We applaud the finding by the Colorado Supreme Court that Amendment 54 is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights.
The amendment, approved by voters in 2008, was intended to prohibit campaign contributions from businesses and other entities that received no-bid contracts from government agencies.
It was a well-intentioned effort to prevent pay-to-play style government — or even the appearance of such. But it was clear from the beginning the amendment was too broad and maddeningly vague.
The court, in a 4-1 decision, said Amendment 54 is so flawed that it cannot be salvaged and must be purged from the constitution.
We were glad to see the court address the matter in unambiguous language that leaves no doubt as to its findings: “The government’s interest in eliminating the appearance of impropriety is not without bounds, and in this case we cannot sacrifice First Amendment freedoms to an implausible perception of impropriety that links every contribution to an illicit arrangement extending to all levels of state government.”
The opinion, 72 pages long, picks apart the amendment and its many unacceptable implications.
Not only did the amendment impose a prohibition on political contributions by those who hold no-bid government contracts, it extended that ban to the family of contract- holders, and had the ban run for two years after the contract had lapsed.
The decision said the amendment “unconstitutionally chills protected speech by family members.” It also was too broad in that it applied to contracts that did not lend themselves to competitive bidding, such as instances where there is but one supplier.
The amendment also went overboard by defining labor organizations as sole-source contractors, impermissibly infringing on their free-speech rights.
Non-profit organizations and those who serve on their boards, usually without compensation, also found themselves in a difficult position as a result of Amendment 54. If the organization they served got a sole-source government contract, they too were barred from making contributions to campaigns or parties.
The amendment created a “perverse incentive” to avoid charitable activity, according to the opinion.
The justices’ decision affirmed a lower court decision in August by Denver District Judge Catherine A. Lemon, who had harshly criticized the amendment. In issuing a preliminary injunction, Lemon found the amendment to be a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free association.
The challenges resulting in the decision, published Monday, have been moving through the court system for more than a year.
It’s helpful that the court issued its opinion well before the November elections, so those who want to participate in the process have a clear understanding of the political contribution landscape.
The amendment grew from the seed of a good idea, but the end product was an overreaching monstrosity that unacceptably encroached on free speech rights. We were glad to see the court shoot it down.
