Click here to live chat with one of our writers between 9am-5pm CST.
Colorado Amendment 27, Campaign Finance Regulations (2002)
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
| Colorado Constitution |
|---|
|
| Articles |
| Preamble • I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII • XVIII • XIX • XX • XXI • XXII • XXIII • XXIV • XXV • XXVI • XXVII • XXVIII • XXIX • Schedule |
Amendment 27 added Article XXVIII to the Colorado Constitution.
Election results
| Amendment 27 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 a Yes | 890,390 | 66.50% | ||
| No | 448,599 | 33.50% | ||
Election results via: Colorado Secretary of State (P.144-155)
Aftermath
Following a January 21, 2010 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, Colorado Republicans announced that they will be challenging the state's state's campaign finance law.[1][2] According to the SCOTUS ruling, the current limits on corporate and labor union contributions are unconstitutional.[3] The Colorado challenges are expected to include the 2002 ballot measure, also known as Amendment 27, that banned direct corporate or union expenditures in Colorado. Jenny Flanagan, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, a major sponsor of the measure, said that the challenge was expected and it is "likely to succeed on some -- but not all -- fronts."[4] Additionally, according to Ryan Call an attorney with Hale-Friesen, the firm that will represent Colorado Republicans, the challenge may also include the Colorado law that limits donations to state legislative candidates by individuals and PACs to $400.[1]
More recently (9 November 2010), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in "Sampson v. Buescher that Amendment 27 imposes an unconstitutional burden on the rights of free speech and association as it applies to Issue Committees (groups formed with "a major purpose of supporting or opposing any ballot issue or ballot question", as contrasted to groups supporting or opposing candidates in contested elections).
Ballot summary
Proponent Colorado Common Cause claims that Amendment 27 accomplishes the following:
- Curbs skyrocketing election costs and endless negative campaign ads. This law sets spending limits ranging from $65,000 for a state house seat to $2.5 million for the governor's race, so now elections will be about more than just fund raising, and average Coloradans will be able to run for office.
- Stops huge contributions from wealthy special interests. Amendment 27 sets reasonable contribution limits--$200 per election for legislative candidates and $500 per election for statewide candidates- politicians will have to build support from a broad base of voters, not just the few who write big checks.
- Ends corporations like Quest from buying access and influence. Teddy Roosevelt first championed banning corporate contributions nearly a century ago. This law bans direct contributions from corporations and labor unions.
- Sheds the light on deceptive attack ads. So-called "educational committees" run misleading attack ads, but don't have to say who's paying for them. This law requires full disclosure of the money behind these attacks.
- Encourages greater participation from ordinary citizens. Small donor committees accept contributions no greater than $50 per person. By allowing citizens to organize themselves, small donor committees give those making small contributions a greater voice in the electoral process through their strength in numbers. [5]
Other views:
Other states have tried similar limits in the past. Coloradoans should know the consequences of those efforts, all of which give incumbents the advantage. Proponents of Amendment 27 promise political reform. In fact, the amendment will lessen competition, entrench incumbents, and needlessly limit political rights [6]
Background
In November 1996, the voters of Colorado showed their disgust with the system by voting overwhelmingly (66%) to adopt Amendment 15, a comprehensive campaign finance reform plan. This measure included mandatory low contribution limits to candidates from individuals and PACs, voluntary spending limits, a ban on direct contributions from corporations and labor unions (similar to the law in place at the federal level), and stronger disclosure requirements for campaign contributions. [5]
Supporters
Interestingly, despite their advocacy for "open, transparent, and accountable" practices and support for Amendment 27 full disclosure requirements and limits on contributions, neither Colorado Common Cause nor The League of Women Voters publicly disclose the source and amount of contributions they receive, despite their full-time advocacy for policies and issues in the political arena.
Opponents
Opponents of Amendment 27 included many free-speech advocacy organizations, including:
See also
- Procedures for qualifying an initiative in Colorado
- Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado
- Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures
- Colorado 2002 ballot measures
- List of Colorado ballot measures
- 2002 ballot measures
- Colorado signature requirements
External links
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 The Denver Post,"Colorado GOP to sue to lift campaign money limits," January 22, 2010
- ↑ The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel,"High court overturns ban on corporate political spending," January 22, 2010
- ↑ "Washington Post" Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits, January 21, 2010
- ↑ ABC 7 - The Denver Channel,"Advocates Predict Challenge To Colorado Campaign Finance Law," January 21, 2010
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Common Cause: Amendment 27
- ↑ [1]
| |||||
You can improve this article by adding information about campaign spending and donors  |
This statewide ballot measure article does not meet Ballotpedia's quality standards. It needs to be revised and cleaned up. 
