That's not exactly right

The local Colorado Springs rag sported an article in its 5 October 2006 edition in which it claimed that 2005 D11 school board candidates Carla Albers, Reginald Perry, and Bob Lathen had been "found guilty" of campaign law violations. The article quoted complainant Gerald Fornander, a local left-wing activist, as claiming "victory" with his complaint. Unfortunately for Fornander, the actual legal ruling does not confirm his account.

Fornander filed two complaints against the conservative trio. The first complaint charged that they should have reported the expense for certain mailers, and the second charges that the three failed to file timely reports. The ruling is below:

48. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the Defendants failed to report as contributions any money spent on the mailers they were aware of. While the amounts paid to Response Technologies was slightly higher than the corresponding amounts reported as contributions, the basis for this discrepancy was not revealed by the evidence, and there is insufficient evidence that the Defendants knew of the discrepancy. Again, the Defendants relied on Mr. Broerman to tell them how much was being spent.

49. The evidence shows a passage of time from when the mailers were sent and the time the Defendants reported the cost of the mailers as contributions. The evidence does not establish, however, when it was that the Defendants learned of these costs from Mr. Broerman to enable Defendants to report them. The evidence is insufficient to show that any of the Defendants was late in reporting the costs of the mailers as contributions, once they knew of them.

Conclusions of Law

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the ALJ enters the following Conclusions of Law:
First Claim for Relief: 2. Here Claimant alleges that the expenses for the mailers were electioneering communications that should have been reported by the Defendants per Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, Section 6(1). That Subsection provides:
Any person who expends one thousand dollars or more per
calendar year on electioneering communications shall submit
reports to the secretary of state in accordance the schedule currently
set forth in 1-45-108(2), C.R.S.,...
It is Complainant's apparent position that the cost of the mailers should have been reported to the Secretary of State in accordance with Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, Section5(3) as they were coordinated with or controlled by the candidates. Without reaching the coordination or control issue, the ALJ granted the Defendants motion to dismiss this claim. The motion was granted because the mailers failed to meet the definition of "electioneering communications" as they were not distributed within sixty days before a "general election."
Second Claim for Relief: Here the Complainant alleges that Carla Albers, Bob Lathen and Reginald Perry and/or their candidate committees failed to file correct or timely reports with the El Paso County Clerk's Office listing contributions and expenditures as required by Section 1-45-108)1), C.R.S. Section 1-45-108(1)(a)(l) states:
All candidate committees... shall report to the appropriate officer
their contributions received,...Expenditures made, and obligations
entered into by the committee...
5. The Complainant alleges that the Defendants failed to timely report the costs of the mailers as contributions. Irrespective of whether the costs for the mailers are properly seen as "contributions," the evidence is insufficient to show that any of the Defendants failed to report the costs of the mailers they were aware of, or were late in reporting the costs of the mailers once they knew them, see Findings of Fact 48 and 49 above. Therefore, the Defendants are not responsible for a violation of Section1-45-108(1) as alleged in the Complainant's second claim on the basis of failing to report contributions.

Appropriate Sanction
Colo. Const. art. XXVIII Section 2(9) provides that, if the ALJ determines that a violation of Section 1-45-108 has occurred, such decision shall include any appropriate order, sanction, or relief authorized by Article XXVIII. In determining the appropriate sanction, it is important not to lose site of the fact that the cost for the mailers appeared on the Defendants' reports as contributions. The evidence is insufficient to show that any of the Defendants failed to report any expenses for the mailers once they learned of them. The fundamental fact of Mr. Cranberg's involvement in the campaign was apparent to anyone who read the campaign disclosure forms. The error of Defendants Albers and Perry was in not disclosing the costs of the mailers as their own expenditures. This is a technical violation that does not merit the imposition of a fine.

Anyone who reads this ruling will be astonished at the blatant lies printed in the Independent article.

Fornander filed his complaint on the grounds that he was merely a concerned citizen who wanted to ensure an open and honest campaign. The campaigns of John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Sandra Mann have never fully disclosed the amounts and origins of the $1 million plus that was poured into their campaigns, yet Fornander has never questioned this. While these three liberal candidates will dispute any figure that is quoted in relation to their campaigns, they will never disclose the actual amount spent to purchase their seats. If any campaign was filled with deceit and secrecy, it was certainly their's. They allowed their supporters to misrepresent their views to buy their seats, and to this day they attempt to smear three honest and honorable people who ran a clean and professional campaign.

There exists an interesting Legislative Declaration that is a part of Colorado finance law. Section 1-45-102 C.R.S. states:

The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that large campaign contributions to political candidates allow wealthy contributors and special interest groups to exercise a disproportionate level of influence over the political process; that large campaign contributions create the potential for corruption and the appearance of corruption; that the rising costs of campaigning for political office prevent qualified citizens from running for political office; and that the interests of the public are best served by limiting campaign contributions, encouraging voluntary campaign spending limits, full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions, and strong enforcement of campaign laws.

Amendment 27:
Section 1. The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that large campaign contributions to political candidates create the potential for corruption and the appearance of corruption; that large campaign contributions made to influence election outcomes allow wealthy individuals, corporations and special interest groups to exercise a disproportionate level of influence over the political process; ...

Is Fornander really just a concerned citizen who wants to see a clean election process? If so, why did this declaration not lead him to look at the Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann campaigns? The Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA) is one of the largest special interest groups in the area, and that organization contributed $200,000 to their campaigns. There was also big money from individuals in the Denver area. Homosexual activist Tim Gill kicked in $150,000; liberal State Board of Education member Jared Polis contributed $70,000, and Pat Stryker from Boulder added another $70,000. The Progressive Majority from Washington D.C. brags on its website that its six figure contribution helped to keep the D11 Board seats out of conservative hands. It is interesting that Fornander never concerned himself with the big money that poured into the hands of the liberal candidates. That tarnishes his "concerned citizen" image just a bit.

Fornander had asked the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to fine Albers, Lathen, and Perry, $50 per day from the day of their alleged violations, which would have cost each of them over $12,900. The fact that both of Fornander's complaints were found to be baseless means that no fine was levied.

The technical violation that the ALJ mentioned in his final paragraph dealt with the listing of "Contributions in Kind." Albers and Perry listed these contributions on line 12 of a financial disclosure form, but they did not also enter those contributions on line 18 of the same form. The intent of the law is to enforce disclosure of information. As the ALJ concluded, the amount was obviously disclosed on line 12. Fornander did not even make this particular disclosure charge in his formal complaint. He waited until closing arguments to make this complaint as he saw his other two complaints approaching a dead end. The ALJ saw this complaint as trivial, as would any logical person.

The Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann campaign reached a new low for gutter politics during the 2005 campaign. Their supporters cannot yet seem to find their way out of that deep gutter in their attempts to destroy three honorable people.