As this is the second reading of three, and as the Dems hold the presidents seat. all are expected to pass on voice votes, no matter how thin the voices.
Third and final votes will be held later. I have no info on when, but probably next week.
There is now a possibility that the Seung-Hui Cho campus rape and massacre preservation act may be withdrawn in light of the unfavorable publicity some of the legislators have received attempting to defend it. Write Rollie Heath and urge that he withdraw the bill until such time as campus rape becomes more socially acceptable.
The Denver Pest is reporting:
The sponsor of a bill banning concealed weapons on college campuses plans to kill his measure Friday, Democrats have confirmed.Other sources such as Senate President John Morse, are not yet ready to let women defend themselves and suggest that the bill will go forward.
Update: Complete Colorado is now reporting 2 down. The Rape and Massacre Preservation Act, 1226 and the Welfare for Lawyers Liability Acts (SB13-196)were pulled by their sponsors. NOTE CC link probably only valid for today. There is one more reading at which everyone will have to actually go on record, then off to the Governor who will do what the Mayor tells him.
3 comments:
I wonder, with all the reference to out of state funding and interference in the legislature, that no complaints of interstate interference with the legislature, corrupting of public officials have been filed against out of state organizations and/or individuals.
I mean, any elected official should have to tolerate "I will vote for your opponent if you don't do what I like!". But "I will *buy* your opponent the next election", coming from an out-of-state source, should be considered tampering, and illegal.
I was thinking that in order to vote on a bill, a legislator should have to enumerate *every* influence, direct and indirect, that has been brought to his attention -- especially for any organization with scope and membership outside Colorado. Maybe even detailing any money or influence offers/demands/suggestions, including organizational assistance, promises regarding future elections, etc.
If it isn't against Colorado law to accept monies from out of state interests, it might be worth considering.
As far as I know, it is not illegal for anyone in the U.S. to contribute to any US election campaign. Things done in one state can obviously impact things done in other states so a resident in Texas would have an interest in a tax proposal in California.
On the one hand it would bring the business to Texas. On the other, it also drives Californians to Texas where they expect the same amenities that drove the tax hike in CA.
It would be nice if there were any way to make out of state contributions more visible.
There is a wider issue of when money and efforts from out of state, or even from within the state, influence and supersede the needs and will of the state constituents.
And, too, the Federal ban on foreign contributions to national campaigns, at least prior to the Obama administration, set a significant precedent for assuring that Coloradans determine the directions Colorado takes, and that Oklahoma legislatures, and governor, represent the interests of the people of Oklahoma regardless of what New York, California, and Texas might or might not want. Paying to get a bill passed does not pay for the cost to the treasury and civil liberties of the Coloradan, or Oklahoman peoples.
Post a Comment