It will come as no surprise to Coloradans force-fed a fire-hose stream of ugly and untrustworthy campaign election material over the last two years that independent spending– spending directly tied to no candidate and mostly free of accountability– more than tripled in the state from 2008 to 2010. This according to a recent report released by watchdog group Follow the Money, which singles out Colorado for study. The authors report that, although the state has relatively strong disclosure laws, larger changes in campaign finance rules have let loose here as everywhere in the country a storm of money and a sea of roiling paperwork that can cover over as much as it reveals.

The report makes clear that independent expenditures will continue to pour into the state in the tens of millions, generating high-volume few-strings-attached propaganda. Groups affiliated with other groups spun off from still other groups will continue to set up front companies to buy air time, create ads, and then essentially disappear. The ads will be a mess of exaggeration and distortion and it will become increasingly difficult to hold anyone responsible. We are living through a turbocharged age of Floyd Brown‘s “Willie Horton.”

In 2006, in statewide and legislative races, independent spending equaled only 2 percent of money donated directly to candidate campaigns in Colorado. Independent groups spent $380,000.

In the 2008 statewide, legislative and judicial races, independent spending shot up to 76 percent of money donated directly to candidate campaigns. Independent groups spent $7.5 million.

In post-Citizens United 2010, independent spending overtook donations to candidates to reach 130 percent. Independent groups spent $26 million.

In 2010, on the right, the big spending came from corporations and their representatives. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $4 million. American Justice Partnership, which pushes anti-regulation legislation, spent $1.7 million. Karl Rove’s American Crossroads spent $1.2 million and Altria, a tobacco industry group, spent $1.2 million.

On the left, advocacy and union groups doled out the cash. Top spending groups included Twenty First Century Colorado, which gave $2.7 million, Accountability for Colorado, which gave $1.5 million, and The Neighborhood Project, which gave $1.4 million.

Adding to those menacing statistics, the Follow the Money authors write that the state’s tough transparency laws are being absurdly undermined by well-funded groups who bungle their disclosure forms.

“Filers seem to be filling out the independent expenditure and electioneering forms incorrectly,” they write. “For example, several conservative groups, such as Focus on the Family and Colorado Citizens for Accountable Government, reported spending in support of Democrats, an unlikely event.”

The Follow the Money report is worth reading in full. It includes links to donations made by the organizations listed.

Fix Congress First is one of the groups formed in the last election cycle to try and do something to combat the waterfall of corrupting money in politics.

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

Although Penry jumped into the campaign strongly this summer, winning “rising star” status from popular Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza, he has recently struggled.

Even though he posted large fundraising figures for the first quarter, for example, he was overtaken by primary rival former U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis. Penry raised $400,000 and tweeted about it proudly only to be deflated when McInnis later announced he had pulled down $545,000, establishing himself as the clear frontrunner, enjoying the edge in experience, name recognition and cash.

Penry worked for McInnis as a Congressional staffer and never fully succeeded shaking the impression that McInnis had his number. McInnis fueled the impression by appearing unflappable in the face of Penry jabs. McInnis refused to debate Penry or even to appear in straw poll events with him.

Josh Penry

Penry also seemed to be losing momentum on his message. Although he opened the campaign with a clear platform based on admitting to Republican fiscal failures, he soon seemed to be casting about, attacking Gov. Ritter with arguments designed for dramatic effect but increasingly untethered to facts. It was as though the budget crisis that is forcing Ritter every day to announce cost-slashing measures was undoing Penry’s planned program-cutting platform.

Penry’s complaints about Ritter’s prisoner-furlough program as carelessly reckless, for example, was the opposite of the reality. As the Colorado Independent reported, the program was meticulously thought out, a product of long planning based on research that showed incarceration and recidivism as a major financial drag on the state and that looked at which prisoners would be best to parole months early. In other words, it might have been exactly the kind of “hard choice” cost-cutting measure Penry described as essential to good government. His attacks seemed opportunistic and recalled the ugly national campaign that featured infamously furloughed Massachusetts prisoner Willie Horton in commercials run by George H. Bush in his campaign against Mass. Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Penry’s recent attacks on the Governor’s Energy Office were similarly reaching. He called the office a “silo of patronage” and said it should be eliminated. But asked to say which patronage positions he was referring to, he came up with merely two names, and neither person owed their position to patronage. One of the employees, in fact, merely used workspace in the Energy Office and was not paid out of the Office budget. Indeed, the Office budget had been slashed to the bone by Ritter and is now running almost entirely on federal funds.

In addition, Penry seems to have made a poor decision in his selection of campaign manager Mike Britt. The choice seemed antithetical to his “new GOP politics” message. Britt cut his teeth working for Karl Rove, perhaps the most visible GOP strategist of the divisive cultural politics of the past decade. Britt was under investigation as a political staffer in George Bush’s White House and last week news surrounding Britt’s suspect tinkering with Republican National Committee email lists overshadowed Penry’s campaign.

Wins by moderate Republicans in two governor’s races last week may also be weighing on the decision for Penry to move aside for McInnis. Moderate Republicans Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell beat their Democratic rivals in New Jersey and Virginia. McInnis is perceived as more moderately conservative than is Penry.

Cillizza is now reporting that in fact last week’s governor’s races influenced the decision.

Sources close to Penry suggested that he was heavily influenced by the victories for Republicans in New Jersey and Virginia last week — wins due, at least in part, to the lack of competitive primaries on the Republican side.

Penry was worried that a bruising August primary would potentially compromise the eventual nominee’s chances of beating Ritter. Combine that with his youth (he is 33) and his role as state Senate Minority Leader and Penry decided that dropping out of the race was the best option for him and the party.

Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer said the governor had no comment on the news of Penry’s decision, which he noted is yet to be confirmed.

In advance of the announcement, observers are speculating as to why Penry appears to be leaking the news in waves to Cillizza in Washington D.C. rather than to his home town paper, the Grand Junction Sentinel, or the Colorado paper of record, the Denver Post.

The Denver Post recently ran stories critical of Penry attacks on Ritter. Tim Hoover last month wrote a piece that scewered Penry‘s claims that Ritter had been expanding government. Lynn Bartels wrote the piece that punctured Penry’s “silo of patronage” claim regarding the Enery Office.

Michael Huttner, founder and head of liberal activist group ProgressNow, speculates in a press release that McInnis has had a hand in pushing Penry out through lobbyists in D.C., which he believes explains why the story is originating there.

“If this is true, it’s the old D.C. lobbyist guard stepping out of the shadows to clear the field for Scott ‘McLobbyist’ McInnis. McInnis’ ties to lobbyists, oil and gas interests, and corrupt cronies like Tom DeLay can’t help but make one wonder what’s really going on when his primary opponents start dropping out of the race.

[...]

And it should come as no surprise that this story broke first in Washington D.C. instead of Colorado, since that’s where ‘McLobbyist’s’ best friends are. We call on McInnis to disclose which of his lobbyist friends helped push Penry out.”

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

A network of Iowa Republicans is playing a leading role in a secretive group advocating nationally on behalf of “conservative and free market ideals” in congressional races around the country. Among the group’s leaders are two media consultants who played key roles in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads in 2004 and the Willie Horton ad in 1988, both of which helped defeat Democratic presidential candidates …

… The American Future Fund (AFF), operating out of Des Moines, is sponsoring advocacy advertisements in closely contested congressional races from New York to Louisiana to Minnesota and Colorado. It is one of the most ambitious conservative independent expenditure groups to emerge in 2008 …

… In July, it ran radio ads asking Colorado voters to call U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, and “tell him to stop delaying energy exploration.” Last week, AFF launched a television ad critical of Udall’s stance on domestic oil exploration.

Click here to read the full report from the Iowa Independent, including other races across the country that have been targeted by the American Future Fund.