Study up on dark money. The results of speaking up--a (rare) response to an open letter. Some legal nickel knowledge.
Study up on dark money.
In the course of researching for my writing I come across things which I think are worth sharing on their own. The link below is an example.
It's a little dated (updated last in 2020 and referring back to 2018), but the concepts are not. "Dark Money" is money that comes into politics without any disclosure as to its source. Colorado, thanks to some monied Democrats (Jared Polis, I'm looking in your direction) has been awash in it in the past. It is now as well.
This doesn't mean Democrats are the only ones who have a nasty habit of using it. It just means they perfected its use in Colorado. Republicans have used it in other places around the US in the past, and they're catching up admirably here. The book "The Blueprint" is a great reference for how big money with little disclosure took root here.
The report below focuses in on Arabella Advisors, a BIG player in left-leaning political money and activism. They are everywhere. Their fingers are in lots of pies. They make, therefore, a good starting point.
Arabella is something like an air traffic controller, they help guide money to different nonprofits, they help connect the super wealthy and foundations to causes to fund.
Quoting the report:
"It’s important to note that Arabella Advisors provides a service to the Left. The funds flowing from its four in-house nonprofts originated with other liberal funders, particularly wealthy foundations. What makes this money especially 'dark' is how it passes through the Arabella groups—which aren’t required to publicly reveal their donors—to other activist groups outside the Arabella network. This makes it almost impossible to pin any of the Arabella network’s grants or pop-up projects to funding from a particular foundation."
See also screenshot 1 attached which diagrams the above.
There is a lot in the report, and I will leave it to you to read up as much as you have a mind to. I think it's worth it even if the numbers (and some of the names) are dated, even if it can be sometimes a bit dry, because learning a little of how anonymous money flows around and through our politics is important. The names of some of the players may have changed a little since the report was written, but believe me that none of the plays have changed.
If you want to join the conversation, you have to know the language, in other words. The below is a pretty good primer.
https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/CRC_TheShadowOverAmerica-09-10-2020_FINAL.pdf
The results of speaking up--a (rare) response to an open letter.
I like the quote I put at the header of this post because it sums up well what I tell people: pick something, pick one thing, to get involved in, to speak up on. You don't need to make it a full time job. You don't have to be perfect. You just have to be present.
I'll give you an example. I wrote a bit back about an error I saw on the newly-created site "Let's Talk Guns Colorado" (see the first link below). That site copied, word for word, Democrat and gun control advocates' words in support of their recent legislation forcing a 3 day waiting period for gun purchases.
Part of that post included an open letter to the authors of the site.
I just got a response back from them to the letter (a rarity). I wanted to share it with you out of fairness to them and to show you that speaking up matters, that it can have a definite and positive effect on things here in Colorado.
The new language on the website is in screenshot 1 (taken from the second link below).
I will also share the email I got back in response to my open letter (quoting my email with the link they embedded left intact):
"Thanks for reaching out to us. We appreciate your feedback. The Rand Corporation recently released a review of waiting periods’ impact on multiple firearm-related outcomes. The review references several studies that indicate that waiting periods are associated with a reduction in firearm-related suicides and homicides. Given this, we have updated the website. Thank you again for connecting with us regarding the awareness campaign. We appreciate your willingness to share your feedback and contribute to the discussion of firearm violence prevention."
This is not world changing. No one email could have done that. But imagine how differently this looks now and the impressions of someone who would happen upon this in contrast to what it said before.
What it is, however, is an example of the slow, but vital, work that people like you and I need to undertake in order to bring this state back to a more thoughtful, centrist policy that works for more people and not just the fringes.
It is also an illustration of yet another way you can be involved without a giant commitment. Do you have some sort of specialized knowledge or experience in some field? If you see a mistake in a news article, if you see a mistake on a government page, take 10 minutes from your day to send a polite email outlining that mistake and correcting it.
It may result in nothing, but it may not. Take the time. Also, if you are of a mind to, share your letter or email with me. It might be worth a share and making it an open email.
https://letstalkgunscolorado.com/faq/
Some legal nickel knowledge.
There is a legal concept called preemption. There's more to it than this, but for our purposes, it's enough to know that, in cases of overlap, Federal Law supersedes state law and likewise for state vs. local.
For example, in 2019, the Democrats passed a law that set a state standard for energy codes (see the first link below). Local governments are free to adopt energy codes that are more strict, but they cannot adopt less strict codes or, say, not have one altogether.
A fight over preemption is outlined in the Colorado Politics article linked second below, but it isn't about energy codes. It's about ethics policy.
Voters in 2006 approved an amendment to the Colorado Constitution which put in place an ethics policy for the whole state. That amendment is in the third link below if you want to see the text.
Part of that amendment spelled out how preemption should work. Quoting the Colorado Politics article,
"Under subsection 7 of the state ethics law, a constitutional amendment adopted by voters in 2006, 'any county or municipality may adopt ordinances or charter provisions with respect to ethics matters that are more stringent than any of the provisions contained in this article. The requirements of this article shall not apply to home rule counties or home rule municipalities that have adopted charters, ordinances, or resolutions that address the matters covered by this article.'"
It may not look it, but there are actually two different things going on here. Any local government is free to adopt policies at least or more strict than Amendment 41, unless that municipality is a home rule municipality that already has its own ethics policy (then, and I'm not a lawyer, presumably that home rule policy takes precedence).
Despite the two differences, the State Ethics Committee (created in Amendment 41 to decide matters of ethics) has stepped in on local ethics matters more than once, and also in home rule jurisdictions, claiming local policies were not stringent enough.
This has resulted in a few lawsuits which are covered in the Colorado Politics article. There are more details in the article, but a ruling came down recently on the issue of when and where the State Ethics Committee can step in on local issues and where they can't.
In short, the court upheld the idea that home rule municipalities (per long established case law in Colorado) have the authority to decide on matters of ethics and the state board does not.
Score one for local control, and score one for (at least for me) learning some new arcane facts about how things work in Colorado.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1260
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/colorado-ethics-commission-jurisdiction/article_24b1d36a-b649-11ef-bb65-7f57dbb65ce8.html
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/laws/COConstitution/ArticleXXIX.html#:~:text=(4)%20Notwithstanding%20any%20provisions%20of,then%20every%20four%20years%20thereafter
I could be mistaken but as far as I understand Rand's work, they didn't do any studies themselves. Instead they did a literature review. While these have their place, they likely didn't look too deeply into the methodology of the individual studies. So if the studies contain bias or other errors (as they often do with gun studies) really all they did was perpetuate a game of telephone.