Salazar’s comments, which trotted out the highly offensive idea that women are incapable of determining a threat to themselves due to their emotions, have yet to be denounced by any member of the Democratic leadership in Colorado. Instead, Salazar offered a non-apology apology which included an attempt to smear those who challenged his comments as racists.

Ferrandino, in a statement made to the Denver Post, claimed the statements by Salazar have been taken out of context. “Whatever his words may have been and however much those words are being taken out of context,” Ferrandino said. Unfortunately, the full video of Salazar’s remarks make clear that the context of his statements do not change the offensiveness of the comments.

Ferrandino, who used the comments of Todd Akin to fundraise for Democratic state candidates less than a year ago, claimed Republicans were out of touch with women after the 2012 election. “Lessons on the campaign trail over the last year haven’t been learned,” Ferrandino said in a Denver Post article with regards to Republican bills on abortion.

Ferrandino gave no regard to the context of Akin’s remarks, as ill formed as they may have been. Instead, Ferrandino engaged in a ruthless campaign to paint all Republicans with the broad brush of Akin’s comments.

The full video of Salazar’s comments has been provided by Revealing Politics so all can see the context of Salazar’s remarks.

Apparently Ferrandino and his caucus still have lessons to learn as well.

In a mailer which attacked Republican candidate Ken Summers in the wake of Akin’s comments, the Colorado Democrats claimed Summers was on a long list of politicians who “have NO CLUE what women go through.” The mailer went on to say that “Radical politicians are running around talking about what makes rape rape. It is ridiculous and offensive.”

Additionally, in his failed attempt to unseat Cory Gardner, Democrat Brandon Shaffer attempted to tie Gardner to Akin. “Cory joined Todd Aiken[sic] in voting to redefine the definition of rape” read the email sent on Gardner’s birthday.

Voicemails and emails to Ferrandino’s office, which request Ferrandino explain how Salazar’s remarks were taken out of context, have yet to be addressed.

Governor Hickenlooper will be moderating a debate on gun violence tonight, and should take the opportunity to denounce the sexist comments made by Salazar, rather than employ the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil strategy preferred by Ferrandino.

This post was orginially featured at Media Trackers.

Chapin, who previously worked as a speechwriter for Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter and as the communications director for failed Democratic mayoral candidate Chris Romer, was featured as a guest columnist for the Post on Tuesday in what appeared to be a trial run for the columnist position. Her column — entitled “Is there a GOP obsession with lady parts?” — used the controversial remarks of Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, a Republican, to attack pro-life individuals who believe that life begins at conception and should be protected.

Denver Post Considers Democratic Operative as New Colunmist

Lynn Bartels, a reporter for the Denver Post, gave Chapin an assist on Twitter by tweeting a link to the column on Wednesday morning.

“A must read about ‘lady parts,’” Bartels wrote, suggesting that perhaps conservatives are not the only group of people “obsessed” with other people’s private parts.

Chapin’s attack on the pro-life views held by a majority of Americans was also disseminated by Alan Franklin of ProgressNow, a liberal advocacy group, and, eventually, CNN contributor and Democratic consultant Donna Brazile.

The lady parts piece was not Chapin’s first effort for the Post, though. After Paul Ryan, a practicing Catholic, was selected as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential nominee, Chapin complained in the Post about Ryan’s views on abortion. She concluded her piece by asserting that Ryan also wished to “shred the social safety net.”

According to her LinkedIn profile page, Chapin has worked in a variety of positions for Democrats throughout the country. She worked for the Michigan Democratic Coordinated Campaign, Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, and Sen. Shelley Berkley of Nevada.  Chapin also worked in the media and communications departments of the liberal Environmental Working Group and the Trial Lawyers Association of America, as well as in the Democratic communications shop for the Colorado House.

Chapin currently runs a Democratic political consulting firm in Denver.

This post was originally published at Media Trackers Colorado.

What really angered me in this exchange was the faultiness of his logic and his insistence that I was in error because I was allowing my faith to dictate my political opinion on the matter. First, the logic he employed in his defense was that I could never understand the circumstances of a woman impregnated due to rape. I reject this flat out because it assumes that I am incapable of being empathetic to the situation unless I allow for the premeditated murder of an innocent. His counter to my claim the child was innocent was to claim the child is, by nature of the act in which it was conceived, a “bad seed”, a claim I find highly ironic coming from someone who rejects the moral arguments against abortion.

I attempted to demonstrate the faultiness of his argument by arguing that he, as a white man, could never understand the plight of a black man, or an illegal alien, and therefore he should never argue against reparations or amnesty. Of course it would be absurd, and harmful to society in the whole, to pair down what issues one may opine on based on gender, race, or ethnicity, yet when it comes to abortion many have no problem cozying up to this illogical and balkanizing form of argumentation.

Even though I know that these are direct parallels to his logic, he refused to acknowledge the fact and attempted to paint me as being nothing but a Jesus zombie, simply parroting dogma rather than having struggled with the legal and logical aspects of abortion in America.

When he realized that I would not relent, he went into a long diatribe about how I had changed since I started attending church regularly again, something I have been doing for all but two years of the time he has known me. The end of the evening came when I finally said to him that if he is so offended by my faith, maybe we should cease being friends.

I am sharing this experience in light of the recent gaffe by Rep. Akin because I believe his gaffe is a byproduct of an environment in politics that encourages us to be offended by, if not outright hostile to, positions based on Judeo-Christian morality.

Social Conservatives are often encouraged to soften their tones, to refer to objective science when arguing issues of morality, as a way to skirt past the objections of those who get an icky feeling in there stomach when God enters the discussion. Many Christians are familiar with that icky feeling, typically we refer to it as the Holy Spirit convicting us, but I digress.

As a movement, we do ourselves a disservice when we reach for quasi-scientific arguments in favor of our moral positions. The honest truth is that we fail because we are scared to stand on the principle itself and open ourselves to attacks and gaffes as Akin did.

We allow people like President Obama to capture the moral high ground when he says “Rape is rape.”

“Rape is rape, and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing up what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people, and certainly doesn’t make sense to me.”

I appreciate the clarity that Obama provides here, and I say that only half mockingly. You see, I also believe murder is murder, and parsing and qualifying and slicing up what types of murder we are talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people, and certainly doesn’t make sense to me. The left and President Obama parse, qualify, and slice up what types of abortions are murder and which ones are legitimate ways of relieving a “burden” with nary a peep coming from the media.

And they get away with this largely because we are told not to stand up for our own moral principles. We are condemned by our opponents and friends alike when we mention that there are areas that are strictly black and white, allowing for no grey.

This shouldn’t be taken as an excuse to act like a cold hearted hardliner either. Many times there is an opportunity to make an emotional connection while making a logical argument. The case of abortions due to rape is an example where the emotional connection would prove fruitful.

To that end, I will go back to the story I shared at the beginning of this post.

A few days after the argument with my friend I went to talk to my mother about the entire incident. My mother is politically active and also has a lifetime of experience as a nurse. Unbeknownst to me, in my almost 36 years of existence, my mother was the product of a rape.

My mother has been responsible for saving countless number of lives in her 30 year career as a nurse. She worked mid shifts in the Maricopa County Hospital Emergency Room. She worked in the NICU in the same hospital. She worked as a crew member nurse on a flight for life helicopter at various points in her career. Today she works as a hospice nurse comforting those waiting on the inevitable.

This woman, my mother, has dedicated her entire adult life to saving others. To my friend, she was a “bad seed” whose life should have been snuffed out before even beginning, all because her father was incapable of controlling the lust that lived within him.

I am sure my friend never even considered the possible lives that would be lost if my mother had been aborted. In fact, he couldn’t have because he didn’t know my mother was the product of a rape.

God has a funny way of reaffirming our faith. In my case he used a friend accusing me of being controlled by my faith to show me how I have grown in my faith and further caused information to be revealed to me that reaffirmed why I am pro-life.

The bottom line is this: If Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill, and the majority of the Democratic Party had their druthers, my mother would have been killed in the womb. The people my mother saved would have missed out on the care she provided. If exceptions for rape would have been in place in 1955, I may have never existed.

Never the less, President Obama will be praised for wanting my mother dead, all because we have created an environment where morality isn’t in itself worthy of being defended. Not to mention life.

But Common Cause is not alone when it comes to refusing to file required disclosure reports.  Liberal organizations in Colorado have been exploiting gray areas surrounding a 2005 amendment to a key financial disclosure law, intentionally refusing to file required periodic reports on time. Before the law was amended, any organization that failed to file its financial disclosure reports on time could be administratively dissolved.

Since October of 2005, entities which fail to file periodic reports with the Secretary of State are designated as “Delinquent,” but no action is taken to dissolve the entity.  Instead, the state now attempts to bring delinquent organizations back into compliance with a sternly written letter or small fine assessment.

The change in the law — specifically the removal of any real consequence for refusing to file the required disclosure reports — did not go unnoticed by numerous left-leaning political organizations in Colorado.

Liberal Groups Exploit Gray Areas of Law

Organizations such as Colorado Common Cause, The Colorado Conservation Voters, Clean Water Action, Environment Colorado, and ProgressNow Colorado refused to file the required disclosure forms for several years, from 2009 through 2011.  Many of these organizations were also deemed “delinquent” charitable organizations according to an analysis of records provided by the Secretary of State.

Records available on the Secretary of State’s charitable organization search show Colorado Common Cause receiving three extensions to filing deadlines in 2009; the organization was finally listed as “Delinquent” in September of 2009.  In 2010, the Secretary of State issued four separate reminders and one extension to Colorado Common Cause and eventually listed the organization as delinquent once again. The pattern continued to a lesser extent in 2011, with Colorado Common Cause being issued a mere two reminders and being listed as delinquent once. Additionally, Colorado Common Cause failed to file its required periodic business reports between December of 2008 and March of 2009, as well as December of 2009 through March of 2010.

ProgressNow Colorado’s record is similar to that of Colorado Common Cause. It was assessed fines in two instances and was fully suspended in 2009. In 2010 ProgressNow Colorado received two reminders and two extensions from the Secretary of State’s office, and in 2011 the Secretary of State issued three reminders, two extensions, and eventually listed the organization as delinquent in August of 2011.

Ambiguity in the law, the removal of real tangible consequences, and the resulting empowerment of policymakers to interpret the law according to their whims created an environment of non-compliance by groups eager to hide their finances and operations.

During his short tenure as Secretary of State, Democrat Bernie Buescher –  a co-sponsor of the 2005 amendment when he served in the legislature — exploited the ambiguity and allowed the groups guilty of non-compliance to continue operating as if nothing happened.  The non-compliant groups appear to be less confident in the willingness of current Secretary of State Scott Gessler to look the other way when it comes to their disclosure violations.

Since his election, many of the non-compliant organizations – including Colorado Common Cause – have managed to come back to full compliance as of May 2012 for their periodic business reports. ProgressNow Colorado and Clean Water Action are currently operating under an extension on their required charitable reports, while Colorado Common Cause cured their delinquency in November 2011.

This post was originally published at Media Trackers Colorado.

Each election cycle environmental organizations in Colorado create political committees to facilitate the transfer of money in order to fund lobbying, activism, and GOTV efforts.  The funding has also been used to directly support candidates for office. Each election cycle many of these front groups fail to file financial disclosures required by law, resulting in the groups being dissolved, and effectively hiding their flow of money at first glance.

• National Wildlife Federation – $100,000
• Colorado Public Interest Research Group (COPirg) – $135,000
• Motra LLC, California – $200,000
• Sierra Club of Colorado – $44,500
• Colorado Environmental Coalition – $35,000
• East West Partners – $100,000
• League of Conservation Voters – $100,000

Coloradans for Clean Energy was created for the 2004 election cycle to facilitate the flow of money into Colorado. The bulk of the funding for the group came from organizations outside Colorado. Of all the large money donors for Coloradans for Clean Energy, only three were from Colorado.  Those groups kicked in roughly $300,000, or roughly 30 percent of total funding received by Coloradans for Clean Energy that cycle. Nine groups of large donors from outside the state combined to contribute $420,000.

Out-of-State Contributions to Coloradans for Clean Energy

• The Partnership Project – $90,000
• American Wind Energy Association – $40,000
• USPIRG – $30,000
• Union of Concerned Scientist – $95,000
• MoveOn – $25,000
• Natural Resources Defense Council – $50,000
• The Environmental Defense Fund – $25,000
• Powerlight – $30,000
• Solar Industries Association – $35,000

In-State Contributions to Coloradans for Clean Energy

• Environment Colorado* – $250,000
• Sierra Club of Colorado – $30,000
• Colorado Environmental Coalition – $20,000

Of special note in the list above is Environment Colorado, by far the largest single donor to Coloradans for Clean Energy. From 2002 to 2009, Environment Colorado has failed to file the required financial disclosures as required by law. Despite these failures to file, the group is still operating in Colorado.

In the 2008 election cycle A Smarter Colorado was formed. In a key election year for Democrats, A Smarter Colorado brought in nearly $3 million in contributions from outside the state. Portions of that money went to fund payroll for notable Coloradans such as Ben Prochazka, a lobbyist for the Colorado Environmental Coalition; George Merritt, the spokesman for John Hickenlooper’s gubernatorial campaign and A Smarter Colorado; Kelly Nordini, former Deputy Chief of Staff of special projects for Gov. Ritter, who went on to become the program officer for the Western Conservation Foundation; Bethany Gravell, Development Director for the Colorado Conservation Trust; and Ryan Clement, a lawyer with the Kenney Group, a firm that specializes in political consulting that also worked on Gov. Hickenlooper’s Denver mayoral campaign.

Out-of-State Contributions to A Smarter Colorado ($2,900,000)

• The Nature Conservancy – $1,500,000
• Conservation Campaign – $25,000
• The Conservation Fund – $50,000
• The Environmental Defense Fund – $110,000
• The national Sierra Club – $295,000
• Big Hen Corp – $100,000
• Partnership Project – $26,000
• The American Alliance for Economic Development – $50,000
• The National Education Association – $110,000
• The Sonora Institue – $210,000
• Arabella Legacy – $174,000
• Tudor Jones Investments – $250,000
• Iberdrola Renewables – $35,000

In-State Contributions to A Smarter Colorado ($750,000)

• Progressive Future – $215,000
• SEIU Colorado – $100,000
• Colorado Environmental Coalition – $105,000
• Colorado Conservation Voters – $250,000
• Environment Colorado – $20,000
• Vestar – $25,000

There was another front group that came and went in 2008 known as Responsible Colorado. Per this group’s major contributors report, liberal guru Pat Stryker gave $35,000 directly to the project’s general fund.

Colorado Conservation Victory Fund was created for the 2010 election cycle, with contributions from the following organizations:

• Colorado Conservation Voters – $186,000
• Colorado Freedom Fund – $30,000
• LCV Political Engagement Fund – $70,000
• Moore Capital Management – $35,000

Tying so many of these state environmental organizations together are the registered agent name and the building housing these organizations. Julie Wells is listed as the registered agent for a majority of the groups in Colorado. Additionally, in recent years, these groups have been housed at 1536 Wynkoop Street in Denver, which is also listed as the address for a large number of liberal organizations within the state.

While these organizations don’t give directly to candidates, instead providing the air support and ground operations needed for a successful campaign, reports show that the directors and board members of these organizations have given generously to liberal candidates who support the environmental lobby’s pet causes.

Candidates running for local, state and federal races have received donations from the principals of the various environmental organizations. Max Tyler, Crestina Martinez, Angela Giron, Jeanne Nicholson, Matt Jones, Gail Schwartz, Jeanne Labuda, and Joe Miklosi have all received funds from the environmental network.

This post was originally published at Media Trackers Colorado.

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule, regularly referred to as the 2001 roadless rule, was adopted in January of 2001 and classified 31 percent of national forest lands in Colorado as Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA’s). Four of the national forests that fell under the IRA classification did so based on inventories from 1979, four more were classified as IRA’s based on inventories from 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002.

Homes lost to the Waldo Canyon Fire

While the decisions of the Bush administration, and the fate of the 2001 roadless rule, remained in litigation, the Colorado legislature created a bipartisan task force to draft a plan to mitigate fire danger and preserve the natural beauty of national forest lands. The Colorado rule was first submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture in 2006 by then-Governor Bill Owens, and was later resubmitted with minor alterations in 2007 by Gov. Bill Ritter.

During this time, and continuing until the fall of 2011, the status of the 2001 Roadless rule remained in question. The varying district dourts would decide to impose injunctions against the 2001 Roadless Rule then vacate the injunction, in essence, removing the rule and then reimposing it, depending on which court made the decision. The Colorado rule, initially a fallback plan, was seen as a necessity if the 2001 roadless rule was not applied and unnecessary if it was.

The final answer did not come until October of 2011, when the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court and vacated the permanent injunction. The 2001 roadless rule was once again the law of the land.

Proponents of the Colorado rule continued to press forward, against the wishes of the Colorado Environmental Coalition.

In the spring of 2010, the Colorado Environmental Coalition, along with some Colorado scientists, voiced opposition to the Colorado roadless rule just weeks after the Obama Administration had defended the 2001 Roadless Rule in the Courts. Colorado State University wildlife ecology professor Barry Noon lamented, “road construction is a permanent transformation of the landscape” when advocating against the bipartisan Colorado Rule. This is in contrast to Environment Colorado program advocate Matt Garrington, who said the Colorado Rule is “a measured, thoughtful approach for protecting Colorado’s forests.”

In April of 2010 the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Wilderness Workshop and Colorado Wild, all called on the Obama administration to implement the 2001 Roadless Rule and reject in total the Colorado rule. Steve Smith, the assistant regional director of the Wilderness Society at the time, asked that the Obama administration implement the 2001 rule nationally, “rather than accept a state-specific rule that we don’t need.”

The next spring, while the 2001 rule was still in limbo, environmental groups including the Colorado Environmental Coalition created Colorado Deserves More in order to persuade the Obama Administration to increase the acreage to be included in the more restrictive top-tier category. The groups pointed to an analysis, which they created themselves, that claimed less than 13 percent of the state’s roadless areas would be given the top-tier protection.

At the time, Colorado Deserves More objected to parts of the Colorado Rule which would have allowed temporary roads to be built up to a half mile into the forest to thin trees infected by the devastating bark beetle. They also claimed that the allowance of crews on foot to thin infected trees an additional mile into the forests was unnecessary. Barry Noon claimed that “proposals to harvest bug-infested stands” don’t make sense due to the effects of roads on ecosystems.

In the summer of 2011, as fires ravaged the state of Texas, Republicans in Congress proposed new legislation that would have increased the ability to mitigate against forest fires and increase access for sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts. Representative Diana DeGette and the Colorado Environmental Coalition immediately attacked the legislation. DeGette framed her attack by claiming she was sticking up for her constituents while Republicans were “pushing on behalf of special interests” to take away the 2001 Roadless Rule protections entirely. Elise Jones, the executive director of the Colorado Environmental Coalition, echoed DeGette’s rhetoric saying the GOP-backed legislation was “a double threat to Colorado’s national forest roadless areas.”

In the fall of 2011 the fate of the 2001 Roadless rule was sealed and became the law of the land. Jones stated at the time that “the Colorado plan, which had been billed as an insurance policy, is no longer necessary.” She went on to say that our forests deserve the “full protection of the national roadless rule and nothing less.”

As fires began to spark Colorado this year, those who agitated against the Colorado Rule were silent. Rep. Cory Gardner, a Republican, began to question whether the enforcement of the 2001 Roadless Rule was a contributing factor to the conditions that allowed wildfires to spread so rapidly, burning tens of thousands of national forest land and ultimately destroying nearly seven hundred homes. “We will be asking for a full-blown investigation into whether or not roadless policies contributed to the severity of this fire,” Gardner told the Fort Collins Coloradoan.

For his concern, Gardner was met with criticism from Colorado Democrats. Senate President Brandon Shaffer accused Gardner of politicizing the fires, telling the Colorado Independent, “It’s unfortunate that he wants to politicize this fire,” and “there s no room for politicking.” Colorado Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio added, “we get this distraction and politicization from Congressman Gardner. This is completely inappropriate; he owes Coloradans an apology.” None of these admonishments voiced when Rep. Jarid Polis received a VIP tour of the High Park Fire Command Center, which is outside of Polis’ district, potentially violating congressional ethics rules.

Gardner, along with Representatives Scott Tipton, Doug Lamborn, and Mike Coffman, have banded together in the midst of the tragic Colorado fire season to propose legislation that would increase local control over forest management and wildfire prevention. Lamborn’s office released a statement on the proposal of the Healthy Forest Management Act of 2012 on his Congressional web site. The release summarizes the legislation stating that “By allowing governors, in consultation with county commissioners from affected counties as well as affected Indian tribes, to designate high-risk areas and develop emergency hazardous fuels reduction projects for those areas, states can better protect their communities, species habitats, water supplies, and natural areas, and help ameliorate those conditions that lead to unhealthy forests and wildfires.”

This post was originally published at Media Trackers Colorado.

A June 11 tweet from Polis describing his High Park Fire visit

When asked to clarify whether Polis’ visit qualified as a campaign event, Fitzgerald wrote, “No I am telling you he was already in the area and he was invited to tour the command center so he did. This wasn’t an ‘event’ of any kind, campaign, official or otherwise.” However, according to page 335 of the House Ethics Manual, “An activity may not be treated as both official and unofficial.” Polis’ tweet from the command center, which notes that he was there supporting Gardner’s efforts to solicit federal help, suggests that he was visiting the area in his official capacity.

A statement posted on Polis’ official .gov website two days later also contradicts Fitzgerald’s claim that no taxpayer funds had been used to facilitate or promote Polis’ out-of-district trip to the command post. “This week I travelled [sic] to Larimer County to see the High Park fire firsthand,” Larimer wrote at polis.house.gov, “to help ensure that all federal resources are being brought to bear.”

Polis may have violated House ethics rules again when he included in his official statement a link to the website of Help Colorado Now, a non-profit site that solicits donations for disaster relief. The Members Congressional Handbook, which is prepared by the House administration committee, states that official websites may link to non-governmental websites, but only “so long as the link content relates to the Member’s official and representational duties to the district from which he or she is elected.”

The same handbook notes that “[a]ccessing a web site (whether by using a link or by other means) is to be treated as a ‘solicited communication’ from a Member’s office.”

And while the House Ethics Manual, a separate document prepared by the House ethics committee, allows lawmakers to solicit donations on behalf of 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations like Help Colorado Now, it explicitly prohibits the lawmakers and their staff from using official resources — such as a .gov website — to do so.

“As a general matter, the [Ethics] Committee permits…Members and staff to solicit on behalf of organizations qualified under § 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code – including, for example, § 501(c)(3) charitable organizations – subject to certain restrictions,” page 348 of the manual states.  One of those restrictions, however, deals with the use of official resources, such as an official website managed by taxpayer-funded congressional staff.

“No official resources may be used,” the manual states. “Such official resources include House staff while working on official time, telephones, office equipment and supplies, and official mailing lists.”

The ethics handbooks also prohibits lawmakers and their staff from soliciting inside facilities owned and managed by the U.S. House. Although Media Trackers asked Polis’ communications director, Chris Fitzgerald, if his office sought the advice of the ethics committee prior to publishing the High Park Fire statement on Polis’ official .gov site, Fitzgerald did not respond in time for publication.

Polis' statement published at polis.house.gov

This post was originally published at Media Trackers Colorado.

Rick Palacio, Matt Inzeo, and Cindy Lowery-Graber

As previously reported by Media Trackers Colorado, Inzeo waited nearly a year after being hired by the state party to register to vote in Colorado. More important, Inzeo registered to vote a mere five days before the party’s March caucuses.  His outright refusal to answer whether he voted in the caucus raises serious questions about voter fraud since state lawexplicitly prohibits individuals who have been registered to vote for less than two months from voting in a party caucus.

However, state party chairman Rick Palacio and Denver county chair Cindy Lowery-Graber both told Media Trackers on the record that Inzeo did not vote in the March caucuses.  In fact, the two party operatives gave Media Trackers a nearly verbatim response.  “Matt Inzeo did not participate in the 2012 caucus,” Lowery-Graber wrote at 4:49 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5.  Nearly 24 hours later, Palacio responded via his iPhone that “Matt did not participate in the 2012 caucuses.”

When Media Trackers asked for caucus sign-in sheets to verify whether Inzeo participated in the caucus, Palacio refused to respond, while Lowery-Graber took to Twitter to say that “caucus sign in data is collected for specific party outreach purposes…and I am guessing this request isn’t for that.”  Lowery-Graber’s Twitter response to Media Trackers’ query was her first post on the social media site in 280 days.

Without being able to review the caucus sign-in sheets for Inzeo’s Denver precinct, it is impossible to independently verify that Inzeo did not commit voter fraud.

Although Inzeo was first hired as the communications director for Colorado Democrats in May of 2011, he did not register to vote in the state until March 1, 2012. Inzeo’s voter registration likely occurred at the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles according to both public records and a Twitter message he posted that same day. In fact, his voter registration in Colorado appears to have been only incidental since the Washington, D.C. license plates for his 2005 Toyota Corolla were set to expire on March 2, 2012 — the next day — according to public records.

In his Twitter posting on March 1, 2012, Inzeo noted his annoyance with an ongoing conversation near him and then included the hashtag “#ihavetheDMV,” which appears to be a typo for “ihatetheDMV.”  Barbara J. Brohl, the official who runs the Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles, is a registered Democrat.

Originally posted at Media Trackers Colorado

Colorado Democratic Party Communications Director Matt Inzeo

Publicly available voter registration records show that Inzeo registered to vote as a Democrat in Denver on March 1, 2012. However, his voter registration in Washington, D.C. — which dates back to January 10, 2006 — still remains active. Media Trackers spoke with an official at the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics last Thursday who confirmed that Inzeo’s D.C. voter registration remained active. The official told Media Trackers that while Inzeo did not vote in the district’s most recent 2012 election in April, he was certainly free and able to do so. Inzeo’s voter registration status in Colorado is also active according to public records.

Inzeo’s last vote in D.C. came in a special election held on April 26, 2011, roughly ten months before he registered to vote in Colorado.

Although Inzeo was first hired by the Colorado Democratic Party in May of 2011 according to his LinkedIn profile, he waited nearly a year before registering to vote in Colorado.  Inzeo’s voter registration became active a mere five days before the state party’s presidential nominating caucuses which were held on March 6, 2012.  State law requires prospective caucus participants to have been registered in the state for at least two months prior to voting in the caucus.

When Media Trackers attempted to contact Inzeo on his cell phone to ask whether he voted in the 2012 caucus, he abruptly hung up before providing any comment.

While holding an active voter registration in more than one jurisdiction at the same time is not specifically a crime, the mere ability to cast two votes raises serious questions about how states purge voter rolls of ineligible voters. Many states do not have effective rules in place to insure the integrity and validity of the voter rolls, leaving the door open for fraud and abuse. Voting rolls in Washington, D.C., for example, are purged only once every four years, while Colorado rolls are not purged on a regular basis at all.  Instead, the current system purges voters who have not participated in any of the two previous general elections.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler recently attempted to push through stronger vote integrity measures aimed at reducing the incidence of fraud, but a coalition of state Democrats — including Inzeo himself — and left-wing activists groups such as Common Cause sought to prevent the reforms.  In March, Inzeo and his boss, Colorado Democratic Party Chair Rick Palacio, suggested that Gessler be recalled from office for his reform attempts.

“If Scott Gessler is unwilling to fulfill his duties as a non-partisan election officer, the people of Colorado should consider all avenues necessary to remove him as Secretary of State,” Palacio said in a press release.  Palacio did not say at the time whether violent efforts like those of the Occupy movement fell within the category of “all avenues necessary” to remove an elected official from office.  The party chair’s press release was issued in response to Gessler’s testimony in the Colorado House against a measure that would have redefined inactive voters as active voters.

Colorado Common Cause lobbied for the redefinition of inactive voters and actively worked against Gessler and efforts by Colorado House Republicans to require photo identification to vote. Common Cause joined forces with Mi Familia Vota and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in litigation against Gessler, accusing him of voter suppression and violating federal election rules by performing actions meant to uphold the integrity of the Colorado voter rolls.

To date, the Inzeo-backed effort to recall Gessler has been less than successful.

Originally posted at Media Trackers Colorado

The Internal Revenue Service defines money laundering as “the process of disguising criminal proceeds and may include the movement of clean money through the United States with the intent to commit a crime in the future[.]” Inzeo did not specify which funds used to purchase ad buys in the state came from criminal activities. Although both major parties in the U.S. regularly use various committees to fund political activities, Inzeo’s comments appeared to be a direct attack on the Colorado GOP and so-called 527 committees funded by Republican donors and activists.

In 2010, the Denver Post looked into the various liberal 527′s and so-called Super Political Action Committees, or Super PACs, comparing their cash haul to that of conservative outside groups. Their analysis showed a glaring disparity, giving Democrats a clear advantage that year.

Liberal vs. Conservative 527 Money Via The Denver Post

While the comparison in this chart is stunning, the Denver Post also provided readers with a glimpse into the “money laundering” operations of the Left — operations that should stun campaign finance skeptics like Inzeo.

A Liberal Flow of Political Cash Via The Denver Post

Colorado liberals are no stranger to the various ways of shuffling money between finance committees. In fact, they have managed rather well, turning a once-solid red state into a purple state. Accountability for Colorado, a liberal 527 whose top donor is the Colorado Education Association, and which the Pueblo Chieftan called “despicable” for their ads in the 2010 election cycle, gave $250,000 in a single check to the Neighborhood Project, a liberal 527 that received $100,000 checks from teachers unions and AFSCME according to a 2010 Denver Post article . The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) gave Accountability for Colorado $200,000, also in a single check.

These charts barely scratch the surface of the vast liberal financing network in Colorado. As previously reported by Media Trackers, well-funded national organizations are regularly used by the Left to coordinate and fund progressive “grassroots” efforts in states like Colorado. Money flows into the coffers of special interests and candidates from such sources as State Voices, the General Service Fund, Democracy Alliance, and more.

Based on the last election cycle, Democratic leaning 527′s totaled 99% of all non federal 527 activity in Colorado political races. Matt Inzeo should be careful about throwing around legal terms like “money laundering”. Especially when the actions he seems so critical of are relied upon so heavily by those funneling money to Democratic and progressive candidates.

Originally posted at Media Trackers Colorado