Face The State Staff Report
A recent decision from the state ethics commission clarifying 2006's controversial Amendment 41 could further hurt Capitol Hill's favorite social club.
The Independent Ethics Commission, established as part of Amendment 41's passage, ruled that lobbyists are not allowed to buy public officials or public employees lunch at any members-only club where non-members are not allowed to pay for meals, and it specifically called out the University Club of Denver, a regular watering hole for lobbyists, lawmakers and politicos. “What the Commission is saying is that it's just not appropriate because it is not clear [under Amendment 41],” said Jane Feldman, executive director of the IEC. “The idea is that you should go somewhere everyone can pay for themselves.”
Amendment 41, which was passed by 62 percent of state voters in 2006, bans gifts of more than $50 to public officials, employees and their families, and prohibits any gift at all, including a lunch, from a lobbyist to a lawmaker. In 2007, a group of elected officials, government works and non-profits complained Amendment 41 limited their First Amendment rights. This led Denver Judge Christina Habas to issue a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Amendment 41. In 2008, however, the injunction was overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court.
While scholarship organizations expressed concerns that students of public employees could lose valuable financial aid opportunities because of Amendment 41, Habas' ruling that scholarships were exempted has stood, with her decision supported by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.
While lobbyists and lawmakers have been grumbling about Amendment 41's implications since before it even passed, the latest ruling is not a welcome one from the city's private clubs. According to University Club manager Rob McDonald, after the passage of Amendment 41 there was a decrease of club usage among certain members, particularly lobbyists.
McDonald said he’s unsure how the IEC’s most recent ruling will further affect the club, and added that the club would be hesitant to allow non-members to pay for their meals on site. “That would change the culture of the club if we had cash transactions taking place,” he said. “We don’t have a lot of cash on hand or credit card swiping machines.”
He added that the issue is something club leaders are discussing, but no decision has been made.
Amendment 41 established the IEC and gave it the authority and responsibility to issue advisory opinions in response to specific questions regarding the amendment. Last week’s ruling was issued in response to an official request from a registered lobbyist with the Secretary of State’s office. Feldman says the IEC has made the decision to keep the identity of the requester a secret because she thinks people won’t ask for advisory opinions if their name is released. A liberal litigation shop, Colorado Ethics Watch, is currently suing the IEC in Denver District Court over this issue.
Ethics Watch spokeswoman Alison Johnson would not comment on the pending litigation or the recent ruling but said, “We’re just happy to see the IEC doing its work.”