Decision on Campaign Finance Violation

The independent hearing officer made a determination absolving Lakewood and the referendum petitioners in the campaign finance complaint. The complaint was registered by Kip Kolkmeier against the zoning referendum petitioners. The findings say that there is room for interpretation how to safeguard a democratic government.

All the information on this is included at this link to the independent hearing officer’s decision. The document is 197 pages in length but includes the original complaint, the City Clerk’s response to the Complaint, the 8 page hearing officer decision and the full transcript of the hearing.

Key quotes from the findings:

• “It is self-evident that the letter and spirit of Colorado’s Campaign Finance laws have been
  established to protect against corruption and the appearance of corruption in campaigns for
  political candidates, which Petitioners are not. Whether their activities were related to a
  “campaign,” as the term is used in state Campaign Finance laws, is therefore unclear. This, when
  combined with the previously established fact that the Petitioners’ conduct, by definition, does not
  constitute a Ballot issue under the Chapter, further calls into question whether the scope of Chapter
  2.54 applies to the Petitioners’ activities at all.”
• Chapter 2.52 includes an express acknowledgement that nothing in the Chapter is intended to abridge “in any
  manner the powers reserved to the people in the initiative and referendum,” but to properly
  “safeguard, protect and preserve inviolate for them these modern instrumentalities of democratic
  government.” In this light, it must be noted that the construct of the Code, particularly the interplay
  of Chapters 2.52 and 2.54, appears to leave room for interpretation.

The determination reads: “Hearing Officer’s Determination: Upon consideration of the evidence presented and review of relevant authorities, I determine that notwithstanding the clarity of the language in Section 2.54.030(B)(1) when read in a vacuum which requires initiative petitioners and referendum petitioners to register, the defined scope of Chapter 2.54 does not appear to cover the type of activity actually engaged in by Petitioners and that the overall construct of the Code, particularly the interplay between Chapters 2.54 and 2.52 further calls into question whether the Petitioners’ activity violated the Code.”

Direct download: kolkmeier-decision

Details from the hearing day held on November 20 can be found by clicking here.