Amendment 54 prohibits campaign contributions from anyone who works for a "sole source contractor" for the government (in excess of $100,000).
Here's the problem:
- It applies to board members, not just employees.
- It applies to non-profits (and board members of non-profits).
- It applies to the families of employees and board members of companies and non-profits.
- "Family" is so broadly defined that it includes brothers and sisters, parents and children.
- "Government" includes any level of government in any jurisdiction (except federal).
Taken all together, that means that if your brother sits on the volunteer board of a non-profit in Fort Collins which has a sole-source contract to provide a service to CSU, you're prohibited from making a contribution to any candidate for office in Colorado (except federal candidates). You can't write a $50 check to someone running for Arapahoe County Coroner. The whole thing is an unconstitutional mess.
Here's a Denver Post editorial today:
Amendment 54 was sold to voters as a "good government" measure, but from the outset it was clear it would overly restrict the rights of Coloradans to financially support their favorite political candidates.
We were glad to see that a Denver district judge viewed this overly broad constitutional amendment in the same light, issuing a temporary injunction Tuesday against its implementation.
The details of the case:
Daniel Ritchie — philanthropist, former
businessman and college chancellor — is now chairman and chief
executive officer of the Denver Center for the Performing Arts. DCPA has a sole source government contract with the city of
Denver that is in excess of $100,000. As a result, Amendment 54 would
preclude Ritchie from contributing to campaigns or political parties. It's a ludicrous reach and it's easy to see how Amendment 54
would violate his constitutional rights to free speech and free
association. The lawsuit provides other equally crazy examples of how the
measure would restrict the basic rights of citizens by prohibiting what
are really distant and tenuous connections between their political
giving and government contracts.
