With nearly $4 million spent so far to defeat these measures, an amount which dwarfs the money for all other political issues and offices in Colorado combined, these measures are the biggest threat to tax and spend liberalism currently on the table. You know, to a point of certainty, that the legal briefs that will challenge these measures are already written and waiting to be filed, should any of them squeak through the liberal firewall. And you know, given the composition of the Colorado Supreme Court, that any legal challenge to these measures will be found sufficient and ultimately upheld. There’s just too much money on the table to enliven the fight.
Still, it’s a fight worth having because it exposes the tax and spend super structure running Colorado. And there’s no other way we’ll ever even see who runs our government.
According to August 2010 reports, Coloradans for Responsible Reform, an opponent of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61, has reportedly received $4.109 million in campaign contributions and has spent $3.877 million. Their current balance is $231,335.98.[29] Compared to May 2010 reports, supporters reported that they had received $777,000 in campaign donations and a total of $671,190 in the bank.[30] In July 2010, state campaign finance records revealed that opponents received contributions from 36 businesses and 11 business & trade groups.[13]
Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to Coloradans for Responsible Reform:[31][32]
Contributor Amount National Education Association $400,000 Colorado Contractors Association, Inc. $300,000 Colorado Education Association $250,000 The Colorado Health Foundation $175,000 Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association $150,000 Campaign advertising
- Opponents purchased $2 million of television air time. Their ad campaign is expected to launch after Labor Day.[13]
- On September 8, 2010 Coloradans for Responsible Reform launched a one-minute ad in opposition to Prop 101, Amendment 60 and 61. According to reports, the ad calls the three measures “The Ugly Three.” The radio ad ran on 64 stations in 39 cities.[33] The radio ad can be heard here.
Tactics and strategies
- In May 2010 Coloradans for Responsible Reform launched a website called www.donthurtcolorado.com in order to fight Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61. According to reports, the group has raised approximately $800,000 to fight the measures. The campaign group is supported by Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and others. According to Coloradans for Responsible Reform the proposed measures would make Colorado an “investment-flight state.”[30]
- On August 14, 2010, opponents of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 gathered at the Robert Hoag Rawlings Public Library, the headquarters of the Pueblo City-County Library District. According to reports, the crowd consisted of about 50 local politicians, school, library and business leaders.[34]
- On August 25 opponents hosted a rally at the Pioneers Museum gazebo from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm to explain and distribute information on the potential impact of the three measures. The rally, according to reports, was sponsored by the Citizens for Effective Government and group of businesses and organizations.[35][36][37]
- The Colorado Progressive Coalition hit the road on September 14 in a ten-day “Civic Engagement Roundtable Ballot Tour” to inform voters of “the costly effects and unintended consequences” of the measures.[38] A list of tour events can be found here.
- On September 27, 2010 opponents met in front of empty seats at Invesco Field to illustrate the 73,000 jobs they argue would be lost should Amendment 60, 61 and Prop 101 be approved by voters.[39]
Other perspectives
-
- 2010 Gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo announced in an early September debate that he supported Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61. Tancredo said, “The people of Colorado are not under-taxed; we are over-governed” and added “It’s really a reaction to people being overtaxed and taxed without their permission. The passage of these things will be an indicator that things are coming to a change and we’ll have to deal with it.”[40] However, in late September 2010, Tancredo said he was unsure about the measures.[41]