Amendment 41, on its face, is an absolute gift ban, not a ban on gifts in violations of the public trust.  The whole point of a gift ban (as opposed to existing bribery laws) is that it presumes a quid pro quo, and the language of Amendment 41's gift ban does not require a quid pro quo for a violation. 

There is language about violation of public trust in Amendment 41, but only in the non-binding introductory language, and in language specifying a penalty of one type of gift ban violation. 

The legislature tried to pass legislation to give it a narrower reading, but the Colorado Supreme Court refused to say if that legislation was constitutional.  The Attorney General's opinion was different from the legislature's read, and the trial judge's opinion gave yet a third read on what the Amendment 41 language means.

For the opponents of Amendment 41, there are two way to win this case. 

If the gift ban is held unconstitutional, then a draconian gift ban is gone.  The trial court ruling was premised on the more plain reading of the statute in which Amendment 41 is a gift ban and not a bribery ban.

If the gift ban is given a binding judicial interpretation that it applies only to gifts which are a breach of public trust (something already prohibited by criminal law in Colorado), which is not an obvious reading of the text of the law, then the draconian gift ban will be neutered.  Only the Colorado Supreme Court can do this.  Neither implementing legislation from the Colorado General Assembly, nor an opinion of the ethics panel (which has been appointed now), nor an opinion of the Attorney General (neither of which can bind the courts to interpret the state constitution in a particular way) can.

Amendment 41 opponents only lose if their case is either dismissed on procedural grounds (leaving the state without a binding interpretation of poorly drafted constitutional language), or if the court finds that the draconian strict liability gift ban that the plain language of the statute suggests is correct and is also constitutional.

When Justice Hobbs says “It's not simply the gift. It's the breach of public trust.”, he is jumping to a legal conclusion.  If the Colorado Supreme Court reaches that opinion on the merits in the end, great.  But, the doesn't undermine the need to get a binding ruling to establish that the law doesn't mean what it says it does.

> lobbyists who want to talk to them, and take their time,

> not to be able to buy them a sandwich or a cup of coffee

> while they bend their ear, is ridiculous.

There's that $50 cup of coffee again! Are things really that expensive in Denver? If so, I'll deliver box lunches and drinks to the Capitol for $45/person.

I've never had a $50 lunch and I don't want my representatives snacking on truffles and caviar payed for by lobbyists. Are the lobbyists afraid that an Applebee's dinner won't get their attention?

As for Amendment 41, it hasn't affected anything, except to produce a fat load of melodramatic waaambulance bull-puckey (based on deliberately nonsensical readings of the law) because the steady supply of free stuff from lobbyists to public officials in exchange for “nothing whatsoever” has been threatened. I for one am amused by the idea of Peter Groff swearing at his computer with the rest of us last week instead of ringing up some lobbyist buddy for Rockies tickets, but thanks to Judge Habas there was no problem I'm sure.

Gifts shouldn't make a legislator want to talk to somebody. Money isn't speech, so it's absurd to claim that Amendment 41 has “stifled speech.” That's been the right's claim for years, money=speech, conveniently since they had all the money and we had all the people. It's funny because you accuse Spencer of appropriating a right-wing tactic, but you're arguing their corrupt case –

As for Amendment 41, it hasn’t affected anything, except to produce a fat load of melodramatic waaambulance bull-puckey (based on deliberately nonsensical readings of the law) because the steady supply of free stuff from lobbyists to public officials in exchange for “nothing whatsoever” has been threatened. I for one am amused by the idea of Peter Groff swearing at his computer with the rest of us last week instead of ringing up some lobbyist buddy for Rockies tickets, but thanks to Judge Habas there was no problem I’m sure.

Gifts shouldn’t make a legislator want to talk to somebody. Money isn’t speech, so it’s absurd to claim that Amendment 41 has “stifled speech.” That’s been the right’s claim for years, money=speech, conveniently since they had all the money and we had all the people. It’s funny because you accuse Spencer of appropriating a right-wing tactic, but you’re arguing their corrupt case –