His words, not mine. That would be Andrew Romanoff, candidate for the Democratic nomination for United States Senate, describing the cycle of bribes contributions from financial institutions, Pharma, and other interested parties to politicians who accept such contributions while at the same time considering legislation affecting those same contributors.
Not Andrew. He is "turning down corporate cash," and asking--along with many others of us--"What do these donors expect to gt for their money? What have they already gotten?"
At long last, and just 15 minutes later than advertised, Romanoff at Tuesday afternoon's press conference threw down a gauntlet to his well-funded opponent, M. Bennet, who evidently would have us believe that corporate contributions are given out of ....
...out of what? Management malfeasance, giving away corporate funds in exchange for nothing? Do we smell shareholder lawsuits aplenty? No, not really.
Whereas Romanoff did not reveal his 4Q income--those figures will be filed on January 31, when due, he said, suggesting to some that as numbers they might be underwhelming--he did declare that "over 2,200" contributors have coughed up funds, 95% of whom live in Colorado ("more Colorado contributors to our campaign to any other campaign"). What? No one from Scarsdale? He didn't exactly rule out Scarsdale, but the implication was clear: Colorado isn't for sale, at least not by Andrew Romanoff.
So, came the query from the Curious Press: If you ain't takin' corporate funds, how are you gonna git enuf to run? Answer: "We will raise the money we need to win," while also reminding people that he had been elected four times.
So, with 100 or so supporters huddled in the parking lot of a southeast Denver shopping plaza, Romanoff laid down the first real gauntlet of the campaign: the United States Senate should not become a "wholly owned subsidiary" of the industries it is meant to regulate.
That, at least, is a claim his appointed opponent won't be able to make.