Originally posted at New Era News.
Episode 1: How Expensive is a Democracy?
Campaign finance reform is not exactly the sexiest topic in politics, but it is the basis for most of the scandals splashed on the front pages of newspapers nationwide. By following the money, reporters are able to discover where influence peddling is, where corruption exists and even who's sleeping with who in exchange for hush money.
With the upcoming midterm elections, campaign finance reform is at the center of many wonky discussions. Since we hope that our readership is at least half as nerdy as we are, we're going to be taking a look at where and how the money is influencing candidates and what governing bodies are doing to change it.
This is our first installment of our campaign finance coverage in the state of Colorado, starting with what's happening at the local level to regulate fundraising sources. With 63,000 registered voters in the city, Longmont has attempted to have more transparency by lowering disclosure thresholds on independent expenditures and campaign contributions.
The city of Longmont is currently in the process of rewriting its campaign finance laws following an expensive lawsuit that made headlines last year. As the Longmont Times Call reported:
In September, a group sued the city over the revamped rules, saying some of the regulations chilled individuals' and organizations' rights to free speech. (The city settled that lawsuit for $68,500 in December.)
And the Election Committee had to head up full-blown hearings about possible violations, complete with hiring outside counsel, racking up $35,381 in legal fees through Dec. 31.
The Longmont Fair Campaigns Practices Act was enacted in 2000 in an attempt to take advantage of home rule and create restrictions for candidates running for public office in the city. The 2009 lawsuit prompted Longmont City Council to enter into a debate about whether the local rules should be scrapped in exchange for state law or should simply be amended. As of last Tuesday evening, the city decided against deferring to the state law, since they did not want to outsource all of the local complaints to the Secretary of State's office.
Since the lawsuit was settled, city council members have wanted to streamline the disclosure process in order to decrease bureaucracy and cost to taxpayers while maintaining practices that discourage corrupt governing. The city put together an election committee headed by city clerk Valeria Skitt, to make recommendations to city council about how to improve the law.
Last Tuesday, they held a study session to discuss the merits and weaknesses of the newly-proposed campaign finance law amendments. What began as a meeting about nuanced campaign finance rules quickly turned into a fiery debate about the role of government in approving the rules that it must play by. Several citizens showed up denouncing the city's current law, declaring that they were "thoroughly disgusted" with the way that campaigns operate.
Continued at New Era News.
Loading comments… 
