WORLD Law Direct Forums  





Go Back   WORLD Law Direct Forums > Forum Information > Law News
REGISTER FAQ SEARCH Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Personal Lawyer Legal Forms Calendar

Law News Breaking law news and events.

Colorado Campaign-Giving Ban Likely To Trigger Legal Skirmish

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply
AddThis Feed Button
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 13th, 2008, 04:30 PM     #1
News
 
WSJ_law_blog's Avatar
 
Last Online:
Jul 16th, 2008 11:37 AM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog
Posts: 640

Default Colorado Campaign-Giving Ban Likely To Trigger Legal Skirmish



The woeful predictions that Election Day would leave behind a legacy of legal fights in state after state didn’t really materialize. Lawyers were primed, only to find that things went smoother than expected in most places.

But there have been some surprises. Advocates of gay marriage were caught off guard when seemingly left-leaning California decided marriage was solely for a man and a woman. Court challenges to the constitutional amendment began the very next day (Find previous coverage here and here and here.) And in Minnesota, Al Franken, the comedian-turned-Democratic-pol who’s locked in a tight race for the Senate with the non-comedian incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, is suing to access data on voters who had their absentee ballots rejected, as an already nasty race turns nastier. Here’s the AP story.

And there’s more: In Colorado, a legal fight is looming over a narrowly passed ballot initiative that prohibits numerous voters from contributing to campaigns. Amendment 54, as explained in this WSJ story, bans campaign contributions from entities holding large no-bid government contracts. The prohibition extends to the entity’s officers, directors and trustees, and to those individuals’ relatives.

Lawyers advising the unusual coalition of big labor, big business and non-profits angered by the ban, predict a court challenge very soon. Mark Grueskin, a Denver attorney advising some of the opponents, says the ban has severe First Amendment problems and would be very difficult to enforce. Says Grueskin: “There’s no way political candidates will know who they can take funds from. They’ll have to do a retinal scan on contributors if this amendment takes effect.” It’s scheduled to do just that at the end of the year.

However, Dennis Polhill, a senior fellow with the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank, defends the ban on contributions by relatives as necessary to clean up government. “The reason for that is obvious,” he said in an interview with the WSJ’s Stephanie Simon. “So no one can play games with the money.”
WSJ_law_blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Add Forum to Google Toolbar | Format Your Messages

Posting Rules

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beijing neighbourhood campaign suffers blow FT_news China News 0 Nov 3rd, 2008 11:40 AM
Union Banner Campaign denns Other Business & Finance Law Issues 0 Oct 21st, 2008 11:48 PM
Not-guilty plea in Calif. campaign mailers case (AP) Yahoo!_news Crimes and Trials News 0 Oct 14th, 2008 09:10 PM
Looking for Legal advice for Landlord-Colorado co3023C Landlord vs Tenant Issues 1 Jul 14th, 2007 10:36 AM
campaign finance regulation weakened Unregistered Miscellaneous Topics 1 Jun 25th, 2007 11:02 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:15 AM.


Powered by U.S. Legal Forms

Subscribe

Use of the Forums is subject to our Disclaimer which prohibits unapproved advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, and false, harassing or abusive statements. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of WORLD Law Direct.

Questions and information submitted in the Forums are assumed inquiries for general information and not legal advice.

Copyright 2000-2009 by WORLDLawDirect.com, Inc.