Our View: Vote ‘no’ on Amendment 65

Advertisement

Editorial Board, August through January 2012

  • Scott Stanford, general manager
  • Brent Boyer, editor
  • Tom Ross, reporter
  • Shannon Lukens, community representative
  • Scott Ford, community representative

Contact the editorial board at 970-871-4221 or editor@SteamboatToday.com. Would you like to be a member of the board? Fill out a letter of interest now.

Amendment 65 is a toothless attempt to get Colorado lawmakers and the federal government to limit campaign contributions and spending. As such, it has no place in Colorado’s constitution or revised statutes. Vote “no” on Amendment 65.

Born largely out of the Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 Citizens United decision that ruled the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the campaign financing and spending rights of corporations and unions, Amendment 65 is a misguided stab at establishing limits on such contributions and spending. In short, the amendment would require Colorado lawmakers to support a federal constitutional amendment limiting campaign contributions and spending, and it would “instruct” the state’s congressional delegation to propose such a constitutional amendment.

Here’s the complete ballot language voters will see:

“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?”

We understand the frustration of citizens worried about the impact of limitless campaign spending on the electoral process. But Amendment 65 would have zero practical effect. All it does is ask Colorado lawmakers to support a federal constitutional amendment; it cannot compel them to do so.

Fortunately, voters do have a say in pushing the issue on campaign finance laws — they can advocate for congressional candidates who will lobby Congress to enact change.

As we have said time and again throughout the years, there should be a high threshold that must be surpassed in order to amend the Colorado constitution. Amendment 65, with no practical impact, doesn’t do it. Vote “no” on Amendment 65.

Comments

Katie Fleming 1 year, 10 months ago

I certainly disagree. Initiatives like this are one of the last remaining tools we have as citizens to organize against this unprecedented takeover of our elections. Money buys influence and we the people are losing ours. It's time for us to force reform.

"This strategy comes from the pages of American history and has worked before when citizens needed to force incumbents to change the rules by which they obtain power. In the years that followed our founding, instructions were used when states told representatives how to vote when creating today’s constitutional republic. They were used a century later, when Populists forced the U.S. Senate to support the 17th Amendment to our Constitution and face direct election by voters instead of being appointed by state legislatures." Read More: http://bit.ly/TrdEuB

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 10 months ago

I also disagree with the editorial and will vote for Amendment 65.

Making the statement, asking for campaign reform, isn't good enough? That is Plot reason for "no"? This amendment is a necessary step in lining up the number of states required to confirm a U.S. amendment.

The Pilot's logic escapes me.

0

bill schurman 1 year, 10 months ago

Now that the PILOT AND Mike Rosen oppose # 65 it is enough reason to vote in favor of it.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.