The legislation “demands results and accountability but allows states the ability to chart their own course to higher achievement for students,” said Polis in a release. “There is no substitute for improving student outcomes and ensuring that every graduate is ready for college or a career, but where No Child Left Behind was prescriptive and punitive, the Growth to Excellence Act is flexible and focused on what helps better prepare students to succeed and graduate.”

The bill grew from Colorado’s experience as a participant in the Growth Model Pilot Project started in 2005, which allowed states to experiment in tweaking the No Child Left Behind Act accountability system. The idea was to look beyond the one established achievement standard and seek to reward schools that were successful in helping students significantly advance in their learning.

Provisions of the Bennet-Polis-Udall Growth to Excellence Act would allow states instead of the federal government to set measures of achievement and to base those measures on test score growth and high school graduation rates; replicate success by recognizing top-performing schools and districts; and seek to more accurately measure student progress by allowing states to use “adaptive assessments,” which “dig deeper into a student’s knowledge base to better measure knowledge or ability.”

Before being appointed to the Senate, Bennet was superintendent of the Denver Public School system and he has championed education reform on Capitol Hill. He spoke with passion last fall in the Senate chamber about what he characterized as the comically frustrating shortcomings of No Child Left Behind, describing the law was the worst kind of federal overreach. In explaining the priorities of the new Growth to Excellence bill, he emphasized the need to grant local parties the power to shape achievement and assessment efforts according to varying contexts.

“We developed a School Performance Framework in Denver to measure the progress of actual students year over year that served as the foundation for the Colorado growth model, which is now being used or pursued by more than a dozen states,” he was quoted in a release. “Our model has provided the country with an innovative example of how to measure student progress in real and meaningful ways.

“This bill builds on Colorado’s example and ensures we are working towards a sane and useful accountability system that gives every kid a shot at a quality education. I commend Congressman Polis for taking up this bill in the House of Representatives. It is an excellent counterpart to the bill Senator Udall and I have introduced in the Senate.”

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

“As a former superintendent who has been on the receiving end of No Child Left Behind, I know that well-intentioned ideas from Washington often do not make sense once they reach the classroom,” Bennet said today in a release. “In a system where kids living in poverty face a 9 in 100 chance of graduating from a four-year college, parents, children and educators aren’t concerned with where a fix comes from. They just want the problem solved, and unfortunately, dysfunction in Washington has held up a fix in Congress.

“Now, Colorado has received relief from many of the one-size-fits-all elements of No Child Left Behind that disempower the people who are closest to our kids. This exemption will remove bureaucratic barriers to innovation and reform and allow Colorado to focus on what matters: improving outcomes for kids.”

Obama is granting waivers to ten states– Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Tennessee. The administration is working with New Mexico to help it meet the requirements for the waiver and nearly 30 additional states are applying for the same exemption.

A signature domestic policy of the Bush years, No Child Left Behind requires all students to be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Educators have long felt the policy a draconian and ill-considered attempt to boost student performance by holding teachers to inflexible one-size-fits-all benchmarks. The effect, critics say, is that instructors simply “teach to the test” instead of taking a more organic approach to the way children learn.

“The goals of No Child Left Behind were laudable, but it has suffered from poor implementation and has been loaded with burdensome one-size-fits-all standards, making it difficult for our children to succeed in the 21st century,” said Udall in a prepared statement. “I’ll continue to work with my colleagues to improve the law, but until that happens, I’m glad the administration has recognized the reality that Colorado has developed a better way to hold kids and teachers accountable through its nationally recognized growth model. As the author of a bill that would build on that model nationally, I appreciate the administration’s decision today. And I’m proud Coloradans will be able to continue our efforts without being held back by onerous federal government standards.”

States receiving waivers must set new targets for improving achievement, reward schools making the best progress and aid schools that are struggling most.

Bennet has aimed at reforming No Child Left Behind almost since the day he arrived in the Senate. He helped write the Growth to Excellence Act meant to remake the controversial policy and made news last fall with an impassioned floor speech excoriating his colleagues for stalling action on the bill, which is still in committee.

“You know why people are fed up with this place?” he said. “It’s because they don’t think the debate we’re having is about them. They think the debate we’re having is about us. And they’re right about that…

“The teachers all across this state want us to lift this burden from them, in my view the biggest federal overreach ever in domestic policy. That’s what this bill does, not for ideological reasons, but to respond to the voices of our teachers, respond to the voices of our superintendents.

“[The bill] responds to the voices of our parents who are sick and tired of the almost comical but to them painful measures of annual progress, the idea that we’re going to label all of our schools failing by 2014 because we have a completely made up accountability system in Washington DC. This bill does away with that!”

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

“I was stunned to find out that Komen announced it had decided to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, which is the largest provider of women’s health care in the country,” DeGette said. “I was pleased when they reversed that decision. But I am concerned about how Komen is making its decisions.”

DeGette explained that she has had concerns about Komen decision-making for a while and that its perilous up-and-down journey through some of the murkier reaches of the abortion-politics swamp this week demonstrated confusion at the heart of the organization.

“As the attacks on Planned Parenthood [in Congress] revved up last year, Komen was touting the fact that it didn’t support stem cell research, even though they know stem cell research shows great potential to treat breast cancer.”

DeGette elaborated that thought in a release sent out minutes ago.

I have grave concerns that last fall, seemingly during the same time they decided to change [the funding policy to cut off Planned Parenthood], Komen also enacted a new policy of refusing to fund the pursuit of lifesaving ethical embryonic stem cell research (ESC), despite a history of recognizing its great potential. Given the massive resources of their organization and the great potential of ESC [to bolster] breast cancer treatment and [the search for] cures, it is deeply disturbing that Komen has turned its back on this research because of the same political pressures that led them to the original Planned Parenthood decision.

A politically-motivated grant process has no place in the pursuit of life-saving screenings, treatments, and research.

DeGette has long been an advocate for stem cell research and re-introduced her Stem Cell Research Advancement Act last year. The act passed the House and Senate years ago but fell victim to a George W. Bush veto. The legislation would establish a more permanent legal framework in which scientists could conduct stem cell research without being subject to the start-and-stop political pressures that shape life on Capitol Hill.

DeGette said she was “very glad” that Colorado’s Komen affiliates “stood up for science-based care” when they asked to be excluded from — and when Aspen Komen rejected altogether– the ban on funding Planned Parenthood and did so based on the statistically proven vital work Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains has done over the years to detect and head-off breast cancer among thousands of Coloradans with severely limited health care options.

DeGette said the Komen story this week was a wake-up call.

“I can’t tell you, we had such an outcry. My website and Facebook accounts were just full of messages,” she said.

“My daughter is 22 and she said this was the first time in her life she donated to Planned Parenthood. People need to be assured this major organization [Komen] is making science-based decisions.

DeGette said it was clear this week’s funding flap was part of a larger messaging battle.

“You know I sit on the Stearns committee doing the investigation into Planned Parenthood,” DeGette said, referring to the Planned Parenthood audit called by Florida anti-abortion Rep. Cliff Stearns and based on a mostly debunked Americans United for Life report on alleged Planned Parenthood misdeeds and corruption. The Stearns investigation was the reason Komen initially gave for throwing Planned Parenthood off its funding rolls.

“Listen, some Republicans in Congress have had a vendetta against Planned Parenthood for years, but 97 percent of what that organization does is well-women visits. For many of those women all over the country these are the only type of annual checkups they receive. There is no public tax money being spent on abortion and abortion is a small part of Planned Parenthood’s mission.

“I have been saying for years that these lawmakers don’t just oppose abortion. They oppose birth control and disease prevention for women. It’s the 21st century and we’re arguing about birth control?

“A lot of Americans woke up this week and said, ‘wow, the GOP agenda really is extreme. It’s about opposing contraception and mammography.’

“We want Komen to get back to science-based funding decisions”

DeGette is the head of the congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and has been a lead critic of the attacks on Planned Parenthood launched on Capitol Hill this year. Together with California Rep. Henry Waxman, she denounced the Stearns investigation as “unwarranted” and as a legalistic cover to “harass and shut down an organization simply because Republicans disagree with the work that it does.”

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

“Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) does important work to educate women about breast cancer and provide screening exams that are critical to early detection,” he wrote in a release. “I applaud Komen’s Denver affiliate for pushing back on their national organization and insisting that they be allowed to continue providing grants to PPRM, which help ensure access to affordable, life-saving services for Colorado women on the Front Range.

“Women’s health should never be used as a political football, and I hope the national organization of Susan G. Komen reverses its decision to end its partnership with Planned Parenthood elsewhere in our state and across the country.”

Staffers earlier said Udall was crafting a response to the Komen news with Colorado Senator Michael Bennet. It’s unclear if Udall and Bennet at this point still plan to pen a letter to Komen together. Colorado’s senators’ staffers told the Colorado Independent the two wanted to directly address news coming out of Colorado, where the two major women’s health organizations, Komen and Planned Parenthood, seemed to be coming to their own agreement.

A group of roughly two dozen U.S. Senators signed onto a letter to the national Komen foundation decrying the decision to pull back crucial support in the battle against breast cancer for what seemed to be clearly partisan political reasons.

Komen’s rationale for the move has shifted in the hours since it made its decision public.

Known for its marketing savvy– this is the group that hosts enormously popular “races for the cure” around the country and that launched the omnipresent pink-ribbon campaign– Komen first said the decision was not tied to this year’s turbo-charged anti-Planned Parenthood abortion politics but was simply the results of new rules governing grantee eligibility, specifically new rules that precluded organizations under investigation from receiving Komen cash.

The congressional investigation that moved Planned Parenthood off Komen funding lists, however, was very much a product of the anti-Planned Parenthood politics that shaped this year’s House Republican agenda. It was launched by anti-abortion Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns and based on a specious and mostly debunked report by anti-abortion group Americans United for Life.

The Komen policy changes seemed transparently motivated by the House investigation, especially in light of the fact that leadership at Komen has recently included strong anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood figures such as Senior Vice President Karen Handel and Komen Advocacy Alliance board member Jane Abraham.

As the Washington Post reported, however, Komen CEO Nancy Brinker just hours ago walked back reference to the Stearns investigation, saying the new funding rules “had very little to do with the ongoing congressional probe” and were based on the fact that not all Planned Parenthood clinics provide mammograms.

“We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

Northern Colorado Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains clinics will continue to draw funds, as will clinics in Texas and Southern California, she said, because “they are the only provider” of breast health services in the areas they serve.

Denver Komen gave Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains $125,000 last year, or 4.3 percent of the nearly $3 million Denver Komen spent fighting breast cancer here, but Komen got big bang for those bucks. Planned Parenthood detected nearly 20 percent of all of the cases of breast cancer discovered through Denver Komen spending.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains serves patients whose health-care options are severely limited. Roughly 84 percent of PPRM patients have no health insurance and 62 percent live at or below the federal poverty line.

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

The letter comes on the heels of news that roughly two dozen of Udall and Bennet’s colleagues in the Senate have signed on to a letter strongly urging Komen, the high-profile marketing firm behind the breast-cancer pink-ribbon campaign, to reverse the decision it announced this week to cease funding Planned Parenthood breast cancer screening and education efforts.

The Senate letter has reportedly drawn support from a wide spectrum of Democrats, including moderates like Montana’s John Tester. It decried the Komen decision as the latest front in the partisan political battle launched against Planned Parenthood this year that has driven moves inside and outside of government to strip funds from the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider.

“It would be tragic if any woman– let alone thousands of women– lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack,” the letter reads.

The support the letter has garnered reflects the increasingly high-level pushback Komen has received this week. News outlets have reported the intense back-and-forth that erupted in the wake of the announcement as it unfolded and as it played out on the internet, where supporters and detractors have waged furious social media messaging battles.

Denver Komen is one of select foundation affiliates across the nation that have asked for a waiver from the controversial decision to cut Planned Parenthood funds and has made the case in its public statements for its continuing to fund Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM), pointing to the vital role the embattled organization plays in fighting breast cancer here.

PPRM provides distinctly cost-effective service for Komen. Its Front Range clinics were responsible for 19 percent of all the breast cancer detected through Denver Komen funding last year and it received only $125,000 or 4.3 percent of the $3 million Denver Komen awarded to nonprofits spread across the region, from Douglas County just south of Denver north to the Wyoming border.

Komen also notes that the state budget this year was slashed for the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program provided by the Women’s Wellness Connection Program, leaving nearly 5,500 women in Colorado without access to services and opening the door to nearly 90 cases of cancer. In such an environment, Komen suggested, cutting off Planned Parenthood funding would be irresponsible.

There is no word yet on whether members of the U.S. House will weigh in formally on the Komen funding question. Calls to members of Colorado’s delegation were not immediately returned.

Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette is the head of the Pro-Choice Caucus and has been a lead critic of the often specious attacks on Planned Parenthood launched on Capitol Hill this year.

Indeed, although Komen has said its decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood was not motivated by abortion politics, it cited as the cause a controversial congressional investigation launched by Florida Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns into twenty years of Planned Parenthood finances. Komen said that its new grantee criteria preclude funding any organizations under investigation.

Yet the Stearns audit of Planned Parenthood was spurred mainly by anti-abortion activists working off of a largely discredited Americans United for Life report brimming with lurid accusations that, for example, Planned Parenthood abetted human trafficking and child prostitution operations.

DeGette, together with California Rep. Henry Waxman, denounced the congressional investigation as “unwarranted” and as a legalistic cover to “harass and shut down an organization simply because Republicans disagree with the work that it does.”

“We are aware of no predicate that would justify this sweeping and invasive request to Planned Parenthood,” Waxman and DeGette wrote in a letter to Stearns last September as the investigation was being proposed. “It would be an abuse of the oversight process if you are now using the Committee’s investigative powers to harass Planned Parenthood again. Your fervent ideological opposition to Planned Parenthood does not justify launching this intrusive investigation.”

In a Thursday call with reporters, Komen CEO Nancy Brinker walked back reference to the Stearns investigation. The Washington Post reports Brinker said the decision not to continue funding Planned Parenthood “had very little to do with the ongoing congressional probe” but was based primarily on the fact that some Planned Parenthood clinics do not provide mammograms.

“We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

Northern Colorado Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains clinics will continue to draw funds, as will clinics in Texas and Southern California, Binker said, because “they are the only provider” of breast health services in the areas they serve.

News outlets and blogs have pointed to the fact that national Komen leadership has been tilted recently by a growing number of hardcore pro-life executives and board members, such as Senior Vice President Karen Handel, who came on last April after running as an anti-Planned Parenthood candidate for governor in Georgia’s Republican primary, and prominent Komen Advocacy Alliance board member Jane Abraham, who is also general chairman of the anti-abortion lobbying organization Susan B. Anthony List.

Leadership at Susan B. Anthony includes former arch-social conservative Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. The group has played a key role in the effort to “defund” Planned Parenthood nationwide. This year it kept a running state-by-state scorecard tracking the roughly $60,399,000 in federal and state funding stripped from Planned Parenthood affiliates in eight states.

“Our efforts during the federal budget fight gave Planned Parenthood a black eye,” the organization boasted.

The Atlantic reported today that sources inside Komen are beginning to confirm that the new policy cited to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood– whether ultimately tied to on-site mammogram services, congressional investigations or something else– was adopted specifically to cut off Planned Parenthood and that that effort was spearheaded by anti-abortion personnel led by Handel.

Ties among Komen executives and Congressional Republicans are sure to be scrutinized in the coming days.

Komen board member Jane Abraham’s husband, Spencer Abraham, for example, may draw looks. He was Energy Secretary under George W. Bush and last year joined Republicans in the House, including House Energy Committee member and Planned Parenthood investigator Cliff Stearns, in denouncing the government program that guaranteed loans to Solyndra solar panel company. Abraham’s law firm recently teamed with Florida law firm Roetzel & Andress to form DC-based lobby shop Abraham & Roetzel, which has offices in Columbus, Ohio and Tallahassee, Florida.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains told the Colorado Independent this week that the Denver Komen affiliate has been a “strong advocate” for the work Planned Parenthood does in Colorado.

More than 80 percent of PPRM patients have no health insurance and 62 percent live at or below the federal poverty line.

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

Of 569 individuals polled, 39 percent say incumbent Tipton deserves to be re-elected but only 36 percent approve of the job he is doing. Tipton’s job approval is 12 points lower than the 48 percent job approval then-Rep. John Salazar notched in a similar poll conducted in 2010. Tipton ended up beating Salazar, whose popularity was tested by votes in favor of the Affordable Care Act.

“People are upset with the way Washington is conducting business– and it shows,” Pace said in a press release. “I decided to run to make sure that the priorities of Colorado– our agriculture, our recreation-based economy, and our entrepreneurial spirit– are the priorities in Washington. It is time we stop playing politics and start putting people back to work with practical and commonsense solutions.”

Tom Jensen, Director of Public Policy Polling, said the results of the survey suggest that, as Pace’s name recognition improves, the race will tighten up significantly.

“In Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, 39% of voters support freshman Scott Tipton for reelection, while 54% think he should be replaced. House Republicans have a 37/49 favorability rating in the district and Tipton’s approval rating is 36%, with 40% of voters giving him low marks. Tipton starts out ahead only 46-39 against challenger Sal Pace, a lead that is likely to shrink as Pace’s name recognition increases.”

Tipton, known for his anti-environmental stands, has also drawn competition from the right. Candidate Tisha Casida is running against him in the GOP primary.

Results of the poll were first reported by Politico.

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

Lamborn’s office told FOX31 Denver that he “respects the president personally, and the office of the president,” but that he wants to clearly relate that he “does not support the policies of Barack Obama, that they have hurt our country.”

Lamborn represents solidly Republican Congressional District 5, which turns around one of the top military and evangelical cities in the nation, Colorado Springs. Lamborn learned this week that he is facing a 2012 primary challenge from businessman Robert Blaha, a turn of events that seemed to rile the congressman.

In announcing he was running for re-election, Lamborn asked El Paso County Republicans to approach his opponent’s candidacy with skepticism:

“Why would someone want to knock off the most conservative member of Congress?” he asked.

Udall, a moderate Democrat and member of Congress since 1999, has lamented the partisan gridlock and the politics of personal attacks that have ratcheted up in recent years. He teamed with Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski in his calls for bipartisan State of the Union seating, their proposal coming the year after Obama’s first State of the Union address, at which South Carolina Republican Joe Wislon burst out with a red-faced accusation that the president was a liar. Wilson later apologized but the heckling registered as a low point. Even in the moment, the outburst raised a disappointed “ooh” from the chamber, clearly took congressional veteran Speaker Nancy Pelosi by surprise and reduced Vice President Joe Biden to dejected head shaking.

Last week Udall and Murkowski wrote a letter to Republican and Democratic congressional leaders renewing their call for mixed seating and setting out their reasoning.

Political differences will always generate a healthy debate, but too often our dialogue impedes the progress demanded by the American people. Hyper-partisanship has frequently kept Congress from finding common-sense solutions that could spur economic growth or help our middle class. It’s little wonder that the American people have such a low regard for Congress and a lack of confidence in their governmental institutions.

So, now more than ever, we have the obligation to show that there is a place for civility on Capitol Hill and that civility can lead to problem-solving. As we saw last year, bipartisan seating reduced the division we had witnessed for decades at the annual State of the Union address, where Members traditionally took part in choreographed standing and clapping on one side of the Chamber while the other side sat in silent protest. That is an image unbecoming of our institution, especially when we should be striving for ways to put aside our differences and stand united.

“We ask for your assistance in making this a permanent tradition,” they wrote. Udall and Murkowski plan to sit together tomorrow night for the speech.

Udall spoke with CNN recently about the State of the Union address.

[Image: Sen Udall, left, Rep Lamborn, right ]

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

“After opposing every major effort under the Obama administration to stimulate the economy, conservative media — led by Fox News — have claimed that the pipeline should be approved because it would provide jobs even as it threatens the environment,” wrote Media Matters staffers Jocelyn Fong & Shauna Theel. “The job figures rely on industry-funded studies, and at times even grossly exaggerate those estimates. Watch as they struggle to get on the same page regarding which inflated estimate to use.”

In the wake of the Obama decision, Colorado U.S. Rep Mike Coffman said the project would bring “tens of thousands of jobs” to the United States.

“This decision is not based on the jobs and the energy that our country so desperately needs, but solely on a political calculation that [Obama] can’t afford to offend his radical environmental base for his re-election,” he said in a release.

The discussion over the pipeline recalls the vast job-creation claims made last year by Colorado freshman Republican Rep. Cory Gardner when he introduced the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which sought to open up greater sections of the U.S. coast to oil drilling, and particularly sections of pristine Arctic Ocean off Alaska.

The trumpeted environmental risks, even if taken at face value, Gardner said, were worth taking because drilling in the remote, freezing, stormy and dark Beaufort and Chukchi seas would create “hundreds of thousands of jobs.” The jobs claim seemed grossly exaggerated to skeptical analysts.

Gardner has taken enormous sums from the oil and gas industry over the past few years in campaign donations. His district is the site of an oil and gas drilling boom.

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

“SOPA may have the best of intentions to protect property rights and copyrighted materials from illegal use,” he is quoted to say in a release issued this afternoon, “but the possible restriction of free speech and burdensome regulations on the activities of legitimate websites, many of which are small businesses, force me to oppose the bill.”

SOPA was temporarily shelved this but is very likely to come back, pushed by big-money entertainment industry campaign donors and lobbyists.

The bill and its companion in the Senate, the Protect IP Act, known as PIPA, have stirred widespread grassroots and business opposition, which culminated today in an online protest, a sort of digital sit-down strike that saw major websites such as Wikipedia and Reddit shut down.

Coffman is the third member of the nine-member Colorado delegation to come out against the bills. He joins Colorado Democrats Rep Jared Polis and Sen Mark Udall.

Coffman’s also joins high-profile conservative members of Congress, including South Carolina Rep Jim DeMint, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and Florida freshman Rep Marco Rubio.

DeMint tweeted his opposition:

“I support intellectual property rights, but I oppose SOPA & PIPA. They’re misguided bills that will cause more harm than good.”

A week and a half ago, Ryan sent out a release explaining his opposition.

“The internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House.”

The Hill reported that Rubio dropped his support for the bill after considering arguments made by the bill’s critics.

“Earlier this year, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and without controversy,” he reportedly wrote on his Facebook page. “Since then, we’ve heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government’s power to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences.”

The Wall Street Journal came out for the bill but downplayed conservative opposition. National Tea Party blog RedState, for example, opposes the legislation.

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

The Obama administration issued a statement Saturday in support of laws intended to battle online piracy, but adding that it “will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

Wikipedia announced Monday that

in an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.

According to Open Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act (known as SOPA) would “establish a system for taking down websites that the Justice Department determines to be dedicated to copyright infringement. The DoJ or the copyright owner would be able to commence a legal action against any site they deem to have ‘only limited purpose or use other than infringement,’ and the DoJ would be allowed to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site.”

Among the Colorado congressional delegation, Second District Democratic Rep Jared Polis has been the most outspoken opponent of the legislation, which is being pushed mainly by major entertainment and communications companies seeking to remake the internet to prevent loose sharing and remixing of copyrighted material. Polis made a fortune as an internet entrepreneur before running for office. He held a forum on popular user-curated-news community site Reddit recently to provide information to users about the act, describing himself to participants partly as a “gamer and a nerd.” He later tweeted that SOPA is big government at its worst.

“SOPA is overreach; balance needed between idea protection & idea dissemination, destroying Internet not the answer,” he messaged to his followers.

Polis explained part of his position in committee as the bill was being debated. He said the act would “balkanize the internet,” creating a separate internet for American users than for the rest of the world and putting the onus on service providers to take down and block foreign sites merely suspected of violating copyright laws:

Colorado politics watcher and software development company head David Thielen wrote at politics blogsite Colorado Pols last week that, of the Colorado delegation, only Polis and Senator Mark Udall have gone on record in opposition to SOPA, the rest of the delegation making no public stand.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that the fight over the Act is far from over. Anonymous tweeted ”SOPA is NOT dead, just put aside for now. It WILL be back once the time is ‘right’. So don’t drop your support for SOPAblackout on J18!”

Filed by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, SOPA has the support of the movie and TV industry, Viacom, NBC, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and major unions like the Teamsters and Electrical Workers. SOPA is co-sponsored by 31 members of the House, including Florida’s Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Ted Deutch and Dennis Ross.

Internet companies Bloomberg, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Zynga and others support SOPA and PIPA but argue (.pdf) that the bills would “expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites.”

Six GOP co-sponsors of the Senate version of SOPA wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to express their concerns with Reid’s “decision to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the PROTECT IP Act,” adding that constituents and other stakeholders have voiced “concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights.”

According to Free Press, “if passed, the ‘Stop Online Piracy Act,’ or SOPA (HR 3261), could rip apart the open fabric of the Internet. People could see their websites disappear from the Internet for a ‘crime’ as innocent as posting a video of themselves singing along to a favorite song.”

Additional reporting by John Tomasic.

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