The agreement, which calls for millions in spending by Denver Water on Western Slope projects and creates a limit on how large Denver Water’s service area can be, had already been signed by Eagle County. Ultimately, the agreement will involve more than 40 parties across the state.

The agreement was first reported more than a year ago by The Colorado Independent and Mountain Town News, but it has taken awhile for details to be agreed on and signatures obtained.

U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter applauded the signing of the agreement as a major shift in how water is managed and developed in Colorado.

“This is a significant turning point for our state,” Perlmutter said. “Through five years of work, more than 40 parties came together to form an agreement to protect our environment and ensure more reliable supplies of water for millions of Coloradans.”

The CRCA resolves historic disagreements over water management and development and creates a new approach based on cooperation. The agreement brings environmental benefits to the Colorado River Basin and provides additional water to communities from the Denver Metro and across the Continental Divide to the West Slope.

“Denver Water and West Slope leaders put us on the path toward a more secure water future,” Perlmutter said. “I support their effort to work together to the benefit of all Coloradans.”

Perlmutter noted that CRCA enables Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project to move forward. The project addresses a looming supply shortage in the Denver Metro area and improves the reliability of Denver Water’s system.

“The Moffat project will address serious problems that threatened the water supply for many of my constituents in the 2002 drought,” Perlmutter noted. “The CRCA will enable it to move forward while protecting and improving the health of Colorado’s rivers and streams. The partners to this agreement created a model for how water issues should be handled in the West and are to be commended for this historic achievement.”

Sen. Michael Bennet was equally laudatory.

“Today’s signatures on the cooperative agreement mark a significant step towards the consensus-based and sustainable future development of Colorado’s water resources. This document puts Colorado on a cooperative path for the future that protects the health of our state’s rivers and streams, the quality of life for Coloradans and the state’s economy. It is my hope that these important discussions will continue so that all of the stakeholders will be able to sign and the agreement can be fully implemented.”

“Water is the lifeblood of Colorado,” said Sen. Mark Udall in a prepared statement. “Our ability to sustainably use it to fuel economic growth and preserve our Colorado heritage is critical for the state,” Udall said. “This cooperative agreement between Western Slope water users and Denver Water embodies the kind of solution we should strive for in response to our water challenges. This agreement — and the process that shaped it — is a high water mark for cooperation on water issues and should be a model for the entire state to follow. I commend Denver Water, Grand and Summit Counties and others who have negotiated this agreement for their leadership.”

A statement issued by Denver Water almost makes the agreement seem like the beginning of a Colorado watertopia:

A secure and sustainable water future for Colorado is essential. It is vital for those who live in our cities and towns, for a healthy economy, for farmers and ranchers across the state, for wildlife and the aquatic life in our rivers and streams, and for those who enjoy the wonderful recreational opportunities our state offers. In short, it is essential to all that makes Colorado special.

Yet, competition for our water resources continues to increase. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Colorado River Basin, where conflicts between these competing interests have existed for generations.

A different approach is possible. It is an approach that provides proper balance among competing interests, a shared vision for better river health, reliable supply for all water users, and a future of cooperation, not conflict. It is precisely that approach that this agreement — among more than 40 water providers, local governments and the ski industry — embodies.

(Image of the Colorado River: Protect the Flows)

The Colorado river cuts a mighty bend in Utah. (Image: Protect the Flows)

A study released earlier this month and presented at a small forum in Denver makes the case that the river — simply as an object of enjoyment — is the largest employer in Colorado.

The study — commissioned by Protect The Flows and performed by Southwick Associates — only looked at the money spent by residents of the six-state Colorado River Basin. It did not consider money spent by people from outside these states.

The study contends that nearly 80,000 Coloradans owe their livelihood to the river and that river-related retail sales alone generate more income than agricultural production in Colorado.

Of the six states studied, which included Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and New Mexico, Colorado was by far the leader in terms of jobs generated and money spent. Direct spending in the region amounts to just over $17 billion a year, with just under $6.4 billion of that spent in Colorado. California was left out of the study because by the time the river reaches California it has lost most of its recreational value.

The forum, which drew only a couple of dozen people to a conference room at the Denver Chamber of Commerce, was nonetheless attended by both of Colorado’s U.S. senators. Panelists included business owners from throughout the region.

They included the predictable: rafting company owners, fishing guides and hotel owners and the unpredictable: the owner of a tile business.

Lee Gruber, founder and co-owner of Syzygy Tile Works in Silver City, Nev., said her business, which sells hand-crafted art tiles worldwide, would have trouble finding employees if it wasn’t for a healthy Colorado River system, several tributaries of which run nearby.

Gruber said healthy rivers and ecosystems are a quality of life issue for her and her 25 employees. She said all of her employees live in the area because of the lifestyle offered by the rivers and nearby wilderness areas. She said she would have no employees if it wasn’t for those factors, and noted that her business brings in more than $1 million a year from out-of-state buyers alone.

Protect The Flows has nearly 400 business members from the region, all of whom believe that a healthy river is vital to their own economic well-being.

“We represent 400 businesses who need water in the Colorado River to support the economy,” said Molly Mugglestone, coordinator of Protect the Flows.

She said all the trends show the river is losing water at a precipitous rate. “Think about the consequences of that,” she said. “If we do nothing, the price of water will spike and families will be forced to make drastic changes in how they use water.”

Karen Avery, who owns the Box Canyon Lodge and Hot Springs in Ouray, said her business and the economy of Ouray are dependent on a healthy Colorado River system. She said that in Ouray, 80 percent of sales tax revenue comes from visitors.

“Our business depends on a healthy river and a healthy environment. We need healthy flows in the river in order to support our way of life,” Avery said.

She said Ouray’s year-round population of 900 swells to 3,000 in the summer. “A healthy river makes that possible,” she said.

Sarah Sidwell, who manages a rafting business in Moab, Utah, said her business has more than 100 seasonal employees, all of whom rely on the river for their livelihood. “Our stake in this is huge. We need a flowing river for me to have a job. Moab is very dependent on sustaining flows in the Colorado River.”

Sidwell said Moab is home to burgeoning high-tech and manufacturing sectors, both of which rely on the outdoor lifestyle created by the river for the bulk of their employees.

“You don’t have to spend much time around rivers to understand their importance,” U.S. Sen. Mark Udall told the businesspeople.

Sen. Mark Udall addresses the Colorado River conference. (Kersgaard)

“Cynics might scoff at the importance of non-consumptive uses,” he said, adding that such uses are extremely important not just from a lifestyle point of view but from an economic one. He said the river supports 85,000 jobs and generates $9.5 billion a year in Colorado, numbers slightly higher than those documented by the study, which was limited in its scope.

He said climate change and drought are real concerns in Colorado. “Our economic future depends on preserving our water supply,” Udall said.

Sen. Michael Bennet hit on one of his recurrent themes when he told the gathering that politicians in Washington, D.C., are detached from the real lives and real problems of people in the United States.

Sen. Michael Bennet speaks at Protect the Flows meeting in Denver. (Kersgaard)

He said, though, that people in Colorado and the West have a history of rising above their differences in order to work together to solve problems such as those presented by an overtaxed river system.

He said the region depends on “our stewardship” of such natural resources as the Colorado River and the state’s natural areas.

According to the study, 1.74 million Coloradans recreate on the river or its tributaries each year. If you looked at the river system as a business, Rob Southwick said the recreational spending by regional residents alone would rank the river #155 on the Fortune 500.

In Colorado, he said, 3.5 percent of the population rely on the river for their jobs.

The Hinchey-Rohrabacher-Farr-McClintock Amendment:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

The final vote was 163-262, with 72 percent of Democrats in favor of the amendment but only 28 Republicans voting yes. Delegations from most of the states with medical marijuana did vote in favor.

More than a dozen states, including Colorado, have legalized medical marijuana, yet the federal Department of Justice continues to take the position that marijuana is illegal for any and all purposes and continues to pursue selective enforcement of federal laws irrespective of state laws.

In Colorado, U.S. Attorney John Walsh has acted to shut down dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries that were in compliance with state law but that he viewed as being too close to schools.

Rep. Jared Polis (Kersgaard)

While all of Colorado’s Democrats in the House voted to defund the DOJ’s efforts to supersede state law, only Jared Polis, D-Boulder, has been outspoken on the issue, sponsoring legislation to remove marijuana laws from federal jurisdiction and speaking out strongly against DOJ interference in state medical marijuana regulation.

In a speech on the House floor, Polis said the amendment was “critical for Colorado” where businesses and patients “live under constant fear of selective enforcement from the attorney general or the Department of Justice.”

Polis accounted a recent conversation he had with AG Eric Holder, where Holder acknowledged that with so many medical marijuana patients and businesses, the only kind of enforcement possible is “selective.”

“What if that selective enforcement becomes politically motivated? That is a very dangerous road to go down,” Polis said.

He noted that drug abuse is a terrible problem, but that it is the corner drug dealer who sells to 15-year-olds, not state-regulated dispensaries.

“This amendment is commonsense. It will allow legal businesses to operate without fear of the DEA busting their doors down,” Polis said.

“This amendment would have done a lot of good,” said Morgan Fox, spokesperson for the national Marijuana Policy Project. “It would have prevented the feds from going after medical marijuana businesses that are in compliance with state law.

“Congress is out of touch on this issue, not seeing that marijuana reform is a very popular issue with voters these days,” he added.

Fox said he found it “amazing” that Republicans in Congress didn’t take this opportunity to “rebuke an unpopular policy of President Obama’s.”

Local marijuana attorney and supporter of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Brian Vicente said he was also disappointed.

“That law would have made a big difference. It would have been a concrete step toward stopping federal intrusion into the state’s medical marijuana laws,” Vicente said. “This federal intrusion is making it difficult for patients to get their medicine.

“There seems to be a disconnect between the people and their representatives in Congress, especially the Republicans. Voters should be angry at Republicans in Congress who say they are for states’ rights and smaller government, but won’t stand up for those things when they get the chance,” Vicente said.

Former Speaker of the House and current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, recently released this statement supporting states’ rights on medical marijuana and questioning why the DOJ and the Obama Administration have been actively targeting businesses that are in compliance with state laws.

“Access to medicinal marijuana for individuals who are ill or enduring difficult and painful therapies is both a medical and a states’ rights issue. Sixteen states, including our home state of California, and the District of Columbia have adopted medicinal marijuana laws – most by a vote of the people.

Nancy Pelosi (Tomasic)

“I have strong concerns about the recent actions by the federal government that threaten the safe access of medicinal marijuana to alleviate the suffering of patients in California, and undermine a policy that has been in place under which the federal government did not pursue individuals whose actions complied with state laws providing for medicinal marijuana.

“Proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of life for patients with cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and other severe medical conditions.

“I am pleased to join organizations that support legal access to medicinal marijuana, including the American Nurses Association, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, and the AIDS Action Council.

“Medicinal marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting, and nausea. The opportunity to ease the suffering of people who are seriously ill or enduring difficult and painful therapies is an opportunity we must not ignore.

“For these reasons, I have long supported efforts in Congress to advocate federal policies that recognize the scientific evidence and clinical research demonstrating the medical benefits of medicinal marijuana, that respects the wishes of the states in providing relief to ill individuals, and that prevents the federal government from acting to harm the safe access of medicinal marijuana provided under state law. I will continue to strongly support those efforts.”

(Image of dispensary: Kersgaard)

Bennet was seeking to rally support for the bill as it moves to the Republican-controlled House and to take measure of how the legislation translates for people working on campus and in the city of Boulder with victims and perpetrators of stalking, domestic violence and sexual assault.

“It’s nice to meet with people working on the ground, particularly when politics in Washington is as screwed up as it is right now,” Bennet told roughly 30 people gathered in a conference room hemmed in by the Flatiron mountains.

He referenced his time as the superintendent of the Denver Public School system. “There’s not much of a feedback loop [in Washington]. You watch laws get passed, but on the ground sometimes they don’t make a lot of sense. It can be a one-way game of telephone.”

Representatives from rape centers and legal assistance offices told Bennet that funds provided by the Act were critical in establishing resources. Barb Paradiso from the University of Colorado Denver said there was no office or staff to deal with the issue on her urban campus just three years ago. She said grant money awarded through the Act was crucial to getting services up and running and hiring employees.

“In just three years, we’ve come a long way. We have a foundation [on which] to build now,” she said.

Bennet said it was unfortunate that the Senate five year reauthorization would slash $150 million from the Act’s previous $800 million budget. That was a response to fiscal realities, he explained.

“I call Washington the land of flickering lights, because the standard these days is just to manage to keep things running.”

The people gathered at CU told Bennet that, although great strides have been made in providing help for victims, the culture surrounding the issue hasn’t changed in ways that would work to head off the violence and decrease the number of victims.

“We reach out to victims but we don’t reach out to perpetrators,” said Celeste Montoya, a political science professor and faculty adviser for the campus Gender Justice League. She said a lot could be done to intervene before any crime or harassment takes place. “We know where to begin,” she told the Colorado Independent, “the sports teams and the fraternities.

“We have a great policy on paper to support victims but to target prevention, funding for that would be tremendously appreciated.”

The Violence Against Women Act, originally sponsored by now-Vice President Joe Biden, was passed in 1994 and has been reauthorized consistently. It pays for programs that provide, for example, legal assistance and temporary housing for victims, enforcement of court-ordered protection services and youth prevention programs.

This year, however, reauthorization has been charged with election-year politics. Democrats added provisions that would extend services to same-sex and undocumented immigrant victims. Conservatives have argued that Democrats are, in effect, daring them to vote against reauthorization, looking to gain more material to fill out a portrait of the party as insensitive to women.

Bennet, secure in his seat for another four years, is nevertheless the poster boy for “war on women” election campaign strategies bubbling up across the country.

As a candidate in 2010, Bennet looked to win over women across Colorado by highlighting the hardline social conservative policy stances struck by his Republican opponent Ken Buck. Bennet, appointed to office two years earlier when Ken Salazar became Secretary of the Interior, was an underdog in the race. It was the first time he had ever run for office and it was the year Republican candidates notched victories in record numbers coast to coast.

Yet Buck, who as Weld County district attorney years before had declined to prosecute a rape case partly because he thought a skeptical jury would see the defendant as merely suffering a case of “buyer’s remorse,” was portrayed by critics as an unyielding relic of a past era. In the end, Bennet succeeded in winning the votes of women by a wide margin and did so in a contest where every vote mattered. He elbowed past Buck at the finish line, winning the election by something like 10,000 of roughly 800,000 votes cast.

[ Image of Senator Bennet at CU by The Colorado Independent ]

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

On the other hand, you have two very different Republicans running for the chance to run against Polis. You have current Colorado State Senator Kevin Lundberg, an arch social conservative who has been among the legislature’s leaders in fighting against civil unions legislation. (See video of him below quoting the Bible in this week’s civil unions debate.)

Eric Weissmann, the other Republican vying for the chance to face off against Polis, has a history of failing to pay his taxes on time.

Erir Weissmann (Image: EricWeissmann.com)

When contacted by phone, Weissmann acknowledged the tax liens.

“Like many people who have started and built businesses, it was not without some bumps in the road to success,” he said.

He said that experience gives him “some empathy” for people who are struggling economically. Weissmann now works in the business of private equity investing and owns multiple homes including a primary residence in the Boulder area that public records show to be worth in the range of $2 million.

Weissmann, who has never run for office before, says he is not the social conservative that Lundberg is.

“Sometimes he (Lundberg) has taken strong positions on social issues at the expense of dealing with the economic issues that are so important in Colorado right now.”

In sharp contrast to Lundberg, Weissman said he is in favor of civil unions.

“I would have voted for that bill. I am a liberty oriented Republican. I want to get the government out of people’s personal decisions.”

Lundberg did not return a call seeking comment.

In addition to his past tax problems, Weissman, 48, has a driving while impaired citation on his record. He said the event happened when he was about 20 years old.

“It was a youthful mistake,” he says now.

Weissmann almost didn’t make it on the ballot. Earlier this week he won a legal battle to appear on the June 26 Republican primary ballot along with Lundberg.

The case, decided by Judge Robert S. Hyatt in Denver District Court, arose when Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler ruled that Weissmann – who petitioned onto the ballot – had not turned in enough valid signatures to qualify.

Weissmann argued that he had plenty of valid signatures, but that some had been disqualified because of clerical errors made by his campaign. Judge Hyatt agreed.

The case was made more interesting by the fact that the Colorado Democratic Party filed a motion to intervene.

“Our interest was just to make sure the rules are applied equally to everyone who runs for office,” Democratic Party spokesperson Matt Inzeo said.

Inzeo said Weissmann had chosen not to follow the rules for how to collect and handle signatures, and shouldn’t be on the ballot.

Asked if he was concerned that Weissmann might have a chance against incumbent Polis, Inzeo laughed and said he wasn’t.

“We just want the rules to be followed,” Inzeo said.

“We now see a pattern emerging,” Inzeo said, commenting also on Weissmann’s tax issues. “He doesn’t think he has to play by the same rules as everyone else, whether in gathering signatures to be on the ballot or in paying his taxes.”

Weissmann issued a written statement on his court victory:

“We are thrilled with today’s ruling by the Court placing me on the primary ballot, and look forward to spirited primary and general elections.

“Jared Polis and his Democratic Party minions tried to thwart the wishes of the 1,400 Republicans who want the opportunity to vote for me. This desperate ploy has clearly backfired,” Weissmann said.

Considering Weissmann’s own past troubles with taxes, it may be interesting to note that tax reform is one of the primary issues he addresses on his campaign website.

“We need fundamental tax reform that lowers and flattens tax rates and eliminates tax preferences that skew economic decision-making and tilt our tax system in favor of those who can afford expensive lawyers and accountants. A serious, pragmatic approach to reforming taxation can garner bipartisan support, and would unleash our private sector to create employment again,” he writes on the site.

Immediately below is a screenshot of one the liens filed against Weissmann. Below that is video of Sen. Lundberg speaking out against civil unions this week on the floor of the Senate.

(Image of tax lien from BoulderCounty.org)

For many of the men and women discharged under DADT, their discharge papers contain a narrative describing the person’s reason for separation: Many of those contain some variation of the language “homosexual conduct.”

U.S. Sen. Mark Udall said today that no honorably discharged veteran should be forced by the military to discuss their sexual orientation with a prospective employer, and he has written a letter to the Department of Defense asking that it streamline the process of removing offending language from discharge papers.

“Even though we ended DADT last year, more than 14,000 veterans who were forced to leave the military because of their sexual orientation still have an unfair stigma hanging over them,” Udall said. “Many of those veterans are now beginning the long process of correcting their discharge paperwork to ensure that their records reflect the quality of their service – not the discriminatory legacy that forced them from the military, weakening our national security in the process. Especially at a time of such high unemployment for our veterans, we should make it as easy as possible for them to maintain their personal privacy by making such corrections,” Udall said in a prepared statement.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, and Joseph Lieberman, I-CT, joined Udall in signing the letter.

“We need to right wrongful discharges for our veterans immediately,” Gillibrand said. “Last fall, we ended the discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Now it’s time to create an efficient way for veterans, who were discharged because of who they love, to receive clean, honorable discharge paperwork. Veterans that were discharged under DADT served our country courageously and with dignity and we need to give them the appropriate recognition immediately.”

“Although this harmful and wrongheaded policy has been repealed, it left behind a legacy of injustice that continues to discriminate against the gay and lesbian service members whom were discharged under it,” Lieberman said. “By streamlining the process to correct these service members’ discharge documents, the Department of Defense can ensure that these courageous Americans move forward with dignity in their careers and private lives.”

Udall said in the statement that while the Department of Defense has agreed to remove the offending language from paperwork, getting it done has proved difficult and time-consuming for many veterans and that it needs to be streamlined.

The letter:

Dear Secretary Panetta,

When the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) took effect on September 20, 2011, then-Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Dr. Clifford Stanley issued a memorandum providing guidance to the military services regarding applications from veterans separated on the basis of their sexual orientation seeking changes to their discharge paperwork. The memorandum made clear that Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) “should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for a discharge…[and that] requests to re-characterize the discharge to honorable and/or requests to change reentry codes to an immediately-eligible-to-reenter category” should be granted when the original discharge was based solely on DADT and there “were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct.” The guidance goes on to say that while “each request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,” having “an honorable or general discharge should normally…indicate the absence of aggravating factors.”

While this guidance was an important step in the right direction, it is insufficient for the vast majority of veterans discharged under DADT. The current process is protracted and overly burdensome for veterans who-according to Dr. Stanley’s guidance-should be entitled to have their discharge documents corrected. Our understanding is that many veterans who meet the criteria outlined above must first gather their service-related paperwork, which many veterans do not possess. The veteran must then file an application with the supporting documentation to overcome the presumption of the DRB that the discharge was proper. To accomplish this, the veteran must argue that the discharge should be changed according to the standards of “propriety” or “equity,” per DRB regulations. Only after overcoming this presumption will the DRB change the discharge paperwork.

We understand that changing discharge paperwork is not a small matter and that in most cases, a careful case-by-case evaluation is warranted. But as long as a former service member’s Narrative Reason for a discharge is “Homosexual Conduct,” “Homosexual Act” or “Homosexual Marriage,” that service member is compelled to be “out” to any future civilian employer and anyone else who sees the document. Likewise, the negative reentry code serves as a barrier to employment opportunities.

Therefore, the process should be streamlined for those veterans discharged under DADT who have honorable or general discharges and only seek changes to their narrative reason for discharge and their reentry code. We thus respectfully request that the Department clarify that DRBs shall correct discharge paperwork upon receipt of a basic DD Form 293 application, provided that the DRB can then obtain the veteran’s DD Form 214 and service record. The Department should further clarify that, where there are no aggravating factors in the service member’s record, the presumption should be in favor of correction.

Veterans who were discharged under DADT should not be compelled to carry with them a narrative reason for separation that indicates their sexual orientation to anyone who sees their discharge document. In order to begin to put the regrettable policy of DADT fully behind us, the process of getting these documents corrected needs to be accessible and achievable for all. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Said Perlmutter after the vote, “it is a balanced plan putting both spending cuts and revenue on the table. It makes significant cuts big enough to matter — $4.2 trillion in deficit reduction — reforms the tax code to lower rates, broadens the tax base and reduces the deficit. It is a start to real economic security for our nation.”

Rep. Ed Perlmutter

“Congress needs to spend less time passing partisan proposals and instead bring Democrats and Republicans together around a responsible ‘go-big’ budget that creates jobs, balances the budget, and invests in long-term economic growth,” Polis said.

USA Today editorialized that the 38 members — 22 Democrats and 16 Republicans — are heroes for bucking party considerations and actually trying to balance the federal budget.

From USA Today:

This, or something very much like it, is where every non-partisan budget expert and every realistic politician in Washington knows Congress will have to go to solve the budget problem. Entitlements in their current form are unsustainably expensive, and tax cuts have left revenues at historic lows, inadequate to pay for the government services Americans demand.

The New York Times recounts how both the left and the right swung into action to ensure that the compromise plan would not just go down, but go down hard:

As the House moved toward a vote last week on a bipartisan budget plan modeled on the deficit reduction blueprint of a White House commission, Washington’s conservative and liberal influence machines swung into action.

Within hours, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform joined Heritage Action for America, the Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation and assorted conservative bloggers in coming out hard against the plan as an unacceptable tax increase. On the left, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and research groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities denounced the effort as a sham, disguised as the Bowles-Simpson commission report but tilted to the right.

After that assault, a plan that its sponsors, Representatives Steven C. LaTourette, Republican of Ohio, and Jim Cooper, Democrat of Tennessee, swore would get at least 100 votes across party lines got just 38, and the prospects for compromise on the nation’s yawning deficit took a major step backward.

“I was proud to join a bipartisan coalition of House members who offered a budget based on the work of the Simpson-Bowles Commission,” Polis said in a prepared statement. “The bipartisan budget reforms our bloated tax code to increase competitiveness, reduces defense spending, and achieves $4.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

Rep. Jared Polis (Kersgaard)

Polis continued, “The continued partisanship of the House majority leadership is paralyzing Congress at a time when we need to work together around common-sense, bipartisan solutions.”

“This is just the latest example of what’s wrong with Washington and Congressman Cory Gardner,” state Senate President Brandon Shaffer, who is running to unseat Gardner this year, told the Colorado Independent. “Despite campaigning on a pledge to stand up to the Washington special interests, Congressman Gardner has sold out to the highest special interest bidders and lobbyists. [He] has been a reliable vote to put the special interests and the ultra wealthy first, while leaving the middle class and seniors last.”

Written up as an exposé, the CBS piece reveals nothing illegal, but it underlines the way established campaign-finance structures and career-reward systems are pressing members of the GOP freshman class like Gardner into conducting the Beltway “business as usual” they decried on campaign trails.

“In 2010, many freshmen Republicans were swept into Congress on the promise of doing things differently,” says reporter Sharyl Attkisson, “but fast-forward to 2012, and the Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo, Fla., an exclusive seaside resort and home to 54 holes of championship golf and a private marina full of luxury yachts.”

The piece features part of a Gardner ad in which he vowed to act on behalf of his Fourth-District constituents.

“I will always put Colorado families before the Washington special interests,” Gardner tells viewers.

Indeed, running against insider-Washington was a major theme of Gardner’s 2010 campaign. In a video made when he was selected for the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns” program, Gardner said one of good government’s “first principles” was that representatives serve “Mainstreet” Americans not special-interest “fat cats.”

“We’ve got to get back to our first principles in this country… that when we send people to Washington DC, we’re sending them there to represent you and I, Mainstreet Colorado, Mainstreet United States, not the bureaucrats and fat cats, but to get things done for us.”

Messages left with Gardner campaign staff seeking comment on the story went unreturned. Gardner’s Twitter feed was idle Friday, save for a single message promoting a high-school art contest in his district.

In the past, Shaffer has called Gardner the “special interests’ favorite incumbent.” In a recent release, he questioned the motivation driving Gardner’s pro-drilling energy positions.

“U.S. oil production is at its highest level in eight years, but Congressman Gardner [has] called for more oil and gas drilling in the United States. It’s no secret why Cory Gardner is such a good friend to Big Oil. Since being elected in 2010, Gardner has received more money from oil and gas than any other industry. In the last year, Gardner has received $159,750 from the energy and natural resources sector, more than any other Colorado Congressman.”

Gardner is indisputably a juggernaut fundraiser and he does lean heavily on the oil and gas industry.

Last year, oil and gas interests gave Gardner $177,000. That’s more than Marilyn Musgrave, his Republican CD4 predecessor, raised from the sector for all three of her congressional races. Democrat Betsy Markey, who defeated Musgrave in 2008, got a negligible amount from oil and gas, and Republican Bob Schaffer, who represented the district before Musgrave, pulled down only roughly $23,000 total from oil and gas for all three of his House campaigns.

For Americans who have watched campaign finance spin out of control over the last decade and who have grown increasingly cynical about elected leaders awash in cash and tied to pet industries, the CBS Key Largo story may seem more Onion-style satirical statement of the obvious than eye-opening exposé. Yet for Coloradans, the piece reinforces the image of Gardner as an industry man on the inside even as he has sold himself as a people-first citizen lawmaker of the Great Plains.

In May 2010, for example, then-candidate Gardner made headlines for attending a fundraiser hosted by British Petroleum lobbyists. The event came just weeks after BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and as millions of gallons of oil gushed unabated into the Gulf of Mexico. The $1,000-a-plate luncheon at the boutique Hotel George off the National Mall hosted other energy lobbyists and industry players, including representatives from Koch Industries.

[ Front-page image: Cory Gardner, NRCC screen grab ]

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Along with Bennet, the task force includes Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island), Tom Udall (New Mexico), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Jeff Merkley (Oregon), and Al Franken (Minnesota). Senator Charles E. Schumer (New York), chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, formed the group late last year.

Bennet said in a press release that the group will “pursue all available legislative and administrative avenues to shine a light on who is influencing American elections and to stem the tide of secretive spending that is already having a corroding and corrupting influence on our political system.”

Senator Michael Bennet. (Kersgaard)

Bennet has been involved in this issue virtually since the Supreme Court decision. He and Udall have proposed a constitutional amendment to give Congress and the states the power to regulate campaign finance.

“The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has subjected the American people to a flood of unlimited, anonymous corporate money in our elections. The Rhode Islanders I’ve heard from know that corporations aren’t people and that this is wrong,” said Whitehouse. “With my colleagues, we are working to put the power over elections back into the hands of the people, so that our government continues to be of, by and for the people, not the giant corporations.”

“The unchecked flow of money into our elections corrodes our democracy and drowns out the voice of the people,” said Udall. “Over the past few months, the unfair influence exerted by Super PACs has become abundantly clear to voters in New Mexico and elsewhere, and they are calling for sensible campaign finance reform.”

“The simple, genius idea of American democracy is that the people are in charge,” said Merkley. “President Lincoln described our government as ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ Citizens United stands for the opposite. It changes ‘We the People’ to ‘We the Powerful’. It gives the wealthy and well-connected a stadium sound system, drowning out the voice of the people. We must restore the people’s voice and put an end to unlimited, undisclosed spending by corporations.”

“Americans deserve fair and transparent elections,” said Franken. “Making sure that every American knows who is funding the election ads they see and hear is even more important now that the Supreme Court has allowed companies to contribute unlimited amounts of corporate cash to influence elections.”

“We believe that the unlimited cash allowed by the Citizens United decision must at least be disclosed,” said Schumer. “The Supreme Court’s decision has given corporations and the very wealthy unprecedented sway over our elections, and represents one of the most serious threats to the future of our democracy. This group will fight back with every tool at its disposal.”

So far this year, almost $90 million has been spent by outside groups, many of which are able to raise funds anonymously, from corporations, and in unlimited quantities, the senators said.

Small image of Sen. Michael Bennet courtesy of Sen. Michael Bennet.

National Wind Technology Center turbines near Golden. (Photo by Troy Hooper)

U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, said the state stands “to suffer a huge economic blow if Congress can’t get its act together and extend this critical tax credit. With thousands of high-quality jobs at stake across our state and the entire country, we need to provide certainty for this industry, so we do not derail its current growth,” he said.

There are more than 5,000 wind industry jobs in Colorado, according to Interwest Energy Alliance, and the state is the nation’s eighth-largest generator of wind power and hosts the world’s leading national laboratory in wind and other renewable energy technologies.

If the tax credit expires at the end of the year, the state’s wind energy sector could crash.

“In fact, a crash is already beginning,” Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colorado, said in a prepared statement. “Vestas may lay off more than 80 percent of its workforce in Colorado if the PTC is not extended soon. I’m fighting every day for this extension, and we need to do it now. This isn’t something we can afford to put on the backburner until the last minute.”

All of Colorado’s congressional delegation except Republican Congressman Doug Lamborn say they want to extend the wind tax credit, which debuted in 1992. The credit could still be tied to other bills or come as stand-alone legislation. It has lapsed in the past only to be resurrected later.