DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF

DENVER, COLORADO
Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80202


Plaintiff: COLORADO REPUBLICAN PARTY

v.

Defendants: SCOTT GESSLER, in his capacity as
Colorado Secretary of State

and

Intervenor Defendant: COLORADO ETHICS
WATCH

Attorneys for Intervenor Defendant Colorado
Ethics Watch:
Luis Toro, #22093
Margaret Perl, #43106
Colorado Ethics Watch
1630 Welton Street, Suite 415
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 626-2100
Fax: (303) 626-2101
E-mail: ltoro@coloradoforethics.org
pperl@coloradoforethics.org

















COURT USE ONLY

Case Number:2014CV031851



Division: 409
Courtroom:
ANSWER OF INTERVENOR DEFENDANT
COLORADO ETHICS WATCH

Intervenor Defendant Colorado Ethics Watch (Ethics Watch), by its undersigned
attorneys, answers Plaintiffs Complaint as follows:
1 3. Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraphs 1 3 of the Complaint.
4. In response to Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits that the Court
has jurisdiction over this matter.
5 7. In response to Paragraphs 5 7 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch denies that the
summaries and explanations of the statutory provisions and appellate decisions are complete and
accurate, and therefore denies the allegations of those paragraphs.
8. In response to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits that venue is
proper in this Court.
2

9 10. Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Complaint.
11 12. Ethics Watch lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in Paragraphs 11 and 12, and therefore denies the allegations of those paragraphs.
13. In response to Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits that Plaintiff
formed and registered the Former IEC on or about August 20, 2012, that the Former IEC
reported $85,847.65 in contributions and the same amount of expenditures to the Secretary of
State, and that the Plaintiff raised funds in compliance with the contribution limits and source
provisions under the campaign finance limits applicable to a state political party committee, and
that the Plaintiff filed the Former IECs final campaign finance report and terminated the Former
IEC on or about February 7, 2014. Ethics Watch lacks information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 and therefore denies them.
14. In response to Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits and avers that
on May 7, 2014, the Party filed with the Secretary of States office the necessary papers to
establish and register a new Colorado Republican Party Independent Expenditure Committee.
Ethics Watch denies that Plaintiff may fund the IEC with no contributions or limitations on
either amount or permissible contributor to influence elections in Colorado, and denies that the
Plaintiff is entitled to the declaration it seeks. Ethics Watch lacks information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14 and therefore denies them.
15. In response to Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits that on or
about November 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a petition for a declaratory order that speaks for itself.
Ethics Watch denies that the summaries and explanations of statutes and rules in Paragraph 15
are complete and accurate, and therefore denies them.
16. In response to Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits that it filed a
Petition for Rulemaking with the Secretary of State on December 23, 2013 that was included in
the record of the Plaintiffs declaratory order proceeding. Ethics Watch denies that it intends to
challenge the New IECs independent expenditures by filing a campaign finance complaint, but
admits that it would consider filing a complaint challenging contributions to the Plaintiffs New
IEC that violated Colorado law regarding the contribution limits and source provisions under the
campaign finance limits applicable to a state political party committee. Ethics Watch lacks
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 16
and therefore denies them.
17 18. In response to Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits that
on February 6, 2014, the Secretary issued a Final Agency Decision on Plaintiffs request for a
declaratory order, which speaks for itself. Ethics Watch denies that the summaries and
explanations of the Secretarys Final Agency Decision are complete and accurate, and therefore
denies them.
3

19 32. In response to Paragraphs 19 32, Ethics Watch denies that the summaries and
explanations of the constitutional and statutory provisions and appellate decisions are complete
and accurate, and therefore denies the allegations of those paragraphs.
33 44. Ethics Watch lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of Paragraphs 33 44 and therefore denies them.
RESPONSE TO CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
45. Ethics Watch repeats its responses to Paragraphs 1 44 above.
46. Ethics Watch admits the allegations of Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
47. In response to Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, Ethics Watch admits that
Colorados state constitutional and statutory framework regarding political-party sponsored
independent expenditure committees is constitutional. Ethics Watch denies the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
48. Ethics Watch lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of Paragraph 48 and therefore denies them.
49. Ethics Watch denies the allegations of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
2. The Secretarys Declaratory Order is void to the extent it purports to issue an
advisory opinion.

DATED: June 17, 2014.

COLORADO ETHICS WATCH



_____[Original Signature On File]______
Margaret Perl, #43106




Address of Plaintiff:
1630 Welton Street, Suite 415
Denver, CO 80202