

Out-of-state union cash funds opponents of worker-choiceThroughout the 2008 election season, 9NEWS is committed to holding those who take out political commercials on our station and My20 accountable for what they say. The following is a Truth Test on an ad called "Deceptive," that's currently running on 9NEWS and My20.
It's paid for by a group called Protect Colorado's Future, which is registered as an issue committee with the Colorado Secretary of State's office. Its stated purpose when it filed in February 2008 was to support numerous initiatives (#57, #62, #73, #74, #75, #76, #123 and #124) and to oppose numerous others (Amendment 47 and Initiatives #53 and #59). Editor's note: Initiatives #57, #62, #73, #75, #123 and #124 have since been pulled from consideration.
The group defines itself as follows on its Web site (www.protectcoloradosfuture.org): "Protect Colorado's Future is made up of progressive groups and individuals from around Colorado who've come together to work on the important issues facing our state - issues like creating good jobs and providing affordable health care. We support measures that will protect our future and oppose special interest policies that will set us back."
According to campaign finance records filed with Colorado's Secretary of State's office, their largest donors are both in-state unions and out-of-state unions. For example, their four largest recent donors are: Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1001 in Westminster gave $20,000 and the AFL-CIO in Washington gave $47,000 on July 2. National Education Association gave $47,000 on June 22nd and the Oregon State Council of Service Employees gave $45,000 on June 17. SEIU Local 105 in Denver donated $19,373.78 on June 30. (Source: Secretary of State Campaign Finance Record)
"Deceptive"
QUOTE: How far will the backers of Amendments 47, 53 and 59 go? Too far. (Photos of Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier, Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial) and Independence Institute President Jon Caldara fly through the screen.)
TRUTH: The sentiment conveyed here is opinion, but the fashion in which it's conveyed is false.
As it stands now, Amendment 47, otherwise known as the "Right to Work" amendment, has been approved for the ballot. It seeks to prevent any worker from being required to join a union or pay union dues in order to keep their job. (Source: Colorado Legislative Services' Ballot Initiative)
The other two ballot initiatives referred to, #53 and #59, have not yet qualified for the ballot. Therefore to refer to them as "amendments" is inaccurate. At the state level, that title is only given to measures which will be placed before voters in the fall and they only qualify as amendments after receiving the appropriate numbers of valid signatures of Colorado citizens on petitions submitted to the Colorado Secretary of State's office. There are routinely far more initiatives each election season seeking to qualify for the state ballot than there are actual amendments which are successful.
These two measures do seek to limit union power among workers in government.
Frazier was listed as an initial contact on Amendment 47. Spence was listed as an initial contact on Initiative 53 and Caldara was listed as an initial contact on Initiative 59. (Source: Colorado Legislative Services' Ballot Initiative)
QUOTE: First, we found out their efforts have been described as fraudulent and deceptive. (Citations on bottom of the screen include: Denver Daily News, May 30, 2008, Denver Post, April 6, 2008, Rocky Mountain New, July 8, 2008)
TRUTH: This certainly needs some context and there are those who would see the citations listed on the bottom of the screen and label them somewhat deceptive.
That's because if you look at the Denver Daily News from May 30, 2008 (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=624) or the Denver Post from April 6, 2008 (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8818688?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com) or www.rockymountainnews.com (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/08/business-briefing-july-9/) from July 8, 2008, you will find that the people describing the measures as "fraudulent" and "deceptive" are the very people behind this commercial. They're quotes from officers with Protect Colorado's Future.
Protect Colorado's Future has filed a lawsuit against the supporters of those ballot measures alleging fraud and deception, but its claims have not been decided by a judge. Certainly, the newspapers cited at the bottom of the screen have not come to that conclusion either.
QUOTE: But now, we find out their campaigns hired criminals to get their measures on the ballot.
TRUTH: This is true, but requires some context as well.
Under Colorado law, companies that are hired to circulate petitions are not required to do criminal background checks. A measure to prevent anyone with a criminal background from collecting signatures was vetoed earlier this year by Gov. Bill Ritter (D-Colorado), who believed it improperly distinguished between paid and volunteer signature gatherers. 9Wants to Know Reporter Jace Larson recently did a story detailing the issue. (Source: http://www.9news.com/news/investigative/article.aspx?storyid=95452&catid=207)
There are numerous initiatives circulating petitions throughout Colorado right now covering a wide assortment of topics. It is entirely possible that any of them could have individuals who have been convicted of a crime gathering signatures.
A spokeswoman for Colorado's prison system told Larson for his story last week that it's important to keep in mind that convicted felons have a tough time finding a job once they are out of the criminal system. The State of Colorado has only about 350 felony-friendly employers, said Katherine Sanguinetti, spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections.
QUOTE: Criminals who have committed fraud, assault, forgery - even a criminal who's a registered sex offender.
TRUTH: Part of this statement is true and part is false.
The three mug shots that are shown on the screen are John Respondek, Farrell Griffin and John Bizzell, respectively. They are the individuals Larson highlighted in his 9NEWS story last week. Griffin was convicted of assault, stemming from an incident in April 1986 and Bizzell is a registered sex offender, dating from incidents in 1998, 1999 and 2000. (Source: Colorado Court Database, www.CoCourts.com, accessed on July 16, 2008 by 9NEWS)
However, none of the men cited was convicted for either forgery or fraud. Griffin and Respondek were arrested on those charges in the past, but either the charges were never filed, were dismissed or were part of a plea bargain where the accused pleaded guilty to a different charge. (Source: Colorado Court Database, www.CoCourts.com, accessed on July 16, 2008 by 9NEWS)
An arrest is not the same thing as a conviction. It is an important distinction that is not inconsequential in the eyes of the justice system.
QUOTE: Maybe they think it's OK for criminals to get our personal information if it helps move their agenda. But now, we know. It's time for them to stop the campaign of fraud and deception.
TRUTH: This is opinion.
We gave the three individuals singled out in the commercial an opportunity to respond. This is Ryan Frazier's unedited response: "The Right to Work Committee hired reputable firms to collect signatures in support of Amendment 47, and more than 136,000 signatures were collected to qualify Amendment 47 for the November ballot. The Right to Work Committee worked above-board during the entire process, including the process of hiring the signature-gathering firms. Amendment 47 has qualified and WILL be on the ballot in November. The people, not courts, will decide the fate of Amendment 47, and this ad is nothing more than a desperate attempt to talk about something other than Right to Work. I ask everyone interested in this issue, from all sides and viewpoints, to focus on having a spirited exchange based on the merit and substance of the amendment."
Jon Caldara's unedited comments are also posted below:
"They say we hired criminals. We hired no petition gatherers. We contracted with a professional firm who, in turn, legally contacted with individuals. A good analogy would be if we went to a printer to get campaign postcards made and the printer contracted with a "criminal" to run the press. What would that have to do with our initiative? How could that make any proponent guilty of a campaign of "fraud and deceit?"
Interestingly, the same big labor groups hired the exact same firm two years ago to get petitions for their minimum wage amendment, and didn't ask for background checks then. The pot calls the kettle black.
Further, on our initiative we required ALL petitioners to sign a form saying they understood the initiative, would not misrepresent it and would follow the law in getting signatures. (happy to show you the forms) Not too sure what else we could do.
The petitions for 53 have just been turned in, so how would they know who our petitioners were? It hasn't even been certified yet and I doubt it was even open to public viewing before they ran the ad. Number 59 hasn't even been filed yet! Yet they know the petitions that will be turned in? Impossible.
The ad implies that Nancy is involved somehow with 59. She is not attached to it at all. Their complaint to the Secretary of State has her name as the sponsor of 59. What an embarrassing and sloppy error. For questions on 59 you should talk to them, Tom Lucero is the point man.
And finally, shouldn't they be complaining about Governor Ritter??? He vetoed HB 1406 which would have outlawed "criminals" from petitioning. Nancy (Spence) voted for the bill!" - Jon Caldara
When presented with the story above, Protect Colorado's Future issued the following statement. We have posted it in its entirety without edit:
"We doubt that the family members of people who signed these petitions will feel more secure, knowing that criminals circulated petitions and got personal information about our citizens, but were the beneficiaries of plea bargains. We trust that the police officers who arrested and charged these men had sufficient evidence of fraud and illegal use of credit cards at the time of the arrests. Nothing has come to our attention to suggest that the evidence gathered and the legal conclusions arrived at by the arresting officers were inaccurate.
This is a serious public safety issue. When personal information falls into the wrong hands of persons who could follow any of the petition signers home, everyone should be concerned. The fact that the firms running these programs, Kennedy & Associates and Lamm Consulting, continue to refuse to run background checks to help keep us all safe is something that every citizen walking into a grocery store ought to know." - Protect Colorado's Future
(9news.com)