With the unseemly specter of congressional influence-peddling hanging over Washington, Colorado lawmakers must finally act to dry up the unregulated cash flowing so freely into the statehouse.
First, eliminate the so-called “office accounts” that allow legislators to accept unlimited amounts of cash and in-kind gifts from lobbyists (or anyone, for that matter).
Then, earmark state funds to adequately staff and equip their offices. Legislators need to meet the needs of their constituents without relying on lobbyists’ handouts.
As it stands now, Colorado’s legislators are up for sale. The trouble began when voters passed Amendment 27 in 2002, hoping to take dirty money out of campaigns. However, they created a loophole that allowed lawmakers to create office accounts to supposedly fund official work.
Oops.
Colorado is one of only five states that don’t limit cash donations to lawmakers.
Lobbyists can, and do, funnel untold amounts of cold, hard cash to Colorado lawmakers – skirting campaign finance restrictions – and the officeholders can pretty much spend it any way they like, as long as they report it each January. “You could just take this money and pocket it,” said Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, who has sponsored a bill that would end cash gifts to office accounts.
So far, lawmakers have accepted thousands, and it’s often impossible to even tell who the money is coming from. Corporations and lobbyists simply set up a nonprofit with a pleasing, unassuming name and give whatever they please.
As drafted, Tupa’s bill doesn’t address in-kind contributions. But revelations this week about a group known as “Research and Democracy” has advanced the debate considerably. The group, funded by who knows who, funneled $83,000, including in-kind contributions such as mailings, to the office accounts of 11 Democratic lawmakers in tight races.
It’s all perfectly legal, but it’s wrong.
Tupa’s bill should be fortified to restrict or eliminate in-kind contributions. He also suggests there might be amendments requiring lawmakers to file financial disclosures more often – rather than only in January after the election – and placing some restrictions on lobbyists.
“We need to do the right thing,” Tupa said. “The potential for abuse here is large. The only way to solve this problem is for legislators to belly up to the bar and say these [constituent] services cost some money.”
Tupa first needs to get his fellow Democrats on board. As the minority party, they cried out for these types of reform. Now that they’re in power, they need to act.
Gov. Bill Owens vetoed Tupa’s bill last year, which was amended to legitimize office accounts and set gift limits higher than Tupa intended.
The governor knows unregulated cash and clean politics don’t go hand in hand, and he needs to step up, too, and do what’s right.
The debate should be over how much the state can give lawmakers to staff their offices without outside money, not over how much cash they can accept from political supporters and special interests.
