Amendment 54 was sold to voters as a “good government” measure, but from the outset it was clear it would overly restrict the rights of Coloradans to financially support their favorite political candidates.
We were glad to see that a Denver district judge viewed this overly broad constitutional amendment in the same light, issuing a temporary injunction Tuesday against its implementation.
The amendment, passed last November, has at its core a worthy ambition: It was intended to prohibit campaign contributions from businesses that later received no-bid government contracts from government agencies.
Such a goal is certainly laudable. After all, no one wants a pay-to-play style government, u la Rod Blagoje- vich, the hapless ex-governor of Illinois who is accused of soliciting campaign contributions from businesses as a prerequisite for government work.
If Amendment 54 effectively targeted that sort of behavior, we would support it heartily. Unfortunately, that’s not the case — not even close.
For instance, it would classify labor organizations that represent government workers as “sole source contractors,” and it would prohibit them from exercising their free speech rights through making political contributions. That’s just wrong.
When viewed through the lens of real-life examples of how Amendment 54 would work, it’s even more troubling.
In the lawsuit challenging Amendment 54, one of the plaintiffs explains how he would fall under its restrictions.
Daniel Ritchie — philanthropist, former businessman and college chancellor — is now chairman and chief executive officer of the Denver Center for the Performing Arts.
DCPA has a sole source government contract with the city of Denver that is in excess of $100,000. As a result, Amendment 54 would preclude Ritchie from contributing to campaigns or political parties.
It’s a ludicrous reach and it’s easy to see how Amendment 54 would violate his constitutional rights to free speech and free association.
The lawsuit provides other equally crazy examples of how the measure would restrict the basic rights of citizens by prohibiting what are really distant and tenuous connections between their political giving and government contracts.
In a hearing Tuesday, Denver District Judge Catherine A. Lemon criticized the language used in sections of the amendment and largely agreed with the business and labor leaders who want the amendment struck down.
“In my mind, it’s just not a close case,” Lemon said.
Now all that remains is for the judge to put the final nail in the coffin of this ill-considered amendment by declaring it unconstitutional.
