Now Pommer is taking possibly illegal contributions?

The fun never seems to stop with Representative John “Jack” Pommer and campaign finance laws. One might ask why I’m on Part 3 of this saga, good question. If the paper that covers most of his district (that would be the Times-Call) was doing its job and covering it as it should, I wouldn’t have to bother. But it’s not, and I don’t understand why. This isn’t opinion; it’s fact, it’s news.

It was bad enough when he was clearly in violation of late or no reporting owing $20,000 (found here) and then finally paid the fines, but not all of them (found here). The only people who seemed to notice or care where his apologists who saw something inspirational about an elected official caught cheating. Once it got more visibility and hits at Examiner.Com, they became truly unhinged.

Here’s some info for those that don’t know, although I’ve said it repeatedly: I was the original Longmont Examiner and part of the original class of Examiners, which now number over 1,600 nationwide. Last year my wife took over that job as I no longer had time for it, and has been getting way more traffic than I ever did. She was exactly what they were looking for, and is consistently ranked in the top tier in her category. Quite a feat for someone who writes about a little place called Longmont.

She made no secret of who she was married to (although I don’t see how that really matters) through her bio and a profile of what I do. Another point I made publicly was how she was taking over the majority role in our Voter Registration Drive (VRD) called Vote! Longmont, and has written and spoken publicly about it. This Pommer issue was right up her alley as she had just addressed this at a Longmont City Council meeting about a related subject. She is more than capable to speak to these issues and doesn’t need me or anyone else as a “source”. Nor does she need a disclaimer any time she writes who her significant other is. It’s idiocy that this even has to be explained, right?

See, we are what I like to call (I’ll speak slowly) a “team”. We usually investigate and write about different things, but sometimes they cross, like this Pommer story did. I even warned her of the nutjobs that would come after her over what was a pretty fair treatment of Mr. Pommer – way more kind than I was. And they didn’t disappoint, right on cue. Nevermind that every part of the story was true, they just couldn’t have this kind of coverage, and the messengers must be attacked as “pushing an agenda based on lies and false objectivity.” And this was after it was reported Mr. Pommer admitted his mistake. But that doesn’t matter.

Well, like the beginning of this article says, Mr. Pommer might have more troubles. This according to Face The State (yes, that’s a source, which now makes me a source?): “Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, has since filed another late report. The latest document is raising eyebrows because it contains more than $5,000 in lobbyist contributions that may be illegal.”

“On the April 16 report, Pommer lists campaign contributions from registered lobbyists and special interest groups made on February 5. The date is significant, as it falls exactly a month into the legislative session. Under Colorado campaign finance law, it is illegal for lobbyists or special interest groups that lobby to give or solicit money for the campaigns of state office-holders while the legislature is in session.

“The way the law reads, it says lobbyists shall not give,” said Rich Coolidge, spokesman for the Secretary of State. “The burden falls on the lobbyist.”

“Lobbyist contributions came from Jane Urschel of the Colorado Association of School Boards and consultant Thomas Shilling, as well as the Colorado Professional Firefighters, the Colorado Livestock Association, the Qwest Employees Political Action Committee, and the Boulder Valley Education Association. The total contributions from these six entities total $5150.”

“While the possibility exists that Pommer may have received the contributions prior to the start of the legislative session, state law requires that candidates report the contributions were they are received, not when they are deposited.” (emphasis added)
—————————————————-
Here’s a heads-up (you obviously saw this coming), I wouldn’t be surprised if the Longmont Examiner (full disclosure: that’s my wife) covers this in more detail as it’s as much or more up her alley than mine. Apologies to all you normal, common-sensical people for wasting your time having to explain the obvious. Others apparently require it.

About Chris Rodriguez

Chris is the editor/publisher of LightningRod Blog - as well as founder/editor of Wrongmont, Longmont Advocate, Vote!Longmont, Longmont Politics, the LightningRod Radio Network, as well as being the original Longmont Examiner. Chris is a writer and talker - whether it be blogs, podcasts, music, or public speaking. When he's not heard on Air Traffic radio, he can be heard on his podcasts or seen in the local paper causing trouble.
Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>