DENVER—Lawmakers are working on backup plans for the state’s tough new ethics law that bans them from accepting gifts and free meals in anticipation of a ruling later this month from the state Supreme Court on an injunction that put it on hold.
One proposal would impose interim rules if the court upholds the injunction so the state would still have a law in place, while another would take the issue back to the voters for clarification if the court upholds the ban.
The rules are contained in Amendment 41, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2006. They ban lobbyists from buying meals or gifts worth more than $50 for state lawmakers. They also ban gifts worth more than $50 to state employees or their families.
The rules left widespread confusion over how far they went. Attorney General John Suthers issued an analysis saying the rules likely would bar university professors from accepting Nobel Prize money and prohibit children of public university employees from accepting many scholarships.
Senate President Peter Groff, D-Denver, is considering a bill that would clarify that law would apply only to lawmakers and policymakers, including the governor and his department hea”ds. The plan would need voter approval.
Groff said he doesn’t want to introduce it before then because it would create too much confusion and possibly result in another lawsuit that would further muddy the issue.
Rep. Anne McGihon, D-Denver, said she doesn’t want to leave the law in limbo until the court can rule and has a bill of her own that would “fill the gap” until it can be clarified. She said her bill would put a $200 limit on lawmakers, the governor’s Cabinet and state policymaking boards like the Public Utilities Commission, with exceptions for family members and relatives.
Jenny Flanagan, spokeswoman for Colorado Common Cause, a public policy lobbying group that sponsored the constitutional amendment, said supporters would prefer to have a law in place while the court challenge continues, but she wasn’t happy with a $200 limit. “That’s too far a jump,” she said, adding that voters were serious.
In the court challenge, opponents argued the rules restricted the flow of information and had a chilling effect on people who wanted to talk to policymakers.
The group challenging the rules includes nonprofits, an economic development organization, elected officials, state employees, a lobbyist and other individuals.
Flanagan said supporters never intended legal interpretations to include scholarships or awards for professors, and predicted the courts would ultimately uphold a “commonsense” application of Amendment 41.
