The Office of Administrative Courts is setting the hearing date for Ethics Watch's campaign finance complaint against Clear the Bench Colorado for September 15.

Today, Ethics Watch filed a supplemental complaint against Clear the Bench Colorado based on the fact that Clear the Bench has continued to operate without registering as a political committee even after three Supreme Court justices filed affidavits declaring their intent to stand as candidates in the November 2010 general election.  Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer authorized Ethics Watch to file this complaint after Clear the Bench successfully argued that Ethics Watch's complaint was premature because the justices had not filed candidate affidavits as of the date of the original complaint.

Today, Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer dismissed Ethics Watch’s complaint against Clear the Bench Colorado as premature, but opened the door for a supplemental complaint based on the fact that three of the justices targeted by Clear the Bench have declared that they will be candidates for retention.

Today, Colorado Ethics Watch filed a campaign finance complaint with the Colorado Secretary of State against Clear the Bench Colorado, alleging violations of Colorado campaign law by this group that is advocating for the defeat of four Colorado Supreme Court justices who will stand for retention in November 2010.

Ethics Watch filed today a petition with the Colorado Supreme Court, asking it to review the Court of Appeals’ March 18 decision holding that under Colorado’s Amendment 27, spending on political ads cannot be regulated as “expenditures” unless the ads contain both “magic words” such as “vote for” and some “express exhortation” to vote for or against a candidate.

Today, the Colorado Supreme Court responded to interrogatories submitted by Governor Ritter regarding the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision on Colorado campaign finance law.  As expected, the Court ruled that Colorado's prohibition on the use of corporate or labor union funds to pay for independent expenditures or electioneering communications is unconstitutional under the interpretation of the First Amendment set forth in Citizens United.  In response, Colorado Ethics Watch called on the legislature to strengthen disclosure requirements in Colorado campaign finance law.

Today, Colorado Ethics Watch announced its intention to ask the Colorado Supreme Court to review today’s Court of Appeals decision affirming the dismissal of Ethics Watch’s campaign finance complaint against the Senate Majority Fund and the Colorado Leadership Fund.   In today’s ruling, the Court of Appeals held that the two committees’ spending was not “for the purpose of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate” because the ads did not use so-called “magic words” such as “vote for” or “elect” – even though the administrative law judge ruled that at least one of the ads was clearly intended to advocate for the election of a candidate and even though the United States Supreme Court has abandoned the “magic words” test as “functionally meaningless.” 

Yesterday, Ethics Watch filed a supplemental brief in a case that promises to shed the state’s first light on the effect of Citizens United v. FEC on Colorado campaign finance law.

Yesterday, the Denver District Court ruled in favor of Colorado Ethics Watch on a claim against the IEC for violation of the Open Meetings Act.

Yesterday, District Court Judge Norman Haglund ruled that the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) must pay Colorado Ethics Watch $10,332.02 for attorneys fees it incurred in a successful lawsuit against the IEC for violating the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA).

Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. of the Denver District Court today dismissed a portion of Ethics Watch’s complaint against the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission (“IEC”), challenging the IEC’s advisory opinion that a legislator’s acceptance of a gift of a trip to Turkey would not violate Amendment 41’s gift ban. Judge McGahey accepted the IEC’s position that advisory opinions are not subject to judicial review because they are “neither the issuance of a general regulation nor the determination of particular rights in adjudication.” The ruling means any legislator or other public officer covered by Amendment 41 who seeks an advisory opinion cannot actually rely on the IEC’s opinion and could still be subject to a complaint.

Today, Ethics Watch filed its final brief with the Colorado Court of Appeals in its challenge of an administrative law judge (ALJ) order that permitted two so-called 527 political organizations to avoid contribution limits and disclosure obligations applicable to political committees under Colorado law, simply by avoiding the use of words such as "vote for" and "elect" in their ads supporting state House and Senate candidates during the 2008 election.

Colorado Ethics Watch has learned that its complaint with the Colorado Secretary of State against the Lakewood Safe Streets Committee was successful in forcing this group to register as an issue committee and disclose financial contribution and expenditure information. 

Ernest Luning (The Colorado Independent) - DENVER — The Colorado Independent Ethics Commission violated the state’s Open Meetings Law when it failed to convene a dozen closed-door meetings held earlier this year according to strict legal requirements, a Denver District Court judge has ruled.

Ethics Watch filed a complaint today with the Aurora City Clerk against four proponents of the Aurora Impound Initiative for receiving contributions and making expenditures while failing to register as an issue committee.   This is the second such complaint filed by Ethics Watch in so many days.  Yesterday, Ethics Watch filed its complaint against Lakewood Impound Initiative supporters.

Ethics Watch filed today a campaign finance complaint with the Colorado Secretary of State against the Lakewood Safe Streets Committee for receiving contributions and making expenditures while failing to file as an issue committee.

Ethics Watch today filed a complaint with the Aurora City Clerk against Aurora Council Member Ryan Frazier for failure to file accurate financial disclosures between 2007 and 2009. Frazier's financial disclosure forms filed with Aurora claim he has been employed by Raytheon since 2004, with no changes since; but his public statements and online biographies indicate he has changed employment to Avaya Corporation and again to Takara Systems.

John Tomasic (The Colorado Independent) - A Larimer County judge this afternoon ordered the Colorado State University Board of Governors to make public further recordings of a closed-door session during which it secretly interviewed candidates for the university’s new chancellorship and decided to select its own vice chairman, Joe Blake, as sole finalist for the position.

Last month, Denver District Court Judge Norman Haglund ruled in favor of Ethics Watch in a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit against the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission (IEC).  Ethics Watch is now making public for the first time files regarding advisory opinion and letter ruling requests and non-frivolous complaints filed with the IEC, all of which have now been made public as a result of the court ruling.

Today, Ethics Watch filed its opening brief with the Colorado Court of Appeals in a case involving whether so-called 527 political committees can avoid contribution limits and disclosure regulations applicable to political committees under Colorado law, simply by avoiding the use of so-called "magic words" like "vote for" or "reject."  The Court of Appeals will review an administrative law judge's November 2008 decision that Senate Majority Fund and Colorado Leadership Fund did not act as political committees when they ran ads in support of various state House and Senate candidates.