Multiple sources are telling the Peak that the confluence of a tax-hostile political environment, Senator Rollie Heath's bumbling political roll out, and concerns over huge new job losses in an already fragile Colorado recovery have all but doomed Heath's $3 billion tax hike plan slated for the ballot this November.

Two sources in particular say amplified chatter recently makes them more and more confident that the measure may not even make the ballot at all. If it does, all of our sources say that there is no financial commitment from any of the major financial players on the Left that would be needed to get an unpopular measure like Heath's passed.

Said one Peak source, "I guess they don't have a rebuttal to 119,000 lost jobs."

This news is a remarkable turn of events for Colorado's anti-TABOR conspirators, who earlier this year seemed hell bent on going to the ballot for a new revenue fix in the wake of education cuts meted out by Governor Hickenlooper and Speaker Frank McNulty.

Led by Liberal Loon Carol Hedges, Colorado's left-wing non-profit under-world was chomping at the bit for tax increases for months.

But ultimately, Hedges' push succumbed to a competing tax increase written by Boulder Senator Rollie Heath, which is now having its own near death experience.

If Heath's measure does in fact die in the way that we are hearing, all tax increasers in the future will be compelled to remember not to kidnap children during a press conference for an initiative billed as being "for the children."

Even more critically, Colorado's left would do well to remember that killing 119,000 jobs in the middle of a recession is a message point so damning and so powerful that apparently it can defeat an initiative before the fight even really begins.  As our source suggests, a rebutal for these unemployment numbers probably ought to be the first order of business for the (inevitable) effort to raise taxes next year.

Image: Ambro / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Thanks to the reader who passed this gem along. This week the IRS revoked the tax exempt status of 275,000 organizations, after those organizations failed to file the proper paperwork. Well, it appears a number of liberal special interest group chapters in Colorado didn't file their paperwork and have lost their status as a result.

• American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Orgs (AFL-CIO)
  • Denver
  • Denver
  • Denver
  • Grand Junction
  • Fort Collins 
• American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
  • Leadville
  • Trinidad
• American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
  • Denver
  • Westminster
• Colorado Association of Public Employees (CAPE)
  • Erie
  • Canon City
  • Grand Junction
  • Pueblo
  • Idaho Springs
  • Dumont
  • Denver
  • Greeley
  • Aurora
  • Lakewood
  • Aurora
  • Mancos
  • Trinidad
  • Littleton
  • Wolcott

Nice going, union operatives. 

A few weeks ago we wrote about an independent study commissioned by the Common Sense Policy Roundtable looking at the economic impacts of Senator Rollie Heath's proposed $3 Billion tax hike over 5 years. The study found that if the tax increase were to pass it would kill up to 119,700 jobs in Colorado and cause 3,610 less people to move to Colorado per year. Some liberal trolls scoffed at our use of the 119k number, claiming we had made it up out of thin air. Well this weekend, the Pueblo Chieftain printed an op-ed using that exact same number.

ColoradoPols response to our post was to try to claim that because the study's author has an odd Twitter profile picture his fiscal impact analysis has no credibility. We found this line of attack odd, especially since economists are not generally judged by or known for their looks, but when you can't defeat the message, you have to kill the messenger. Turns out they didn't do such a good job of killing the messenger.

The fact that the Pueblo Chieftain printed the op-ed with the 119,700 job loss figure gives it enormous credibility. Before an op-ed is printed, the claims in it have to be scrutinized by the paper and justified based on factual claims. The Chieftain clearly found it derived from more than just thin air. 

Beyond just the credibility gained from the Pueblo Chieftain, the economist who authored the study, Dr. Eric Fruits of Portland State University, has a successful track record on fiscal impact studies of tax measures. In January 2010 Oregon passed two initiatives that retroactively increased taxes on high income individuals and corporations — a favorite target of liberals (Measures 66 & 67). Dr. Fruits conducted a study, published in December 2009, with the predicted fiscal impact of the measures. Check out this graph for how right his analysis was:

(Graph courtesy of Cascade Policy Institute)

The green line represents the state of Oregon's economic forecast before the tax hikes were passed. The orange line is Dr. Fruits predicted forecast if the measures passed, and the yellow line is the state of Oregon's forecast after the measures passed. To us that's a pretty clear visual demonstration of credibility. 

Before liberals get their panties in a twist, claiming it was the recession that caused this and not the tax hikes, remember one salient fact. The measure passed in January 2010, years after the recession began and the banks collapsed. Had the measure passed in January 2008, there might be something significant to quibble with. 

All in all, it looks as if the 119,700 number is beginning to take hold and that is not a good sign for Rollie's hope of hiking your taxes. 

If you just scanned yesterday's Denver Post, with the headline "Nothing incriminating found in Hancock cellphone records: No links to prostitutes found," you might think that Mayor-elect Michael Hancock had officially put the allegations of whoremongering and cover-ups behind him. When we first read the Post story we thought this might have been the tipping point that moved the story back in Hancock's favor.

Then 7News rejected an offer to review the very limited amount of records based on the ridiculous conditions that the Hancock campaign demanded. When CBS4 joined them in their rejection of the investigative handcuffs the Hancock campaign required for access, we knew new battle lines had been drawn in this full blown media war.

Just the fact that CBS4 waded into this battle publicly, and not at all favorably to Hancock, is big news. They have been by far the most skittish outlet about reporting details of this story at all. Here's how CBS4 responded to the campaign demands:

CBS4 News Director Tim Wieland rejected the offer Tuesday afternoon.  

“We do have an interest in reviewing the unedited phone records,” wrote Wieland. “However we will not conduct a review under the unusual conditions you have outlined.”

This aggressive posture from CBS4 has transpired while the Denver Post/9News team agreed to wear the handcuffs in the name of access, making it appear as though they've decided to back off the story a bit.

It seems to us almost like a long distance race at this point with outlets taking turns charging this story forward. The big question to be settled is if, or when, the Michael Isikoff of this race, Deborah Sherman of 9News, will take the lead and bring the investigation to a close, one way or the other. 

As for the current state of the story, the conditions set forth by the Hancock campaign are so ridiculous and constraining that they just make Hancock look as guilty as his decision to reject access outright did:

• Reporters will be able to review Michael’s complete, unedited and un-redacted cell phone records for March, April, May, September and October in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

• Any reporting/writing will only involve numbers related to Denver Players/Denver Sugar and the allegations that Michael Hancock solicited prostitutes.

• Reporters will share with us the specific phone numbers and names they are looking for just prior to sitting down and reviewing the records.

• If there is a match, reporters will point out those numbers on the spot, with the understanding that no one leaves the room/contacts that number until the records review is complete.

• The records review will occur at the offices of Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck. There will be no photocopying, reproduction or republication of the records.”

The demands give the distinct impression that either Hancock has the world's worst communications team or he is still hiding something. In the court of public opinion, having your high-priced and politically connected lawyers so transparently attempt to tightly control an investigation's scope, and the reporting of that investigation, does not help towards building an image of innocence and transparency. 

Beyond the media narrative developing over this scandal, there are also some unresolved disagreements between major outlets over basic facts of the investigation. Even though the Pony Tailed Poet, Mike Littwin, may have been literally in the driver's seat for part of the investigation, there are great investigative journalists working this story. We doubt they'll drop it until these central facts are determined. 

Below are a couple of key unsettled basic facts about the story, as well as what Donald Rumsfeld would call "known unknowns" that we think could shake up or kill the story. 

FACTUAL DISAGREEMENTS

1. Does a law enforcement agency have Michael Hancock's name and cell phone number in their file? 7News's sources say so. The Denver Post has sources that say otherwise.

1a. Does one outlet have DPD sources while the other federal? The Denver Players investigation has been handled by both the DPD and the feds. 

2. What phone numbers can be connected to the Denver Players network? The Denver Post and 9News had a set of 150, but 7News rejected the Hancock demands partly because they refused to share their list of phone numbers with the campaign, claiming it could reveal their sources and research methods. 

KNOWN UNKOWNS

1. Will Denver Players or other escort services produce their own phone records? Phone calls are recorded on the call records of both ends of the conversation. 

2. What does Deborah Sherman have and will she be allowed to release it?

3. What maneuvers are being made behind closed doors to quash the investigation to protect people much more powerful than Michael Hancock who were Denver Player customers?

4. What are the details of the negotiations that occurred over the weekend between the Hancock legal team and the Denver Post/9News?

5. With the transition coming, and a potential shake up at DPD, will a disgruntled DPD source come forward with more information?

6. Will the Hancock campaign be able to produce conclusive evidence or sufficient access and openness that satisfies all the major outlets, thus killing the story?

As our loyal readers may have noticed, we have not made a claim about the ultimate veracity of the allegations. That is because there are still too many unanswered questions. For us, it's too soon to be sure either way.

UPDATE: Best Twitter feed in the history of the Peak:

Yes Eric, like every other red blooded American, we simply cannot resist the throbbing urge to crack jokes about Weiner, his campaign booty, and the whole oiled-up political circus.

————-

Here at the Peak we often try to take national news stories and give our readers the Colorado angle that is lacking in national news coverage. Throughout the Congressman Anthony Weiner scandal we have been watching the reactions of members of Colorado's House delegation, with a special emphasis on Democrats because it is their voices that matter to Weiner.

Unfortunately, other Colorado news outlets haven't even tried to inform their readers or viewers of this local angle. Other than a blog post at The Spot, Colorado's delegation and its relation to the scandal-tainted Congressman haven't been mentioned in one dead-wood edition of a paper or TV report anywhere in Colorado as far as we can tell.

Remember Mark Foley?  Remember Jack Abramoff? Remember Tom Delay?

Any Colorado Republican who took a dime off these GOP scandal-makers paid a dear media price.

So why the different tune for Colorado's Weiner lovers?

(Continued after jump)

The Colorado Democrats have been suspiciously silent for almost all of this sad and sick scandal. Yesterday, Denver Democrat Diana DeGette finally suggested Weiner should resign. Of course, it took President Obama to make the call first before DeGette chose to chime in. But what about the Colorado Democrat who has taken $1000 from Weiner, Ed Perlmutter?

He has so far refused to return the money or donate it to charity. We found this to be stunning hypocrisy coming from a politician who rose to office using a campaign ad where he promised to go after online predators. Faced with an online predator in his own political caucus in DC, Perlmutter voiced only tepid support for an ethics investigation that no one thinks would have any effect. 

Here's the Denver Post covering the local angle to the Foley scandal in 2006:

"Democrat Ed Perlmutter, running in the 7th Congressional District, called on opponent Rick O'Donnell to join him in requesting the resignations of any Republicans who were previously aware of Foley's actions.  

Perlmutter also called for the National Republican Congressional Committee to refrain from accepting any of the $2.7 million in campaign funds that, according to federal campaign-finance reports filed in August, Foley had raised. Foley in July contributed $100,000 to the NRCC."

So back in 2006 Perlmutter demanded not just Foley's resignation (he did resign) but other Members of Congress, and now Perlmutter won't even call for Weiner's resignation?

Not only that, but Perlmutter wanted every cent that Foley had raised to be given away? We think we need to invent a new word, because hypocrisy just doesn't cut it here. Weiner gives Perlmutter $1000 in a direct campaign contribution that he insists on keeping, but Perlmutter thought Republicans should give away everything that Foley raised?

Why is this not news? Do papers prefer just to reprint AP articles on the subject without doing their own coverage or providing their readers the local angle?

They sure seem to find the time and staff resources to print articles about Colorado Republicans accepting tainted donations. 

Many in the press, and especially liberals, have attempted to paint Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a shrill, extremist, inexperienced and stupid woman. They do so at their peril, and much to Bachmann's gain. Her performance at the GOP debate on Monday showed just how wrong that caricature is, with Bachmann putting in a widely praised performance, displaying a keen knowledge of foreign policy and fiscal issues.  

Just as when liberals tried to paint George W Bush as stupid, they are making another toxic mistake in setting expectations incredibly low for Bachmann. By setting the bar of expectation so low it allows Bachmann to gracefully step over it and damage the credibility of her critics. This happened with Bush, and it appears to be happening again with Bachmann.

Monday's debate performance is already being seen as a potential turning point in how insiders view Bachmann, blowing up old views of her virtually overnight. As Politico points out:

"It was, quite simply, a different Michele Bachmann who emerged on stage at St. Anselm’s College in New Hampshire — a nuanced, focused and polished politician rather than the one-dimensional firebrand she’s been caricatured as in the past. If she is to make a serious run at the presidential nomination, Monday’s debate might be the turning point that gave the GOP establishment a reason to give her a second look."

Her critics have also tried to paint Bachmann as a Minnesota doppelganger of Sarah Palin, who has been more effectively caricatured to the wider electorate as insufficiently prepared for higher office. They face an uphill battle in doing so as the Christian Science Monitor points out:  

"Many people think of Bachmann and Sarah Palin as cut from the same cloth, but beyond their obvious similarities as outspoken conservative women, they are distinctly different. Bachmann, a  decade older at 55, had a career as a tax lawyer and is well versed in the finer points of legislation. She is not only a third-term House  member but spent a half-dozen years before that in the Minnesota Senate."

Bachmann was also appointed by Speaker Boehner to the House Intelligence Committee, which is not generally a committee to which stupid, inexperienced Members get appointed. She displayed her knowledge gained from her work on the committee during the debate, referencing reports that suggest Al Qaeda members could be linking up with parts of the Libyan opposition, much as they did with sections of the Afghani opposition in the 1980s.

That's not to say Palin lacks experience, but Bachmann has considerably more experience in national affairs and tax policy than Palin. Her own campaign operatives are working hard to make distinctions between the two women with senior Bachmann advisor Ed Rollins telling the press that Palin isn't serious. Palin's camp demanded Rollins be fired over the comment. The fact that he hasn't shows a willingness on Team Bachmann to make that distinction clear and throw the punches required of an effective campaign. The hiring of Rollins, who was Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign Chairman and ran Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984, is also a sign that Bachmann is a serious candidate able to attract top knotch talent to her team.

Even Bachmann's shrillest critics have admitted she has an uncanny media sense. Her announcement of her campaign at the debate guaranteed she would dominate coverage of the debate for days. She also raised more money than any other Congressional candidate in the country in 2010, a key strength in a crowded field with candidates who can self-fund in large ways like Mitt Romney.

Added all together, Bachmann could end up being a far more credible challenger than her critics would like to admit. With her penchant for firebrand comments and a rapidly increased amount of scrutiny about to descend on her campaign, this moment of a fawning press could quickly recede. But for now it appears Bachmann is one to watch. As the Christian Science Monitor concludes:

"We don’t yet know how Michele Bachmann will fare under the grinding pressure of a national campaign. But if her maiden debate was any indication, she shouldn’t be underestimated."

UPDATE: It looks like the Denver Post editorial board agrees with us. In an editorial today they say “the secretary of state is right to update state campaign finance rules to exempt small issue groups spending $5,000 or less.”

——-

Colorado Ethics Watch (CEW) and Colorado Common Cause (CCC), two liberal groups who don't disclose their donors, have sued Secretary of State Scott Gessler over rule changes he made regarding issue committee donor disclosure. Once you get past the irony of this situation, you realize how little merit the actual junk lawsuit possesses.

ColoradoPols coverage of the issue sells it as Gessler eliminating a disclosure requirement right before primaries, as if Gessler was secretly trying to make it easier to fit undisclosed money into messy primary campaigns. We'll get to what the rule change really amounted to, and the legal impetus for the rule change in a minute, but first we have to say the mischaracterization doesn't even fit within the stereotype of Gessler as party hack that Pols has been pushing since he was elected. Republicans have lost much more than Democrats from messy primaries, and if Gessler was such a party apparatchik he wouldn't want to push rules that allow primaries to become even messier with anonymously funded attacks. So, to whomever was running Pols while Alan Franklin was out of town, you might want to read the playbook before you run such an off message hit piece.

The real reason for the rule change was the ruling in the court case Sampson vs. Buescher. If CEW and CCC had bothered to read the announcement of the rule changes, which they gave public comment on, they would have realized the real reason behind the change. But these two liberal groups have never let facts get in the way of a good rant or junk lawsuit. 

(continued after jump)

Sampson vs. Buescher was about an issue committee of citizens in Parker, CO who opposed an annexation by the city. They spent almost $2000 on behalf of their cause, but never filed reports with the SOS office on their disbursements. They were fined for not reporting, but sued over the fines, claiming their first amendment rights were violated and a three-judge panel from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The panel held the Colorado law that forces issue committees who raise or spend more than $200 to file reports was an unconstitutionally low threshold. Once you realize the facts behind the rule change, plus are aware of the fact that Gessler held public hearings seeking comment which CCC and CEW testified at, you realize how much of a junk lawsuit the groups actually filed.

After seeking public comment, where we noticed CCC and CEW didn't express a desire to have rules that require them to disclose their own donors, Gessler changed the rule to raise the threshold for issue committee reporting to $5,000. Anyone who has ever worked on a campaign beyond dog catcher realizes that $5,000 is jack squat. If you spend less than that you won't be doing much. You can't even fund a decent mail piece for $5,000. 

So basically, Gessler made a small rule change, after seeking public input, to comply with a ruling by a federal judge. CCC, CEW, and Pols take that to mean he was trying to get rid of financial disclosure. Nice spin, but the facts are standing in the way ever so slightly.

All in all, Gessler has not been a messaging maestro since taking office. We'll be the first to admit he sometimes can be inarticulate in expressing himself, setting himself up as a target to be attacked by liberals. But when groups like CEW, who make their living off of filing junk lawsuits against conservatives, pull BS like this we feel it's important to set the record straight. Plus, we can't help but point out the blinding irony of groups who don't disclose their donors suing over donor disclosure requirements. 

Disclosure for thee, but not for me.  

Speaking of anger management issues, a Wisconsin Democrat trying to beat an incumbent Republican legislator in a recall election was recently caught in a campaign-ending gaffe. Anyone who has ever made a phone call for a political campaign knows you are bound to encounter anything from crazy to kind on the other end of the line. You learn to roll with the punches after a tough call, forcing a smile on your face and dial the next number. Not the WI Dem in question apparently.

After getting a voter who was not inclined to support his candidacy, Fred Clark made a comment that is certain to end his candidacy. Check it out (h/t Pajamas Media):

This has the ability to harm more than just Clark’s candidacy. After the union goons (including many out-of-staters shipped in by the national union) took over the state Capitol in Madison for weeks and have engaged in thuggish behavior threatening to boycott businesses if they didn’t attack the Governor publicly, this image of a candidate threatening violence only furthers the image of a Democrat party out of control.

With Sal “The Fist” Pace’s known propensity for violent imagery towards those who disagree with him or the union boss agenda, maybe he’d be better off running in Wisconsin than the West Slope.  

This past week rising star Congressman Cory Gardner and Senator Michael Bennet toured Northern Colorado businesses together, earning media coverage in just about every major outlet that covers Gardner's district. During the trip they pledged to move beyond the partisan warfare in DC and work together on helping create jobs through regulatory and tax code reform.

Trips like this are great press for a first term Congressman, especially when the result becomes agreement to work on GOP issues–reducing the heavy hand of government–rather than Democrat issues–increasing the hiring hand of government. They also present another strength for Gardner and therefore weakness for any potential bid for Senate President Brandon Shaffer, in that they show that Gardner is such an effective and likable legislator that members of the opposing party, even inside the CO delegation, want to work with him.

Just as when Congressman Tipton got the Pinon Canyon expansion funding block put into the military construction budget, removing a major argument for Sal Pace's candidacy, great press removes a major argument for a Shaffer campaign. If Democrats like working with Congressman Gardner in DC, including Barry O himself, why unseat him? Shaffer may have tried his doggone best to "Brandon-Mander" his own personal Congressional district, but lacking a solid and substantial case for his own candidacy, it's going to be a significant uphill battle. 

What's worse is Shaffer has a well known anger management issue, which has earned him the enmity of more than a few folks in Colorado. Whether it's publicly storming out of a restaurant like a seven year old child during budget negotiations or being on the verge of a mental breakdown during redistricting, Shaffer is not known for coolness under pressure. Congressional campaigns get intense and candidates who are unable to take their hits in stride tend to get caught in embarrassing Youtube clips of them losing their cool. 

We hope that Shaffer gets in for just that reason. Those Youtube hits are like porn for political junkies. But Shaffer may realize he would risk exposing his less than palatable persona to a much wider audience should he run for Congress. Stacking that potential for permanent destruction of his public image with Gardner's well built image of an effective and charming legislator, and Shaffer has reason to wonder if embarking on a campaign is worth it at all.

And Shaffer won’t be the only Democrat wondering if he has a shot. Given Michael Bennet’s travel schedule this week, apparently Mr. Bennet is pretty unsure about Shaffer’s prospects himself.