Re: “As Lake Powell’s levels recede, life reemerges,” June 7 news story

Congress should demand that the Bureau of Reclamation accelerate its efforts to modify Glen Canyon Dam to allow more water to flow from Lake Powell to Lake Mead. Doing so would enhance water security for the millions of people and vast agricultural regions in Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico that rely on water from Lake Mead. It would protect hydropower production at Hoover Dam, which has about 60% more generating capacity than Glen Canyon Dam. It would also support the ongoing ecological restoration now flourishing in Glen Canyon.

Lake Mead is less than 30% full and can accommodate more than three times the water currently stored in Lake Powell.

According to the Bureau’s of Colorado River conditions, Lake Powell will drop below 3,500 feet throughout the entire first quarter of 2027. At that elevation, hydroelectric generation at Glen Canyon Dam will be severely curtailed, despite unprecedented actions to prop up the reservoir.

The same forecast projects that Lake Mead will fall to a level at which, for nearly a year, the cost to operate and maintain Hoover Dam will exceed revenues from hydroelectric sales.

The Bureau has been studying potential modifications to Glen Canyon Dam for years, but does not expect to complete even its “appraisal study” until the end of 2026.

Congress should appropriate funds immediately and direct the Bureau to develop the plans and engineering designs required to construct major modifications to Glen Canyon Dam — changes that would ensure significantly more water can be delivered downstream to Lake Mead.

Ronald L. Rudolph, Golden

Dems should ‘close ranks’ around Platner

Re: “Democrats cannot ignore Platner’s many red flags and hold the moral high ground,” June 7 commentary

Moral high ground? Elections are not about morals. They are about power — who gains power, how they are exercising power and accountability for that power.

Elections are not dating events. Voters do not choose a mate. A pure heart, an unimpeachable background, perfect manners and a dental plan do not matter. Graham Platner is not running to be Maine’s sweetheart. He is running for one of its Senate seats.

Platner is Maine’s Democratic Senate candidate. There is no other. It is him against Republican Susan Collins, who talks centrist and votes extremist. He is the Democratic candidate because he, as columnist Doug Friednash laments, “
has been leading in the polls and offers the party a chance to beat Susan Collins.” Democracy in action.

For the sake of us, the people, our country and the planet, Democrats must now regain power. Only with power can they combat the corruption and the chaos, legislate for the people, and reverse the prevailing “
.pattern of offensive and vulgar conduct” that Mr. Friednash sanctimoniously and wrongfully attributes to Platner, and which the current regime inflicts on us, the people, every day, all day long.

A covered-up Totenkopf tattoo? Cute, considering Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s uncovered vile white supremacist tattoos and corresponding vile, white supremacist activities. Foul language? Who cares in light of President Trump and Co.’s incessant sewage tweets? Impure manners towards women who are not his wife? He is not commanding them to “be quiet, piggy” or bragging about grabbing their nether regions without consent.

Those who want Dems to gain power must close ranks behind Dem candidates, not sabotage them with irrelevant purity tests.

Floy Jeffares, Lakewood

Hetal Doshi for Attorney General

Re: “Vote Michael Dougherty for Colorado attorney general in the Democratic primary,” June 7 editorial

I am challenging the Denver Post¶¶Òőap endorsement of Michael Dougherty for Colorado’s attorney general. The reasons given for the endorsement focused on his local experience. While admirable, it is my opinion that Hetal Doshi has more credible state and federal experience.

Doshi has already managed a staff of over 800 and will hit the ground running. She has well-established relationships with attorneys general throughout the country. She has taken on and won huge antitrust cases.

Both Dougherty and David Seligman will strive to do well by Colorado. That said, Doshi’s depth and breadth of experience, along with her bipartisanship, professionalism and temperament, make her the strongest candidate. We need Hetal Doshi’s leadership at this critical period.

Alice Applebaum, Denver

DeGette should remain in the U.S. House

Re: “DeGette has served 15 terms, but has she been effective?” May 31 news story

Yes! Rep. Diana DeGette is effective.

As a resident of Colorado House District 1, I’m affected by the leadership of our district. For years, I’ve supported Rep. DeGette, and I continue to do so. Not because she and I are both getting along in years (that would be blatant agism, much like candidate Melat Kiros is doing in her campaign materials), but because she’s been an excellent representative.

Experience must count for something, and that¶¶Òőap what I see lacking in Kiros’ materials. I see no experience with the political process; I see no grassroots work in the community; I see no elected or appointed political positions, not even in high school or college. How do we know she’ll work effectively?

It doesn’t matter how often she claims she’ll work for universal Medicare. If she doesn’t know how to function as an elected official, she’ll be ineffective. Rep DeGette’s office has always responded to inquiries, has always communicated with her constituents, and has always been informed about the details and possible repercussions of political doings.

Bonnie McCune, Denver

Hickenlooper should remain in U.S. Senate

Re: “Is Hickenlooper the one to fight Trump, or should voters give Gonzales a chance?” June 10 editorial

The Denver Post passed the buck by not endorsing either U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper or state Sen. Julie Gonzales. Call me old-fashioned but I believe Hickenlooper’s approach to statesmanship is what is needed.

Gonzales is apparently qualified and has demonstrated a zeal for change; however, I am troubled when persons aspiring to political office make claims that are unrealistic and, quite frankly, not possible in the current situation. Elimination of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not feasible. There is much I find unconscionable about ICE, but it needs to be reformed, not eliminated.

Hickenlooper has demonstrated an aptitude for accomplishment, quiet, unheralded, and consistent. As mayor of Denver, governor of Colorado and senator, he has been businesslike, steady and knowledgeable.

Gonzales alleges some financial impropriety on Hickenlooper’s part, but The Post rightfully points out that he has been judicious about placing his finances in a “blind trust,” encouraging other senators to do the same. Gonzales says that she wants Medicare for all and will abolish private health insurance. I am sorry, but this demonstrates a naivete and lack of certainty in what this means in terms of costs and practicality.

No one doubts that Trump has to be curtailed, but remember, no one senator can effect change individually; it must be done by consensus and compromise.

Philip Arreola, Denver

Editor’s note: The policy of The Denver Post and its sister papers in Tribune and Media News Group is not to endorse in U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races.

Let Russell Wilson have his broadcasting shot

Re: “Wilson’s a Hall-of-Famer, but he’ll be brutal,” June 7 sports commentary

Sean Keeler has decided to carry on the nasty comments on Russell Wilson into a brand new TV job for him before he even has his first try at it. Okay, let’s remind Keeler to give people a chance. I’m sure people have done that for him and haven’t trashed him before he even started his reporting career. Back off!

Dea Coschignano, Wheat Ridge

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Platner is a political dumpster fire and the epitome of their moral hypocrisy.

Platner had a tattoo resembling the Nazi Totenkopf symbol, associated with the SS and concentration-camp guards during World War II, on his chest, which has been exacerbated by his rhetoric. He has also been tied to a long list of inflammatory Reddit posts and comments: remarks questioning why Black restaurant patrons tip less; comments interpreted as blaming sexual assault victims for drinking; attacks on rural white Americans as stupid; statements advocating political violence; calling all police officers bastards; and, even mocking a wounded Purple Heart recipient as someone who “didn’t deserve to live.”

Platner’s history shows a documented pattern of offensive and vulgar conduct.

Despite these concerns, Democrats looked the other way while jumping on the Platner bandwagon.

Why? Because Platner has been leading in the polls and offers the party a chance to beat Sen. Susan Collins and win control of the Senate. Collins has served in the Senate for 29 years and is one of the Republicans’ more moderate senators. Democratic Party leaders rationalized Platner’s history, dismissed it as old news, and insisted he was a changed man. The moral outrage was swept under the rug in the name of political power at any cost.

Then another bomb dropped. Platner recently exchanged sexually explicit text messages with multiple women shortly after getting married and during the early stages of his senate campaign.

Democrats would be incensed if the shoe were on the other foot and Platner was the Republican candidate. They would be on every talk show and flooding social media, arguing that he was unfit for office and demanding his immediate withdrawal from the race. Progressive activists’ talking points would call Platner a Nazi and brand him as the face of the Republican Party.

Despite these recent developments, Platner has continued to receive silence, excuses, and outright support from prominent Democrats. Key Democratic leaders like Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative Ro Khanna, and other progressive figures .

Sen. Sanders has spent years arguing that character, rhetoric, and personal conduct matter when evaluating Republican candidates. From chastising President Trump, to calling on Roy Moore to step down during the Alabama Senate race, to criticizing figures such as Herschel Walker and George Santos, moral standards and decency used to matter to Sanders. Not so much, apparently, when the candidate has a “D” by his name and his opinions align with Sanders’ socialist views. Then, the interests of the working class somehow become a permission slip for a moral and political train wreck.

Democrats should demand that Platner step aside before the next bomb drops. Gov. Janet Mills, who recently suspended her campaign, should be the Democratic nominee in this critical race if there is to do so.

The larger issue goes far beyond Maine.

Democrats now have two dramatic examples of losing their voice when it matters. Consider their lost-in-the-wilderness posture toward President Joe Biden when it was clear he was not competent to run for re-election. They either defended Biden as fit or remained silent.  And, the lack of moral clarity was disturbing, particularly from Jill Biden, who now concedes she thought her husband was having a stroke during his disastrous debate performance.

Even more concerning is the direction of the party. Democrats constantly describe themselves as the party of the “big tent” — a coalition supposedly broad enough to welcome different viewpoints, backgrounds, and perspectives. Increasingly, however, that tent seems to have room for radicals and ideological extremists while pushing out Democrats who think independently.

Take Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, for example. Fetterman is a progressive Democrat who has never abandoned Democratic priorities on issues such as labor, health care, and affordability. However, he refuses to march in lockstep with Democrats on every issue, particularly when it comes to Israel and public safety. His independent views on Israel have drawn not-so-friendly fire from the activist left. For that independence, he is increasingly treated as a disloyal outcast by members of his own party, who continue trying to push him out of the tent.

As my son Wes aptly said, the moral of the story is that some democrats seem okay with Nazi symbolism but not a Jewish state.

The modern Democratic “big tent” appears large enough to embrace candidates accused of extremism and deeply disturbing behavior, but not large enough to tolerate free thinkers willing to challenge progressive orthodoxy.

A party desperate for national leadership and a cohesive message that resonates with Americans cannot have it both ways. And, it can’t credibly cry moral outrage with Republican candidates and elected officials while accepting and explaining away the outrageous behavior and conduct of its own candidates.

Platner is a national stain on the Democratic Party in 2026, and Republicans will use him across the country as midterm fodder unless Democrats find their voice — and their standards — while there is still time.

Doug Friednash is a partner with the law firm Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck, who grew up in Denver and writes occassional columns for The Denver Post.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “We can’t let fields become a wasteland of swirling dirt and noxious weeds,” April 5 commentary, and “Even at tax time, it’s good to be a billionaire,” April 5 finance column

Sunday’s Post featured two articles that speak to the necessity of seeing connections between seemingly disparate phenomena. In the Perspective section, Krista Kafer has depicted the dire conditions of Colorado’s parched Eastern Plains. Our diminishing water resources are being directed toward expanding cities. There must be a sincere collaboration between agricultural and residential development if we are all to prosper.

In a similar vein, the Business section featured an article on our inequitable national tax structure, which enables the wealthy to grow their wealth while most people, besieged by income taxes and rising property taxes, struggle.

The Post presents these two pictures, where there is an imbalance of resources — water and wealth. It is imperative to observe and address disparities where people and our natural world suffer due to myopic, self-centered behaviors. We are all connected. When one of us is unduly harmed, we are all inevitably diminished.

Evan Siegel, Westminster

Sometimes, you have to let the weeds take hold

Re: “We can’t let fields become a wasteland of swirling dirt and noxious weeds,” April 5 commentary

Good piece about water rights and noxious weeds. Reclaiming larger vacant rural landscapes with native plants is a very difficult, expensive, and lengthy process.

I spent much of my career as a landscape architect developing strategies for re-vegetating disturbed landscapes. While non-native weeds are a problem, they are here to stay. There is no realistic way to prevent them. We must accept that, while native landscape plant species are desirable in many ways, they generally can’t compete with invasive weeds in the short term. In some ways, non-native plants help stabilize soils while native species get a foothold. Keep in mind that weeds have evolved some very strong strategies to thrive in disturbed soil, despite farmers’ exhaustive efforts to control them.

Each of those farms you mentioned with vacant dry fields requires the resources to stabilize the soil, native grass and forb seeding, mulching and some follow-up repairs. The legal requirements should be more specific. It is not going to happen by itself in our dry, windy climate. I wouldn’t worry too much about the weeds until the vegetation is established.

After all, many of us, including those of European ancestry, are a type of invasive species. We want to live here too.

Frank Miltenberger, Denver

Thankful to lawmakers as they try to tackle state budget in tight fiscal times

žé±đ:Ìę“Medicaid to take brunt of budget cuts,” April 5 news story

Thank you to Nick Coltrain and Meg Wingerter for a well-written, comprehensive look at the impossible budget situation the Joint Budget Committee and our state find itself in.

Bethany Pray of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy summed it up well with her quote, “We have a red-state budget and we have blue-state ideals …”

It is sad that good and humane policy is considered “blue state,” however. Or that restrictive fiscal policy is “red state.” But those are the times we live in. And the clash of ideologies must now be balanced on the backs of many hardworking people trying to keep their children out of institutional care and on the Medicaid providers that support them. The pain will be widespread. But particularly acute among the disabled population.

I am the full-time caregiver of an adult child on a Medicaid waiver. It gives our son access to an excellent day program. The providers barely make a living wage. Medicaid covers his medical needs. Those providers often operate at a loss. He requires 24/7 care, and we can meet his daily care needs without additional Medicaid assistance. But most families caring for a severely disabled child are not so fortunate. They are living on the edge.

Thank you to the public servants wrestling with impossible decisions. I hope our state makes the right choices at the ballot box come November and our leaders continue to explore fundamental changes to this fiscal vise we find ourselves in. Thank you to the reporters for providing an understanding of the complexities and consequences of the choices before the lawmakers. The more we all understand, the better we can all work toward long-term sustainable solutions.

Karen Roberts, Denver

Budget season is a time to reappraise what is important to the flourishing of Coloradans. It is time to dispel nakedly partisan worldviews and find common ground.

Reducing medical funding for the most vulnerable and marginalized in our community sends the exact wrong message about who we are as a state. We are at our best when we support those who face unimaginable physical/economic burdens with pride and dignity.

Rather than cut payments to families with children who have severe disabilities or pregnant immigrant women and children, can we consider withdrawing Medicaid payments for elective abortions?

Elective abortions for low-income women were previously subsidized using private money from the Cobalt Abortion Fund and other abortion advocacy non-profits. This is where funding for such morally controversial medical interventions belongs.

Public funding doesn’t increase abortion access but simply shifts the burden of funding abortions from private sources to the taxpayer. Let¶¶Òőap put those millions of Medicaid dollars to the service of our disabled children and needy immigrant community.

Tom Perille, Englewood

Republican Party hung the heavy price on health care

Re: “Health care costs are forcing terrible trade-offs” April 5 commentary

In reading Sunday’s Perspective section, this column stood out from all the others.

The reasons for our health care situation fall in the lap of the Republican Party. It has been trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act since it was established, and in all that time, it has never come up with an alternative plan. Instead, it just keeps chipping away at the social safety net of most Americans.

This problem has been exacerbated by President Trump’s Department of Defense/ War, which has us engaged in another costly and senseless war in Iran.

We live in the wealthiest country in the world, and yet millions go without basic health care. This is causing people to skip their medications and actually go without health insurance altogether.

The result of this action is that hospitals still have to treat patients who come to them when their illness has progressed to the point that their care is actually more expensive. This makes absolutely no sense, and when the Department of Defense/War is asking for $1.5 trillion in addition to an enormous budget for ICE, it shows how far off our policies are for the American people.

This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, but rather a very grave policy issue putting the health crisis facing the American people in an untenable position. People will die because of a lack of medical care and ultimately cost our country more money. Basic health care is a right, not a privilege. Let¶¶Òőap start putting our budget where it can do the most good for all of us.

David Shaw, Highlands Ranch

In defense of the Democratic caucuses and grassroots organizing

Re: “Time to end caucuses in Colorado,” March 29 commentary

It¶¶Òőap no surprise, but still disappointing to see the entrenched and moneyed political interests working hard to rid our democracy of grassroots community organizing to get their candidates on the ballot.

Columnist Doug Friednash describes the caucus process as “deeply flawed, and an undemocratic way” to select candidates.

The opposite is true. It is Friednash’s favorites who have enough money to buy their way onto the ballot through the petition process and buy their way into winning the election with the loads of cash that will flow into their primary and general election coffers.

Our two entrenched and uber-well-financed U.S. Senators thumbed their noses at the caucus process. In reality, their centrist pandering to Republican colleagues in the Senate is deeply unpopular. Grassroots caucus activists, with very little or no money, are holding them accountable. Hickenlooper voted for 10 of the president¶¶Òőap 22 cabinet appointments, and Bennet voted for eight. Did they miss the anti-democratic and dictatorial statements of the president prior to these votes?

The Denver Post gave Friednash, a corporate Democratic centrist mouthpiece, the opportunity to take swipes at Melat Kiros, who garnered nearly two-thirds of the caucus vote for the 1st Congressional District race. It¶¶Òőap the incumbent senators and the CD 1 incumbent who are the “extreme radical candidates” who are out of touch with Colorado Democrats and our state’s values.

John Gudvangen, Denver

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Melat Kiros — who’s also a lawyer and a Ph.D student when she isn’t behind the counter at the Whittier Cafe — is picking up momentum in her first-ever political campaign. She’s running against longtime U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in the Democratic primary for Colorado’s 1st Congressional District in Denver.

DeGette, who was sworn into office the year Kiros was born, has .

But Kiros, a Democratic socialist, rose to prominence after she demolished DeGette in the Democrats’ Denver County assembly last month. And while political observers, including Kiros herself, say the assembly process isn’t actually representative of who will vote in the June primary, the win still marked a surprising development in a race that many considered to be predetermined.

“This has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the fact that Denver Democrats want a fighter — somebody who is actually committed to transformative change,” Kiros said in an interview this week with The Denver Post.

Kiros didn’t keep DeGette off the ballot, but she gave her a scare. Kiros won 646 votes, or the support of 63% of those present at the county assembly. DeGette won 336, or 32% of the votes.

It was the first time DeGette had lost a county assembly vote since she initially won her seat in Congress in the 1996 election.

Two weeks after the county assembly, DeGette, 68, narrowly won her place on the primary ballot at the 1st Congressional District party assembly, receiving 33% support — just above the 30% threshold to make the ballot. A third primary candidate, University of Colorado Regent Wanda James, , but her voter signatures are still under review by the state.

Denver-based state Rep. Javier Mabrey, who endorsed Kiros, said he saw her as part of a larger movement within the Democratic Party: voters who don’t want to see the same types of candidates elected.

Like New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Kiros is a more progressive Democrat than those who currently make up the majority of the party’s members in Congress, he said.

“I think there’s an energy for politics that says, ‘Our problems are more complicated than Donald Trump alone. We’ve got to confront the conditions that led to Donald Trump,” Mabrey said of the Republican president. “I think Melat has tapped into that.”

Kiros will still have a long way to go if she hopes to pull off a win of the June 30 primary, however. The assembly gathered only a tiny sliver of the 416,000 people eligible to vote in the June Democratic primary — 230,000 unaffiliated voters and 186,000 registered Democrats, as of March 1, according to the secretary of state’s office.

A spokesperson for DeGette’s campaign said the congresswoman was proud to have made the ballot through the assembly process.

“This is ultimately only a small first step with a small group of people,” Jennie Peek-Dunstone wrote in an email. “Now, we are talking with hundreds of thousands of Democrats and unaffiliated voters across the District. Diana has deep support across Denver because she’s always fought for us. She’ll keep championing our progressive values by standing up to Trump, fighting for universal health care, and defending our democracy — just as she always has.”

Denver is a Democratic stronghold, meaning that whoever wins the primary is all but guaranteed to win the general election. In 2024, DeGette defeated her Republican challenger with 77% of the vote.

Kiros’ background

A child of immigrants, Kiros was born in Ethiopia but moved to Denver with her family as a baby. She left the city to attend Washington College in Maryland and went on to attend law school at the University of Notre Dame. After passing the bar exam, she began work as a securities regulation attorney at , one of the biggest law firms in the country.

Kiros said that two years in, firm leaders fired her for a by Hamas in Israel, which responded by launching a war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the post, she questioned Israel’s legitimacy as a state and disavowed about the rise in antisemitism.

“This letter rightfully rebukes the anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and bigotry of all kinds that has spiked in recent weeks, but then goes on (to my confusion) to cite ‘calls for the elimination of the Israeli state’ as anti-Semitism,” she wrote. “… To conflate such bigotry with the geo-political question of Israel’s legitimacy is one of the greatest travesties in this conflict.”

More recently, Kiros has been criticized for sharing last month with a video that said Democrats “fellate Israel” and “suck (expletive).” The video was promoting an online rally for progressive candidates and speakers.

Kiros said she didn’t write that phrasing and doesn’t endorse that language.

After her firing from the law firm, Kiros says she decided to get more involved in politics. Now, she’s pursuing a doctorate in public policy with a focus on “democracy reform” at .

In 2024, she volunteered as the communications director for Democrat John Padora’s campaign in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District — one of the most conservative seats in the state and now represented by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert.

‘Our party isn’t fighting back’

Kiros’ online ads , calling out not only DeGette but also former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. One shows large Xs over photos of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former President Joe Biden while Kiros says: “We hear politicians say over and over that we need bold leadership, progress and change. We’ve heard this for years. Decades. But they never deliver.”

“Our party isn’t fighting back like they should,” she goes on to say.

Kiros is endorsed by the Denver chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and the Justice Democrats. She says that if elected, she sees herself aligning with members of Congress like U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Summer Lee of Pennsylvania and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

She would use her position, she said, to “call out the Democrats who are not actually fighting for our values” and pressure them to change the votes she disagrees with. That could include civil protests and threatening quorum.

Her top three policy priorities would be passing “Medicare for All” and universal child care and creating a publicly financed election system similar to the one that Denver uses in city elections, which includes public matching for smaller-dollar donations.

DeGette supporters emphasize that the congresswoman is also a co-sponsor of Medicare for All legislation. Angie Anderson, a Platt Park resident and mother of 2 young children, said she’s heard DeGette talk about it.

“I consider myself pretty progressive, and I think that she represents me very well,” said Anderson, who said she has voted for DeGette in every election since she’s lived in Denver.

Ocasio-Cortez even gave DeGette a shout-out for her support of the policy .

“She is one of the most powerful people in Congress on health care,” Ocasio-Cortez said to the crowd of 30,000 people. “And Diana DeGette is a co-sponsor of Medicare for All. She believes in the guaranteed right to health care for every American. Thank you for electing her.”

Anderson said she thinks Kiros and DeGette are actually pretty similar politically.

“I just think the real difference is that Rep. DeGette has many years of experience and is actually a very skilled policymaker and legislator,” she said. “I take issue with the idea that youth and inexperience is fundamentally required to effect change.”

What did assembly win mean?

After Kiros’ assembly win, a wide swath of political observers jumped in to say that while the event’s outcome was surprising, it wasn’t particularly meaningful for the upcoming primary.

Doug Friednash, a former Denver city attorney and chief of staff to then-Gov. John Hickenlooper, wrote in a Post opinion piece recently that assemblies exclude the vast majority of voters, resulting in a “tiny, highly motivated slice of activists” to determine results.

“More and more extreme candidates in both parties have effectively used these caucuses to fly under the radar and effectively organized a small cadre of activists, like the Democratic Socialists, to show up at the caucus, leading to stunning results that make most voters shake their heads in extreme disbelief,” wrote Friednash, now a partner with Denver-based law firm Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck.

At the very least, the win showed that Kiros’ team found a way to out-organize DeGette’s team. But it remains to be seen if that will continue through the primary election.

Kiros and her supporters agree that her assembly win doesn’t mean she’s a shoo-in to win the primary.

“I don’t think that folks who talk about the assembly not being reflective of the general electorate are wrong,” Kiros said. But she noted it was unusual for an incumbent to lose an assembly vote.

“DeGette has been challenged before,” Kiros said. “This is a different kind of campaign.”

Mabrey said finding ways to raise money for her campaign will be one of the keys for Kiros in the remaining months before the primary.

“Melat¶¶Òőap going to need an injection of grassroots campaign cash to keep up,” he said.

Through the end of 2025, she had raised about $204,000 and spent nearly $138,000. DeGette had raised about $729,000 and spent $507,000 through then, while James had raised about $179,000 and spent $86,600.

Despite having lower cash reserves than DeGette, Kiros is getting recognized more often when in public, she said. During a recent hourlong interview with The Post at a Capitol Hill coffee shop, two people stopped by the table to introduce themselves and voice their support for her.

“I’m totally voting for you, dude,” one said. “Your campaign is (expletive) awesome.”

Between now and June, Kiros plans to knock on doors, call voters, work with businesses and use digital advertising to get her message out. Nearly 200 people volunteered at a recent weekend canvassing event, she said.

“The thing that we need to do to win,” she said, “is to give people enough faith that getting involved will make a difference.”

Staff writer Seth Klamann contributed to this story.

The debate over accountability for public officials has sharpened nationally as Gov. Jared Polis has questioned whether justice was evenly applied when comparing the length of the sentence imposed on former Republican Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters with the sentence imposed on former Democratic Colorado State Senator Sonya Jacquez Lewis last week.

In a social media post, Polis noted that Jaquez Lewis was convicted of the same exact felony as Peters, but received a much more lenient sentence. The facts differ, as do some of the legal theories, but Polis notes that the scale of Peters’ punishment has placed her sentence outside the typical range involving elected officials, raising legitimate questions about proportionality.

The legitimacy of our justice system depends on the public’s belief that the rules apply evenly, regardless of party, ideology or notoriety. From my vantage point as a former Democratic lawmaker, and a former Denver city attorney and assistant attorney general who worked on criminal enforcement matters, the Peters case is striking not because accountability was inappropriate, but because the sentence appears inconsistent with other cases and may have been influenced by her polarizing political speech.

Polis’s office has made it clear that he is not considering a pardon for Tina Peters, and neither would I. Instead, he is reviewing her application like anyone else for clemency and likely considering a modification to her sentence.

In my time as chief of staff to former Gov. John Hickenlooper, we carefully vetted many clemency cases, and the public is able to weigh in during this process. It is imperative that Peters takes accountability for her actions and is remorseful.

None of this is to excuse Tina Peters’ conduct. Peters was found guilty on seven charges, including four felonies, for her role in orchestrating a municipal election security data breach of the county’s election equipment in 2021, well after the 2020 election results were affirmed by the county and certified by the state. Peters faced 20 years in prison and was sentenced to 9 years.

Make no mistake: courts are right to treat threats to election integrity with gravity, and deterrence is a legitimate sentencing goal. However, legitimate questions were raised on appeal as to whether her political speech, not popular in Colorado, erroneously informed the trial judge’s sentencing of her.

Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Craig Welling, who served as chief legal counsel for Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter before joining the court, grilled the state’s attorney over the trial judge reciting Peters’ false statements about elections in handing down her sentence and said, “the court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights.”

During oral argument, all three Court of Appeals judges expressed concern about the fairness of her sentence and highlighted how the district court judge’s political statements made about Peters may have unfairly and unconstitutionally influenced her sentencing. The court has not ruled yet in this case and could easily make the conversation about clemency moot.

Proportionality is not a soft concept; it is a cornerstone of justice. A review of similarly situated cases, demonstrates that Peters’ sentence is an outlier.

Lewis, a Democrat, faced serious allegations tied to her official conduct, drawing headlines and political fallout. Lewis was convicted of four felony charges (one count of attempting to influence a public servant and three counts of forgery). In January 2025, during an investigation by the Colorado Senate Committee on Ethics, Lewis forged several letters reportedly written by former aides to refute allegations that Lewis was mistreating staff. She faced up to 15 years in prison, but received two years of supervised probation and 150 hours of community service. I have yet to hear a single person opposed to leniency for Peters argue that Lewis’ sentence was too lenient or inappropriate.

In 2023, former state Rep. Tracey Bennett, a Democrat from Boulder, faced felony charges related to residency fraud and pleaded guilty to attempting to influence a public servant and perjury about lying about her place of residence to run for reelection in a more favorable political district. She faced up to 8 years but received a deferred sentence, including two years of probation. Again, no outcry about whether her sentence was too lenient. Indeed, most public official-related cases don’t end in jail time, but rather probation, deferred sentencing, community hours and fines.

Context matters, and in Colorado’s political climate, Peters is undeniably red meat for many Coloradoans who, like me, are rightfully concerned about election integrity. Peters became a figure whose actions were not just unlawful but emblematic of broader threats to democratic norms. That political reality does not invalidate the legal process, but it does make the need for visible consistency even more important. Justice must be not only fair, but perceived as fair.

Before critiquing Gov. Polis ask yourself this: would the result have been different if the Peters was the Boulder County Clerk who committed the same crime with the same result? Certainly, the political outcry to Polis’ post about a Democratic elected Boulder County Clerk’s disproportionate sentence would have been more muted.

When similarly situated officials receive vastly different outcomes, it risks creating the impression– whether accurate or not — that punishment can be shaped by the political temperature surrounding a case. And, without question, it is clear that the court itself is openly questioning the severity of her sentence.

In an era when trust in institutions is already strained, that perception carries real consequences.

Doug Friednash is a partner with the law firm Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The majority of survivors are Jewish and were part of a community event on the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, organized by Run for Their Lives, a global movement. The Boulder chapter held weekly, peaceful walks dedicated to bringing home innocent hostages that were kidnapped over 600 days ago and taken to Gaza during Hamas’ horrific terrorist attack on October 7th. Others coming to the aid of the targeted victims were also injured.

Mohammed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national who was here illegally, has been accused of arming himself with at least a dozen Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower. Eyewitness accounts and videotaped evidence immediately flooded the Internet and showed Soliman throwing Molotov cocktails and using a flamethrower as he shouted “Free Palestine.”  He also was seen yelling, “we need to end Zionists”.

This was not some ambiguous act of violence. It was an obvious act of terrorism and hate crime against Jews.

The FBI wasted no time Sunday in labeling it as a “targeted act of violence,” and a few short hours later, at about 3:30 p.m., FBI Director Kash Patel, posted on X that it was ” a targeted terror attack.” Both statements underscored the agency’s recognition of Soliman’s obvious motive behind this heinous crime.

Many local news outlets reported Patel’s statement quickly, and Gov. Jared Polis posted on X a few minutes after Patel, calling the attack a “heinous act of terror.” A small group of Colorado Democratic leaders, including Sen. Michael Bennet, Congressman Joe Neguse, and Congresswoman Brittany Pettersen, also didn’t hesitate to call it a terrorist attack against Jews in early statements.

Labeling matters, but in those crucial first hours, there was hesitation from much of the mainstream media and local law enforcement, which carefully avoided using the term “terrorism” in the headlines of their initial coverage and in official reports made to the public. And, despite the FBI quickly classifying it as an obvious terrorist attack, many Democratic officials were silent, and those who did speak out often used words like “attack” and “incident” or generic hate with no attribution that this act of terror targeted Jews.

Why didn’t this incident erupt into universal and immediate condemnation? Why haven’t our leaders urgently convened to better understand the full scope of this terrorist attack?

The same lack of outrage happened with other recent high-profile incidents like Gov. Josh Shapiro’s house being set on fire by a person who accused the governor of violence against Palestinians. And, it happened last month when Yaron Lischinsky, 30, and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, 26, were murdered in cold blood after attending a Young Diplomats Reception hosted by the American Jewish Committee at the Washington, D.C., Capital Jewish Museum by a man shouting, “Free, free Palestine.” These acts were perpetrated against Jews because they were Jewish. And each time there is a celebration in certain quarters and less outrage in most, these acts are steadily becoming normalized.

Even now, after Soliman told investigators that he planned the terrorist attack for a year and wanted to “kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead,” many leaders, as well as progressive and minority party caucuses, have remained conspicuously silent about this heinous act of targeted terror.

Are they afraid to speak out against radical elements within the Free Palestine movement, or do they simply not care enough about Jews being burned? Either way, silence serves to normalize antisemitism.

Of course, not every supporter of Palestinian rights endorses violence. But make no mistake, we have witnessed a historical rise of antisemitism, and a reign of terror against Jews from parts of the Free Palestine movement. A growing radical crusade within these organizations and movements in which they hide their faces like the Ku Klux Klan, carry Hamas flags, use Hamas military symbols, chant “from the river to the sea”, taunt and harass Jews, and outwardly advocate for globalizing the intifada.

They are breeding antisemitism and radicalizing followers under the false guise of social justice. Too many Democratic officials seem reluctant to confront the elephant in the room.  They’d rather cower by staying silent or walking on eggshells in order to avoid being targeted themselves.

Words have consequences, and as we have seen in the Middle East and Europe, it¶¶Òőap only a matter of time before people like Mohammed Soliman, Elias Rodriguez and Cody Balmer are radicalized and more Jews are burned, assaulted, murdered, or have their houses or synagogues set on fire.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, anti-Jewish incidents in 2024 were 41% higher than the previous year. They have skyrocketed by more than 373% since 2020. Colorado ranked ninth in the nation in 2024 for antisemitic incidents. While Jews make up only 2% of the United States population, they represent 68 percent of all reported religion-based crime.

Jews in America, like me, are angry. We have never experienced this dangerous level of antisemitism and violence in our lifetimes. All Colorado synagogues have enhanced their security protocols, even to the point of having a security guard on the roof of local synagogues during services to ensure the highest level of preparedness and a faster response.  There’s not a Jewish day school in America that hasn’t implemented new plans to protect children and students. Many of my Jewish friends have purchased firearms and training for self-defense.

There can be no sitting on the sidelines in the face of terrorism. Refusing to timely and unequivocally call terrorism by its name exacerbates why Jews are targeted. It is not simply a failure of vocabulary, but a failure of our collective responsibility to meet the gravity of the moment.

Jew hatred must be confronted as the serious threat it is, even when it hides behind the banner of “Free Palestine.” As Martin Luther King, Jr. aptly said, “in the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Doug Friednash grew up in Denver and is a partner with the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck. He is the former chief of staff for Gov. John Hickenlooper.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “Democratic leaders must reckon with the Biden coverup,” May 25 commentary

I am angry at Doug Friednash and furious at Jake Tapper. Joe Biden is no longer president and has now been diagnosed with late-stage prostate cancer. Do we need to beat a dead horse? I recently asked a friend, “What purpose is Jake Tapper’s tell-all book about Biden except to enrich his own wallet and time in the spotlight?”

I will not read his book, and it is terrible to demean and ridicule a man who served in the public spotlight for five decades, who lost a wife and daughter in a terrible car crash, and one of two sons to brain cancer, and now will be fighting a deadly disease. Can he just be left alone to die in peace?

The piling on to Biden is even more mystifying when Trump has been impeached twice, found liable for sexual abuse, knowingly prompted an attack on the U.S. Capitol while his supporters chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” and then pardoned these insurrectionists and other convicted criminals to go back out into the streets (see Bannon, Stone, etc.)

Friednash has “jumped on the bandwagon” of blame. Does it matter now? The results of the 2024 election (Trump) will be harmful to 90% of the U.S. population as the effects unfold, and history will be not be kind to this administration. They are unqualified hucksters, with a lawyer overseeing all medical decisions of trained doctors, and a Director of Homeland Security that has only the vaguest knowledge about the Constitution and U.S. laws. The attorney general is a puppet who spouts verbatim the same nonsense that Karoline Leavitt does, verbiage that has nothing to do with actual facts.

Looking backward accomplishes nothing at this point. Let the man die in peace. He served his country well, perhaps waning in his last years. No one talks about Trump’s decline, which is also evident to all, and is also being covered up by every single sycophant in his administration and the GOP Congress. It¶¶Òőap obvious in the exact same way Biden’s was.

Wendy Hall, Buena Vista

Was President Joe Biden’s physical and mental condition “concealed” from us? Most likely. Although not justified, this would not be the first time a president¶¶Òőap condition while in office was hidden from the public.

Woodrow Wilson was partially paralyzed, and . Dwight Eisenhower in Colorado and Crohn’s disease. . . Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer’s disease and while in office. Grover Cleveland had jaw cancer.

None of these, including the issue of Biden’s health are criminal or illicit. But the cover-ups of Donald J. Trump are. After the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Trump labelled it a “Day of Love”, even though more than 140 police officers were injured, four committed suicide within a year, and there was over $2.7 million in damages. Since then, he pardoned 1,500 of the rioters who already pleaded guilty or were convicted and serving jail time. False facts to obscure and shroud that January 6, 2021, was an insurrection.

In the summer of 2023, he tried to delete Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage to obstruct the Justice Department¶¶Òőap investigation into his removing classified, “Top Secret” documents from the White House. In early 2024, Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts because he covered up crimes in his business records. Two more cover-ups.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Ronald Fischer, Lakewood

Re: Sunday cartoon, May 25

The political cartoon depicts three Democratic donkeys mimicking the three monkeys: “See no evil,” “hear no evil” and “say no evil.” They sit on the head of former President Joseph Biden. I have no issue with this cartoon because I feel it’s true. However, in all fairness, the same cartoon could be redrawn today, subbing in three elephants on the head of our current president. This issue is usually ignored by the mainstream press.

Mariann Storck, Wheat Ridge

Tax cuts for the rich cost the poorest among us

Re: “What to watch as bill moves to Senate,” May 25 news story

The article from the Associated Press about sticking points for Senators considering President Donald Trump’s “” mentions the lack of savings, cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, questions about making the tax cuts permanent, and the extension of the debt limit.

Left out of the discussion is the fact that each of the top earners, whose wealth is counted in millions, if not billions, of dollars, will receive about . This is enough for one individual to repay almost 400 of the lowest earners for the money they will, in effect, be giving to the highest earner.

These lowest earners will have an income loss of about $1,000, considering the losses of medical care and food on the table projected under this bill, in addition to the increased costs due to tariffs.

Also not mentioned is the even more dangerous so-called “poison pill,” a late addition that would protect officials retroactively from punishment for contempt of court, effectively freeing the administration from any obligation to follow court orders. This is the perfect recipe for full autocracy in a formerly democratic United States of America.

David Schroeder, Arvada

Listen to the professional investors

Re: “Economy: Trump ignores warning signs,” May 25 news story

The article has a valid point, but what about you and me? Are we also ignoring warning signs? Yes, we are. President Donald Trump has been involved in major bankruptcy cases and two recent significant legal cases in New York: falsifying business records and misrepresenting his wealth and property value. He is known to be very loose with the truth, and his ethics are in need of improvement.

Thousands of men and women around the world are professional investors who seriously study the economy. They are not playing the political game. When a solid plurality finds Trump’s economic policy suspect, the opinion should be respected.

Why do millions of Americans consider Trump a financial genius and ignore the wisdom of the professionals? We are ignoring the obvious and sowing the wind. We will reap the whirlwind.

Paul Bonnifield, Yampa

What happened to grassroots politics?

Before COVID, I attended a vibrant Denver Political Action Day at Civic Center Park. While I didn’t agree with every booth or viewpoint represented, I valued the open exchange of ideas and the people who were willing to speak their minds. That same week, I went to a community event at the Blush & Blu bar, supporting a local LGBTQ candidate. The energy in the room was electric — people were hopeful, engaged and excited to build something new.

Since then, Denver’s politics have felt more disconnected. While major issues are still front and center, the visible presence of grassroots groups, especially ones rooted in working-class communities, has noticeably declined. In the absence of consistent grassroots organizing, I see a growing dominance of voices backed by out-of-state interests or polished through institutional filters. Many individuals trying to engage by speaking at city council meetings, forming advocacy groups, or running for office seem to experience increasing difficulty in breaking through or gaining meaningful opportunities to pursue important issues.

I’ve started to wonder: Are today’s political alliances and endorsements built on local relationships and mutual struggle, or are they increasingly tied to out-of-state or corporate influences?

A healthy civic culture needs community engagement, strong identity networks and stability in order to foster shared action. Without a vibrant grassroots presence, we risk allowing others — who don’t necessarily reflect the values of many across Denver’s diverse spectrum — to dominate public discourse.

How can we rebuild that vital connection between everyday people and political power?

Rodney Baker, Denver

Examine the law that established public broadcast

žé±đ:Ìę“Pros and cons of PBS content,” May 25 open forum regarding “Make public broadcasting great again by shaking it up,” May 18 commentary

Respectfully, the issue is President Donald Trump’s May 1 executive order “.” The reality is there will be less “to be taken by the lapels and shaken” at PBS and NPR when one’s existence is made more difficult because a revenue stream has been shut down in violation of our First Amendment.

Not agreeing with the narrative is not a legitimate basis for Trump to engage in censorship. The amount of free speech otherwise available will be significantly reduced.

Freedom of speech and the press are what allow leaders to be held accountable by freely questioning and sharing observations and concerns respecting gaps between said leaders’ assertions and reality.

Further, history shows that our 1967 Congress was well ahead of its time. On November 7, 1967, Congress passed the , which created the nonprofit Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

That led to the creation of PBS and NPR. And one of the six congressional declarations of this 1967 law’s policy states “that it furthers the general welfare to encourage noncommercial educational radio and television broadcast programing which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, and which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence.”

Therefore, censoring such legendary and noteworthy nonprofit institutions in such a tyrannical manner is part and parcel with authoritarianism.

Lou Horwitz, St. Louis, Mo.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Updated June 3, 2025 at 11:25 a.m. Due to a letter writer’s error, an earlier version of the Open Forum falsely said that President Donald Trump was convicted of sexual assault. Trump was found liable for sexual abuse in a New York court.

No one wants to see the former president and long-time senator facing a serious illness, and I hope that his treatment is effective.

This announcement was made the same week of the release of Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s explosive book Original Sin. This deeply reported book is based on interviews with over 200 people — many of them Democratic operatives and insiders — and details the astonishing lengths to which President Biden’s team and the broader Democratic establishment went to conceal the president¶¶Òőap cognitive and physical decline from the public.

Original Sin exposes one of the most cynical political cover-ups in modern American history, and it explains why Democrats have a trust issue with the American public. This well-earned lack of trust has led to questions about whether Biden may have hidden his prostate cancer too, although there is no evidence to support that he did.

Based upon recent revelations, there can be no question that Republicans and many others, including myself, were justified in sounding the alarm about Biden’s fitness to serve during the re-election campaign.

At the time, Biden’s team hit back with performative outrage and engaged in kabuki theatre.

His team dismissed concerns about his age and acuity as dirty politics. But those close to Biden knew they were handling a president who was no longer fit for office. According to accounts of Original Sin, his team choreographed nearly every aspect of Biden’s life — including limiting unscripted interactions, scripting meetings down to the minute, and escorting him to and from Air Force One helicopter to prevent a potential, devastating fall. They even contemplated putting Biden in a wheelchair after the election.

The cover-up extended to his cognitive decline too. Biden reportedly forgot key names, including major celebrities like George Clooney and even senior members of his own team. Cabinet secretaries were sidelined, and staff members devised elaborate strategies to avoid placing him in situations that might expose his decline.

Just this past week, audio from Special Counsel Robert Hur’s October 2023 interview with President Biden was released. Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland  for refusing to release them. In February 2024, Biden and his covert operations team were apoplectic about Hur’s decision that it would be difficult to prosecute Biden in the classified documents matter because Biden was a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and it would be difficult to prove the mental state of willfulness. Biden angrily responded that his memory was fine and his team exalted that this was a “partisan hit job”.

The audio proves otherwise as , rambling, and couldn’t even remember when his son Beau died.

Biden’s team continued to trot out his disingenuous talking points, insisting that he was sharp and physically fit.  Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates asserted that “not only does the president perform around the clock, but he maintains a schedule that tires younger aides, including foreign trips into active war zones.”  Apparently, however, Biden had difficulty functioning outside of a 6-hour window between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Like the man behind the curtain in Oz, Biden’s team spun a grand illusion, staging a show of leadership while concealing Biden’s fragility, more devoted to self-preservation and power than being honest.

Here’s where the culpability deepens, Democratic leaders knew. They saw the same signs the public saw and in many instances saw it firsthand and acknowledged it privately. Yet instead of standing up, they continued to vouch for Biden’s fitness.

A month before his disastrous debate with Trump, I wrote a column calling President Biden unfit for office.  At that time two-thirds of voters had little or no confidence that Biden was physically fit to be president.  Anyone who has watched a family member or close friend decline with senility, dementia or physical ailments had all of the evidence they needed when they watched even his composed public appearances provide clear and unsettling clues with his often incoherent rhetoric and gaffes, confusion and instability.

And, following his disastrous debate performance, Biden’s team tried to convince us that it was simply a bad night, blaming the debate preparation team for his poor performance. And, in the days following the debate train wreck, Democratic leaders were conspicuously silent, failing to speak out publicly. My column calling for him to withdraw just a few days after the debate, was one of the very first of its kind in the country and published well before any major Democratic leader called on him to publicly step aside.

And, the longer they failed to speak truth to power made it more unlikely the Democrats would win in November.  When they finally did, Biden had no choice but to step aside, but behind closed doors, in classic backroom style, Democrats had already crowned his successor, Vice President Kamala Harris.

This isn’t just a Biden problem that can be conveniently swept under the rug. It¶¶Òőap a Democratic Party problem — a failure of leadership, transparency, ethics and accountability.

The result? Democrats lost national trust and the party’s favorability rating stands at 29%, a record low. To be fair, that isn’t simply about the cover-up and lack of leadership. It also reflects a party in the wilderness, confused about their values, and unable to muster the leadership to meet Americans where they are on key issues. It is no wonder that only 35% of surveyed Democrats are very or somewhat optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party.

Democrats would love nothing more than to move on — to refocus on President Donald Trump and reframe the midterm elections as a battle for democracy. But its not that simple. They can’t claim hindsight when they bear collective responsibility for the outcome of the 2024 election.

Until Democrats acknowledge the cover-up, they undermine their own credibility and won’t be able to regain public trust.

It will surely be impossible for them to authentically critique Trump’s mental acuity and fitness.

Doug Friednash grew up in Denver and is a partner with the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck. He is the former chief of staff for Gov. John Hickenlooper.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

fell at the measure’s first hurdle on 2-3 bipartisan vote by a committee. The bill would’ve expanded a 31-year-old Colorado law that bars lobbyists from donating to campaigns during the legislature’s 120-day annual session.

Had the bill passed, the proposed year-round prohibition would have bumped Colorado into the ranks of a handful of states that more broadly limit lobbyist donations to the policymakers they’re trying to influence. But it failed to get out of the Senate’s .

Sen. Mike Weissman, an Aurora Democrat, sponsored the bill and is the committee’s chair. He said the bill was intended both to “catch up the law” to modern realities — lawmaking and meetings with lobbyists extend beyond the bounds of the legislative session — and to improve the public perception of government.

Weissman was the subject of a dark money-drenched primary challenge last summer, and a consumer-protection bill he sponsored was among the most-lobbied bills of last year’s session.

“People across the political spectrum are skeptical of government,” Weissman said Tuesday, two days before the vote. “That is a pretty bipartisan thing right now. So part of why I’m doing this is broadly stated: confidence in government.”

He added: “What we’re seeing around the world and beginning to see in this country is that when people cease to believe that representative government works for them, (and) their economic conditions aren’t tenable — they’ll start to entertain other things.”

Sen. Matt Ball, a Denver Democrat who voted against the bill Thursday with the committee’s two Republicans, said he was pleased with the state’s current transparency rules, which require that candidate donations be tracked and published online.

He worried that Weissman’s bill would simply shift spending elsewhere.

$500,000 donated in 2024 campaign — likely more

It’s unclear how much money is donated by lobbyists each year. While tracks donations by donors’ occupations, it’s an incomplete accounting. Donors must self-identify their professions, and while many lobbyists do so, others list their occupation as attorney, consultant or simply “other.” That self-identification may shift from donation to donation, too, further complicating tracking.

At a minimum, though, self-identified lobbyists donated just under $500,000 to statehouse candidates during the 2024 campaign cycle, according to state campaign finance reports.

Lobbyists typically are hired by corporations, nonprofits or government agencies to argue for or against legislation and policies. They are particularly powerful in Colorado: Legislative term limits result in significant turnover in the Capitol, with lawmakers in each chamber.

Some lobbyists, meanwhile, have worked in the building for decades — and, in previous lives, many were legislative aides or officials for state agencies or governors. As lobbyists now, they’re often intimately involved in drafting legislation.

In an interview before the vote Wednesday, Lacey Hays, the president of the Colorado Lobbyists Association, questioned whether Weissman’s proposal would’ve survived a First Amendment challenge. The Constitution’s free speech provision forms the basis for much of campaign finance law, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 .

“We are individuals,” Hays said, “and regardless of our profession, there are people that we see and get to know on the candidate trail that we believe would be good patrons for their communities. To bar us from helping out their campaigns is just that First Amendment, constitutional (issue) — we think it just flies in the face of that.”

Twenty-nine states prohibit lobbyist donations during legislative sessions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan research group. Six states go further and limit lobbyist donations generally, as Weissman sought to do, NCSL said. Weissman said those policies have withstood lawsuits.

Few lobbyists besides Hays agreed to speak on the record for this story, as is lobbyists’ habit generally. Several prominent lobbying firms did not respond to requests for comment.

But privately, several lobbyists generally shrugged at the idea of limiting their own donations. Some joked that such a prohibition would just save them several thousand dollars every cycle, and others said it would end an expectation from lawmakers that lobbyists donate or hold fundraisers.

One said fundraising calls often begin almost immediately after each legislative session — when the state’s prohibition on lobbyist giving lifts until the next session.

Simultaneously, though, the lobbyists and Hays argued that $450 donations — the maximum allowed to individual candidates — weren’t enough to buy anyone’s vote, and they questioned whether they could be prohibited from offering donations on the basis of their profession.

“A $450 check from an individual is not buying anyone’s influence,” Hays said.

“Take their money … and vote against ’em”

Or, as Republican Sen. Rod Pelton said before voting against Weissman’s measure: “You wouldn’t make a very good legislator if you couldn’t take their money in the morning and vote against ’em in the afternoon.”

Weissman acknowledged that there hadn’t been scandals about lobbyists buying votes or abusing donations in Colorado (though lobbyists privately groused that some legislators made it known that they knew who had donated to them and who hadn’t).

Still, Weissman said, the fact that Colorado “was a bit better off in terms of the culture … doesn’t mean there’s not a good reason to do it, especially now in this era.”

The appearance of impropriety — of greased palms — was part of the motivation for the initial ban on lobbyist giving, said Doug Friednash, a former legislator who introduced the policy back in 1993. Friednash now works for lobbying giant Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, though he stressed that he was speaking on his own behalf, not for the firm.

When he ran the bill, he expected to get heat from lobbyists.

“What was eye-opening after I did that — the people that came to thank me were lobbyists. … Lobbyists were thrilled that they weren’t getting (pressured) to make contributions,” Friednash said.

As a lobbyist now, he said he liked Weissman’s bill for that reason, too. But he also questioned whether the bill was constitutional, and he echoed Ball’s argument that lobbyists would find a way around the prohibition: They could still give to political parties or certain fundraising arms, for instance, and the companies or groups that hired them could continue to donate, too.

“The system always finds a way for a workaround,” Friednash said. “Because parties raise money for candidates, (lobbyists) give to some party event or something with money that’s going to specifically go to these same candidates or candidate. I think it’s a lot more complex and complicated than just that simple narrow piece” of lobbyist donations.

Even before taking office, Trump has repeatedly threatened Hamas and it¶¶Òőap puppet-masters in Iran that “all hell will break loose” if the estimated 100 hostages, about 70 of whom may still be alive, are not released before he takes office on January 20th. For those keeping track, Trump will assume office 471 days after the October 7th massacre.

Forty-three Americans were murdered, dozens more injured, and American hostages were kidnapped and taken to Palestinian territory in Gaza. The hostages were used as human shields by Iran’s armed terrorist proxy force. Multiple American hostages are believed to still be alive and it’s time to deprive Hamas and Iran of this latest inhumane bargaining chip.

The deplorable conditions the hostages have faced should make your blood boil. this week detailing the neglect, physical abuse, torture, humiliation and sexual abuse endured by the innocent hostages.

Teenagers were forced to perform sexual acts on each other and their monstrous captors performed sexual acts on them, including whipping their genitals. Two young children were burned. Male captives have suffered severe torture, continued starvation, and been forced to defecate on themselves. Many of the hostages have been murdered or died from medical complications.

Over 450 days into this crisis, the Biden administration has failed to secure the safety or return of these hostages. By its own admission, the Biden administration’s public pressure on Israel made matters worse and caused Hamas to pull back from a hostage deal. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told the New York Times, “whenever there has been public daylight between the United States and Israel, and the public perception that pressure was growing on Israel, we’ve seen it:  Hamas has pulled back from agreeing to a cease-fire and the release of hostages.”

Conversely, there is no daylight when it comes to Trump and Israel. Trump is a proven supporter of Israel and is expected to take an assertive posture to conflicts with Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and Iran as further evidenced by his initial appointments to key administration posts. Trump praised his incoming Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who is on his way to Qatar and has been engaged with the Biden team.

History may repeat itself as this hostage crisis is reminiscent of the first Iranian hostage crisis 44 years ago.

On November 4, 1979, a group of armed militant Iranian college students who supported the Iranian revolution, stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took 66 hostages. Shortly thereafter, they released some of the hostages.

Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s new political and religious leader refused to release the remaining 52 American hostages.  Day after day, American hostages, in handcuffs and blindfolds, were terrified and even paraded in front of hostile crowds chanting “death to America.” These hostages were treated inhumanely and didn’t know whether they would be tortured or murdered.

The American hostage crisis became a symbol of President Jimmy Carter’s presidency and was a key factor in his failed re-election campaign. On January 21, 1981, a few hours after President Ronald Reagan was sworn in, the hostages were released after being held captive for 444 days.

Carter and Biden each served one-term as president and have been viewed by these adversaries as weak. Both fumbled the ball when it came to solving this issue diplomatically. In Biden’s case, Hamas and Iran have taken advantage of Biden’s public disagreements with Israel. Carter and Biden were followed by Reagan and Trump, who ushered in a new era of conservatism and created an aura of strength as they juxtaposed their positions against them during the presidential campaigns.

Ironically, the hostile and dangerous Iranian regime, which took power with a deep animus toward both Israel and the United States, has sown the seeds of the current crisis through its massive financial and military support of Hamas.

Four decades later, Iran, like its proxies, finds itself on the ropes. Israel has decimated Hamas and Hezbollah while embarrassing and exposing Iran’s military weaknesses. Trump also has a personal vendetta after suggesting assassination attempts were tied to Iran. Two months ago, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Justice Department charged an asset of the Iranian regime “who was tasked by the regime to direct a network of criminal associates to further Iran’s assassination plots against its targets, including President-elect Donald Trump.”

Here’s the bottom line: Hamas and Iran don’t know what Trump will do. They do, however, know that Trump isn’t going to engage in endless negotiations that don’t bear fruit. If the hostages are released now it will only be because of Trump’s coercive diplomacy.

If all hell were to break loose, the Iranian regime that started the first hostage crisis may find itself coming to an end as a result of the second one they perpetuated. And, Iran will carry much more than blood on their hands.

Forewarned is forearmed.

My bet is that to save themselves, Iran will order Hamas to end it, just as they did forty-four years ago when Reagan walked into the White House.

Doug Friednash grew up in Denver and is a partner with the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. He is the former chief of staff for Gov. John Hickenlooper.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.