For status updates, visit lucyburns.org.
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, was limited. Select races were covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.
Colorado Corporate Contributions Amendment, Amendment 65 (2012)
|Type:||initiated constitutional amendment|
|Referred by:||The Cannabis Therapy Institute|
|Topic:||Elections and campaigns|
|Status:||On the ballot|
- See also: 2012 ballot measure election results
Election results will be posted here throughout the day on November 7 and in the days to come as additional votes are counted.
|Colorado Amendment 65|
With 41 of 64 precincts reporting, the measure has been approved, according to media outlets.
Results via Colorado Secretary of State.
Text of the measure
The ballot language of the measure reads as follows:
|“||Shall there be amendments to the Colorado constitution and the Colorado revised statutes concerning support by Colorado’s legislative representatives for a federal constitutional amendment to limit campaign contributions and spending, and, in connection therewith, instructing Colorado’s congressional delegation to propose and support, and the members of Colorado’s state legislature to ratify, an amendment to the United States constitution that allows congress and the states to limit campaign contributions and spending?||”|
The following are supporters of the measure, according to the Colorado Secretary of State's website:
- Vote Yes on 65 is the main campaign in favor of the measure.
- Coloradans For Equal Opportunity
- Coloradans Get Big Money Out of Politics
- Fair Share Committee to Get Big Money Out of Politics
According to the Vote Yes on 65 campaign's website:
- "Because of the 2010 US Supreme Court decision Citizens United vs. FEC, and several other decisions, local, state and federal officials no longer have the authority to decide how much money can go into our elections. Our elected representatives, the Supreme Court told us, are no longer allowed to make decisions on behalf of American citizens on how much Super PACs, 527s, corporations, unions and wealthy individuals can spend to elect or defeat candidates or ballot measures."
- No formal opposition has been formed against the measure, according to the Colorado Secretary of State's website.
- Blogger Ari Armstrong wrote an article published in the Denver Post that stated, "Oddly, while Amendment 65 asks Congress to impose censorship, it is totally silent as to how, or even whether, Congress must stop with censorship. Voting for Amendment 65 is like handing a random politician your credit card, sending him on a shopping spree, and asking him to buy whatever he thinks you need.
- According to a column by Mike Rosen, radio host in the state, "The so-called instructions of Amendment 65 couldn't even dictate the behavior of our two U.S. senators, elected statewide. They have minds of their own. As Edmund Burke, a member of the English Parliament, explained to his constituents in Bristol, 'I am your representative, not your delegate.' If you don't like how a legislator votes, vote for someone else next time. In the meantime, he's not a puppet on a string. Amendment 65 won't change anything if it passes, although it would reveal that Coloradans who vote for it don't know much about civics."
Path to the ballot
According to reports, amendment supporters delivered 176,000 signatures to the Secretary of State on the deadline. It was subsequently approved for the ballot.
- Denver Business Journal "Few Colorado ballot measures left standing on deadline day," August 6, 2012
- Colorado Secretary of State, "Results for Proposed Initiative #82", Retrieved October 3, 2012
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- Denver Post, "Amendment 65: An intrusion on our right to free speech", September 30, 2012
- Denver Post, "Rosen: Amendment 65 absurd, ineffectual", October 11, 2012
- Associated Press "New Colorado ballot initiatives," August 6, 2012