The Washington Post has an interesting piece up today about a new Super PAC set up for the sole purpose of electing Mitt Romney. The group is expected to announce next month they've already raised $25 million. As Stephen Colbert has pointed out, a Super PAC is just a PAC who declares themselves "Super" so they can accept unlimited donations. Who do we have to thank for the existence of such groups? Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold (who is thankfully a former Senator now).

Early last decade, both Senators co-sponsored legislation that re-wrote campaign finance laws in the name of reducing the influence of "soft money" donations to politicians, dubbed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act. The only effect it has seemed to have is to vastly increase the amount of "soft money" donations, and shadowy groups who subsist on them, while reducing the transparency of the donated dollars. While Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United have opened the floodgates to unlimited donations, it is McCain-Feingold that set up the tax structures and disclosure requirements that allow these groups to hide in the shadows. 

Sure, PACs existed prior to McCain-Feingold, but it wasn't until that travesty of legislation passed that we saw an explosion of outside groups, to the point that actual candidates campaigns now often pale in comparison to the expenditures of outside groups.

We see nothing wrong with donations to candidates over the current federal limit of $2,500, or $1,100 for statewide candidates in Colorado, as long as they're open. Money will always, we repeat always, find its way into politics. All we're saying is that it should be transparent. People should be able to follow the money. 

The Democrats in Colorado were among the first in the nation to find ways to circumvent the new regulations, setting up what eventually became known as the Colorado Democracy Alliance (CODA), a group of 37 organizations pushing for the election of Democrats in Colorado through their own activist groups, think tanks, faux news organizations and online rumor mills. Republicans in Colorado still lack a comparable infrastructure.

Thanks to the short-sighted and I-know-best mentality of Messrs. McCain and Feingold, we're pretty much stuck with this ridiculous system of loopholes for the near future. So we don't blame Romney backers for making due with the legal cards they were dealt. It just annoys us to no end that McCain and Feingold stuck us with such garbage. 

Buried in a Colorado Springs Gazette article from a couple of days ago was a morsel that should make conservatives cheer — Congressman Mike Coffman has not requested a single earmark. (Thanks to the reader who passed this along).  

We are frankly tired of politicians talking the talk of fiscal conservatism, then roping the pig for their favorite friend in the district. From the Colorado Springs Gazette:

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Littleton, is the only member of the Colorado delegation who hasn’t requested a single dollar in earmarks. Coffman, who was elected in 2008, said he opposes the earmark system for that very reason.  

“Decisions are made not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of the political leverage of an individual member of Congress,” Coffman said.

Since the earmark ban was put into place this session of Congress, it means freshman Congressmen Cory Gardner and Scott Tipton didn't have the option to earmark. We are glad they didn't even have the temptation.

Former Congressman Joel Hefley makes a good point in the article about the need to allow Congress to specify projects for funding, otherwise they would cede too much power to the administration's project priorities. But the process was so abused by both parties over the last couple of decades, that it was time for a ban.

At some point it might make sense to allow earmarks again, but only with as much transparency as possible built into the requests. For now, a cooling off period is exactly the medicine politicians in Washington need to swallow to earn back the public's trust.

We're thankful that Congressman Coffman never needed the cooling off period, and is proof you can be an effective representative for your district without requesting earmarks. Finally, a conservative who walks their talk.

When we read the list of plaintiffs involved in the ACLU lawsuit against Douglas County over their school voucher program, two names stuck out. The first name was Kevin Leung, a failed school board candidate in Douglas County. When he ran as a Republican he was a committed reformist, we're told. Having been defeated, now Leung is Barry Lynn's BFF?

We find this especially odd given the specific education platform he ran on. From his school board campaign web site:

• Protect our children's right to a quality education
• Effective guardian of your hard-earned tax dollars
• Focus on technology improvement
• Focus on advancing our students' competitiveness in the world
• Focus on children's best interest; not beholden to any special interests
  
• More school choices for parents and students (Peak emphasis)

Being the ACLU's lackey in a lawsuit against an elected body of your peers might violate the promise to "not be beholden to any special interest." Leung aggressively postured himself as an advocate of school choice. Now, having been tossed to the dust bin of history, Leung is crawling out of the trash, placing his bruised ego ahead of what's good for kids.

One way to describe running on reform and then suing the people who actually institute that reform is: sore loser. Perhaps a better one, considering the level to which he took his revenge is: traitor.

The second name that stuck out was James LaRue, and it wasn't so much his name as his title that struck us. From what we hear, LaRue has been tossing around his affiliation with the Douglas County public library system as the director without authorization. Perhaps the ACLU thought having a librarian as the lead plaintiff would pack the kind of punch that Rollie Heath thought having a 4th grade class stand behind him during his tax hike press conference would have. 

Instead, all it does is throw the Douglas County library system into the middle of a highly contentious political issue in Douglas County. We're sure that's not where they want to be, but thanks to LaRue they're now stuck. 

Between a traitor and a public employee misusing his position for politics, this lawsuit has not put its best foot forward. But since it's such a horrendous assault on education reform, the ACLU didn't really have any good feet to put forward. We can't wait to watch it collapse like Rollie's tax hike.

(Photo from Kevin Leung campaign Facebook page)

Liberal Loon Carol Hedges' Fiscal Policy Institute is out with a new email blast, this time talking down the fledgling economic recovery, and complaining that the additional $300 million in tax revenues projected in a recent Legislative Council Staff (LCS) economic analysis doesn't cut it. 

The email complains the additional $300 mil isn't enough to fund everything FPI wants and that "Colorado residents have grown used to being relieved because the revenue picture is not as bad as it could have been." You see, Coloradans have grown used to so much economic growth this year that they're spoiled and don't appreciate how much we need to raise taxes. Talk about being out of touch with reality. 

In the email they point to a new fiscal analysis by FPI on the state of the budget. In reading the document you have to wonder whether FPI staff passed Econ 101 in college. How else to explain their conclusions when they include information like this?

"LCS predicts tight banking and credit conditions will hamper the recovery, as will the slack housing market. OSPB sees inflation and the slow growth in start-up businesses as additional drags on a robust recovery."

So the economy, while slowly recovering, is still in fragile shape. Small business owners and entrepeneurs are struggling to grow their businesses and FPI's solution is to raise taxes? FPI and the rest of the alphabet soup of liberal special interest groups pushing for a tax hike are increasingly being exposed for their single minded obsession with raising your taxes.

Pushing for a tax hike while acknowledging how little cash small business has to spare is an odd tactic. It's one thing for them to hock a tax hike when the economy is strong, but their obsession with jacking up rates regardless of their economic impact just makes them look foolish. 

We think the increased revenues represent a point in favor of those arguing we can only grow our way out of our budget shortfalls, rather than tax our way out. Raising taxes, as independent studies have shown, will only serve to kill economic growth and not provide the revenues the tax hike proponents promise. Unemployed people don't pay taxes. 

A better idea to fund schools? Lower the cost of doing business in Colorado through lower tax rates and less regulatory red tape, which will grow the economy, and thus revenues. Unfortunately, for FPI that is a concept they just don't seem to grasp. 

Image: tungphoto / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

After barely five months on the job, Governor Hickenlooper's part-time Executive Director of the Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT), Dwayne Romero, is already leaving. He leaves unfinished the statewide "bottom-up" economic development plan that he was responsible for, forcing Hick's top lawyer to handle it. With Romero's resignation, Ken Lund, the Governor's chief legal counsel, will take over the OEDIT.

Nobody knows economic development like lawyers.

It's striking that this political appointment flamed out so quickly, especially this early into Hick's first term. Hickenlooper had high expectations for Romero when he praised his business experience and leadership skills when he appointed him, saying in a press release:

“Dwayne Romero knows how to create jobs and lead organizations,” Hickenlooper said. “He helped stabilize and build successful businesses in the Colorado mountains, most recently in Snowmass Village. Dwayne has the necessary leadership training and business management experiences to promote economic development in Colorado and beyond its borders.”

Such a leader that he left the statewide economic plan unfinished. That’s not leadership in our book.

For a Governor who is supposedly so focused on economic development, having his head of economic development ditch the job only months into the gig calls into question Hick's judgement and commitment to economic development. The reason that Romero gives for resigning highlights just how poor a decision Hickenlooper made in appointing him. Per the Denver Post:

Romero, 45, had continued working part time at his job in Snowmass Village, where he is president of Related Snowmass, a division of New York development and investment firm Related Cos.

He had been commuting between his home in Aspen and Denver since January.

…"It was a tough set of priorities, and I knew that going in," Romero said, "but I wanted to at least give this a shot."

Give it a shot? Coloradans expect a little more than the old college try from the Hickenlooper administration when it comes to job creation and economic development. It is certainly not a part-time job. Why Hickenlooper thought he'd have success with a guy only willing to contribute part of his time is beyond us. 

In the end, this flame out was all too predictable. If Hickenlooper is truly serious about economic development he might want to focus on appointing people that are willing to actually, you know, do the job. 

Tim Pawlenty's spinal flat tire has set off a good couple weeks for Mitt Romney. But a new poll from John Zogby shows what we all already know: a fait accompli for Romney this primary is not.

The new Zogby poll shows Bachmann surging to the lead of the primary field at 24 percent, while Herman Cain and Mitt Romney are tied at 15 percent. Interestingly, when respondents were asked who they thought would win the primary, 37 percent said Romney, while only 7 percent chose Bachmann. 

While pollsters have long questioned Zogby's methodology and credibility, it's nonetheless an intriguing development. It seems to comport well with how we see the current state of the race. Michele Bachmann is the grassroots darling that activists across the country have followed for years, though she is just beginning to receive a more thorough vetting. Her profile in the Tea Party movement has given her rock star status, and the grassroots momentum to match, leaving many Republicans with a positive impression of her. 

On the other hand, Republican primary voters have long showed a willingness to vote their heads, not their hearts. Polls have shown that Republican primary voters this cycle value the ability to beat Obama over everything else. The Zogby poll seems to hint at this, with voters saying they love Bachmann the most, but realize their fellow party compatriots are likely to nominate Romney, as he is the only Republican currently beating Obama in a head-to-head matchup in some polls. 

The view that Bachmann is not as electable as Romney in the general election will continue to haunt her candidacy until her numbers improve. Romney's best hope is that she is unable to appeal to voters beyond her current base, as Romney has no chance to take Bachmann on in conservative activist support. In other words, Romney hopes that Bachmann goes the way of Mike Huckabee, another grassroots favorite in Iowa that was unable to expand that to a wider base across the country and in bigger, more moderate leaning primary states like Florida. 

Fortunately for Romney, unlike the Zogby poll, the GOP primary is not a national primary — it is a state by state contest, and Romney may well be the only candidate with enough resources to jump island to island every time. Still, the news for Romniacs is concerning…a reminder that this one is a long way from over.

Tim Pawlenty has had a crappy 10 days. His debate performance, namely his inability to call Romney out on ‘Obamneycare’ in person, has overshadowed everything else he has done. On top of that his fellow Minnesotan, Michele Bachmann, has suddenly become the anti-Romney candidate, a position that Pawlenty has been angling for the whole race.

Today, hoping to break through the current impasse, his campaign released an advertisement in Iowa, a state that the former Minnesota Governor has essentially staked his candidacy on. It marks the first ad by any campaign in an early state.

In the ad Pawlenty tries to present himself as a conservative with a record of achieving conservative results in a Democratic state. Pawlenty likes to point out in his speeches that Minnesota was the only state in the country not to go for Reagan in 1984. As he says, it’s the state of Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Governor Jesse Ventura, and now, unfortunately, Senator Al Franken. Pawlenty’s record of passing conservative legislation in such a far Left state is the basis of his electoral case.

It’s an effective narrative, as it presents Pawlenty as a candidate who doesn’t just propose conservative ideas, but someone who can actually make those ideas reality. It also presents a favorable indirect comparison to his two biggest threats, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.

In pointing out that he achieved conservative results in a liberal state — the ad even mentions ‘without mandates’ — he is hitting Romney for his health care plan in Massachusetts. The emphasis on governing, Pawlenty hopes, will distinguish himself from Bachmann, who has only been a legislator, lacking a record of executive decision making.

Running the ad now is a somewhat risky decision because Pawlenty doesn’t have the campaign kitty of Mitt Romney or the direct mail fundraising resources of Michele Bachmann. The fact that he’s willing to drop this chunk of change on an ad almost two months before the Ames straw poll on August 13 means he knows he has to shake things up. Whether it’s enough we’ll know by August, as Iowa is make or break territory for Pawlenty.

Congressman Cory Gardner has recently laid down the gauntlet and challenged the Obama administration to put its money where its mouth is on energy independence and job creation. Both of those themes have been constants on Obama's teleprompter for years, while they have been generally lacking in the actual policies he implements.

Gardner's new bill to expand energy production on Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) puts the themes into action, which will create 50,000 jobs and a million barrels of oil a day. For comparison, that is the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia every day, so it's no drop in the bucket.

Obama has pushed back with a generic rejection of expanded oil production, claiming it would increase emissions. There has been no attempt to claim that drilling on the OCS would emit an especially high amount of emissions, but that extra emissions means we shouldn't drill. Thought it's not as if we just won't use that oil, just that Obama would seemingly rather see Saudi Arabia or Hugo Chavez's Venezuela get the jobs and wealth from the oil production. 

Oil will continue to drive the world's economy and serve as the main energy source for vehicles for decades to come, at a minimum. Solar powered cars are in no one's near future, save for a few trust fund kids in Boulder and wealthy liberals who emit high levels of smug. So we can either face reality and tap into the vast resources beneath our land, or we can stick our heads in the sand mumbling about renewable energy and let other countries get the jobs, while continuing our addiction to oil from unfriendly nations. 

With this legislation Cory Gardner is drawing a line in the sand and daring President Obama to stand on the side opposed to American job creation and a lessening of our dependence on foreign oil. As the NY Times notes, the last poll in March on views of domestic energy production found that 60% of Americans supported expanded offshore drilling. With $4/gallon gas and unemployment staying unsustainably high, the Times notes that Americans’ support for expanding American production of energy is likely to only increase. 

The bill has bipartisan support in the House, earning the votes of five Democrats in committee, though the bill's success in the Senate is not guaranteed. If the failure of the Senate to get rid of tax credits and deductions from the oil and gas industry is any sign, there are a high number of pro-American energy Senate Democrats who may side with Gardner and the bipartisan House majority on this bill.

In that case, Obama would be forced to veto the measure to stop it. If that happens it would leave Obama in the awkward position of standing against job creation and his own party. Not exactly the place he wants to be going into a tough re-election.

The fact that a freshman Republican is able to lay down the gauntlet so starkly is a great credit to Gardner and his effectiveness in Washington. Out of a class of 87 freshman, Gardner has risen to the top and defined himself as a rising star to watch. From challenging the EPA on their lack of concern for the jobs impact of their regulations to now forcing Obama on the record on energy independence and job creation, Gardner has had a highly successful first six months. 

So much for the freedom of association, the right to assemble and other solemn sacraments in our First Amendment. Today, during a press conference where the ACLU announced it was challenging a Douglas County school voucher plan, the alleged defenders of the First Amendment over at the ACLU chucked an unsuspecting citizen from their midst because average citizens weren’t invited or allowed.

A trusted source passes on word that this citizen was a Douglas County resident hoping to tape what they thought was a public proceeding. For a group so committed to civil liberties, including stopping parents from having the liberty to choose the school for their children, the ACLU sure has an odd way of practicing what they preach (and sue). 

What is it with liberals and a complete inability to host press conferences without making fools of themselves? First it was Boulder Senator Rollie Heath kidnapping children to announce his tax hike that was "for the kids." Now it's the ACLU violating the First Amendment in announcing a lawsuit over…you guessed it…the First Amendment.