Opinion ID: 179006
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Campaign-Law Complaint

Text: On July 3, 2006, Putnam, with Hopkins as her attorney, filed a complaint with the Secretary of State alleging that Plaintiffs had violated the campaign finance law by failing (1) to register as an issue committee, (2) to establish a committee bank account with a separate tax identification number, and (3) to comply with the reporting requirements of Colorado Law. Among the allegations was that Plaintiffs' illegal activities ... expos[e] all persons who have contacted or obtained campaign materials from [Plaintiffs] with possible investigation, scrutinization and sanctions for Campaign Finance violations. Aplt. App., Vol. II at 582. The Secretary referred the complaint to Colorado's Office of Administrative Courts. Plaintiffs obtained counsel and on counsel's advice, Plaintiff Becky Cornwell registered the issue committee No Annexation on July 16, listing herself as the registered agent. The report, covering November 27, 2005, to July 13, 2006, showed nonmonetary contributions (signs, a banner, postcards, and postage) totaling $782.02 from Plaintiffs Sampson, Feck, and Wes Cornwell. [2] On July 12, Putnam followed her complaint with a subpoena to produce the following: [1] All evidence of sales, purchases, gifts or any transfers of any materials concerning annexation of Parker North into the Town of Parker, Colorado, including signs, banners or campaign materials, showing the item, the amount contributed or expended, the fair market value of each such item and whether it was sold, gifted or otherwise transferred, listing the type of transfer. [2] Names, addresses and telephone numbers for all persons who are or may be members of [Plaintiffs'] issue committee or group. [3] Names, addresses and telephone numbers for all persons sold, gifted, or transferred signs, banners or any campaign information. [4] All evidence concerning amounts contributed and expended on the issue of annexation of Parker North into the Town of Parker, Colorado. [5] All bank account information concerning contributions, expenditures or campaign materials on the issue of annexation of Parker North into the Town of Parker, Colorado. [6] All issue committee registration information concerning the issue of annexation of Parker North into the Town of Parker, Colorado. [7] All reports made or due to any entity, including the Colorado Secretary of State, concerning the issue committee of [Plaintiffs] or about the issue of annexation of Parker North into the Town of Parker, Colorado. [8] All communications amongst [Plaintiffs] or anyone else concerning the issue of annexation of Parker North into the Town of Parker, Colorado. [9] Examples of information or campaign materials sold, gifted or transferred to anyone concerning the issue of annexation of Parker North into the Town of Parker, Colorado. Id. at 603. Plaintiffs objected to producing the information. But in a written ruling on August 30, the ALJ refused to quash the subpoena except (1) he limited paragraph [2] to include only the names and addresses of all committee members and the identities of all other persons or organizations that have participated with [Plaintiffs] in opposing the annexation in question in any significant way; (2) he quashed the request for materials described in paragraph [3]; (3) he said that [Plaintiffs] need not produce material described in paragraphs [4], [5], [6], and [7] that was available on the Secretary of State's website; and (4) he limited the production of materials described in paragraph [8] to all communications amongst [Plaintiffs] and any member of the issue committee [and] ... persons who have opposed the annexation in a significant way. Id., Vol. IV at 1418-19. In the meantime, on July 21, Putnam, through her lawyer Hopkins, sent Plaintiffs a letter with a non-negotiable offer of settlement. Id., Vol. II at 608. Under the Stipulation and Guilty Plea enclosed with the letter, Plaintiffs would admit all charges against them and would either abandon their organized opposition to the annexation (including removing all signs and campaign material) or follow all laws governing issue committees. The letter gave Plaintiffs four days to respond. Plaintiffs did not sign the agreement and a hearing was held before the ALJ on September 20. All Plaintiffs took off from work to attend. After several hours of testimony by Putnam, the parties reached a settlement. It stipulated (1) that assuming, for purposes of the stipulation, that there was a ballot issue on or before June 2, 2006, Plaintiffs met the state constitutional definition of an issue committee on that date, and (2) that no fines, attorney fees, or other sanction would be imposed against any party or the attorneys.