Colorado Common Cause and Colorado Ethics Watch have filed a complaint against Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler alleging Gessler illegally “exceeded his authority to administer and enforce campaign finance laws by dramatically increasing the constitutional threshold for regulation of issue committees.”

At issue is Gessler’s recent adoption of Campaign and Political Finance Rule 4.27, which increased from $200 to $5,000 the threshold at which an issue committee must register and report. The $200 threshold, set by the Colorado Constitution, was found to be too burdensome in the recent Colorado case of Sampson v. Buescher. However, the issue of whether the court determined the $200 threshold to be unconstitutional, as Gessler contended to be the case in a statement released concerning the increased threshold, is central to this action.

“The Secretary is under the mistaken impression that he has authority to rewrite campaign finance laws, not merely make rules to enforce those laws,” said Luis Toro, Executive Director of Colorado Ethics Watch. “Disclosure thresholds are clearly not within the authority of the Secretary of State to change.”

Following a report by the Colorado Springs Gazette noting mayoral runoff candidate Steve Bach had failed to include the occupation and employer of his contributors, which is required by state law, Young informed the newspaper Bach would have to file the missing information.

Young reversed her decision the next day, however, by calling the disclosure of the information “optional” due to the fact Colorado Springs election law trumps state election law and there is no specific requirement for reporting the information on the reporting forms.

This is not the first time confusion has entered into the campaign finance requirements concerning the mayoral election. In February, candidates received conflicting information about the legality of direct corporate contributions. The Colorado Springs City Council eventually adopted a resolution permitting the contributions in order to clarify the issue.

Photo of the Colorado Springs City Hall by David Shankbone on Wikipedia.

The office of the Secretary of State has released an amended version of the Rules Concerning Lobbyist Regulation, 8 CCR 1505-8. The newly amended rules now include an expanded definition of the term “bona fide personal emergency” to be used in conjunction with determining whether a professional lobbyist or lobbyist firm will be granted a waiver or reduction of an imposed fine, as well as provisions for the suspension, revocation, or other action concerning a lobbyist’s certificate of registration.

The amended rules also include additional guidance to be used by a professional lobbyist for a not-for-profit organization seeking a waiver of the filing fee for the professional lobbyist registration statement.

Finally, amendments were made concerning electronic filing of registration and disclosure statements, noting any statement presented for manual filing with the Secretary of State will not be accepted, but a computer terminal will now be made available in the main office to allow lobbyists to electronically file.

The office of the Secretary of State has released an amended version of the Rules Concerning Campaign and Political Finance, 8 CCR 1505-6.

The amended version has added guidelines concerning requests for a waiver or reduction of campaign finance penalties.

Requests must state the reason for the delinquency, as well as provide an explanation including all relevant factors relating to the delinquency and any mitigating circumstances.

Further, for waiver requests applying to more than one penalty, the guidelines will be applied separately to each penalty in chronological order using the single request as the basis for each.

Photo of downtown Denver by David Shankbone on Wikipedia.

The Independent Ethics Commission released Position Statement 11-01 on Friday, April 8, 2011. In this statement, the Commission adjusted the limit on gifts to public officials and employees in the state of Colorado to $53 per calendar year, up from $50.

Pursuant to Article XXIX section 3(6), which was part of the 2006 voter-approved Amendment 41, the limit is to be adjusted based upon inflation every four years. This is the first such adjustment required.

Photo of downtown Denver by 33mhz on Wikipedia.

The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought by Colorado Ethics Watch concerning the so-called “magic words” required of political ads. Colorado Ethics Watch filed the complaint against Senate Majority Fund and Colorado Leadership Fund after the two 527 political organizations ran campaign ads supporting state legislative candidates in the 2008 election but did not register as political committees or submit independent expenditure disclosures for the ads.

An Administrative Law Judge determined, and the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed, registration and reporting were not required because the ads did not contain terms such as “vote for” or “defeat.” It is expected the case will be briefed in early 2011, with oral arguments taking place in the spring.

Seal of the State of Colorado by Svgalbertian on Wikipedia.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals determined Colorado’s voter-approved campaign reporting requirement for small groups promoting ballot initiatives to be unconstitutional. The case stems from a challenge by a group of homeowners who failed to register as an issue committee upon becoming a group of two or more persons and accepting or making contributions or expenditures in excess of $200. Six homeowners had raised and spent less than $1,000 fighting a ballot question concerning the annexation of their subdivision, Parker North, into the town of Parker, Colorado.

Plaintiff’s attorney Steve Simpson, a member of the Arlington, Virginia-based Institute for Justice, has stated this case is the first ruling in the nation wherein reporting requirements for issue committees have been linked to the First Amendment and deemed unconstitutional. Simpson also added the decision in this case signals a split with another appellate court, causing the case to be ripe for appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can read the full text of the opinion here.