For months, Douglas Bruce tried to distance himself from three controversial statewide initiatives, thumbing his nose at a campaign finance investigation designed to give voters vital information about the people and money behind the measures.
The fiasco revealed that Colorado’s system is ill-equipped to handle those not inclined to follow disclosure rules. In short, a better hammer is needed.
It was only because of the perseverance of those outraged by such blatant disregard for state campaign finance law that voters learned of Bruce’s involvement before the election. And we still don’t know enough about the funding of the operation.
Given the draconian nature of Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101, and the history that Bruce, father of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, has in Colorado fiscal policy, it’s not surprising that the failure to report funding and expenditures sparked such interest among opponents of the measures.
However, there is no guarantee that future cases involving different issues will be pursued with such fervor. That would be a loss for voters, who are entitled to know who is paying to put measures on the ballot and how they are spending money to influence elections.
We hope policymakers will think about ways to more neatly and expeditiously compel reluctant players in the political system to file the necessary paperwork to disclose their activities.
The system is designed for honest folks who follow the rules. It doesn’t work when you have someone ducking subpoenas and avoiding statutory obligations at every turn.
The Bruce brouhaha comes out of a campaign finance complaint alleging that the proponents of the three measures violated the law because they never registered as issue committees, which are required to file expenditure and contribution reports.
To be sure, the interest was amplified by the drastic nature of the measures and the suspicion, which turned out to be true, that Bruce was behind them.
The three ballot questions, which The Post recommends voters shoot down, would slash billions of dollars in state and local taxes, severely limit government issuance of bonds, and reduce a major revenue source for road construction.
Bruce, unbelievably, calls himself a victim in this tale. He says opponents are trying to tie him and his reputation to the measures. It may be true that opponents are hoping to trade on Bruce’s caustic personality and extreme views about limiting government, but that has little to do with whether Bruce and others broke state law.
In Colorado, the problem frequently begins at the front end in getting people to register as issue committees. Legislation passed in the last session — House Bill 1370, which was sponsored by Rep. Lois Court and Sen. Pat Steadman, both Denver Democrats — shows promise.
The law, which takes effect in 2011, includes several provisions to increase disclosure, including requiring the Colorado secretary of state to tell initiative proponents they have to file as an issue committee when their petition format is approved.
Others have ideas as well.
Attorney General John Suthers, who watched as authorities tried to serve Bruce some 30 times with a subpoena, said he believes administrative law judges should have additional tools to force compliance in campaign finance cases.
“It is designed for honest people and dishonest people can exploit it quite a bit,” Suthers told us.
Secretary of State Bernie Buescher, should he win election, said he plans to take up the matter with state legislators in the upcoming session.
We are glad to see the Bruce case has sparked an interest in looking at increasing penalties and creating better screws to turn on those who flout the law. That could be the best — and deliciously ironic — legacy to come of the subterfuge that Bruce has employed in trying to get voters to approve these dangerous and misguided ballot questions.
