Messenger: Unclear

Candidate: None

Contest: Broomfield ballot question

Affiliation: U

Date delivered: Nov. 11, 2017

Click here for message

Message type: phone survey

Message tone: other

About the message:

Broomfield residents reported receiving the following telephone survey about ballot Question 301 recently. That measure won more than 57 percent of the vote in the Nov. 7 election, despite oil and gas interests spending more than $435,000 to defeat the initiative.
Here are the questions asked, provided by a resident who recorded the call:
Survey: Hi, my name is Hana and I am calling from Target Point Consulting and I am conducting a very brief public opinion study about some issues affecting Broomfield County. I would like to have the opinions of the youngest adult at this phone number who is registered to vote in Colorado. Would that be you?
Broomfield resident: Yes, it is. I’m recording this call, just so you know.
Survey: Okay, that’s alright.
Survey: Are you currently registered to vote in the State of Colorado?
Survey: Are you or any member of your family currently involved in any campaign for public office?
Survey: Then we had elections on Tuesday in Colorado, did you get a chance to vote in those elections?
Survey: Then in addition to voting for elected officials in November, citizens in Broomfield also voted on question 301 which sought to amend the Broomfield Home Rule Charter and grant Broomfield City and County officials the “authority to regulate all aspects of oil and gas development, including land use and all necessary police powers” and “require oil and gas development to only occur in a manner that does not adversely impact the health, safety, and welfare of Broomfield’s residents in their workplaces, their homes, their schools, and public parks in order to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare and to safeguard the environment and wildlife resources.”
Survey: Did you vote yes for question 301 or no against question 301?
Survey: Thinking back over the past few weeks, when would you say you definitely made up your mind about how you would vote on question 301? Within the last week, within the last couple of weeks, within the last month, or more than a month ago?
Survey: Regardless of how or whether you voted, do you think the campaign to pass question 301 helped bring your community together, or do you think it divided your community or there will be no impact one way or another?
Survey: Regardless of how or whether you voted, do you think the air we breathe and water we drink will be safe or less safe since question 301 passed, or do you think there will be no impact one way or another?
Survey: Regardless of how or whether you voted, do you think we will see more jobs or fewer jobs created in Broomfield now that question 301 has passed or do you think there will be no impact one way or the other?
Survey: Then a few final questions for statistical purposes.
Survey: Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Republican, Democrat, Independent or what?
Survey: Would you consider yourself a strong (insert Party) or not a strong (insert Party)?
Survey: In what year were you born?
Survey: Thank you for your time and opinions.

About the messenger: If there's no indication of who delivered the message, well, it's unclear. This means there's no revelation on a robocall or "paid for by" on a mailer or door literature.

And, in fact, there's a loophole in Colorado law that doesn't require disclosure if a message doesn't explicitly say "vote for" or "vote against." And even candidates don't have to say if they delivered a message, according to the Secretary of State.

According to the Campaign Finance Institute, Colorado was one of only 10 states with such a loophole in 2016.

The messenger's money: This is the definition of "dark money." There's no way to know who paid.