The sideshow over whether Douglas Bruce dodged dozens of attempts to be served with an order to appear in three campaign finance investigations has diverted attention from other serious considerations in the case.
The games that the anti-tax crusader is playing are putting two important principles at risk: transparency in campaign finance, and the integrity of the administrative law system.
Regardless of where one falls on the ballot measures that Bruce has tried so hard to distance himself from, these vital principles ought to be protected.
Voters are entitled to know whose money is behind a ballot issue and how it is spent. Transparency in campaign finance allows them to draw their own conclusions about motive and intent.
And letting Bruce effectively thumb his nose at the campaign finance investigatory process because an administrative law judge doesn’t have the power to enforce a subpoena would set a terrible precedent.
We hope state Attorney General John Suthers sticks with his efforts to seek a contempt ruling against Bruce in Denver District Court.
Suthers already has asked a judge to rule that Bruce has effectively been served with the order to appear. The next step would be a contempt citation.
Bruce’s behavior in these investigations could serve as a road map for anyone who wanted to avoid participating in an administrative law proceeding, which would undermine the due process rights of those seeking justice in the system.
We think Bruce knows exactly what he’s doing. As a former prosecutor and state legislator, Bruce has more than a passing familiarity with the law.
Doing everything he can to avoid being served seems like an effort to derail the campaign finance investigations.
We believe it is still important to get Bruce under oath to answer questions about whether he provided financial assistance in getting Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 on the ballot.
The measures would significantly reduce government revenue, severely limit government issuance of bonds, and reduce a major funding source for road and bridge construction.
Those who filed campaign finance complaints contend that backers of these three measures did not report contributions and expenditures in efforts to gather signatures to put the measures on the ballot.
The administrative law judge in the case issued a 24-page order last week that sifted through the facts. He concluded that the sponsors of these measures were in fact “issue committees” and subject to reporting requirements.
That’s all it boils down to, folks. The people behind Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 needed to file reports saying where their money came from and how they spent it. They didn’t. And the administrative law judge found their testimony on various points “evasive” and “unbelievable,” and characterized their actions as a “concerted effort to thwart . . . transparency.” He fined three of them $2,000 each.
We hope the case and the size of those fines serve as a lesson to those who would try to dodge responsibility for obeying campaign finance laws.
