Incumbent Republican Mike Coffman, left, faces Democrat challenger Andrew Romanoff, in the race to represent the 6th Congressional District. (Denver Post file)
Democrat Andrew Romanoff got under U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman’s skin Friday morning during their , this time in front of an Aurora Chamber of Commerce breakfast. The question was about campaign finance, but Romanoff’s stand on rejecting contributions from political action committees soon turned into a debate about character. Coffman, whose tone grew heated a few times, brought up the way Romanoff, a former Colorado House speaker, conducted his last campaign — a barnburner against fellow Democrat Sen. Michael Bennett, in 2010. That one featured attacks by Romanoff of Bennet’s corporate experience, .
Near the end of the 8-minute exchange, Coffman unloaded: “Your attacks against Michael Bennet in 2010, they were called dishonest and they were called sleazy,” he told Romanoff. “And so you did not rise to the very standard you agreed to today, in this debate — that military standard of integrity. It was not honored in your last campaign. I want you to honor it in this campaign. Because what you did to Michael Bennet was fundamentally wrong, and it was dishonest.”
“I appreciate the congressman’s sympathy for the junior senator from Colorado,” Romanoff said. “But with all respect, Michael Bennet’s not on the ballot here, congressman. You and I are. And that means that we have an obligation to treat each other with respect.”
The discussion began simply enough.
As he did Thursday, Romanoff brought up his commitment to refuse direct contributions from political-action committees. He’s challenged Coffman to do the same, and Coffman has brushed it off, saying people and PACs support him because of his positions and beliefs. He says transparency ought to do the trick when it comes to money in politics.
But Coffman didn’t like the implication he perceived to be behind Romanoff’s challenge — that congressmen who accept PAC money, including Coffman, are influenced by a system that allows congressional seats “to be bought and sold to the highest bidder.” To Coffman, that was an attack on his integrity.
“Mr. Speaker, you have some of the top lobbyists in the state of Colorado helping you on your campaign,” Coffman said. “You call corporations every single day, asking executives for cash. And you have a PAC. Please explain to us how you have a PAC and run a PAC (and) how now you’re against PACs?” He was referring to the Romanoff Leadership Fund, which helped get Democrats elected to the General Assembly until it was terminated in January 2010.
Romanoff said most candidates have made mistakes, then turned back to Coffman. “I see the congressman’s challenge here. In fact, I’ll raise him: Congressman, will you join me now in turning down all contributions from lobbyists? Let’s become the first two candidates in a congressional race in America to take that stand. Will you join me?”
Coffman shot back, his voice rising: “This is ridiculous. This is a ridiculous Washington game. You have lobbyists on your campaign. You think it’s wrong? Get those lobbyists off your campaign! This is the difference between us: People decide to support me based on what I do and what I believe in. You know, I went to the United States Army and the Marine Corps. You went to Harvard and Yale.”
That’s when Coffman proposed they follow “the Army standard” by agreeing not to “lie, cheat or steal nor tolerate those among us who do. Let’s have that standard in this campaign.”
It was Romanoff’s turn to be offended. “I’m deeply disappointed by the congressman’s decision to question my honor and my integrity,” he said. “I made it clear at the outset, and as I’ve done for the last 18 months, that I revere the congressman’s service to our country.”
The discussion proceeded, with Coffman bringing up Romanoff’s unsuccessful primary campaign against Bennet. At the mention of the word “sleazy” as a descriptor for his 2010 campaign, Romanoff said Coffman’s campaign was fond of using such “personal epithets,” and he would not respond in kind.
After the debate, Coffman told me that the issue about PAC contributions rankles him because he sees little difference between those and money from lobbyists, which Romanoff accepts, or contributions Romanoff accepts from other candidates who might accept PAC money. “I mean, the reason why he got into this situation is because he was running against an incumbent United States senator,” Coffman said, “and challengers in that situation are not going to get PAC money. He knew it, so he played that game. Once you go down that road, you can’t turn back. … He’s stuck.”
Romanoff told me that his attention to PAC money was a matter of principle, not of being backed into a corner from his last campaign. “What I made clear in the debate was, you know, if voters are holding out for a candidate who never makes mistakes, never acknowledges them, never learns from their experience, never tries to lead, there will pretty few choices,” he said. “I’m the only candidate in this race and one of the very few in the country who doesn’t take money from special-interest PACs.”
Romanoff also said he intended no slight of Coffman’s character. “I’m not interested in making either an explicit or implicit attack on his character,” he said. But is PAC money much different from contributions by lobbyists, who tend to have outsized influence? “Well, I think there is a difference between people and corporations or interest groups,” Romanoff said.
Coffman and Romanoff get a break from debating. Four more formal meetups , with one hosted by The Denver Post on Sept. 23 and three in October.
