December 29, 2008

In September, Ethics Watch filed a campaign finance complaint with the
Colorado Secretary of State against the Senate Majority Fund LLC (SMF)
and the Colorado Leadership Fund LLC (CLF) asserting that SMF and CLF
sponsored political ads that expressly advocate in favor of particular
candidates in violation of state laws.  The Administrative Law Judge's
recently dismissed the case and Ethics Watch has filed a notice of
appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals.  Ethics Watch Director
Chantell Taylor issued the following statement:

"Naturally we are disappointed in the ALJ's ruling but we fully expect
the Court of Appeals to agree with us that Colorado voters did not
intend to lock into the state Constitution a narrow definition of the
term 'express advocacy' - especially one that was rejected by the United
States Supreme Court in 2007. 

The ads in this case demonstrate why a narrow definition is unworkable;
here the ALJ agreed that at least one of the ads was intended to get
voters to support a candidate but because it did not use magic words such as
'vote for,' it could not be regulated as express advocacy.  In other
words, political groups can spend millions on ads designed to urge
voters how to vote and so long as they avoid the magic words they can
avoid regulation and disclosure requirements. 

The United States Supreme Court has rejected the interpretation of
'express advocacy' applied by the ALJ here and we look forward to
clarifying the correct legal standard in Colorado on appeal."