This proposal would alter Article XXVIII, Section 1 of the state constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 1-45-102 by deleting “encouraging voluntary” and replacing those words with “establishing” [campaign spending limits]. The longer, more important part -- directing the congressional delegation and the General Assembly to propose, support and ratify an amendment to the US Constitution to limit campaign contributions and spending -- is inserted in CRS 1-45-103.7 (9).
Because this proposal touches the state constitution by deleting 2 words and adding 1, it is considered an amendment rather than a proposition. In 2002 Colorado voters passed Amendment 27, a citizens’ initiative, 66.5% to 33.5%. Amendment 27 created Article XXVIII in our state constitution, which set contribution limits and voluntary spending limits in campaigns, as well as attempted to increase transparency in election finance.
Section 1 of Article XXVIII is a declaration of the people of Colorado and encourages, but does not require, changes in laws. One could argue that Section 1 shouldn’t have been included in Article XXVIII, but it’s too late now. This proposal does not make our already long constitution even longer, but it does state a stronger position on campaign spending than before.
The 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission overturned a federal law forbidding political spending by a corporation close to the election date. The result is that there are no limits on corporate campaign spending other than direct contributions to candidates. Corporations can be for-profit or nonprofit and can include business, political or labor organizations. By passing 2H last year, city of Boulder voters protested the Citizens United decision.
According to the Boulder Weekly, “If passed, Colorado will join eight other states — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont — calling on Congress to make such an amendment. Montana has a similar measure on the ballot this fall.”
Opponents point out that elected representatives cannot be required to propose or vote for a specific constitutional change so the ballot measure has no tangible effect. Opponents also argue that the Supreme Court ruled that political spending equals free speech so changing the law would diminish the political conversation.
One change that both sides (on and off the Supreme Court) might be able to agree upon is the public interest in more disclosure of election financing, but that is not specifically addressed in this ballot measure.
Recommendation: Yes
Citizen initiatives are one way for voters to tell their elected representatives how they feel about an issue. Another way is to be a single-issue voter and only vote for representatives who agree with you, but that method is not very effective unless a lot of other people feel the same way you do and make sure the representative understands the voters’ basis for supporting him or her.
If you would like to send a message that you want limits on campaign spending like many other democratic countries have, vote yes.
Website for the Yes Side
(Coloradans Get Big Money Out of Politics)
http://voteyeson65.org/
Website for the No Side
No known website, but the Independence Institute is speaking out in opposition.
Amendment 65 (CONSTITUTIONAL) (Approved Ballot Language)
Shall there be amendments to the Colorado constitution and the Colorado revised statutes concerning support by Colorado's legislative representatives for a federal constitutional amendment to limit campaign contributions and spending, and, in connection therewith, instructing Colorado's congressional delegation to propose and support, and the members of Colorado's state legislature to ratify, an amendment to the United States constitution that allows congress and the states to limit campaign contributions and spending?
‐Yes
‐No
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click below, then click on “2012 Blue Book” at the top of the page.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742
To see the full text of Amendment 27, passed by the electorate in 2002, click below. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/CampaignFinance/files/amend_27.pdf
Because this proposal touches the state constitution by deleting 2 words and adding 1, it is considered an amendment rather than a proposition. In 2002 Colorado voters passed Amendment 27, a citizens’ initiative, 66.5% to 33.5%. Amendment 27 created Article XXVIII in our state constitution, which set contribution limits and voluntary spending limits in campaigns, as well as attempted to increase transparency in election finance.
Section 1 of Article XXVIII is a declaration of the people of Colorado and encourages, but does not require, changes in laws. One could argue that Section 1 shouldn’t have been included in Article XXVIII, but it’s too late now. This proposal does not make our already long constitution even longer, but it does state a stronger position on campaign spending than before.
The 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission overturned a federal law forbidding political spending by a corporation close to the election date. The result is that there are no limits on corporate campaign spending other than direct contributions to candidates. Corporations can be for-profit or nonprofit and can include business, political or labor organizations. By passing 2H last year, city of Boulder voters protested the Citizens United decision.
According to the Boulder Weekly, “If passed, Colorado will join eight other states — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont — calling on Congress to make such an amendment. Montana has a similar measure on the ballot this fall.”
Opponents point out that elected representatives cannot be required to propose or vote for a specific constitutional change so the ballot measure has no tangible effect. Opponents also argue that the Supreme Court ruled that political spending equals free speech so changing the law would diminish the political conversation.
One change that both sides (on and off the Supreme Court) might be able to agree upon is the public interest in more disclosure of election financing, but that is not specifically addressed in this ballot measure.
Recommendation: Yes
Citizen initiatives are one way for voters to tell their elected representatives how they feel about an issue. Another way is to be a single-issue voter and only vote for representatives who agree with you, but that method is not very effective unless a lot of other people feel the same way you do and make sure the representative understands the voters’ basis for supporting him or her.
If you would like to send a message that you want limits on campaign spending like many other democratic countries have, vote yes.
Website for the Yes Side
(Coloradans Get Big Money Out of Politics)
http://voteyeson65.org/
Website for the No Side
No known website, but the Independence Institute is speaking out in opposition.
Amendment 65 (CONSTITUTIONAL) (Approved Ballot Language)
Shall there be amendments to the Colorado constitution and the Colorado revised statutes concerning support by Colorado's legislative representatives for a federal constitutional amendment to limit campaign contributions and spending, and, in connection therewith, instructing Colorado's congressional delegation to propose and support, and the members of Colorado's state legislature to ratify, an amendment to the United States constitution that allows congress and the states to limit campaign contributions and spending?
‐Yes
‐No
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click below, then click on “2012 Blue Book” at the top of the page.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742
To see the full text of Amendment 27, passed by the electorate in 2002, click below. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/CampaignFinance/files/amend_27.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments. Please only make comments that add to a fruitful discussion.