Weekly Standard's Barnes delivered inaccurate assertions about state politics, Dems in article about "The Colorado Model"

Summary: In the cover story for the July 21 print edition of The Weekly Standard, published July 12 online, executive editor Fred Barnes made false or misleading claims about the state's Proposed Initiative 113, the results of an audit of Secretary of State Mike Coffman's (R) office, and the employment of Maggie Fox, the wife of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate and U.S. Rep. Mark Udall.

In a July 12 Weekly Standard online article (the cover story for the July 21 print edition) headlined "The Colorado Model: The Democrats' plan for turning red states blue," executive editor Fred Barnes made several inaccurate or misleading claims. He asserted that "an official audit" of Republican Secretary of State Mike Coffman's office "found no wrongdoing" by an employee who ran "a side business" while employed in Coffman's office. In fact, as Colorado Media Matters noted, the Colorado state auditor's report found that the employee, Dan Kopelman, "does appear to have violated state statute" by having "owned and operated a partisan political business while employed with the Department of State."

Additionally, Barnes described Colorado's Proposed Initiative 113 as "a referendum to impose a $300 million increase in the severance tax on the mining industry," but omitted that the initiative actually would help to fund higher education scholarships by eliminating the state property tax credit used to offset state severance tax obligations for oil and gas companies. Barnes further stated that the wife of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate and U.S. Rep. Mark Udall (Eldorado Springs), Maggie Fox, is "the state director of the Sierra Club." However, Udall's U.S. Senate campaign website states that she is "a prominent environmental attorney," and the website for the Sierra Club's Rocky Mountain chapter does not list her among its leadership.

According to Barnes' article -- which on July 14 was linked from "The Lookout" section of The Denver Post's political website, PoliticsWest -- "The Democratic surge in Colorado reflects the national trend, but it involves a great deal more." Barnes continued:

There's something unique going on in Colorado that, if copied in other states, has the potential to produce sweeping Democratic gains nationwide. That something is the "Colorado Model," and it's certain to be a major topic of discussion when Democrats convene in Denver in the last week of August for their national convention.

While the Colorado Model isn't a secret, it hasn't drawn much national attention either. Democrats, for now anyway, seem wary of touting it. One reason for their reticence is that it depends partly on wealthy liberals' spending tons of money not only on "independent expenditures" to attack Republican office-seekers but also to create a vast infrastructure of liberal organizations that produces an anti-Republican, anti-conservative echo chamber in politics and the media.

Colorado is where this model is being tested and refined. And Republicans, even more than Democrats, say that it's working impressively. (For Republicans, it offers an excuse for their tailspin.) Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, a conservative think tank based in Denver, says Republicans around the country should be alarmed by the success of the Colorado Model. "Watch out," he says, "it's coming to a state near you."

Barnes' article named specific Colorado progressive organizations that operate as part of the so-called "Colorado Model":

Eric O'Keefe, chairman of the conservative Sam Adams Alliance in Chicago, says there are seven "capacities" that are required to drive a successful political strategy and keep it on offense: the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, to pursue investigations, to mobilize for elections, to fight media bias, to pursue strategic litigation, to train new leaders, and to sustain a presence in the new media. Colorado liberals have now created institutions that possess all seven capacities. By working together, they generate political noise and attract press coverage. Explains Caldara, "Build an echo chamber and the media laps it up."

First, there are the think tanks such as [the] Bighorn [Center for Public Policy] and [the] Bell [Policy Center] and supposedly nonpartisan political advocacy groups like the Colorado clone of MoveOn.org called ProgressNowAction.org, founded in 2005. Another clone, this one a local version of Media Matters known as Colorado Media Matters, was created two years ago to harass journalists and editorial writers who don't push the liberal line.

There's a "public interest" law firm, Colorado Ethics Watch, established in 2006, plus an online newspaper, the Colorado Independent, with a team of reporters to ferret out wrongdoing by Republicans, also begun in 2006. And there's a school to train new liberal leaders, the Center for Progressive Leadership Colorado, as well as new media outlets with bloggers and online news and gossip, including ColoradoPols.com and SquareState.net. That covers all seven capacities. Count them.

Barnes' article contained the following false or misleading passages:

• Providing an example of how the "Colorado Model" works, Barnes falsely claimed that an official audit "found no wrongdoing" regarding the complaint about Kopelman:

It works quite simply. The investigative arm uncovers some alleged wrongdoing by a Republican candidate or official or plays up what someone else has claimed. Then Ethics Watch steps in and demands an official investigation, and ProgressNowAction.org jumps on the story. This is synergy at work. It spurs political chatter. Finally, the mainstream media are forced to report on it.

Republican secretary of state Mike Coffman was hounded for months by Colorado Confidential, now the Colorado Independent, for allowing a state employee to run a side business and not reporting a supposed conflict of interest too microscopic to be worth explaining. The mainstream media eventually picked up the story, and Colorado Ethics Watch filed a formal complaint. Later, an official audit found no wrongdoing, but only after Coffman had been publicly pilloried. The episode didn't help his current campaign for a U.S. House seat.

In fact, the state auditor's November 2007 performance audit reported that Kopelman, an employee in the department's elections division, apparently "violated state statute" in that he "owned and operated a partisan political business while employed with the Department of State." As Colorado Media Matters has noted, the audit's findings on Kopelman are contained in a section titled "Conflicts of Interest":

During the audit of Colorado's Help America Vote Act implementation, allegations were made concerning a conflict of interest related to the outside employment of an employee of the Department of State's Elections Division. The Secretary of State requested the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) review this issue to determine whether any state laws or personnel rules had been violated. The audit work conducted in response to this request was performed by the OSA, and the findings and recommendations resulting from that work are reported in this chapter.

Office of the State Auditor staff reviewed the personnel and business records, emails, and other documentation related to the employee's term of employment with the Department of State. We also conducted interviews with the employee and other management and staff of the Department. To provide greater assurance about the adequacy and comprehensiveness of the policies and practices of the Department of State relative to the outside employment of its staff, we expanded our review. Specifically, we evaluated whether other Department employees were engaged in outside business activities and whether these activities were being conducted in accordance with statutes and personnel rules. We found the following:

The conduct of the employee for whom the initial allegations were made does appear to have violated state statute [Section 24-50-117, C.R.S.] and State Personnel Board Rules [Rules 1-13 and 1-14]. Specifically, the employee owned and operated a partisan political business while employed with the Department of State. The employee's ownership and operation of this business appears to "raise criticism and the appearance of a conflict of interest" particularly given the job responsibilities for which this individual was assigned within the Elections Division. Furthermore, the employee engaged in outside employment/business ownership without advance written approval from the appointing authority. [emphasis in original]

• After claiming in his article that "[i]n 18 months as governor, [Bill] Ritter has managed to anger business, labor, and the Denver Post, which had promoted him as a candidate," Barnes misleadingly described Proposed Initiative 113, saying, "For the fall ballot, Ritter is pushing a referendum to impose a $300 million increase in the severance tax on the mining industry, further alienating the business community."

Barnes omitted that Proposed Initiative 113 in fact would remove an oil and gas industry tax subsidy. As the Rocky Mountain News noted on July 11, higher education scholarships in the state "would be funded by revenue that would result by eliminating a property tax exemption enjoyed by the oil and gas industry." Similarly, a June 20 article in the Steamboat Pilot & Today reported that the proposal "would remove a tax credit for the oil and gas industry that allows mineral extractors to deduct up to 87.5 percent of their previous year's property taxes from their severance taxes." The article added, "Ritter said the antiquated program was put into place when the industry was struggling and oil was selling for $12 a barrel."

• Reporting on the U.S. Senate race in Colorado, Barnes inaccurately claimed that Udall's wife is "the state director of the Sierra Club." Stating that Udall "is running to the center, saying he plays a bipartisan role in the House," Barnes continued:

That will be news to House Republicans. "Udall will get to where he needs to be," says Eric Sonderman, a public relations executive in Denver. The question is whether he can effectively respond to Schaffer's call for exploiting Colorado's vast oil shale reserves. Schaffer's position is increasingly popular, and he intends to dwell on it relentlessly. To propose drilling, Udall might have to defy his wife, Maggie Fox, the state director of the Sierra Club, the ardent environmental group.

Udall's Senate campaign website states that Fox is "a prominent environmental attorney." Further, the website for the Sierra Club's Denver-based Rocky Mountain Chapter does not list Fox among its current leadership.

—C.H.