About Colorado Ethics Watch
Current Projects and Reports
Ethics Headlines
-
The Denver Post, Jan 9, 2009
-
The Denver Post, Jan 8, 2009
-
The Pueblo Chieftain, Jan 8, 2009
-
The Pueblo Chieftain, Jan 8, 2009
Appeals Court Hands Ethics Watch Major Victory
Today, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed a precedent-setting ruling that promotes greater transparency in campaign finance spending by affirming that political committees are liable for skirting the law. The case was originally brought by Colorado Ethics Watch, a nonpartisan, nonprofit legal watchdog group, against Committee for the American Dream for violating Colorado campaign finance law in the 2006 state election.
“This case confirms the important precedent set last year, one that increases transparency in Colorado elections,” said Chantell Taylor, director of Colorado Ethics Watch. “Thanks to the success of this case, political committees are on notice that they will be fined for ignoring reporting requirements and Colorado campaign finance laws will be more strictly enforced."
Colorado Ethics Watch filed suit against the Committee for the American Dream in March 2007 after learning that, during the 2006 election cycle, Committee for the American Dream had purchased $28,435 of television time to air ads that attacked now State Representative John Kefalas (D-52), but failed to file a single electioneering communication report with the secretary of state’s office. State law requires anyone, including a political committee, who spends more than $1,000 on ads that refer to a candidate and are broadcast to voters within 60 days before a general election to file “electioneering communication” reports with the secretary of state’s office no later than 30 days after the election.
In the original decision, upheld today by Colorado Appeals Court Judges Webb, Casebolt and Terry, the administrative law judge imposed a $1000 penalty on Committee for the American Dream for not filing the correct disclosure reports, rejecting its argument that it was excused from the filing requirements under the so-called “business exemption.”Both the administrative law judge and the Court of Appeals agreed with Ethics Watch that allowing political committees, which are in the business of influencing elections, to claim the exemption would frustrate the very purpose of campaign finance laws.
