After reading this piece, I looked on the Secretary of State's campaign finance tracker and Clean Government Colorado, Yes on 54 campaign has posted their donors as required by law.
Furthermore, why is the Yes on 54 amendment considered anti-union? As a contractor who has seen first-hand the lies, corruption, and deception that goes on in the no-bid contracting process, why don't you do a little research on how business is currently being conducted on the inside instead of carrying the water for Jess Knox and Protect Colorado's Future.
You are just glossing over the shady backroom deals that these unions and corruption government contractors are arranging with legislators while fleecing the taxpayers who foot the bill for the contract and the payback contribution by "cost overruns".
Yes on 54 has it right. We need transparency and we need it now. I encourage to visit their website (http://cleangovernmentcolorado.com) to get the facts for yourself and vote Yes on 54!
ErinRosa
· 1 year ago
If you go to the Secretary of State's campaign finance tracker you will see that nearly all of the contributions are listed at coming from Colorado At It's Best, thereby hiding the true identity of the donors.
Please note that I never alleged that the Yes on 54 camp was doing anything illegal. It's just an interesting fact that they are running with the “transparency” message, when they can't even disclose their actual funders.
The Institute and their supporters are quick to to paint 54 as somehow stopping corruption, but if you actually read the legislation, it's really an elaborate political move meant to cut off contributions that would most likely go to Democrats. It is because of this fact and in the interest of truth that I will continue to refer to this proposal as anti-union.
You're certainly welcome to support whatever ballot measures you like, but skirting campaign messages and reporting the truth is important in all instances, whether it be with Protect Colorado's Future or the Independence institute.
I'm not exactly sure what “shady backroom deals” you're referring to, but if you have a tip about possible corruption in state government I'd encourage you to send it to tips@coloradoindependent.com.
Thanks for reading.
thegrunt
· 1 year ago
Who would oppose Clean Government for Colorado?
tallport
· 1 year ago
Why shouldn't state employees have the same rights and federal employees? Why shouldn't all employees have the right to form and join unions and other basic job protections? 54 interferes with legitimate agreements in the workplace, does nothing to help taxpayers and threatens the safety and morale of first responders, ie, Fire Fighters, Police, and Public safety officials. It is a perfect example of government interference to appease extreme elements of the right wing. Vote No 47, 49, and 54 and yes 53 and 55.
thegrunt
· 1 year ago
AGree YES on 47, 54 and 53 to stop inside dealing bosses extortion of the workers
All Comments
Furthermore, why is the Yes on 54 amendment considered anti-union? As a contractor who has seen first-hand the lies, corruption, and deception that goes on in the no-bid contracting process, why don't you do a little research on how business is currently being conducted on the inside instead of carrying the water for Jess Knox and Protect Colorado's Future.
You are just glossing over the shady backroom deals that these unions and corruption government contractors are arranging with legislators while fleecing the taxpayers who foot the bill for the contract and the payback contribution by "cost overruns".
Yes on 54 has it right. We need transparency and we need it now. I encourage to visit their website (http://cleangovernmentcolorado.com) to get the facts for yourself and vote Yes on 54!
Please note that I never alleged that the Yes on 54 camp was doing anything illegal. It's just an interesting fact that they are running with the “transparency” message, when they can't even disclose their actual funders.
The Institute and their supporters are quick to to paint 54 as somehow stopping corruption, but if you actually read the legislation, it's really an elaborate political move meant to cut off contributions that would most likely go to Democrats. It is because of this fact and in the interest of truth that I will continue to refer to this proposal as anti-union.
You're certainly welcome to support whatever ballot measures you like, but skirting campaign messages and reporting the truth is important in all instances, whether it be with Protect Colorado's Future or the Independence institute.
I'm not exactly sure what “shady backroom deals” you're referring to, but if you have a tip about possible corruption in state government I'd encourage you to send it to tips@coloradoindependent.com.
Thanks for reading.