Colorado is one of a handful of states being targeted by a new campaign to get big money out of national politics. You might have already seen one of the TV commercials on cable that features images scrolling on an iPad in support of the Fair Elections Now Act in Congress.

Celinda Lake, Democratic pollster with Lake Research Partners, asked voters if they would support such a measure that encourages candidates to raise money from small donors in their states rather than from large special-interest and corporate donors.

“Every single demographic group had almost two-thirds support for this measure, whether you’re talking age, whether you’re talking about every region of the country, including more conservative regions.”

She says they found majority support among Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

Some opponents of the bill say it would likely end up using taxpayer money to support far-left or far-right candidates with potentially offensive ideologies. But, Republican pollster Mark McKinnon says that even after hearing that objection, a majority of Republicans still support the measure.

“Nothing strikes hotter in the values category for Republicans than the idea of accountability, and that’s really what this proposal is all about.”

Under the bill, candidates would be able to run campaigns for office on a blend of Fair Elections Funds and small dollar donations. H.R. 1826: Fair Elections Now Act legislation has 157 co-sponsors in the U.S. House and 21 for the companion bill S. 752 in the Senate. Mountain state Democratic Reps. Martin Heinrich (NM-1), Ben Luján (NM-3), Betsy Markey (CO-4), Walter Minnick (ID-1), Jared Polis (CO-2), Harry Teague (NM-2) and Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) are co-sponsoring the tandem bills.

Listen to the Colorado News Connection podcast by Eric Mack.

BOOTSTRAP: WHAT CAN YOU DO TODAY
Fair Elections.org offers a grassroots campaign finance reform activists toolkit to bird-dog elected officials and candidates to pledge support for clean, small donor-based elections.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the “Citizens United” case could have implications for Montana’s local and state elections this year, and experts are gathering this week in Helena to talk about the “what ifs.” The court’s ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited money in federal elections. Montana has a law against that for state elections, and the court’s action is seen by many as a precedent that could unravel that state law.

Theresa Keaveny, executive director of Montana Conservation Voters, says there are valid concerns about a return of the “copper collar” days of corporate power overwhelming state politics.

“Anaconda Copper Co. was able to determine who our elected officials would be. Montanans stood up against that a century ago, and we are concerned that we not go back to those days.”

The panel is being hosted by Montana Conservation Voters. Experts scrutinizing the implications include Montana Solicitor Anthony Johnstone.

Denise Roth Barber with the Institute on Money in State Politics is also on the panel. She says Montana already knows how much big companies will spend when there are no limits. She cites the spending on the 2004 initiative against open-pit cyanide leach mining as an example.

“Canyon Resources contributed more than $3.78 million — nearly twice the money raised by all candidates running for the entire legislature and the governor races.”

The Supreme Court ruled corporations could use unlimited money as a matter of free speech.

The panel will convene at the Shrine Temple, Helena, on Friday, March 12, at 1:30 p.m.

Listen to the Big Sky Connection podcast by Deb Smith.

From the 1880s until just before World War I, Montana was essentially owned by mining companies, and most of all by Anaconda Copper. Money bought political power: An industry mogul openly bribed his way to a U.S. Senate seat; the choice of a state capital was decided by a spending war that saw two rival mining company candidates spend the equivalent of $70 million in today’s dollars to influence just 52,000 voters. It was clear: Montana had a problem.

Then, in 1912, things changed. Voters approved a ban on corporate campaign spending and contributions that was aimed at cleaning up the political process. “The law represented nothing less than the voters taking back a government that belongs to them,” Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock said recently, “and only to them.”

And so it was, until the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that threatens to dismantle the century-old Montana laws, along with similar measures in 23 other states. The court’s 5-4 decision last month in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission made one clear-cut change—it declared any ban on corporate- or union-sponsored political advocacy to be unconstitutional, on the grounds that such advocacy was constitutionally protected political speech. But in practice the decision may do more. It may alter state and local elections across the country in ways the court didn’t discuss.

States such as Montana face a complicated set of problems and a question of basic fairness. Citizens United could serve to lock in place strict limits on the amount of money individuals can spend on campaigns, while giving corporations and labor much broader freedom.

Current Montana law limits contributions from people to $500 for a gubernatorial campaign, $250 for other statewide elections, and $130 for any other office. It limits corporate contributions to zero. Now the ban on corporate spending could be thrown out altogether following a challenge based on Citizens United, with the individual limits, which were unaffected by the decision, remaining untouched.

But this would pose constitutional problems of its own. The court ruled in Citizens United not only that corporations and unions have free speech rights and that spending equals speech, but that speech can’t be regulated based on the identity of the speaker. If Montana ended up limiting individual but not corporate activity, the result could be unconstitutional according to the very language of Citizens United.

If this came to pass, the simplest fix would be to enact a law in the Legislature or via ballot initiative to fix the discrepancy. The state could apply the same limits to all contributors to avoid unequal treatment. But limiting corporations would run afoul of Citizens United, leaving the whole process roughly where it started. “It has the potential to really mess things up in the political system out here, and not in a good way,” says Jon Motl, a Montana attorney who’s worked on campaign finance issues.

For its part, the Montana Attorney General’s office declined to comment on any hypothetical case, citing the likelihood of future litigation over the state’s laws in the wake of Citizens United. And the “people vs. corporation” inequality scenario is just a hypothetical at this point. But, Motl adds, it’s a particularly concerning one. “It is just not good when you make a decision that can potentially create an opportunity for the system to look bad,” he says. “I’m talking about faith and confidence. This has the potentially to really, really hurt that.”

It’s unclear how many states might find themselves in this latter situation, but 21 states besides Montana currently ban corporate contributions while only limiting them from individuals, or have no limits for individuals but ban or limit them from corporations. All these states are in potentially the same fix.

Despite all these difficulties, there are those who see the Citizens United decision as a boon to the American political process: More spending equals more ideas, they say, which means more choices. “It is voters that decide who holds power in our constitutional republic, and the court’s opinion only allows voters access to more information,” says Stephen M. Hoersting, vice president of the Center for Competitive Politics and former counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “Government has no place in determining either who has said enough or when the people have heard enough.”

A hard-hitting television ad charges Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., with blocking climate and renewable energy bills that could cut money flowing to oil-producing nations with close ties to terrorism.

The liberal veterans advocacy group, VoteVets, poured $2 million into a dual national and state-based ad campaign targeting Republicans and Democrats alike.

The local ad, and the only one targeting a Western politician, features Iraq War veteran Benjamin Cossel, of Pine Bluffs, Wyo. Cossel puts it to Barrasso to “decide whose side he’s on” after noting that the Wyoming senator received $50,500 from the oil industry with direct operations in Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria, and Algeria.

All told the senator has taken $398,700 from the energy and natural resource sector, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

As expected, Barrasso shot back. A spokesperson told the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, “The liberal, out-of-state special interest group paying for this ad does not represent Wyoming.”

However, the crux of the problem isn’t political ideology but the complicated connections of climate change, energy extraction and national security. And the money trail behind it that pushes simplistic soundbites, obstructs legislation and stokes public fears about terrorism.

VoteVets said in a statement that “the campaign was launched days after the oil industry revealed that it spent $154 million lobbying Congress in 2009 — much of it in opposition to comprehensive energy legislation.”

Enter Barrasso who has long fought environmental policies to promote carbon reduction and extractive energy regulations from his perch on two key Senate committees: Energy and Natural Resources and Environment and Public Works.

“The fight to get off Middle East oil is a matter of life and death for those of us who serve this country,” said Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org. “Every day Congress delays action is another day they are siding with oil companies and against our veterans,” continued Soltz.

The Barrasso ad will reportedly run 400 times on Casper and Cheyenne television stations. Hang on to your hats.

h/t Grist.org

While campaign finance laws may have dampened some of the political world’s Super Bowl frolicking, at least four lawmakers are going to the Super Bowl and most of them are apparently using the event to host fundraisers, where they can collect campaign contributions and party with lobbyists and big donors over mojitos or martinis.

We’re qualifying this information with the word “apparently” because we learned from our Super Bowl Blitz that politicians don’t like to talk about their Super Bowl plans. ProPublica and more than 15 news organizations, local reporters, and a bunch of die-hard constituents contacted almost three-quarters of Congress and got answers from at least half of Congress in little more than a week. We and our readers asked two simple questions: Did you go to the Super Bowl last year? Are you going this year?

After repeated calls from our volunteers and our reporters, we confirmed that Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Reps. Mike Pence, R-Ind., Steve Scalise R-La., whose teams are in the game, are going, as is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., whose team is not. Getting their offices to confirm news reports about the fundraisers several of them are said to be holding was another matter altogether. Although politicians are renowned attention-seekers, with press operations that publicize just about everything they do, their spokespeople disappeared from the radar scope when our questions shifted to parties for lobbyists and big donors.

Other members may also be heading to the game. Rep. Greg Meeks, D-N.Y., went last year but his staff was “unsure” about this year and hasn’t returned our recent phone calls. Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., a current Senate candidate in whose district the game is being played, “very likely will be going,” according to his press secretary. Current Florida Sen. George LeMieux’s office said several days ago that he had “not decided,” and nobody has not returned our subsequent calls.

So, what’s next? The Super Bowl Blitz was the first of a two-part effort to figure out which members of Congress are going to the Super Bowl and how they got their tickets. Reporters Marcus Stern and Sebastian Jones are flying to Miami today, where they’ll try to see which lobbyists and big donors are rubbing shoulders with the lawmakers at those fundraisers. We’ll let you know what they find on Monday.

Just in case a member of Congress slipped through our survey’s cracks, (we’re still waiting to hear back from about 100 of them) we’ve taken a page out of Deadspin’s playbook. We’re asking readers attending the Super Bowl to be on the lookout for members of Congress and other VIP public officials. If you get one in your sights, snap a pic and send it to us — along with details on where and when the pic was taken and your contact info (in case we need to follow up with you). The wider the shot, the better.

Now, that’s the big project update. Some of you have asked us to discuss other (amusing and interesting) findings of our reader-powered Super Bowl Blitz.

Much to our dismay, several congressional offices refused to answer our volunteers’ questions, saying that office policy forbids participation in “surveys.” Included in this list are Reps. Jane Harman, D-Calif., Baron P. Hill, D-Ind., and Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. Other offices—like those of Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.—said they don’t disclose information about the congressperson’s (personal) schedule.

You might be surprised to learn that, at a time when the state cannot afford to squander a single resource, hundreds of thousands of dollars remain uncollected by the Colorado secretary of state’s office for outstanding campaign finance penalties.

The problem of outstanding penalties highlights a larger problem with the campaign finance laws in our state; namely, a failed system of enforcement. Although Colorado has ambitious disclosure and reporting requirements for candidates and committees, without adequate enforcement one wonders what incentive there is to comply in the first place.

The secretary of state’s office is charged with monitoring compliance and imposing automatic penalties for any missed filings. Typically, automatic penalties begin and continue to accrue at a rate of $50 per day from the date of the infraction.

However, since no personal liability attaches to the debts of most committees, collection can be avoided by blatantly ignoring invoices, becoming inactive or simply dissolving, which is precisely what happens.

According to records obtained by Ethics Watch from the secretary of state’s office, some committees have been delinquent for more than five years, meaning their penalties now exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Although candidates are personally liable for the debts of their committees, that seems to make little difference; some candidate committees have penalties dating back many years and accumulating at a rate of $50 per day.

More egregious violations like unlawful coordination, accepting excess contributions or making unlawful expenditures are not enforced by the secretary of state at all. Instead, secretaries of state past and present have taken the position that a private citizen must file a complaint and prove to an administrative law judge in a trial-like setting that a violation occurred.

A daunting task for Joe or Jane Citizen.

Secretary of State Bernie Buescher recently changed the secretary’s rules to make double-sure his office can take action only if a staff member discovers the apparent violation him or herself.

In other words, if an outside source brings an alleged violation to the staff person’s attention, then their hands are tied — someone else must file a complaint and the secretary’s office must let the potential violation languish in obscurity until then.

To his credit, Buescher is exercising his authority to shut down committees that have been delinquent for multiple years, but this does not make collection of outstanding fines any more likely.

As we gear up for another election season in 2010, it’s time to pressure lawmakers for meaningful solutions.

For starters, state law should be modified to extend personal liability to all committees and to spell out the secretary’s authority to pursue campaign finance complaints.

Colorado voters who have insisted on strict campaign finance regulation should be concerned that their efforts have been wholly undermined by a failed system of enforcement.