- Schaffer vs. Udall
- View From A Height
- Thinking Right
- Mt. Virtus
- Rocky Mountain Right
- Slapstick Politics
- Daily Blogster
- Hugh Hewitt
- Hot Air
- Fox News
- Real Clear Politics
- Rocky Mountain News
- Denver Post
- Debka Files
- Talking Points Memo
The Senate Race
Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs, 2.0
My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.
|Since honest, upstanding groups like "Coloradans for Middle Class Relief" and "Protect Colorado's Future" have lumped Amendments 47, 49, and 54 together, and since I've spent some time and blogspace taking on the opposition to Amendment 47 and Amendment 49, I thought it was time to take on the opposition to Amendment 54.|
To start with, let's look at the actual language of Amendment 54:
Because of a presumption of impropriety between contributions to any campaign and sole source government contracts, contract holders shall contractually agree, for the duration of the contract and for two years thereafter, to cease making, causing to be made, or inducing by any means, a contribution, directly or indirectly, on behalf of the contract holder or on behalf of his or her immediate family member and for the benefit of any political party or for the benefit of any candidate for any elected office of the state or any of its political subdivisions.
And THIS is objectionable . . . why?
As near as I can tell, and maybe I just don't know to read, but what this initiative does is prevent groups that are granted no-bid contracts that are worth more than $100,000 from giving campaign contributions.
Oh, yeah--you didn't know that? It's perfectly legal right now in Colorado for groups that win no-bid contracts with government entities to give campaign contributions to politicians and parties that helped them win the contract.
Think of it this way: right now, it's perfectly legal in Colorado for Halliburton to give contributions to Dick Cheney. Personally, I'm not sure I care--but if you believe the Left's meme on this one, then this would be Dick Cheney (assuming he's responsible for granting these contracts) being able to funnel millions to Halliburton through no-bid contracts, who then, in turn, turns right around and gives thousands back to the Dick Cheney campaign.
Of course, the appearance of impropriety is enormous, and if the two parties involved were Dick Cheney and Halliburton, the Left would be having aneurysms over this. But, since for the most part, we're talking about Democrat politicians funneling millions to unions, this is just okey-dokey with the Left.
And that's why the UFCW has spent at least $3.2 million buying the ads that oppose 47, 49, and 54 as a whole.
Think about that number. How many Coloradans are a part of the UFCW? Which translates into how many dollars per member? And do you really think every one of those members thinks that the sort of incestuous relationship Amendment 54 targets is really the way to do business in the state of Colorado?
But that's not the point, really, because unions misrepresent their membership all the time.
The point, really, is that the UFCW, through the groups mentioned above, is lying to the Colorado public about the effect of Amendment 54 by saying it "silences the voices of the public servants." Public servants still vote, they still get to participate in the political process, they can still raise money for politicians and they can still donate to causes, both as individuals and as a group.
What they SHOULD NOT have a right to do is engage in a system of quid pro quo with politicians and parties in an effort to fill their coffers and protect themselves by buying elected officials to cover for them.