>Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 18:41:13 EST
>From: CENDO RICHARD <cendo@spot.Colorado.EDU>
>Subject: Amendment 2 sponsors lose 2d court battle

The following is a press release I received this weekend from People For A
Stronger Colorado, a group that tried to put an Amendment 2 repeal on the
'94 ballot.
     
JUDGE DECIDES COLORADO FOR FAMILY VALUES VIOLATED ELECTION LAWS
     
(Denver) Judge Marshall Snider has determined that CFV was in violation of
Colorado's Campiagn Reform Act when they solicited contributions to fight
the Equal Protection Amendment throughout 1993.
     
The Equal Protection Amendment would have replaced Amendment 2 with a
constitutional guarantee of protection from discrimination in housing,
employment, education and public accommodations.
     
CFV started what they called the Amendment 2 defense fund to raise money
for a campaign against the EPA.  The law clearly states that that kind of
fund raising requires an organization to be filed as a political
committee" which, in turn, requires that all contributions and
expenditures are made public information.
     
CFV has made a history of attempting to hide where they recieve their
money from. This is the fifth time they have been caught violating the
Campaign Reform Act in Colorado.  Now there is mounting evidence that they
are being used by other states to funnel money for Amendment 2 clones
which are actively trying to get on the 1994 ballot in those states.  The
best example of this is the reports that CFV gave $390,000 to a sililar
group in Cincinnati, Ohio.  To date, there has been no disclosure of where
that money was raised.
     
Organizations around the country are investigating the elections laws of
their own states to determine if charges similar to the ones here can be
filed against Colorado Fro Family Values or any of the other groups who
they laundry money for.
     
Judge Snider also ruled that CFV did not intentionally make this
violation. We do not agree with this assessment. CFV committed this very
offense from September 1991 to March 1992 when the Secretary of State's
office finally informed them they were in violation and to file as a
political committee.  Their argument that an "issue" is not an "issue"
until it qualifies for the ballot does not hold up because Amendment 2 had
not yet been approved for the ballot when they were compelled to file as a
political committee.
     
Both CFV and Daniel Brewer-Ward have the option to appeal this decision
within 30 days.