Judge’s ruling against Colorado ethics law
Re: “Judge blocks ethics mandate,” June 1 news story.
Kudos to Denver District Judge Christina Habas for having the courage to declare Amendment 41 unconstitutional. Her opinion is a brilliant legal evaluation of his law. Although no one supports influence-peddling or corruption in government, proponents of this ill-conceived and poorly devised law misled the electorate regarding its effect on freedom of political speech.
I hope this will be a lesson to future referendum proponents to take greater care in the preparation and public representation of such ballot measures, and that the electorate will likewise learn to read the content of a proposed law rather than just voting for a catchy slogan.
Anthony J. Fabian, Aurora
. . .
Re: “First Amendment’s forgotten final right,” June 2 Bob Ewegen column.
Bob Ewegen and Judge Habas seem to need some help in reading comprehension. The First Amendment states, ” … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I italicized the word petition because my dictionary does not include bribery, payoff or other forms of payola in the definition of that word.
I agree that, by and large, lobbyists and legislators are an honorable lot. The few dishonorable ones have destroyed the faith of the American people in the integrity of the entire legislative process. Amendment 41 does not prevent lobbyists from petitioning the government. It prevents lobbyists from buying government officials with Broncos tickets, private jets and lavish parties.
I believe that talk is still cheap, and that is what the First Amendment allows.
John W. Bird, Lone Tree
. . .
Well, I see another activist judge has decided that the people of Colorado cannot think for themselves. Judge Christina Habas overturned Amendment 41, which was approved by a landslide vote of the citizens of Colorado.
The judge ruled that the amendment has a chilling effect on free speech and association – which are code words for crimping the graft giving and receiving. She advises that the measure has wording that is vague at best. Then she goes on to say that the measure went far beyond what was intended. If it was so vague, how does she know what was intended? You cannot have it both ways, judge. I read the amendment at the time I voted for it. It was not vague to me then and is not vague to me now.
The amendment was read, voted on and approved by the voting citizens of the state. Give us credit here. We know a politicians’ pot-of-gold arrangement when we see one.
Jim Weber, Denver
. . .
It seems to be lost on the media (and therefore the public) that Amendment 41 is like a Band-Aid where major surgery is needed. Why don’t the media cover the problem of institutionalized legal bribery in the form of campaign financing and lobbying? Amendment 41 addresses lunches and gifts. That is not the problem. As columnist Diane Carman wrote last year, Wayne Allard’s votes are directly correlated to the campaign contributions he received from each industry he voted in favor of or against.
Please inform the public that gifts and lunches are not the problem compared with the hundreds of millions of campaign dollars paid to politicians by corporate America’s oil, pharmaceutical, insurance, defense and other such thriving industries. Wake up.
Isabel P. Posso, Lakewood
Reform of federal mining laws
Re: “Closing in on mining-law fix,” May 29 editorial.
I was very happy to read the Denver Post editorial calling for reform of the General Mining Act of 1872. Colorado’s mountains are littered with thousands of abandoned mines that degrade water quality in headwater streams, threatening fish, wildlife and human health. Unfortunately, there is no large source of reclamation funding generated by operational hardrock mines in the West. In contrast, coal mining is regulated by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 that created a fund to pay for remediation of abandoned coal mines. It is high time that the General Mining Act of 1872 is changed to better address this mounting problem in Western states.
To be effective, any reform should include four key provisions. First, a percentage of all proposed royalties must be directed to state fish and game agencies to be used on abandoned mine reclamation and restoration. Second, to encourage more mine cleanups, there must be a Good Samaritan liability relief provision. Third, federal land managers need to have the ability through agency discretion to determine suitability for mining at the forest and site levels. Lastly, any reform must prohibit the selling off of public lands for non-mining related purposes.
All of these changes will help improve water quality in so many of the places that Coloradans and Westerners love.
Elizabeth Russell, Boulder
The writer is mine restoration coordinator for Trout Unlimited.
Muffling motorcycles
Re: “Bikers told to pipe down; Denver ordinance muffles modified motorcycles,” June 5 news story.
As a life-long motorcyclist, I say three cheers to the Denver City Council for passing an ordinance to help ticket motorcycles with obnoxiously loud after-market exhausts. Both my bikes have stock exhausts and offer high performance without disturbing the peace. These bikes are a nuisance at home, in our recreations areas, and on the highways. I’m sure I’m not alone in hoping that every city and county in the state passes similar measures.
Keith Battan, Golden
Legislative perfection?
Re: “467 new laws, 8 vetoes,” June 5 news story.
Great Scott! Who would have thought that Colorado was in such bad shape? How lucky we are to have our diligent legislators, who in a few short weeks ferreted out all 467 flaws in the state and corrected them! Surely 467 new laws must have corrected every defect and we now live in the perfect state. So there will be no further need of their services for many years to come, right?
Gabe Lowe, Fort Collins
Making assumptions
I take exception to the views expressed by letter-writer Larry Senti concerning the foiled terror plot at JFK and The Post’s coverage (June 5 Open Forum). Mr. Senti, perhaps the word “Muslim” never appears in the article because maybe, just maybe, the terrorists were not Muslims. If one quickly peruses acts of terror over the last 20 or so years, one will find acts of terror committed by fundamentalist Christians (e.g., abortion clinic bombings), fundamentalist Buddhists (e.g., sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subways), fundamentalist Jews (e.g., attacks against Muslims at prayer in a mosque) and many, many more. Just because a terrorist plot was uncovered that was to be undertaken by “men were motivated by hatred toward the U.S., Israel and West” does not mean those men were Muslims. It seems to me that your own hatreds are exposed by your assumptions.
Peter Hornbein, Littleton
To send a letter
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202
Fax: 303-954-1502
Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
To reach us by phone: 303-954-1331
