There is no reason to turn this into a pissing match. Anyone who is interested can read through the article and verify that no individual donors are named. Furthermore, the point of the article is that no one who donated via a PAC has been identified. Obviously, donors who were honest enough to give in their own names could have been named in the article, but they were not because they are beside the point.
Mr K, The story cites the exact names of the people and PACs who donated directly to candidates.
The "remainder of the story" is most definitely not "about exactly who the backers are." It is about exactly which campaign committees are shielding the actual backers from public scrutiny.
"About a quarter of the roughly $1 million that's flowed into city elections this spring has come from campaign committees whose backers' names are hidden from voters..."
Then the author writes the remainder of the story about exactly who the backers are.
How then are these names 'hidden'?
I think I'll vote for the guy who prioritizes essential services and infrastructure over gay pride and high speed internet (Hint: We already have HSI).
Good riddance Jan.
Enacting term limits is a dubious solution. The good politicians will be shoved out of office automatically just as they are beginning to get a grip on how to do the job right. Meanwhile, the bad politicians will be encouraged to raise the level of government corruption so they can get "theirs" in a shorter period of time. And they can always run again, but for different offices, when their current terms are up.
Not knowing who is spending what to elect their candidate is a problem. But the bigger problem is the existence of a permanent political class - those career politicians we vote into office who sponge off the public all their working lives. Robert Blaha wrote a guest editorial in the Gazette last week explaining what's wrong with this system. Term limits is the solution. But getting the spongers to cut the umbilical cord is another problem.
Things will never change in this "small-minded, close-minded, judgmental, holier than thou, better than everyone else little cowpoke town" UNTIL old rich white guys are GONE and leave the city into the hands of smarter, more evolved, more caring, more honest, less "bought and paid for" innovative and decent people. That means OTHER people besides older, retired, white folks have to go out and actually REGISTER to vote and then VOTE. Things will NEVER change until the people of this city get it together and GO OUT AND GET RID of the "old ways" and "old-type leadership." CHANGE. It's the ONLY CONSTANT in life and it's about time this city JUMPED ON THE BAND WAGON and decided to change (for the better!!!)
The problem is that the same crowd who jumps up and down (as best as they can on their septuagenarian legs) that we need young professionals as the justification for taxpayer subsidies of their "vision" projects, put their money into electing fellow septuagenarians whose voting for their benefit can be counted upon.
The most disgusting and vile thing about the money issue is that the players do so with complete anonymity while they undermine the will of the voters. WHo is really behind the recall effort of Collins? The message is also loud and clear that this anonymous throng of financiciers will pay out of towners like Wayne and Dede Laugesen to harasss and make life miserable for any who dare to oppose their will and their plans.
The company in Tempe, AZ, who was paid by Laugesen's group to collect signatures against Collins has reveiws from workers thrilled to be bought airline tickets, hotel rooms and rental cars while they are hired to undermine voters in Colorado.
Further, the CSQC understands that we are looking at an entirely new approach to addressing queer issues and needs in Colorado Springs. This does not mean we intend to leave anyone out: rather the opposite. We include everyone, and are creating programming and services surrounding needs that apply to all queer identities. We are approaching this by putting a special focus on the very most marginalized identities. Doing this, we will more effectively catch all identities: something that has been overlooked in the past, and is often only visible to those identities that are being overlooked. This is an example of privilege: an undeserved social advantage that we have a heavy focus on working to dismantle. The CSQC encourages anyone who might feel confused by the verbiage used in the article to see our blog post where we discuss the meaning of 'solidarity.' This is where the CSQC looks to very successful models in more progressive cities. We feel strongly that we cannot wait one minute longer to address these issues and to appoint and empower marginalized and undeserved identities toward leadership within our community. Addressing these issues first are integral to real, tangible social change.
CSQC blog, 'Solidarity': http://csqueercollective.org/blog/45-solidarity
Cisgender privilege: http://new.oberlin.edu/dotAsset/2012181.pdf
Understanding and Dismantling [White] Privilege: http://www.wpcjournal.com/
Co-Director, Colorado Springs Queer Collective
The mission and goal of the Colorado Springs Queer Collective is to appeal to the most marginalized of groups. We hope to be a catch all human services based organization and community center where no one will fall through the cracks.
I understand that 50% of those infected with HIV are over the age of 50. I understand that elder are at greater risk for isolation, depression and economic insecurity. The issues that surround the aging and elder LGBTQ population is very much on the radar for the Colorado Springs Queer Collective.
We hope to expand and bring a SAGE program and elder programing to Colorado Springs region. It's We are also looking to see if there is a need for housing, much like in Philadelphia we are inspired by the John C Anderson Apartments. The John C. Anderson apartments a six-story building that opened recently in Center City here and caters to low-income seniors in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, community. Many were pioneers of the gay rights movement. Part of our needs assessment is trying to gauge if there is a need for this with in Colorado Springs.
If there is an issue or area you are concerned that you feel we are not addressing I urge to email us, comment or volunteer with our organization.
Co-Director Colorado Springs Queer Collective
Thanks for saying what I said on Facebook Ed. The plain fact is the previous Pride Center had financial issues because they angered older LGBT people (all races, all genders) who have expendable income to fund non-profits. We are happy to share our money for programs for youth and transgendered and people of color and anyone else who needs it, but that doesn't mean we'll support an organization that appears to be oblivious and not interested in paying attention to the issues facing an aging LGBT population.
Agreed, Ed Sanders. Also, the aging population of Queer folks is increasing. These individuals are 'out' and proud, and will not go back into the closet! Providing services to this demographic is vitally important, and they should not be overlooked as board members, or supporters.
I applaud these efforts to bring the community together, but don't think that using the catch phrase "older white men" is very helpful if you are trying to bring people together. Otherwise you are turning off a big donor sector in white older men.
We already know where the money came from to elect the 3 Councilmen and the support for John Suthers...big development! Namely Nor'Wood, and probably others; and what THEY expect in return. Shouldn't we be concentrated on fixing what we already have rather than urban sprawl and a new stadium that we don't need? We need to fix our roads first and foremost! And where is the extra water going to come from to sustain more and more households?
"That man, who was grateful to be able to pay for what he needed," paid a total of $225 for three measly streetlights, whereas for $200 he could have turned on all the city's streetlights, filled the potholes, hired more police, etc. However, saving that $25 and funding all of the city's needs, constitute "a blank check for an agenda he has no voice in!"
I suppose that man is also grateful that his neighbors can enjoy the benefits of having those streetlights turned on at night without having to contribute a single red cent out of their own pocketbooks.
"that's a mentality you have to overcome"
And that right there, that one word, overcome, sets the problem in sharp relief. Jan brags about the success of a compromise on the streetlights on the one hand but then shows that she doesn't really approve of compromise with her next phrase.
The adversarial win\lose paradigm inherent in the progressive mindset (ref. the gay agenda) is antithetical to good government.
That man, who was grateful, (remember gratitude?) to be able to pay for what he needed and not forced by votes to write a blank check for an agenda he has no voice in, represents the mindset of a culture that is burned out on institution and needs some ability to micro-manage its own destiny.
It may be maddening, it may really piss off those who wish to use us for their skyscrapers and stadiums but the key to the current electorate is painfully slow direct democracy and release of control until trust in local government is built one citizen at a time.
Hey Nicole, do some research. Drake does run on natural gas.
Adrian's comment to Martin, "Some people feel ... Like City for Champions .... Here you had powerful people who owned ...etc " hits the bulls eye. The goal of City Leaders and URA property owners - primarily Jenkins - is to build skyscrapers for the 5% of the population who can afford to lease/buy condos and office space with an unobstructed view of the Gulf of Mexico. It's hoped by the downtown business owners that the 5% will walk a few blocks to Tejon and spend mega dollars at their restaurants and retail stores. The downtown business owners are deluded. The 5% - including Jenkins - now live in the Broadmoor area and they aren't likely to relocate to downtown, no matter how many penthouses are built.
For Jenkins and City Leaders to accomplish their skyscraper goal they need an anchor. They want to build a stadium but - and here's their problem - they don't want to pay the $200M themselves. So they've concocted the TIF scheme to build a stadium using OUR sales tax revenue without asking OUR permission to do so and despite OUR disapproval and opposition to squandering revenue that should only be spent on necessary items, like paving the streets.
Thanks, Adrian, for making this observation, to which Martin replied, "Maybe I'm naïve". No, Martin is not naïve. She's favors building a stadium. And, as she also says, she favors raising taxes so that there's money available to pave the streets, water the parks, and the other things that city govt is supposed to do. We don't need more taxes to grow city govt. Don't build the stadium and instead use the $200M to pave the streets.
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation