When voters approved the Amendment 41 gift ban for public officials, the intent seemed pretty clearif you’re in government, you can’t take more than $50 from anybody in a calendar year.
Since then, the amendment has been “interpreted” to create loopholes and exceptions that stray from the measure’s roots, creating an idiosyncratic set of distinctions and rules.
The most recent decision by the state’s Independent Ethics Commission, issued earlier this month, goes further, laying the foundation for the disintegration of the gift ban.
What a shame.
The commission, created by the state constitutional amendment to provide guidance on Amendment 41 ethics issues, recently decided it was all right for the Colorado Legislative Women’s Caucus to raise $8,400 for events honoring women legislators.
The caucus said it planned to partner with a non-profit organization associated with Metropolitan State College or form its own non-profit to solicit donations.
In giving its blessing to the plan, the ethics commission ruled that the gift ban does not “extend to an organization that the member (of the legislature) supports.”
It doesn’t? That seems like a road map to an easy end-run around the amendment. Just create a non-profit to raise and spend money.
While we have nothing against the women’s caucus, and suspect their activities probably would be benign, the decision deviates from the intent of Amendment 41, and it is one that could be exploited by those with partisan objectives.
Supporters say the decision was written narrowly and carefully so as to prevent abuse. We do not share their optimism.
We are persuaded by arguments made by Doug Friednash, an Amendment 41 critic, who told The Post the decision was like a “smart bomb” that could destroy Amendment 41. Friednash told Post reporter Tim Hoover that he envisioned the creation of new caucuses, based on issue areas, geographic designations or other factors.
While the ethics commission decision says legislators engaged in non-profits should not take money from groups that have business before the General Assembly, Friednash points out they could raise money first, before the session begins.
This is not the first ethics commission decision that we have taken issue with.
The commission recently approved Gov. Bill Ritter’s request for permission to accept travel expenses for a trip to Israel, paid for by Allied Jewish Federation, a non-profit. We were concerned about the lack of up-front transparency regarding the other people going on the trip and the access they would have to the governor.
Cleaning up government with strict ethics rules is tough work, no doubt. And even the proponents of 41 have admitted it was a poorly worded measure. But it becomes even more difficult when you have a constantly evolving set of ground rules that seem all too readily bent to fit the situation at hand.
