Joe Moylan:
"A lawsuit challenging the Colorado Public Utilities Commission’s approval of an implementation plan for House Bill 10-1365, also known as the Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act, will be heard in Denver District Court.
The state supreme court ruled Monday to uphold the rights of the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado to question the validity of an agreement between the PUC and the Public Service Company of Colorado following passage of the bill.
PSC is a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, Inc., established in December 2010.
“We are very pleased that the Colorado Supreme Court has today made clear the AGNC’s right to have its day in court,” said Mike Sampson, Garfield County Commissioner and AGNC chairman in a news release...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Showing posts with label Colorado Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colorado Supreme Court. Show all posts
April 25, 2012
March 13, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Colorado Statesman "Political odd fellows score major legal win"
Peter Marcus:
"So-called “527 political organizations” in Colorado scored a major victory on Feb. 21 when the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the organizations can spend unlimited money in support of state candidates and operate free of some state campaign governance laws so long as the organizations steer clear of “magic [electioneering] words” that would trigger those laws.
The ruling in Colorado Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC offers a comfort level to political organizations in Colorado raising funds for “issue ads,” and clarifies so-called “bright-line” rules defining state campaign finance regulations, specifically around the 2002 voter-approved campaign finance laws enacted by Amendment 27. While the ruling essentially preserves the status quo in Colorado, it is significant in that it clearly defines campaign governance rules of political organizations.
“It’s really about having bright lines that separate states that might fall within the ambit of campaign regulations from speech that clearly is outside of those regulations, and the brighter that line is the more robust and uninhibited political debate can be,” said Steven A. Klenda, an attorney with Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s former law firm Hackstaff Law Group, which represented the Senate Majority Fund, a Senate Republicans leadership advocacy group...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"So-called “527 political organizations” in Colorado scored a major victory on Feb. 21 when the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the organizations can spend unlimited money in support of state candidates and operate free of some state campaign governance laws so long as the organizations steer clear of “magic [electioneering] words” that would trigger those laws.
The ruling in Colorado Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC offers a comfort level to political organizations in Colorado raising funds for “issue ads,” and clarifies so-called “bright-line” rules defining state campaign finance regulations, specifically around the 2002 voter-approved campaign finance laws enacted by Amendment 27. While the ruling essentially preserves the status quo in Colorado, it is significant in that it clearly defines campaign governance rules of political organizations.
“It’s really about having bright lines that separate states that might fall within the ambit of campaign regulations from speech that clearly is outside of those regulations, and the brighter that line is the more robust and uninhibited political debate can be,” said Steven A. Klenda, an attorney with Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s former law firm Hackstaff Law Group, which represented the Senate Majority Fund, a Senate Republicans leadership advocacy group...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)