the second time around, I discovered later).
In hindsight, I had a sense after talking with Bob that he already knew he wasn’t going to win the election…but there he was anyway, sharing his time on election day with the volunteers, fuelling their optimism, giving them encouragement, and showing them that their contributions of time and effort to his campaign were appreciated. That’s just the way Bob Schaffer is — friendly, engaged, and gregarious.
Of course, while such qualities are great to have, it’s even more important that someone running for office have strong character and sound political principles. It’s too bad that not enough Coloradans could see that Bob Schaffer had all three. Unlike Jay Marvin, we didn’t have to lie about how good our candidate was.
Nov 03 2008
11-3: bumping this post back to the top for Election Day
With all the initiatives on the ballot this year, it might be hard to keep them all sorted out. So, being the helpful folks that we are, we here at PPC have put together a sample ballot for the amendments and referenda in the 2008 Colorado elections.
On our sample ballot, you’ll find a quick summary of what each ballot measure is about, our recommended vote, and our reasons behind that recommendation. We’ve even provided a handy printable version [PDF] that you can print out and use for reference while filling out your ballot.
Oct 31 2008
What’s missing from Protection Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future’s ridiculous Godzilla ad is a good movie poster:
Oct 31 2008
Apparently 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 Corruption Future. Now they’re telling us that if we don’t vote against these amendments, Denver will be destroyed by…
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Right. These guys are so full of crap that it’s actually getting old. I know they raised like $30 million dollars and they think that we Coloradans are stupid enough to fall for their out-of-state Union Scam. Now I don’t want to necessarily silence their free speech, but wasn’t decimating the economy of one state enough for these Unions? Anyone here want to turn out like Michigan?
Say it with me kids…
Amendment 49 brings ethical standards to government and makes PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS collect the dues from their members directly by prohibiting the PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS from using our tax dollar paid government employees from being their bagman. Vote YES on Amendment 49!
Amendment 54 stops the culture of corrupt bribery between scumbag contractors and corrupt politicians, and it also sets up a statewide database of no-bid government contracts allowing we the people to see who our politicians are handing our tax dollars to. Vote YES on Amendment 54!
I’m going to start a weekend campaign right here, right now. Apparently facts don’t matter to the Union Thug opponents to 49 and 54, so why should we worry about them now? So, remember when you vote this year: IF YOU LOVE BABBIES AND PUPPIES, THEN PROTECT THEM BY VOTING YES ON 49 and 54!
Wow, this is pretty easy. Maybe Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future is hiring?
Oct 26 2008
Boy, lots of rallies in Denver this weekend. It’s almost like Colorado is still up for grabs as a battleground state! El Marco has photos from Friday morning’s McCain rally at the National Western Arena, including coverage of protestors harassing the attendees as they stood in line and during the speech inside the arena.
Oct 25 2008
Influence peddling is a pricey hobby. Just ask the anti Amendment 54 thugs at Colorado Concern.
Colorado Concern, a collective of self-important VIPs who are doing just fine under the current system of corrupt no-bid awards and lack of transparency, is the source of an e-mail desperately trying to coerce $3 million from its membership - with a $10,000 minimum contribution and a helpful suggestion that members could throw up to $100,000 of their company’s money at protecting entrenched interests. $3 million, by the by, is the price tag the business community paid for bribing Unions to remove their latest round of vile ballot offerings. It somehow doesn’t seem that Colorado Concern is tremendously concerned about the voice of the little guy.
But why would they be? Their own website describes them as, “an exclusive alliance of top executives” and brags about its “unprecedented access to opinion leaders and elected officials” as well as its “impressive ability to financially support issues and candidates”.
Wow, it must be nice to be part of the rarefied ranks of the Concerned.
But they hardly represent the concerns of real Coloradans. On their site, they’ve published an annual poll of their own members, where they are downright proud to admit that 50% of them think TABOR is the “principle cause of the state’s budget problem”, 87% support a 5-yr extension of Ref C and 76% support an “indefinite” extension for C.
So, what exactly is Colorado Concerned so darn concerned about? For one, they’re all uppity that Amendment 54, for Clean Government Colorado, will adversely effect non-profits who hold no-bid contracts. But if these non-profits are doing such great work and are so gosh darned wonderful for the community, why do they need the protection of no-bid guarantees? To be very clear, 54 won’t deny anyone the right to bid on a contract. It will strengthen that very right by opening up the bidding process and preventing the most politically entrenched businesses from improperly leveraging that influence to buy contracts.
Devolving further into the ’spurious and furious’ category, the e-mail frets that rural areas will be decimated. Apparently, the smaller communities in the state just don’t have enough businesses that are “able/equipped” to bid on contracts. According to Colorado Concern, this makes no-bid contracts not just unavoidable but a good thing for rural Colorado. Hmmm…why do I have a sneaking suspicion that Colorado Concern would like to write the standards by which companies and their bids are judged? In fact, suggesting that smaller businesses, particularly in rural areas, just can’t handle the bidding process, let alone the actual contract, is a deeply offensive and patronizing idea. In an open, competitive bidding system, a company that can’t handle the work isn’t going to win the contract. Compare that to what we have now, a system where vital services are provided not by the most competent but by the best connected.
The bottom line is that Colorado Concern is an alliance of business owners who stand to lose if competition, transparency, and honest bidding comes to Colorado government contracts. They aren’t interested in supporting any business growth other than their own. In fact, they’re gladly willing to mortgage our economic future to finance a narrow set of illicit special interests. They’ve even gotten in bed with Union thugs to protect their no-bid goodies.
PPC says make good use of one thing Colorado Concern an Unions can’t buy - your vote.
Oct 13 2008
In their first television ad, Clean Government Colorado has taken their YES on Amendment 54 fight for protecting Colorado Taxpayers to your living room:
The commercial busts Senator Abel Tapia on his secretive No-Bid government contracts from the Colorado State fair totaling $481,483. For years this politician has been using his oversight of the State Fair to funnel hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars to his engineering firm in No-Bid contracts – other Colorado engineering firms didn’t even get a shot at these contracts. Backroom sketchy deals like that are what we expect from Castro or Chavez, not a Colorado State Senator.
Amendment 54 Chair Tom Lucero noted, “Frankly, we shouldn’t have to wait for a 9News Investigation to find out how our tax dollars are being spent. The public has a right to know these matters and YES on Amendment 54 will open up the government contracting process. Coloradans are tired of footing the bill for backroom deals for political insiders.”
“YES on Amendment 54 is just good common sense,” Lucero continued, “Having a searchable database is the perfect disinfectant for corrupt NO-BID contracts. A searchable database will put elected officials on notice that every time a NO-BID contract goes out the door, taxpayers will be watching. Ultimately, the goal is for every government contract to be competitively bid. YES on Amendment 54 makes taxpayers the real winners.”
Oct 11 2008
Diana Hsieh lays out the arguments for voting against Amendment 59, the TABOR-killing tax increase. In short, the ballot measure so saccharinely named “SAFE - Savings Account For Education” is a permanent tax increase, making an end-run around TABOR to provide yet more funding for state-operated K-12 education while employing the “lotto effect” (a dollar-for-dollar offset from the general fund) to increase state spending in non-education areas.
NoStateTaxHike.com provides more information on Amendment 59, and NoMoreBlankChecks.com presents the NO position from a TABOR-centric perspective.
Oct 03 2008
Here’s something interesting on that group desperately trying to persuade you to vote against Amendments 54, 49, and 47.
Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future (as they’re known here at PPC) has been sending out flyers chock full of misleading and plainly dishonest allegations about these amendments, with images of police and firefighters carefully crafted to appear as if these folks are in uniform. The intent behind these images seems to be to give the casual reader the impression that the positions presented in the flyers represent an official position of police or fire departments, but with the “plausible deniability” that someone looking closely at the uniforms would recognize that they weren’t the real thing.
Clearly, though, the flyers’ authors rely on the fact that most people who find one of these things in their mailbox will look only at the hang-dog faces on the people who nobly protect our communities, read the misleading text to find out what has them looking so upset, and take away the impression that “The Police Department” and “The Fire Department” officially oppose Amendments 54, 49, 47. But if anything, when the pictures are studied carefully, it’s actually a union position that’s being represented.
As 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 priority.
But at 2:00am when he responds to a call - Officer Shaw shouldn’t worry whether or not his vest can take that bullet.
But that’s EXACTLY what Amendments 47, 49, and 54 will do.
These amendment swill stop Officer Shaw from joining with other officers to advocate for better body armor and modern equipment - giving him the tools he needs to protect and save lives.
If you look closely at the pictures in that flyer, you’ll notice that Officer Jeff Shaw isn’t quite wearing a uniform, but a black police-uniform-style shirt with what appears to be a name bar and police badge on it - a badge which bears the letters “F.O.P.”, the acronym of the Fraternal Order of Police. While the central body of the F.O.P. doesn’t explicitly describe itself as a union, it performs many of the functions of one. I’ve got no problem at all with citizens organizing into professional associations or unions - especially if those groups put the interests of their members before the interests of the group’s leaders.
But…when you read their words, Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future’s argument is that only by stopping Amendments 47, 49, and 54 will our state’s police and firefighters be able to participate in organizations like F.O.P. They imply organizations like F.O.P. - unions, in short - are the only route for securing the workplace safety of our policemen and firefighters. For getting them the body armor and modern equipment they need. For obtaining the tools they need to protect and save lives.
One might construe from that that the F.O.P. is concerned about safety, right? Well…Take a peek at the current F.O.P. Sherriff Lodge 27’s collective bargaining agreement. Here are a few sample pages (full document can be found at FOP Sheriff Lodge 27’s website):
Full, legible document here [pdf].
Since we’re all about looking at things closely, we took a close look at this document.
In this collective bargaining union agreement, the words “pay”, ”payroll”, “paydate”, or “salary” appear no fewer than 92 times, the words “vacation”, “leave”, or “sick leave” appear no fewer than 108 times, and the word “overtime” appears no fewer than 8 times.
Since this is an employment agreement we’re talking about, it’s obviously going to include text about pay and benefits. That’s part of what an employment agreement is for, right? But in contrast, throughout the entire agreement, the word “safety” does not appear once; nor do the words “bulletproof” or ”vest”.
Not. Once.
It’s a completely bogus argument to claim that Amendments 47, 49, and 54 will prevent anyone from joining any union or professional organization they choose - in fact, securing that element of choice is exactly what Amendment 47 in particular is about - or that workers will be unable to organize to negotiate better conditions or the right equipment for the job. It’s also questionable to imply that those unions are the sole route to workplace safety, when the union leaders don’t bother to mention safety alongside hundreds of pay and benefit provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.
You’d think if collective bargaining were the sole means available for securing the safety of their members, the union leadership crafting that collective bargaining agreement would have seen fit to mention it, even just once .
Oct 02 2008
In a confidential internal memorandum obtained by Face The State (PDF), the Colorado Democracy Alliance outlines a roster of “operatives” who worked for Democratic victory in the 2006 general election. The document outlines specific tasks for various members of the state’s liberal infrastructure, including a campaign to “educate the idiots,” assigned to the state’s AFL-CIO union. Among the operation’s intended targets: “minorities, GED’s, drop-outs.”That’s right: Gov. Bill Ritter’s spokesman, and the two top Democrat leaders in the state legislature (at least at the time). What do they think about minorities being called “idiots”? Some intrepid member of the press will have to ask them. Or maybe they should ask the CoDA “strategy group” members who populate the media-manipulating organ ProgressNow, the phony watchdog Colorado Ethics Watch, and more?
Individuals named in the document, marked “CONFIDENTIAL,” “for internal use only,” and “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE,” are high-level elected Democrats including House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, former Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, as well as Gov. Bill Ritter’s press aide and former campaign chief Evan Dreyer. All are specially marked as “off-the-record or covert.”
Yikes, indeed. Or as Slapstick Politics wryly observes: “change we can believe in.”
Let’s read between the lines of this fair campaign:
* Is it really for the welfare of the worker, as the union elite claim with every campaign, or “increasing CO union power”?
* How powerful is your campaign message if you feel the smart people just won’t vote for you?
* And — this is as obvious as pie — you’re calling minorities “idiots”?????????? Who, they apparently believe, can be hoodwinked to serve any cause just by appealing to said alleged idiocy????
YIKES!
Sep 29 2008
Today Governor Ritter held a press conference to campaign against Amendment 46: Civil Rights Initiative. People’s Press Collective has the 4 minute video:
Here are some of the highlights:
“but Amendment 46 undercuts Colorado and destroys years of progress in education, in health care, in workforce development. All efforts that are important to Colorado’s hardworking families and family owned business. It is, and like it is, and like it or not, excuse me, we still have a way to go to achieve equality in the work place and in the classroom.”
That’s funny, I always thought equality meant no special rules for certain individuals or groups. I bet the Governor also believes that some animals are more equal than others.
“Amendment 46 is a California import. Now, we import a lot of things from California. Right? We import wine. We import, uh, I can’t think of other things, but we import wine.”
I can think of other things… how about socialists? Communists? California liberal zombies?
“We don’t need a Californian coming here to this state and saying, these people can’t play, when you’re out you’re out and you can’t get in.”
I’m not sure where he’s going with this one. Maybe he’s talking about his second term?
Bonus Material! Ritter took questions.
First up, the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative people asked him about their handout they had at the press conference:
Ritter responded:
“I haven’t used letterhead to, uh, promote, uh, an initiative. So I’ll have to see what the hell, I’ll have to see what they’re talking about.”
Classy.
One more question asked Ritter if he’s going to start ad campaigns against 46. He’s not sure. He needs to ask his boss.
Sep 25 2008
Another People’s Press Collective dedicated reader just sent us a copy of Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future’s latest dishonest mailer that’s dripping with more fear mongering. You won’t be surprised that they’re still abusing Colorado’s real heroes as puppets for their elaborate LIES:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Honesty just isn’t one of Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future’s strengths. Taking their Page 4 LIES one by one (click the links to read the actual Amendment text on the Colorado Secretary of State’s webpage):
Amendment 47: How does giving firefighters the right to choose whether they want to join a union take their equipment and tools away? Amendment 47 will only take away power from Union Thug Bosses from strong-arming firefighters to join a union. The amendment actually protects an individual firefighter’s right to choose what’s in his best interest.
Amendment 49: Doesn’t dictate how hardworking firefighters spend their paychecks. It prohibits Union Thug Bosses from stealing money out of firefighter paychecks. It requires Union Thug Bosses to ask before taking money from our hardworking Colorado firefighters.
Amendment 54: Closes campaign finance loopholes for corrupt, scumbag corporations who presently can spend millions of dollars in campaigns to get crooked politicians elected and then can be rewarded by those politicians with multi-million dollar NO-BID government contracts. Small businesses actually benefit from an Amendment 54 even playing field allowing them to compete for those same government contracts. Working families benefit because our tax dollars don’t go to crooked politicians paying off corrupt, scumbag contractors with multi-million dollar political favors. In addition, Amendment 54 sets up a statewide searchable database that allows us, the hardworking Colorado families, to see which politicians are handing out NO-BID government contracts and which contractors receive them. We should be able to see exactly how our tax dollars are being spent.
Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future is shameful and dishonest. They send out mailers full of LIES on Amendments 47, 49, and 54. They LIE to Colorado voters’ faces about Amendments 47, 49, and 54. They refuse to publicly debate Amendments 47, 49, and 54 to defend their LIES. Unfortunately for Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future , we Colorado voters actually use our heads and see through the LIES.
Sep 18 2008
A faithful People’s Press Collective reader forwarded us another misleading mailer sent out by Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future.
These Heroes Don’t Need Capes, so why has Protect Colorado’s Future put these true heroes in costumes?
Page 1
Page2
Page 3
Page 4
From Protect Colorado’s Future’s original 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 Protect Colorado’s Future is trying to hide? Why is Protect Colorado’s Future trying to trick voters? I have at least as much, and likely more, respect for Colorado’s public employees who keep us safe, but something about Protect Colorado’s Future’s mailers don’t add up to me.
The only thing about this ad that’s true is that Colorado’s officers, firefighters, and EMTs are true heroes. It’s too bad that Protect Colorado’s Future thinks they can dress these real heroes up in costumes.
First Protect Colorado’s Future dresses real public employees up in costumes, then they outright lie to Colorado voters about Colorado amendments on the ballot, and now they’re back to putting Colorado’s heroes in costumes? Why won’t Protect Colorado’s Future just be honest with voters? Why are they using such sketchy tactics?
Sep 15 2008
Oh, this is funny. Check out these two slideshows from the Rocky, and see if you notice something…peculiar…
Barack Obama visits Grand Junction
Ah yes…Palin’s montage gets three protest signs, Obama none.
Sep 15 2008
Sep 15 2008
Both Palin and Obama were shaking hands and kissing babies in Colorado today, so the 600 AM KCOL Morning Show attempted to contact both the McCain Camp and the Obama Camp to provide them the opportunity to communicate each candidate’s message in this Colorado leg of their campaign tours.
Host Brad Jones speaks with Bill Riggs, spokesman for the RNC, about Governor Palin’s visit to Colorado and he states her talks today will discuss “her record of reform and shaking things up in Alaska” and “she’s going to be citing actual results.” However, after trying to reach the Obama Colorado Press line all morning long and not having any of his calls returned, at the end of the final hour of the morning show, Brad calls them on air.
First they put Brad on hold. And then they Hung up on him. Jennifer from the Obama Camp quickly called KCOL back and was unwilling to discuss Obama’s message to Colorado on the air. She stated “unfortunately we weren’t able to locate any of our surrogates today with Senator Obama being here in Grand Junction and in Pueblo” and she apologized that she wasn’t able to provide someone to speak on the air this morning. When Brad asked her if the Obama Camp planned to let KCOL know that they didn’t have an available spokesman today, you guessed it, she hung up on him. Again. Tough crowd, Brad. You made your best effort to let them get their message out.
How is the traditional media supposed to do their job (well, what used to be their job) of providing a balanced perspective if some campaigns refuse to talk to them?
Sep 11 2008
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.”
Sep 09 2008
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.
