Have you ever wondered why the liberal attack dogs at ColoradoPols spend so much ink going after Secretary of State Scott Gessler?
Colorado “Independent” too?
A report in the Washington Times last week helps explain why. The answer…George Soros is probably paying them to do it.
Soros and his liberal donor allies have backed a liberal hit group our readers probably first became aware of when reading "The Blueprint." The group is the Secretary of State Project (SOSP), a 527 focused on putting liberals into Secretary of State positions around the country, which the backers believe will allow them to ensure an advantage in vote counting.
The web of special interest cash can be tied back to the Democracy Alliance, a group that has its roots in Colorado.
Interestingly, the state where they have failed every time, despite significant influxes of special interest cash, is Colorado. Both in 2006 and 2010, SOSP targeted the Colorado Secretary of State race, hoping to put their favored candidate in office, but Colorado voters rejected their efforts in both races. This has created a bit of bitterness in the liberal 527 world.
As the Washington Times points out, due to the tax structure through which SOSP is funded, the donors behind the project can give unlimited amounts of money, allowing them to influence races in ways the candidates themselves cannot. In Colorado, statewide candidates in 2010 were allowed to accept donations of up to $1050 for both the primary and general elections. SOSP on the other hand could collect checks at clips of $50,000 or $100,000 a pop.
Like much of the liberal infrastructure targeting races in Colorado, there is no conservative equivalent. Colorado Secretary of State candidates on the Republican slate have had to fend for themselves. While they've succeeded in beating back these special interest attacks in 2006 and 2010, it's important to remember that these attacks won't let up.
Liberals are bitter they weren't able to flip the Secretary of State elections in 2006 and 2010 and they plan on continuing the attacks until they succeed. George Soros doesn't like to lose. So don't be surprised if you see a sustained assault on Scott Gessler. Just remember to follow the money from those attacks because they lead back to Mr. Soros. Not Colorado voters.
true. There have been rumors since this January at least that these donors are getting fed up with elections that produce the same results, for the most part, that have happened way before CODA–both legislative and electoral. There hasn’t been a Dem from Denver or Boulder since the days of Pat Grant, Cliff Dodge and Sandy Hume.
It’s been clear from the last few sessions that if civil unions happen it will be because of Republicans supporting it, not “progressive” Dems. As we all know that issue, more so than any other, prompted this onslaught of liberal spending. This doesn’t go to the Soros funded projects, because his worldview is far more distorted from the Colorado Soros Jr’s. His spending, including SOSP, is unlikely to end anytime soon. However, several Dems have mentioned, in their opinion, that if Obama doesn’t win Colorado next year, Colorado will no longer be a heavily targeted state for legislative and statewide races. That said, the spending won’t stop until at least then and its up to Gessler, a highly skilled SOS, to defend the fortress.
Republicans did so well in Colorado a decade ago because they had a GOTV program that was totally unrivaled. Democrats figured out how to match it, and the GOP’s edge was gone.
Fast forward a decade and the Democrats have been riding high with wealthy donors. That won’t last forever, either, and when that advantage ends so will the Democrats’ marginal success in the state.
Consider that right now, Republicans have an active registration advantage of about 38% to 33% over the Democrats. And Colorado is indeed a conservative state. So Democrats don’t win races like last year’s Senate race, or any other race, in a state like our’s without a heavy money advantage that will cover for liberals who run as moderates or even conservatives. I think that Obama will probably lose Colorado next year, and I hope you’re right that the money will dry up soon after that.
And I also agree that Tim Gill and others have targeted Colorado because they want it to be at the forefront of the gay rights movement–like an ironic sort of revenge for passing Amendment 2. The problem is that civil unions are still politically unpopular in Colorado, and it will take a Democratic legislature to pass civil unions here–and that may not happen for quite a while. So there will come a point where donors start to see Colorado as a money drain, and that frustration will take their money elsewhere.
a thorny issue, gay marriage is the definitively politically unpopular issue. Civil unions are less contentious. That said, several Dems have been wondering why Gill has been paying Ted Trimpa and the One Colorado team in the mid six figures to lobby and advocate for civil unions especially after the ’09 session when they had the best shot. None of which is to mention the God-only-knows how much spent during elections.
One prominent senator-turned-lobbyist has mentioned this numerous times and he used to be in leadership before CODA formed (if you can figure out who, it’ll tell you how big an issue this has become behind the scenes [hint: he ran for Congress in 2002]). Specifically the Fab Four have accomplished nearly as much in the minority as they have/did in the majority.
I don’t particularly like civil unions, but its not quite as bad as gay marriage. But it’s clear that the GOP holds the key to its passage, and several Dems do not support civil unions. Therefore, it’s idiotic for Gill, Trimpa, et al to keep attacking Republicans during elections when they hold the power to pass civil unions; hence the 3 GOP senators who voted for it and it’s narrow failure in the House.