The Colorado Independent - Latest Comments in Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:33:05 -0000

katy's reply Am I planning on running for Congress in CD 2? I don't even live in CD2. Plus, friends don't let friends run for Congress.

Thanks for having me as a guest today.

Enjoy the good weather.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:31:36 -0000

katy's reply If there's a moral to the Amendment 41 story, it's be very careful about amending the constitution. Whether the measure is sponsored by Common Cause or by Douglas Bruce, amending the constitution is something we ought to avoid.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Wendy Norris — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:31:07 -0000

thanks to Katy for her time this morning Thank you so much for joining us today to learn more about Amendment 41.

Please feel free to stop back as there may be additional questions during the course of the day.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Wendy Norris — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:30:53 -0000

who isn't running in CO-02?! Heh.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Cara DeGette — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:30:05 -0000

Katy in '08 Are you planning to run for congress in CD2?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Wendy Norris — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:29:18 -0000

any points you'd like to make, Katy? That we haven't brought up here?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:27:36 -0000

katy's reply Profiles of the plaintiffs can be found on The First Amendment Council's web site www.firstamendmentcouncil.org

Like Common Cause, the First Amendment Council is not required to disclose our donors. I can say that we're being supported by both businesses and nonprofit groups.

The groups officers are Bill Becker from Adams County Economic Development, Inc. and former state senator Norma Anderson.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Cara DeGette — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:24:35 -0000

Follow the money Out of curiousiy, who are the seven plaintiffs and how did you find them? Also, is the First Amendment Council being funded by the same groups who opposed 41 last fall?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:23:05 -0000

katy's reply I think the Washington scandals had everything to do with voters approving Amendment 41. The voters were ready to tar and feather any politician, preferably Republican, they could get their hands on.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Wendy Norris — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:20:45 -0000

context of the voter mood In the lead up to the November election, there was significant national media coverage of the ongoing lobbyist scandals regarding Jack Abramoff, CA Rep. Randy Cunningham, TX Rep. Tom Delay and others.

What, if any, affect do you think hearing those :30 snippets on the evening news had on the voters' perception that corruption was also occuring in the Colorado Statehouse?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:18:17 -0000

katy's reply Our motion for preliminary injunction will be coming very soon. If I could give you an exact date I would, but you know lawyers...

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:17:15 -0000

katy's reply It's important to remember that, prior to passage of 41, Colorado already had a number of statutes regulating ethical behavior. One statute subjects public officers, members of the general assebly, local government officials, or an employee whose conduct departs from his or her fiduciary duty liable to the people of Colorado.

If folks want tougher ethics laws, the statutes are the right place to put them.

It's impossible to predict the cost of our legal challenge. It all depends on how far the district court decision is appealed.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Cara DeGette — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:15:41 -0000

Preliminary injunction Why hasn't your group requested preliminary injunctive relief in the lawsuit? Are you planning to? If so, when?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Wendy Norris — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:14:37 -0000

thanks... What language would your group have preferred to be included or excluded from the measure as it stands now?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:14:11 -0000

katy's reply If the voters are asked to revisit the issue, I hope it's not in the form of another constitutional amendment.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Wendy Norris — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:13:41 -0000

if your group is successful what would be the outcome?

- the court sets aside the amendment?

- it reverts back to the voters with clarifying language?

- something else?

Any ideas on how much an action like this will cost?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:12:55 -0000

katy's reply I believe the courts will find that 41 is unconstitutional which creates a clean slate. The legislature can adopt an ethics code that means what it says or voters can adopt something that is more carefully crafted.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:11:08 -0000

katy's reply I'm working with The First Amendment Council. It's a nonprofit corporation that has retained former CO Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky and Doug Friednash to represent seven plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to 41.

The attorneys filed a complaint in Denver Dist. Court asserting that 41 violates certain fundamental rights including, the right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom to petition government and unlawfully interferes with private contracts. In addition, the complaint contends that 41 is unconstitutionally vague and violates Colorado's single subject rule.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Wendy Norris — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:08:59 -0000

what would you propose in terms of a remedy?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:07:50 -0000

katy's reply The plain language of Amendment 41 lost the forest. In other words, it goes far beyond its stated purpose.

I guess the bottom line is that you should be very, very careful when you amend the constitution and the authors of 41 were very careless and now we're left with a mess where the legislature is being asked to vote for a bill whose basic premise is that Amendment 41 doesn't mean what it says.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Cara DeGette — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:07:31 -0000

some basics Perhaps you can explain a bit more thoroughly exactly what your group hopes to accomplish through your lawsuit. And a bit more about who the group is. Do you oppose ethics in government?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Wendy Norris — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:05:30 -0000

opposition's point Mark Grueskin in a Q&A; here last week focused on the issue of "violation of public trust" in promoting the intent of Amendment 41.

Do you agree that we're losing the forest for the trees in this discussion on what the measure intended?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:02:16 -0000

katy's reply I never objected to 41's purpose. Who could object to ethics in government? My concern has always been that the measure is so broad that it misses the target, impacting "innocent" government workers, rather than simply regulating the relationship between lobbyists and legislators.

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Wendy Norris — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:58:37 -0000

back to basics I think there's a lot of assumptions being made on both sides of this issue as to where folks stand -- often for political soundbite expediency and sometimes, ignorance, about one anothers' nuances of this measure.

Would you explain your opposition to Amendment 41's purpose and language?

Re: Live Q&A with Katy Atkinson

katy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:58:35 -0000

katy's reply The irony of the situation is pretty amazing. Someone who purports to hate the idea of lobbyists spending money to influence legislators is spending small fortune influencing legislators,