Face The State Staff Report
Campaign managers and consultants move over and make way. The most important weapon in today's political arsenal is a campaign's attorney. Lawsuits are the latest device employed by the left to take on conservative and libertarian candidates and causes. Mark Grueskin, a favorite litigator among Democrat activists, is leading the charge.
In 2005, Grueskin filed a lawsuit against the Independence Institute, a free-market think-tank in Golden, alleging the non-profit violated campaign finance laws by engaging in efforts to oppose Referenda C and D, two ballot measures together making up a $6 billion tax package. The lawsuit alleged that Independence violated its 501(c)3 IRS tax status by funding and airing three radio ads concerning the measures. The charges were ultimately dismissed, but Independence Institute President Jon Caldara says the underlying goal of Grueskin’s lawsuit was not to win. “His job is to suck up time, energy and money from political opponents,” Caldara said.
According to Caldara, the lawsuit cost the Independence Institute about $80,000 in legal fees. He says the money could have been used to hire two more full-time staff members.
Even though Caldara and his organization prevailed in court, he believes the lawsuit distracted debate about the proposed tax increase. “Instead of talking about the issue, people were talking about the alleged campaign violation,” Caldara said. “If you want to tangle up your enemies and suck up all their money you hire Grueskin.”
In November 2005, Referendum C was approved by 52 percent of voters while Referendum D was voted down by 51 percent.
The left repeated similar tactics this year when Protect Colorado’s Future, a union-backed coalition, hired Grueskin to file a complaint against a right-to-work initiative, titled Amendment 47 for this November's ballot. Grueskin filed a complaint that included 26 different counts of campaign violations. On August 7, Denver District Judge Christina Habas effectively tossed the lawsuit, ruling that she did not have the authority to review every signature submitted by right-to-work proponents.
Kelley Harp, spokesman for A Better Colorado, the pro-business group promoting Amendment 47, called the lawsuit “frivolous” and “a campaign of misinformation.”
"You have to presume good faith," said Grueskin. "I certainly do on behalf of my clients."
Grueskin hasn't given up. He is now asking the Colorado Supreme Court to take up the case under an emergency appeal. His motion also affects another Grueskin-led lawsuit - this one against Amendment 46, known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, where voter fraud is also alleged but where an unsympathetic district court ruling has forced him to seek the ear of a more sympathetic court.
"Grueskin knows how to cause pain - both in the pocketbook and in newsprint," said Jessica Peck Corry of the Amendment 46 camp (Corry is also an editorial contributor to Face The State). "While he's trying to bury us in legal costs, his clients are out hosting press conferences where they repeat their lies and false allegations. It's politics uglier and dirtier than I've ever seen before."
Grueskin dismisses suggestions that his complaints are frivolous. “I have an ethical obligation to file complaints that are well grounded, and I try to live up to that obligation in everything I do,” he said.
According to campaign finance reports filed with the Secretary of State, A Better Colorado has spent nearly $38,000 on legal fees. Meanwhile, Grueskin's firm, Isaacson Rosenbaum, has been paid nearly $165,000 by Protect Colorado’s Future since April. While not all legal expenses are specifically for litigation, both campaigns have dedicated significant financial resources to courtroom battles.
Protect Colorado’s Future declined the opportunity to comment for this story.
Denver attorney Scott Gessler, who regularly faces Grueskin in court and represents the 46 and 47 campaigns, says the key to Grueskin's success is the bad public sentiment he generates against political opponents. This tactic was demonstrated by Protect Colorado’s Future when it got the local media to cover its complaints against Harp's campaign. By doing this, the group created a feedback loop of information and was able to pull quotes from The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News for campaign advertisements. In one ad, it appeared as if a neutral third party - the media - was describing the right-to-work measure as "fraudulent" and "deceptive.” But the articles were actually quoting representatives of Protect Colorado’s Future.
“They use it for a press hit but also use it for a strategic advantage,” Gessler said.
Grueskin is now going head-to-head against Caldara, defending Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter’s mill levy tax, ruled unconstitutional by Habas earlier this year and now under appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. Other notable election lawsuits he has filed include a 2004 attempt to keep consumer activist Ralph Nader off the 2004 presidential ballot. In 2006, Grueskin filed a lawsuit to keep the Denver polls open longer on Election Day. Both efforts were unsuccessful. When asked how he measures his effectiveness, Grueskin said, “I couldn’t answer that.”
Caldara says this aggressive legal strategy is a tool increasingly used by the left to target Republican candidates and causes. He called Grueskin the “king of frivolous lawsuits” and said, “he is a political operative more than he is a lawyer.”
But Gessler takes a different approach. "Mark Grueskin is an attorney, and he generally behaves that way,” he said. “It's his clients who push the envelope. It's less Grueskin and more the left wing."
Grueskin is not alone in his approach. Colorado Ethics Watch, a liberal interest group led by lawyer Chantell Taylor, regularly uses election law to provoke bad press for Republicans. Such was the case last October, when state House candidate Nick Kliebenstein saw an Ethics Watch complaint turn into a full-blown story in the Broomfield Enterprise. As it turned out, Kliebenstein’s alleged violation was actually caused by a technical problem within the state’s computer software, but three months later Ethics Watch was still highlighting the complaint on its Web site.
Taylor says that as a 501(c)3 non-profit, Colorado Ethics Watch is “precluded from engaging in campaigns.” Still, the non-profit has seen its report, “Ethics Roundup, Colorado’s Most Corrupt Public Officials,” used by the National Education Association as fodder for an anti-Bob Schaffer commercial. Taylor had “no comment” on the ad.
