Experts feel no charges will likely come from Ritter campaign finance violations

Interesting article in this morning's Rocky Mountain News on the campaign finance violation charges that the Ritter campaign and former campaign manager Greg Kolomitz are facing. The experts that the Rocky talked with (including Republicans) don't seem to feel that any charges will be forthcoming. The Rocky explains:

Arapahoe County District Attorney Carol Chambers will have her work cut out in building a theft or embezzlement case against Kolomitz, said Scott Gessler, a lawyer for Republican candidates and ballot issues.

"It's going to be a lot harder to press charges than people may be thinking," he said.

For one thing, Ritter and Kolomitz never signed a contract for Kolomitz's work on the campaign or for his handling the inauguration fund. Therefore no document exists to back up Ritter's statement that he never authorized Kolomitz to pay himself anything out of the inauguration fund...

Yet, Secretary of State Mike Coffman may not have a case against Kolomitz either.

State campaign finance laws require a formal complaint to trigger an investigation. No complaint has been filed. And the state Constitution bars Coffman from investigating any alleged violation that happened more than 180 days prior to the complaint.

Kolomitz wrote all of the $217,000 in checks for campaign expenses out of the inaugural fund more than six months ago, an audit shows. And only one of the checks he wrote to himself or his firm falls within the 180-day limit. That check for $350 is dated Oct. 24, 2007 - 177 days before today.

It looks as though the lasting damage to Ritter will be political and not criminal or even civil liability. Emerging from this story is an image of a trusting candidate who did not have sufficient oversight in place. Indeed the governor's office admits as much,

"It's not even a question for us that it was a lack of oversight and a lack of controls," spokesman Evan Dreyer said Thursday.

This will be an issue in Ritter's re-election campaign. You will see this issue brought up by the GOP candidate in debates, you will hear surrogates mentioning this scandal in the media and you will definitely see commercials condemning the incumbent governors "lack of oversight and control."

The question then becomes, has the governor built up enough good will to over come the negatives of this scandal? If nothing more comes of this scandal, either in criminal or civil judgments, then I think the answer is a definitive yes. The governor enjoys very high approval ratings right now - so he has a significant pool of goodwill already built up in his favor. He also has 2 more years until his re-election, plenty of time for this scandal to fade from the publics memory and to seem like old news when it is rehashed in 2 years.

The other interesting political aspect will be the effect this has on fundraising for the re-election campaign. That campaign is now facing a significant new debt. In addition will potential donors be skittish to donate to a campaign with an admitted history of loose and lacking "oversight and control"? I tend to think not but it is a real concern.

The head of the governor's prolific fundraising machine in 2006 was Shaylisa Hurte. Hurte also headed up Senator Ken Salazar's fundraising in 2004. She is currently the head of the Governor's Office of Boards and Commissions. Will she step down to assume the same position in the governor's re-election campaign? She is highly regarded in political circles for her fundraising prowess. It looks as if the re-election campaign will need another strong performance from Hurte.