Face The State Staff Report
The House State Affairs Committee will consider a bill next week that would establish funding for a state database of sole-source government contracts, as required through November's voter-approved Amendment 54.
Amendment 54, which won narrow voter approval in spite of millions of dollars in union money put up against it, was just one of two statewide initiatives to be approved by voters in 2008, with eight others failing. The measure restricts the recipients of sole-source, also known as no-bid, government contracts of $100,000 or more from contributing to political candidates. It also required the creation of a searchable database of the recipients of such contracts.
“In the age of pay-to-play, Rod Blagojevich and Bill Richardson, people are demanding greater government transparency,” said Tom Lucero, Amendment 54’s campaign manager and a University of Colorado regent.
Under Amendment 54, broad rulemaking authority was given to the Department of Personnel, which is also responsible for building and maintaining the database. According to DPA spokeswoman Julie Postlethwait, staff has already begun work on the database, although it is not yet online.
Postlethwait said there are still many unanswered questions surrounding the database, such as how it will be funded and made available to the public. Rep. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, says his bill will take care of the funding issue by giving the DPA statutory authority to charge a fee, which will be paid by those submitting contracts to the database, for its maintenance. He emphasizes the bill will not address the more “controversial” elements of Amendment 54, such as new limits on political contributions.
After Amendment 54 passed, critics alleged it unconstitutionally limited free speech by banning political contributions from officers of organizations holding no-bid contracts. While the Democrats' go-to attorney Mark Grueskin was among the opposition threatening litigation, no case has so far been filed. Political insiders expect to see one brought forth by the unions in 2009. “It may be a stampede to the courthouse," Grueskin told the Wall Street Journal in November.
But Lucero insists Amendment 54 does not violate free speech. "Curtailing pay-to-play has been found constitutional when challenged in court," he said, adding other states like New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island have upheld similar laws.
Lambert maintains a lawsuit attacking the measure for free speech violations would likely not impact his legislation. “I have heard there is opposition to other parts of 54, but those should not affect [my bill],” he said.
He anticipates the database will end up costing less than the $200,000 estimated by the state last year. The information is already public record, but the database would put it all in one place and online. “What we’re looking at is the transparency part of this and making sure it follows modern transparency standards,” Lambert said.