The new Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA) apparently has some detractors. I received a copy of the following complaint:
CITIZENS FOR LIBERTY
Be advised that the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA) is an egregious violation of the Consitution of the State of Colorado, as well as an odious assault upon the rights and citizens of Longmont and Colorado.
The Citizens for Liberty is currently preparing a legal challenge to this ordinance.
Refer to: Colo. Const. art. II, sec.10; cf. Colo. Const. art. XXVII, sec. 5
The City of Longmont is hereby directed to immediately withdraw this ordinance.
The City of Longmont is cautioned to seek competent legal counsel, and citizen input, before attempting to unconstitutionally restrain the rights of citizens.
You have been advised and warned.
Citizens for Liberty
I don’t know if this person or group really exist, I’ve never heard of them nor has anyone else I’ve asked. I’m not so sure of the validity of any of the above, but that’s not to say someone else out there might be thinking the same thing. I have some serious issues with parts of this new ordinance which I will spell out one at a time – mostly unintended (I hope and assume) consequences.
After sending several questions and concerns to the Election Committee, and going through this ordinance over and over, I’m coming to the opinion that the effect of these new rules, intended or not, will stifle citizen involvement in the campaign process. I think more people will feel the rules are so complex and convoluted that it’s just not worth their effort to get involved, unless they have an attorney on retainer at all times. I’ll give you specific examples in the weeks ahead.
I didn’t like that the budget for their “special counsel” had to be as high as it was ($10,000 for now), but considering what may be to come, they might need every penny of that and then some. The Election Committee and City Clerk may not answer certain questions pertaining to the ordinance, except with the disclaimer “I’m not an attorney” and refer it to the City Attorney or Special Counsel. The fact they are concerned about the money for this special counsel tells me they expect legal challenges, or questions they just can’t or wont answer.
Which brings me back to the beginning of this story: If they have to have an attorney on hand all of the time, and all of the murkiness of this ordinance (in my and others opinions), maybe it wasn’t written as well as previously thought. Or maybe people are realizing that if read literally this ordinance is not very citizen friendly.