1. How do you feel going into the final stretch of the campaign?
2. What do you feel was the most affective tactic used by your campaign?
3. Any specific plans or parties for election day?

A Better Colorado—Pro-47

1. “We are hopeful and confident that voters understand what Amendment 47 is really about — the individual freedom for us all to decide for ourselves if we want to pay dues to a labor union or not.”

2. “When people understand that Amendment 47 is not an anti-union measure — but rather a pro-freedom, pro-worker measure — we know that Amendment 47 enjoys overwhelming support. Delivering our message, and telling the truth in the process, was very effective in earning supporters.”

3. No public function at this time.

Protect Colorado’s Future—Anti-47/49/54

1. “We feel very good about our efforts to educate voters and the depth and breadth of the coalition we have built going into tomorrow’s election but we are continuing to work hard to reach out to voters about these deceptive amendments.”

2. “We had a very robust campaign of going door to door talking to voters and once you explained to the voters how these amendments would silence our first responders and teachers they understood the importance in voting.”

3. “We will be at the Sheraton hotel in the Grand Ballroom.”

Stay tuned for the results!

The spots are being funded by the political committee Defend Our Economy, which is supporting a “right-to-work” measure that would restrict the way labor unions organize and bargain in the state.

Here is the first version:

Here is the second version:

This is also the second time that public servants have been invoked by campaigns for and against the issue.

Protect Colorado’s Future, a labor-backed committee that’s opposing Amendment 47, has spent at least $457,000 on television spots and mailings that also feature police officers and fire fighters.

The difference between the two is that the Protect Colorado Future ads feature actual testimonials of real-life public servants:

The [Protect Colorado's Future] mailer features photos of a disgruntled Deputy Sheriff Jeff Shaw from Commerce City with the words, “For officers like Jeff Shaw — our safety is his top priority. But at 2:00 am when he responds to a call — Officer Shaw shouldn’t worry whether or not his vest can take that bullet.”

The pro-47 spots, on the other hand, have only amounted to still images of the professions.

First, Hillary Clinton capitalized on our fear of things that go bump in the night with her primary commercial. “It’s 3 a.m and your children are safe and asleep,” a narrator says while images of sleeping babies flash across the screen. “But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who will answer that call.”

Now Protect Colorado’s Future is using similar language in an effort to quash three ballot initiatives. The pro-union organization, sent out a mailer warning against the “real danger” that could follow if voters pass Amendments 47, 49 and 54, three measures that would weaken collective bargaining in the state.

The mailer features photos of a disgruntled Deputy Sheriff Jeff Shaw from Commerce City with the words, “For officers like Jeff Shaw — our safety is his top priority. But at 2:00 am when he responds to a call — Officer Shaw shouldn’t worry whether or not his vest can take that bullet. But that’s EXACTLY what Amendments 47,49, and 54 will do.” The ad goes on to say that police unions will be diminished by the three measures.

Protect Colorado’s Future is the organization behind two other ballot initiatives. Amendment 53 seeks to quash corporate fraud while Amendment 55 protects workers from being fired for no reason.

Vintage union pamphlet depicting worker breaking his shackles. (Photo/Tobias Higbie)

Two union-supported initiative proposals — Amendment 53 and Amendment 55 — were certified for the state ballot during the hoopla of the Democratic National Convention, adding on to what is now the longest ballot in the nation.

Amendment 53 is considered the “corporate fraud” initiative, and would make corporate executives criminally liable for acts of fraud committed by their businesses, while Amendment 55 would ask voters if an employer should be required to state a “just cause” for firing an employee.

A campaign called Protect Colorado’s Future, which has been primarily funded by labor unions, worked to put the measures on the ballot.

The two amendments were submitted in response to Amendment 47, a “right-to-work” proposal that will also be on the ballot. If passed into law, Amendment 47 would restrict the way labor groups organize and negotiate in the state, by banning collective bargaining agreements between unions and businesses that require minimal agency fees from nonmember employees who receive union-negotiated benefits in the workplace.

Labor supporters have characterized Amendment 47 as being an attempt by stealth business interests to break up unions in Colorado, because the pro-47′s campaign coffers have been funded primarily through anonymous contributions.

That ground war is being fought between the lines of Internal Revenue Service loopholes governing certain political committees, better known by their tax law subsection number as 527s, and tax-exempt 501c4 charitable organizations that have less stringent rules on accountability and transparency.

Because of new 527 regulations, nonprofit groups are becoming a more attractive option for political donors who don’t want their names to see the limelight on public disclosure forms, according to Sheila Krumholz, an executive director with the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.

“It’s an enormous problem,” Krumholz told the Colorado Independent in June. “It’s the last great refuge for donors who want to give unlimited contributions and maintain their anonymity while doing so.”

At the same time, groups campaigning against Amendments 53 and 55 claim that the proposals would dissuade businesses from investing in the state and be disastrous for the economy.

The possibility of a sharply divided political clash between labor and business groups moved high-profile public officials like Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter to try to encourage the backers of the three measures to surrender their plans to put the proposals up for a vote.

In an Aug. 22 story in the Denver Business Journal, Kate Horle, a spokeswoman for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, said she hopes both sides will back off.

“We really want this to go away,” Horle said. “It is so potentially devastating.”

On Monday, the campaign for Amendment 47, called A Better Colorado, sent out a press statement announcing clearly that sponsors of the measure had no intention of pulling their proposal off the ballot.

Defend Our Economy, a pro-business campaign created specifically to oppose Amendments 53 and 55, announced last week it would also be supporting Amendment 47.

The initiative, which is now officially titled Amendment 53, would make business executives in Colorado liable for fraud offenses associated with their companies and is considered to be one of the toughest laws in the nation targeting corporate crime.

Protect Colorado’s Future, a campaign supported by labor unions and other advocacy groups, submitted petitions to put the measure on the ballot, citing public cases like the trial of Qwest Communications CEO Joseph Nacchio, who was sentenced to six years in federal prison for insider trading offenses before having his conviction overturned on appeal in March.

The corporate fraud proposal is one of two measures submitted for the ballot by Protect Colorado’s Future to counter two other ballot questions that could restrict the way unions organize and collect dues from members.

Another proposal supported by Protect Colorado’s Future would require certain companies to provide a just cause for firing employees, but it has not be certified for the ballot yet.

According to a statement from the state office, a projected 94,546 signatures out of approximately 136,000 submitted by initiative supporters were determined to be valid.

A little more than 76,000 petition signatures are required to put a proposal on the state ballot. The state office verifies a random five-percent sample of signatures for certification.

A Better Colorado, the group supporting the initiative, did not immediately return a request for comment.

Protect Colorado’s Future, a group opposing the measure, has said it will seek to independently verify the petition signatures, much like the process completed recently recently with a ballot proposal that would ban affirmative action programs in the state.

“Based on the election screening, we will in the coming days conduct a more a more detailed analysis of petition signatures,” said Jess Knox, spokesman for the group.

Protect Colorado’s Future recently filed a complaint with the Secretary of State alleging that right-to-work signatures were gathered illegally.

Financial reports detailing supporters of both groups will not be available until early May.