Gov. Bill Ritter on Wednesday signed into law the Spam Reduction Act, which provides state enforcement authority similar to federal authority against unwanted e-mails.To Ritter's credit, Spam Reduction is an act of bipartisan goodwill, a positive headline needed to take attention away from a serious $300,000 campaign finance violation.
Bill Ritter (invoking classic Monty Python): "I don't like Spam!"
The complaint, from Rep. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, prompts the process for reviewing campaign-finance violations. Without the complaint, it is unclear whether the Secretary of State's Office could have begun a formal inquiry.At the least, Bill Ritter's six-figure violation represents a case of grossly poor management. The investigation that follows today's formal complaint will reveal whether there's anything even more serious to be found.
"There are some very specific rules you've got to follow," Lambert said of campaign-finance laws. "This seemed to violate at least several of them and needs to be investigated further."
Last week, Ritter, a Democrat, announced that his former campaign manager, Greg Kolomitz, wrongly used inaugural funds to pay off more than $200,000 in campaign debt and also overpaid himself by about $83,000.
If this is the kind of oversight Bill Ritter gives to his own campaign funds, what does that say about his ability to manage how billions of taxpayer dollars are spent?Following up on the same story about a six-figure campaign finance violation, today the editors of the Denver Post write:
The buck stops at the governor's office, and if anything this mess again raises questions over his management skills.The Post concludes:
We think Coloradans deserve to know exactly how the misspending came to pass. Ritter so far has been open about the process, but it's in his best interest to make sure these remaining questions are answered in full and public ways.That's about as nicely as it can be put.
In 1987, Romer's inaugural ball cost taxpayers $10,000 to $15,000, said Romer spokeswoman Cindy Parmenter.I know there's such a thing as inflation, but not enough to account for $300,000 in spending. The questions I have yet to see answered are: 1) How much did Bill Ritter's inaugural committee raise? 2) How much did Bill Ritter's inaugural committee spend on legitimate expenses? 3) Why was so much money needed in Bill Ritter's inaugural committee? What cost so much at the inaugural party?
She said the 1991 inauguration will cost under $6,000, compared to 1987's total cost of $25,000. "The first time we had to spend money on staff, telephones and things we already have," she explained.
Gov. Bill Ritter paid more than $200,000 in campaign expenses out of his inaugural account in violation of campaign-finance laws, his office announced today as March disclosures come due.If this is the kind of oversight Bill Ritter gives to his own campaign funds, what does that say about his ability to manage how billions of taxpayer dollars are spent?
Ritter has put up his home as collateral on a $200,000 loan to repay the misspent funds, his staff said.
Former campaign manager Greg Kolomitz — who also oversaw the inaugural fund — is to blame, said Jim Carpenter, Ritter's chief of staff.
Ritter took responsibility for loose oversight, and the matter is now in the hands of the secretary of state and the Denver district attorney, staff said.
Cory Voorhis looked me in the eye and said “God Bless America”. It was a remarkable statement from a man whose life has been turned upside down by a justice system which was hijacked by politicians and turned loose on this unsung American hero. When I said to Voorhis that it was remarkable he still felt that way, he pointed to his American flag lapel pin and said, still choked up from the news five minutes earlier, “This is what I stand for.”It was a bad week for Gov. Bill Ritter, but certainly a relief for a duty-bound civil servant who despite the financial and mental anguish can still proclaim "God bless America."
Five minutes earlier, at about 1:45 PM on Wednesday, a 13-member jury unanimously returned two “not guilty” verdicts on the charges filed against Cory Voorhis by the US Attorney for the District of Wyoming. It was a case which the US Attorney’s office should never have accepted, but did so, in the view of many observers, because of political pressure trickling down from the office of Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, Jr.
After a trial that included shoddy lawyering by the prosecution and a government investigation obviously tainted by politics, Cory Voorhis is today a free and vindicated man. But it is a bittersweet victory indeed, as Voorhis has been nearly bankrupted by the government’s outrageous abuse of power, selective prosecution, and intentionally incomplete investigation.
For those interested in helping Cory Voorhis pay off some of his $250,000 debt for legal bills, please visit http://www.corylegaldefense.com and make a contribution. My money is where my mouth is.Cross posted at Mount Virtus
Political observers don't have high hopes that the situation will improve.Last week I noted:
"If (Ritter's) goal is trying to get business to back off right-to-work, I don't think he has the credibility to do it," said Katy Atkinson, a Republican political strategist, pointing out that he is seen as pro-labor.
Atkinson said right-to-work bills in the legislature never got off the ground in the past — even under Republicans — because businesses never really saw organized labor as a threat in Colorado.
But that view changed, she said, after the passage of an amendment in 2006 to increase the minimum wage with a yearly cost-of-living index, efforts to get a bill passed last year to make it easier to unionize workplaces and Ritter's executive order in November allowing a form of collective bargaining for state employees.
Since Ritter helped to set the wheels in motion that got Colorado to where it’s at now, I guess he really had no choice but try to step in and stop it: for his own sake, for the Democratic Party’s sake, for the sake of Big Labor.Colorado's Democratic governor has aligned himself with union leaders, and now he's stuck. Bill Ritter's attempt to portray himself as a business-friendly moderate candidate in 2006 has been exposed as the charade it was. Katy Atkinson is right: Ritter doesn't have enough credibility left with business leaders to convince them to stop the ballot initiative that would protect workers from mandatory union fees.
A battle over labor issues could cost Ritter and the Democratic Party serious political capital. And with national Democrats coming to Denver this August for their national convention, the last thing Ritter needs is an extremist union agenda to impede his party's effort to appeal to moderate small- and medium-sized business owners.It's no surprise really then that Ritter is being ignored.
Hoping to avoid an ugly confrontation between business and labor this fall, Gov. Bill Ritter wants the two sides to withdraw their competing ballot measures, his spokesman said Tuesday.In 2007, union leaders unleashed House Bill 1072, the original bomb that prompted the right-to-work response. Now that the initiative is almost ready for the ballot, union leaders are throwing a bunch of economically harmful proposals up against the wall to see what will stick, but mainly as a giant threat to get the right-to-work supporters to back down.
"The governor believes the best thing for all of Colorado would be if none of these measures were on the ballot in November," said Evan Dreyer, the Democratic governor's spokesman. "The governor has had conversations with both sides and will continue trying to bring everyone together and find common ground to get to a place that's good for the entire state."
He predicted that money would flow in from all across the country to back issues on both sides. Such a nasty fight could bring unwanted attention to Colorado and to Denver as it hosts the Democratic National Convention in August, Straayer said.Since Ritter helped to set the wheels in motion that got Colorado to where it's at now, I guess he really had no choice but try to step in and stop it: for his own sake, for the Democratic Party's sake, for the sake of Big Labor.
Political leaders are going to try to avoid that, he said.
Amid all the talk at the state Capitol of health care reform and how to lower costs, the most contentious debate so far has been over a bill that most lawmakers hadn't heard of two months ago.Here's a bill so bad that two sensible Democrats on the committee can detect its fetid smell enough to stand up against it, despite pressure from party leaders.
Senate Bill 164, which raises by 56 percent the top award for injured patients who sue doctors and hospitals, is backed by the Senate president, the assistant majority leader in the House and, reportedly, Gov. Bill Ritter.
Despite those endorsements, it could die today as two Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee seem unwilling to support the plan amid an opposition campaign to paint the bill as a "payback" for trial lawyers.
"I just think we're probably lining the pockets of attorneys," said Rep. Debbie Stafford, an Aurora Democrat who said she's opposed to the bill.
Rep. Cheri Jahn, D-Wheat Ridge, agreed. She said doctors should have more input into the process.
"We're putting the cart before the horse," Jahn said. "We should bring together all the people involved first."
With Stafford and Jahn poised to vote against the bill, it would fail on a 5-6 vote.
"It feels like it's being ramrodded through by the trial lawyers," said Sen. Bob Hagedorn of Aurora, the lone Democrat who opposed the bill in the Senate. "I think there were at least two Democrats who would not have supported the bill if there was some other sponsor than the president of the Senate."If Betty Boyd was feeling conflicted, you know this has to be pretty outrageous legislation.
Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, voted for the bill but said she was torn. "It was a difficult decision," Boyd said. "There was pressure on both sides of the issue. It's difficult to vote against the president."
A group called Coloradans for Common Good, funded by Colorado Medical Society and COPIC Insurance Co., which provides medical malpractice insurance to Colorado doctors, has been running a TV commercial against the bill: "Health care just costs too much," an announcer begins in the ad. "Gov. Ritter has a plan to limit our health care bills. But personal injury lawyers have another plan that drives up costs through bigger lawsuits. Who'll pay? All of us."Bill Ritter could easily clear the air about his position on this trial lawyers' boondoggle. But either he doesn't want to make those trial lawyer friends unhappy, or he really isn't serious about cost-cutting health care reform.
The ad seems to suggest that Ritter would oppose the bill.
Asked about the bill last week, the Democratic governor said little.
But trial lawyers and Carroll said they received assurances of support from Ritter before the bill was introduced. [emphasis added]
One of the most prominent Senate Democrat voices on health-care issues broke ranks with his party to criticize the measure. Sen. Bob Hagedorn, of Aurora, said the bill's likely effect of raising doctors' liability premiums would be only "the tip of the iceberg." Hagedorn said the bill also would lead to the practice of "defensive medicine"--duplicative tests that are not needed but serve to shield doctors from lawsuits.If Ritter ends up signing SB 164, he may be busy covering his, too.
"This is not necessarily better medical care, but it sure is more costly medical care," Hagedorn said. "Physicians will look for more ways to cover their butts."
Senate Republicans were flabbergasted today after Gov. Bill Ritter said he remains unsure how he will fund Colorado's most critical transportation needs--weeks into the 2008 legislative session and almost a year after he set up a panel to study the issue.But if Ritter had to choose, he is leaning towards a plan that will hit the family pocketbook:
The plan the governor's transportation panel has been touting involves up to $100-a-vehicle registration fee hikes. Ritter admitted to lawmakers at today's gathering that a fee hike, "...is something that can happen without going to the voters."In this instance, while Ritter is going astray, Republicans are on the right track. The opposition party is arguing for a constitutional change that ensures transportation funds are used for their intended purposes, not spent on other pet projects so Democrats can leave roads and bridges unfixed and come back begging for a tax increase:
[Senate minority leader Andy] McElhany said asking voters for permission to raise revenue not only is the right thing to do, but it is also the only realistic way to fund transportation.Fiscal responsibility is certainly not a hallmark of Colorado's current Democratic administration."If you don't go to the ballot and secure any transportation funding in the constitution, I have full faith the General Assembly will fritter away those funds on other programs sooner or later," he said. "If the governor doesn't understand that, he is naive."
Governor Bill Ritter's 32-member blue-ribbon panel is recommending a $100 average increase in vehicle registration fees as part of its $1.5 billion plan to pay for much-needed transportation infrastructure maintenance and improvements.The road funding proposals include:This is starting to sound like a tired theme. I don't know about your middle-class family, but all these proposals alone would take a significant chunk out of my household budget. Is this what Coloradans voted for when they elected Ritter to be governor in 2006?
- Increase vehicle registration fees by $100 on average.
- Raise gas tax by 13 cents a gallon.
- Icrease [sic] the fee on hotel rooms and car rentals to $6 a day.
- Increasing the state sales tax by 0.35 percent.
- Increase severance tax by 1.7 percent.
