November 22, 2008 6:00 AM
- Text
Implementing Amendment 54 in Colorado
(MoneyWatch) We had previously written about Amendment 54 in Colorado here. This bans those entities receiving sole-source government contracts in the state from making political contributions. It is even more controversial as it considers union contracts sole-source. The Amendment faces several court challenges at the state and Federal level as an infringement on free speech. Right now it is in effect and causing issues for those receiving such contracts as the Denver Post reports.
Some companies, like the law firm, described in the article have sole-source contracts with a large number of counties, municipalities and school systems. This means the principals of the firm are very restricted in to who they may give contracts too. Of course the goal of the Amendment is to eliminate sole-source contracts from the state, arguing that multiple bids lead to lower prices. There has been no discussion of whether state law requires multiple bids unless it is waived, like the DoD does. The major sticking point, though, is that it applies to the contracts with the unions, such as the teachers one. It may be hard to get multiple bids in that situation and it may unfairly restrict the unions ability to participate in the political process. Of course, that may have been one of the goals of the sponsors - eliminate the large amount of money Unions use as they tend to only support the Democratic party.
Some companies, like the law firm, described in the article have sole-source contracts with a large number of counties, municipalities and school systems. This means the principals of the firm are very restricted in to who they may give contracts too. Of course the goal of the Amendment is to eliminate sole-source contracts from the state, arguing that multiple bids lead to lower prices. There has been no discussion of whether state law requires multiple bids unless it is waived, like the DoD does. The major sticking point, though, is that it applies to the contracts with the unions, such as the teachers one. It may be hard to get multiple bids in that situation and it may unfairly restrict the unions ability to participate in the political process. Of course, that may have been one of the goals of the sponsors - eliminate the large amount of money Unions use as they tend to only support the Democratic party.
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Insurers respond cautiously to contraceptive plan
- Judge: Legally, breastfeeding not related to pregnancy
- Budget deficit drops to $27 billion in January
- Why the Powerball Jackpot is part of my investment strategy
- Is the new VW Beetle diesel worth the money?
- Consumer sentiment highlights risks to recovery
- Valentine blues? 10 best cities to be single
- December trade deficit widens to $48.8 billion
- Alcatel-Lucent returns to profit in 2011
- 6 things never to say in a performance review
- $26B mortgage deal: Who gets the money?
- Friendly's CEO steps down
- Quarterly loss hits $3.3B at Postal Service
- Greeks rail against cuts as EU demands more
- 6 things you should never share on Facebook
- Make moves now to increase financial aid
- Valentine's Day: 9 places to save
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- Heather Mills says McCartney calls were hacked
- Oscar statues fly from Chicago to Los Angeles
- Oscar statues fly from Chicago to Los Angeles
- TV producer lands in Mexico to face murder charges
on Facebook
- Adele sings a cappella for Anderson Cooper
- Josh Powell had "incestuous" images on his home computer, authorities say
- Adele sings a cappella for Anderson Cooper
on CBS News






