Tag Archives: campaign finances

Home stretch of Longmont 2011 Election: The money game

  By Chris Rodriguez | October 31, 2011 - 3:53 am |
2 Comments

With just a couple of days left to get votes in, there are some races that can already be called.  Of course, I’m talking about the money race, as of the 3rd Reporting Period for candidates.  People can argue about the importance, or lack thereof, of contributions, but the candidates who raised and spent the most in 2009 won. Continue reading →

Leftwing political committee scrambles to “fix” campaign report

  By Chris Rodriguez | October 27, 2011 - 9:51 pm |
1 Comment

Within about 12 hours of this blog’s reporting of Moving Longmont Forward‘s questionable campaign report and $1,500 contribution by big labor organization AFSCME, their registered agent Teresa Lichti had to scramble to the Longmont City Clerk’s office to amend their report.  Although this was reported as a violation of the LFCPA, it appears the presumption of innocence might be overplayed when there should be a question of honesty. Continue reading →

Money didn’t buy seats

  By Brigette Rodriguez | May 26, 2010 - 5:50 pm |
2 Comments

(As printed in the Times Call opinion section 5/24/10)

At the May 18th Longmont City Council meeting, I found it deplorable that a representative from a local partisan group would insinuate that because city council candidates who were appointed received more money, that they were only elected because they brought in more money. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Candidates who lost…lost because they were inferior candidates.

Voters who took the time to vote aren’t stupid. Then to read a letter from this partisan party representative in the Times Call looking for more volunteers for petition distributors to help push for Clean Campaigns to keep ‘special interests’ out of elections. Since when is a partisan group not working for their own special interests? Seeing how known members of one party keep speaking about this, it’s apparent that this is a partisan backed, agenda driven petition.

One candidate who overwhelmingly beat the incumbent raised a lot of money in this election because multiple community members donated to her (check her reports, most were small contributions). If her opponent was separately assailed by outside groups, it’s because her opponent had a lousy record of service while in office and angered a lot of people.

The majority of the campaign literature circulated during the campaign was information that had been public knowledge for awhile amongst those who take the time to follow council. I’m disgusted by all the hidden conspiracy rhetoric being thrown around and I’m sure we’ll be hearing more from the partisans who gather as a group at council meetings and file down one by one to gripe about how their party line candidates lost the election. Here’s a tip: Get better candidates. The election rules will be ironed out, but the motives of those who question the process with nonsensical rhetoric need to be transparent as well.

-Brigette Rodriguez
Coordinator of Vote! Longmont

Election Committee, Fair Campaign Act letter to City Council

  By Chris Rodriguez | February 21, 2010 - 2:20 am |
Leave a comment

Mayor Baum and members of council,

I think it may behoove you to sort out a situation with the Election Committee (EC) sooner rather than later.  Regardless of where you stand on the issue of whether they should continue to be a quasi-judicial body or not, the EC plans on spending every week for the next several weeks working on multiple scenarios that include both options.  You could really save them a lot of time and effort, and allow them to get to the more important work of fixing problems with the LFCPA, if you’d just give them the direction on this one way or the other. Continue reading →

CO Secretary of State candidate visits Longmont

  By Chris Rodriguez | February 11, 2010 - 5:18 am |
2 Comments

Screwballs on parade

Colorado Secretary of State Candidate Scott Gessler paid a visit to Longmont Wednesday night in what turned out to be a very well attended event, including a handful of protesters who Scott personally engaged on the sidewalk where they gathered.  (Full disclosure, Scott is a friend and was our attorney in our successful First Amendment lawsuit against the City of Longmont).  Some of the signs were a little confusing, yet humorous.  One said “Gessler sued Longmont“, well, actually a bunch of plaintiffs sued and he was the attorney, which was in a few papers several times – not exactly unknown information. Continue reading →

Truth about contributions buying votes

  By Chris Rodriguez | January 24, 2010 - 5:21 am |
1 Comment

Alright, this issue needs to be cleared up once and for all.

There are people in town trying to rewrite history about contributions to city council members – or just don’t know what they are talking about.  Part of the reason we are in this whole mess with the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA) and the Election Committee (EC) all comes down to a $5,000 contribution to Gabe Santos from the Longmont Association of Realtors.  But here’s what the people who keep mentioning this either have conveniently forgotten or don’t want you to know: Continue reading →

Neverending record correcting

  By Chris Rodriguez | January 17, 2010 - 9:09 pm |
3 Comments

In the January 17, 2010 Longmont Times-Call there was a guest opinion by Election Committee member Strider Benston that had some outright incorrect statements that need to be corrected.  Keep in mind, this is a member of the committee that just cost the city tens of thousands of dollars.  You’d think he’d at least want to check his facts before making such statements. Continue reading →

Staggering bill for Election Committee hearings

  By Chris Rodriguez | December 22, 2009 - 5:00 am |
Leave a comment

In my recent “Scrap the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act” I said “The financial cost to the city (special counsel and prosecutor) was in the thousands, while the fines levied were barely in the hundreds.”  Apparently I was being too conservative.  The bill (up to this point) is in a city document that may make your jaw drop, even I was surprised.  Be prepared to be appalled. Continue reading →