Colorado lawmakers need to eliminate the legal loophole that allows them to scoop up unlimited amounts of cash from lobbyists for their “office accounts” and then spend it however they like. It’s a system fraught with potential abuses.
Senate Bill 51, sponsored by Sen. Ron Tupa, would end the practice, but unfortunately it was hijacked on Monday in the House by a short-sighted Rep. Mark Larson. Larson has convinced himself that the bill unfairly targets rural legislators, so he tacked on an amendment meant to doom the bill. His amendment would prohibit elected officials from being paid for speeches. He figures that will draw a sure veto from Gov. Bill Owens, who annually pads his $90,000 salary with money from out-of- state appearances.
In 2002, voters unwittingly created a loophole in a campaign finance bill that allows lawmakers to create “office accounts” to help them cover office expenses. Some rural lawmakers say those costs are higher in their expansive districts.
In practice, these cash accounts allow lawmakers to accept unlimited funds or in-kind contributions – from anyone. Corporations and lobbyists can set up nonprofits with innocuous-sounding names and give whatever they please. The only restriction is officeholders must report incoming contributions each January.
Tupa’s legislation eliminates cash gifts and in-kind contributions worth more than $50. The bill would allow lawmakers to accept in-kind gifts of less than $50 that help “defray any expenses” related to their official duties. We think that’s a very reasonable standard.
Tupa’s bill now moves back to the Senate, where we urge senators to reject Larson’s amendment and request a conference committee to hash out the details.
We’re sympathetic to Larson’s concerns, but they should be addressed separately from office donations. His amendment will be enticing to some reformers, but they should remember that it’s more important to close this loophole than pass other provisions that Owens will veto.
Without doubt, lawmakers should receive adequate taxpayer funding for office expenses, not from favor seekers and private interests. But in a campaign year, and just five months after the passage of Referendum C, we understand that lawmakers are in no position to push for increased office funding.
We urge the legislature to act now to close these accounts, and then approve reasonable funding next year to adequately support their office requirements.
