Formal Complaint Filed in Bill Ritter's $300,000 Campaign Finance Violation

The Denver Post reports today the latest in Gov. Bill Ritter's campaign spending problems:

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.

"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.

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.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Denver Post Echo: Bill Ritter Campaign Violation Shows Poor Management

Last week I wrote here:

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.

Gov. Bill Ritter let a major abuse of his inaugural fund for campaign purposes go for more than a year before he caught on. That he's being open and honest about it now inspires only the smallest of confidence. The State of Colorado is not in good hands.

Big Labor Ritter Low on Credibility

As a leading political consultant notes in the Denver Post today, Gov. Bill Ritter planted the pro-union seeds, and now he is reaping the right-to-work whirlwind:

Political observers don't have high hopes that the situation will improve.

"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.

Last week I noted:

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.

Look forward to a bitter and costly political showdown this fall. It's hard to see how business and labor are going to holster their weapons now.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Time for Bill Ritter to Lead

The Denver Post has reported on the hole in the ground at Aururia campus and now it is editorializing on it.

Revised state budget estimates predict less revenue than previously thought — $700 million over the next five years — so cuts are to be expected. But what doesn't make sense at first blush is how that reduction in revenue would translate into a reorganization of projects on the state's budget priority list.

When the revenue picture was rosier, the science building was ranked 18th on the legislature's capital development committee's priority list. But when money got tighter, it dropped to 31st.

Rep. Jim Riesberg, a Greeley Democrat and vice chairman of that committee, said members took into account not only the importance of projects, but how much money they would require in future years, which also could have low revenues.

Moving the project down on the list is classic "gold watching." If you don't know what gold watching is, try this explanation. It is about Bill Ritter gold watching highway funds.

We predicted that the Denver Post would use the hole in the ground to push for higher taxes, and they did. It only took three days:

Of course, the larger issue at work is the current tangle of constitutional spending restrictions that make the state budgetary process a convoluted exercise. This is another example of how worthy projects get shoved aside when revenues are projected to dip and mandated spending rules make a mockery of representational government.

Where is Bill Ritter on this issue? Colorado has a back room governor who simply doesn't lead. He calls for a green economy but that is mostly show or this building would be being built. What he probably thinks we need is another blue ribbon commission to decide what can be done with the hole. Bill Ritter is really good at appointing blue ribbon panels, but not much else.

Denver Post Definition of a Tax

One of the really useful things about blogs is that they create a more concise record of interesting speech and writings on the subjects their authors write about than might otherwise exist. If one knows how to use them, they become a poor man's Lexus-Nexus.

If the truth were known, we sometimes write about interesting events and quotes to make them easier to find when we want to use them again.

If Google were easy to use and worked the way we would like, we wouldn't have to use a blog to save interesting quotes. Google has a tendency to only emphasize the most recent writing on a particular subject, burying older quotes dozens of pages down.

Today, in an offhand slap at Andy McElhany, the Denver Post defined a toll as a tax:

Senate Republican leader Andy McElhany of Colorado Springs weighed in last week with his own plan, a $5 around-the-clock toll at the Eisenhower tunnel to raise money to build more traffic lanes.

We confess we're delighted that Andy [ McElhany ], a foe of the Referendum C fiscal rescue, has finally found a tax increase he can love — even if he does call his tax a "toll."

The neat thing about the Denver Post's definition that a toll is a tax is that now it has to argue that all future Bill Ritter "user fee" increases that it might want to support should be under the TABOR umbrella and subject to a vote. If it doesn't do so, the board makes itself look like a bunch of hypocrites. No one would want that, would they?

Blogging is so much fun!

Bill Ritter Made To Look A Fool

Two weeks ago, Jim Martin, Bill Ritter's executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment exposed himself in the Denver Post as a part of the Big Blue Lie Machine:

Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and one of the plan's authors, said the carbon dioxide/global warming connection is widely accepted as scientific fact.

"You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth," he said.

This week, Bill Ritter's go to climate guy was called a liar by name in New York climate conference hosted by the Heartland Institute. Joe Bast made the opening statement:

Welcome to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, the first major international conference devoted to answering questions overlooked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

More than 400 people, including 100 speakers and panelists, have registered for this event. They will be addressing such questions as:

>how reliable are the data used to document the recent warming trend?
>how much of the modern warming is natural, and how much is likely the result of human activities?
and
>how reliable are the computer models used to forecast future climate conditions?

Obviously, these are important questions. Yet they are given short shrift by the IPCC and in the public debate over global warming.

Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, recently told the Denver Post, “You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth.”

That is a lie that we hope this conference will finally put to rest, for good.

The scientists attending this conference come from a dozen countries, including Australia, Canada, England, France, New Zealand, Russia, and Sweden. They have published in every leading scientific journal in the world. They have stood up to political correctness and defended the scientific method at a time when doing so threatens their research grants, tenure, and ability to get published. This conference is their opportunity to be heard.”

Bill Ritter and Colorado are made to look backward and foolish when these kinds of obviously false statements are made by individuals on the public payroll. Jim Martin has provided a quote that might well outlive him.

Bill Ritter's Silence

Nice people that the environmentalists are, they have put together four initiatives that hog to themselves the potential billions of dollars of severance taxes that will flow from increased oil and gas prices and Colorado production.

One of their proposals calls for a 10% increase in those taxes in an obvious attempt to stifle production and collect fewer taxes.

The Denver Post wrote a nice editorial that politely said "hands off."

The environmental groups say they are willing to listen to suggestions from higher education advocates. We count ourselves in that category, but we're less interested in proposing new funding formulas than in getting this issue back into the forum it belongs, the legislature. Indeed, some statehouse watchers believe the environmentalists filed their initiatives in part to pressure the legislature to come up with an alternative.

We know that key lawmakers have been thinking hard about a severance tax proposal that would benefit transportation, higher education or possibly both.

Six days ago, the Rocky Mountain News said about the subject:

Just say no, governor. Tell the environmental groups that have filed several initiatives to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry on behalf of their favorite causes that you'll actively campaign against any such measure that makes the ballot.

Better yet, say it publicly - just so they're sure you're not bluffing.

What does Bill Ritter have to say? We quote and underline for emphasis: "___________!"

We are reminded that that paragon of liberal virtue, Colorado Media Matters, castigated the Denver Post when it quoted Bob Beauprez as saying that he would have hit the ground running, more so than Bill Ritter has. Now we see why Bob Beauprez would say that.

Where is Bill Ritter on Nuclear Power?

One of the more interesting aspects of this election cycle has been the willingness of major Colorado politicians to undercut each other.

They may all be reading from the same environmentalist extremist playbook, but some seem to have started from the back of the book, some in the middle, and some at the beginning.

Take Roan drilling, for example. Neither Ken Salazar nor Mark Udall could seem to anticipate that the lure of billions of tax dollars would cause Bill Ritter to cave on the issue. Once Ritter caved, the position folded up like a house of cards. Now, Salazar and Udall favor drilling on the top of the Roan plateau.

It never was a defensable position because the Roan is not pristine back country. Any one who questioned that need only call up Google Earth to discover that is is scrub land.

Now comes the issue of nuclear power. Mark Udall pulled his finger out of the anti nuclear dam when he told the Denver Post after the State of the Union address:

"I believe we've got to take another look at nuclear power because of the carbon footprint it doesn't have," said [ Mark ] Udall. "But we do it taking into account the challenges that nuclear power presents, cost-wise and environmentally."

So, now it is time to find out which part of the environmentalist extremist playbook Bill Ritter is playing on nuclear power. Where do you stand Governor? Your campaign contributors want to know.

Out of Blue Ribbon?

Just into the second year of his first term, Bill Ritter seems to have used up his quota of blue ribbon but hasn't lost the "appoint a committee" urge.

Now, it is a "Jobs Cabinet."

The group, whose aim is to align the skills of workers with the needs of
companies, will have 35 to 40 members, led by Lyons, Qwest executive Teresa
Taylor and Trinidad State Junior College President Ruth Ann Woods.

This morning, the Denver Post editorialized that we need high Federal gasoline taxes to discourage consumption. Perhaps we could just settle for fewer and smaller blue ribbon panels.

Just Placeholding

That title applies to Bill Ritter and to this blogger. The weekend has been a full one and will extend into tomorrow.

We had to chuckle when we read that Dan Haley thought Bill Ritter had spent the whole first year on cruise control and that he planned to do the same in year two. We're not sure why Haley would be egging the governor on, given his supposed political leanings, but....

Why Bill Ritter Is Still Paying The Price

Today's Denver Post panned Bill Ritter's State of the State speech as "uninspiring."

Gov. Bill Ritter's State of the State address Thursday sounded more like an
interim report by the Milquetoast Committee than a stirring call to action.

The Post was a cheerleader for the governor throughout the election, to the point that its coverage of Bob Beauprez was clearly calculated to damage Beauprez. It didn't consider the possibility of a HB 07-1072 and was taken aback when that surfaced immediately.

Even though Ritter vetoed that bill, he still had an outstanding IOU to labor, and paid it with his executive order. The Post was sufficiently upset that it published an unusual front page editorial.

Things haven't been the same since. The question isn't "why" Bill Ritter is paying a price, it is really how long he will be paying it.

The Biggest Bungle of 2007

It seems fitting on this last day of 2007 to think back to what are likely Bill Ritter's two biggest bungles of 2007. They seem so closely related that we are counting them as a single bungle.

The first was his veto of HB07-1072. The veto wasn't a bungle, but the situation was bungled badly by his party. The bill, a modification of the Labor Peace Act came as a complete surprise to the business community despite Bill Ritter's spokesman's claim that he had campaigned on it.

It turned out that he had made some backroom promises to unions that he had conveniently forgotten to inform his business backers about.

The timing of the bill couldn't have been worse from Ritter's position. He had just accepted $250,000 in post election campaign contributions from the business community to retire his campaign debt.

Ritter did veto the bill after it became obvious that it would sour his relations with the business community and with both of Denver' major daily papers.

This created a problem for Ritter. He had not fulfilled a secret campaign pledge to labor.

He solved this problem by creating "partnerships" with his union buddies, promising them that they could collect union dues from state employees.

His partnership plan drew much heat from the Denver Post which, except for HB 1072, had been a cheerleader for Ritter. It declared in an unusual front page editorial that Ritter risked being a one term Governor.

When a politician manages to turn a major newspaper from a supporter to an opponent, that event has to rank as the biggest bungle of 2007.

A Subtle Point We Missed

The Denver Post made an important point this morning about Bill Ritter's work with BLM on the Roan Plateau:

The subtlest but perhaps most important part of Ritter's proposal is that it tries to integrate the governor's ideas with existing BLM plans in a way that would not force the agency to formally reopen its "record of decision" — a bureaucratic process that would force more months of public hearings on an area that has already been studied for seven years.

It seems that all of the recent strife caused by Bill Ritter is forgiven at the Denver Post Editorial Board:

It's also important to note that Ritter's decision was made in the spirit of his "Colorado Promise." He worked fruitfully with federal officials, the energy industry, local governments, and citizens to help release the Roan's tremendous economic resources while protecting its thriving wildlife and scenic treasures.

Our bet is that it isn't forgotten, though. When a major paper states in an editorial that a governor is headed down a path that will make him a one term Governor, that politician needs to do more than simply not foul up a decade long process. This is at best an editorial board looking for something to praise Bill Ritter on.

Roan Plateau Games Still Being Played

Ken Salazar bought Bill Ritter some time to save the scrub land that is called the Roan Plateau. The time is up. Ritter proposed some very minor changes and claims:

Ritter and state Department of Natural Resources executive director Harris Sherman said they believe the BLM will incorporate their comments into the plan

If BLM does actually incorporate new comments in the plan, it must then open the plan up for comments on the comments. More wasted time, but that seems to be the plan. They don't have to stall drilling forever, but they think it would be nice to stall it until after Mark Udall is elected.

BANANA Bunch

We couldn't resist acknowledging this letter to the editor of the Denver Post.

Backroom Promises May Backfire

Does anyone recall that the reason that Bill Ritter vetoed HB 1072 was that he had made backroom promises to labor during the campaign that he forgot to tell his business backers about. Business went ballistic.

Well, Big labor thinks that a backroom promise made is a promise to be kept, and it is making demands on Ritter, according to the Denver Post.

The AFL-CIO's executive council said it will push for the reintroduction of pro-labor legislation vetoed by Ritter and vowed to get a commitment from him to sign it.

"We intend to pass the legislation again and secure a clear commitment from the governor to sign it," the unsigned statement from the organization's executive council said.

If Ritter bends or breaks, expect another explosive anti-Ritter editorial from the Post about his being a one term Governor. He'll deserve it.