2012

Other News Corps work

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:22:20 +0000

Other News Corps work Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 12/14/2012 - 13:22 CU News Corps

Amendment 65:

Amendment 64:

Health Policy Solutions

Colorado’s Power Players:

Off

Traditional

White

CU News Corps summer 2012

Anonymous — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:22:20 +0000

CU News Corps summer 2012 Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 12/05/2012 - 13:22 CU News Corps

The CU News Corps got its start in summer 2012, originally using the name CU Journalism News Service.

A handful of students worked on news of the summer’s wildfires and the Aurora theater shootings in July. Here are some highlights of their work:

Channel 11 in Colorado Springs did a story using our map with details of the properties destroyed in the Waldo Canyon Fire.

KUNC used a video of the Flagstaff Fire in Boulder.

�鶹��Ժ created a chart with frequently updated details about the summer’s fires. One student did a video report on the impact the fires had on fireworks. And another student covered an academic’s talk on Waldo Canyon.

The day of the Aurora shootings, students contributed to the Aurora Sentinel, KUNC and we believe the Jakarta Times used the information we emailed them. A student also interviewed an expert about gun control laws.

Meanwhile, student Steven Kasica sent daily “postcards” from the London Olympics, which were used by KUNC and the BoulderWeekly.

Off

Traditional

White

Swing state campaigners push for online advertising in 2012

Anonymous — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 07:00:00 +0000

Swing state campaigners push for online advertising in 2012 Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 12/05/2012 - 00:00 Katharina Buchholz

This article appeared on KUNC.org.

TV isn’t the only place those annoying political ads are popping up this election season.

They’re also on YouTube, Hulu and Facebook, where campaigns are targeting younger potential voters, who don’t watch traditional TV.

More than $277,000 in online ads have targeted Colorado voters so far, according to Federal Election Commission data analyzed by the CU News Corps. That likely leaves out national online advertising for presidential candidates that doesn’t target specific states.

“All I get is political ads. I think I’ve gotten one or two other types of ads recently,” said Brent Hebert, a junior at the University of Colorado. “Some are really long and you can’t skip them. It’s almost gotten me to get AdBlock. Normally I am like, ‘It’s OK, they paid for it,’ but it’s getting absurd.”

Political groups will spend an estimated $9.8 billion on advertisements this election cycle, according to a report by advertising consultants Borrell Associates Inc. The $159 million spent on online advertisements seem like a drop in the campaign bucket, but online spending is up 615 percent from the last election cycle.

Anupam Gupta, CEO at Mixpo Inc., a Seattle-based advertising company specializing in online video, said that Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign set the trend for political advertisers to go online.

“To be honest, political has been one of the sectors that has been kind of late to the online game,” Gupta said. “Digital has become a key piece of any advertising strategy, even political, and that’s why you are seeing more activity this year than last time.”

The type of online advertising campaigners can’t get enough of is called pre-roll advertising. It’s the videos users see when YouTube or Hulu tells them that the “content will return shortly.”

Incumbent U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, a Republican from the 6th Congressional District, is using online video ads in his reelection campaign. Coffman for Congress 2012 paid $9,000 to a Florida e-marketing firm in September. Spokesman Owen Loftus said the campaign was using pre-roll as well as user-activated banner video.

“This is a great way to reach voters. More and more people are using the Internet to get news. More and more people are using it to watch videos online or TV shows online,” Loftus said. “This is just another opportunity to reach them.”

Loftus said the right media mix was important for political advertisers. Coffman’s campaign puts interactive video banners on news websites such as Denverpost.com to reach older online users who don’t use YouTube as frequently as younger voters.

Democratic opponent, Joe Miklosi, spent almost $3,000 on Facebook advertising. Spokesman Ryan Hobart said that paid ads on the social media platform helped create followers for the Miklosi Facebook page that number more than 5,700.

“They are people who are very engaged and will share information with people who friended them on Facebook,” Hobart said. “It’s a good way to give information to people who are interested in the campaign and have them share it with their wider network.”

He added that social media was not a substitute for more traditional means such as TV ads, which reach people who might not have prior interest in the campaign.

Colorado’s U.S. House candidates have spent more than $188,000 on online advertisements and web video targeting Colorado this election season, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Independent groups have spent almost $89,000. The biggest independent online spender in the state was conservative super PAC FreedomWorks for America, which spent $85,000 on web ads supporting Coffman and opposing challenger Miklosi.

Campaigners like online advertising because it can target specific demographics and interest groups.

“Online has always had good targeting capabilities that have only been getting better,” Mixpo CEO Gupta said. “If you want to target based on what kind of content they are reading, what kind of interest they might have, you can do that.”

Google AdWords charges 15 cents per play of a YouTube ad targeted at 18- to 24-year-old Coloradans. Ads aimed at the state’s 35- to 44-year-olds cost 17 cents, but promise only half of the maximum 40,000 views per day viewers under 24 are supplying. Priced at 18 cents per play, ads targeting Coloradans 45 to 54 provide only 8,000 views per day.

At an additional cost, advertisers have the option of attaching their message to YouTube videos from a category such as sports, arts and entertainment or pets and animals. They may also target viewers of specific interest groups, a category YouTube users are assigned to based on videos they watched in the past.

Interest group targeting, however, adds to the confusion of some viewers. Marissa Sieck, a senior at the University of Colorado, said she was receiving Spanish language ads.

“It’s interesting, depending on the different music I am listening to, the specific ads that come with it,” the international affairs major said. “I listen to a lot of Spanish and Latino music, which then turns into Spanish ads for Obama.”

Off

Traditional

White

Out-of-state money biggest contributor to Amendment 64 - on both sides

Anonymous — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:22:20 +0000

Out-of-state money biggest contributor to Amendment 64 - on both sides Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 11/30/2012 - 13:22 Leia Larsen , Katharina Buchholz

Appeared on KUNC.org / Gazette.com / Healthpolicysolutions.com.

Colorado’s ballot initiative to legalize marijuana possession is billed by one leading local advocate as “a grassroots effort here on the ground,” but an examination of contributions to the campaign tell a far different story.

Contribution records from the Secretary of State’s office show that the four registered committees supporting legalization collected more than $1.4 million through Sept. 12, with more than $1.2 million coming from states other than Colorado.

“They have an incredible amount of money,” said Floyd Ciruli, analyst at Ciruli Associates Polling and Consulting. “It primarily came from out of state.”

Ciruli said Colorado is among other Western states “that have a little more libertarian attitude,” making them “fertile ground for laws that would legalize various behaviors like drugs.”

The top campaign contributor to Colorado’s Amendment 64 is Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.–based lobbying group that has donated more than $1.1 million. According to the group’s website, it has more than 124,000 members and supporters.

Other top donors in favor of the proposition include national lobbying group Drug Policy Action Alliance ($90,000), California-based soap company Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps ($50,000) and Lawrence Hess of San Diego ($30,000).

Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol and a marijuana advocate in the state of long standing, said most of the pro-initiative work is being done by Coloradans.

“This is a grassroots effort here on the ground. We have individuals canvassing their neighborhoods all across the state. We’re confident we’ll continue to see support grow.”
Morgan Fox, a spokesperson of the Marijuana Policy Project, said in an email that the big spending should help.

“The financial backing that the campaign has gathered so far will ensure that it is able to get its message out to voters far more effectively than the opposition, which will certainly be a benefit,” Fox wrote.

However, polling indicates that support for the measure may be wavering.

A Rasmussen Pollsters survey conducted in June indicated 61 percent of voters would vote in favor or marijuana legalization. A more recent poll conducted by Public Policy Polling in late August and early September showed 47 percent in favor, 38 percent opposed and 15 percent uncertain.

“This latest survey is more sobering,” Ciruli said. “It suggests to me that while they have the advantage of money, and I do think they have an argument, there’s an uphill battle. There’s a tendency for the positive vote to have attrition due to attacks, second thoughts, a variety of things.”

Gov. John Hickenlooper said in a statement last week that he was opposing Amendment 64.

“Colorado is known for many great things – marijuana should not be one of them,” Hickenlooper said. “Amendment 64 has the potential to increase the number of children using drugs and would detract from efforts to make Colorado the healthiest state in the nation. It sends the wrong message to kids that drugs are OK.”

Only one group, Smart Colorado: Vote No on 64, is registered to campaign against the measure. Smart Colorado had raised $194,000 through Sept. 12, and most of its money also came from out of state.

Florida-based Save our Society from Drugs contributed $151,497 of the total. The group also funded opposition to a 2006 Colorado legalization attempt. The organization did not respond to phone calls and emails for comment.

Tvert’s organization is the official campaign driving the initiative.

If approved by Colorado voters, Amendment 64 will make it legal for those 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. It also would create a regulatory system for marijuana similar to that of alcohol. And it would allow cultivation and sale of industrial hemp. Federal laws, however, still would outlaw marijuana possession and use.

Both Washington and Oregon have similar amendments on their Nov 2012 ballots. Another ballot measure failed in California in 2010, with 53.5 percent of Californians voting “No” on the legalization and taxation of marijuana.

Another pro-legalization advocacy group, Citizens for Responsible Legalization, collected $779,000 last fall, almost all of it from Peter Lewis, an Ohio man who founded Progressive Insurance. The group spent the money on television ads and research in the Colorado Springs area before disbanding at the start of this year. Tvert said the group isn’t affiliated with the current initiative.

For more information, see Voter’s Edge-Colorado.

Off

Traditional

White

Amendment 65 seeks to limit campaign contributions

Anonymous — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:22:20 +0000

Amendment 65 seeks to limit campaign contributions Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:22 Charles Trowbridge

Appeared on iNewsNetwork.

Colorado Amendment 65 is a nonbinding referendum that encourages the state’s U.S. representatives and senators to support a U.S. constitutional amendment limiting campaign contributions and spending.

Some 182,113 state residents signed the petitions that take direct aim at the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial “Citizens United” decision, which essentially held that the First Amendment allows corporations and unions to spend freely on elections.

Of that number, according to the Secretary of State’s website, 87,170 of the signatures were accepted, and 94,943 were rejected. Still, the measure made it over the required threshold of 86,101 with room to spare and will appear on the November ballot. The effort is being spearheaded by Colorado Common Cause and two state-registered issue committees, Coloradans Get Big Money Out of Politics and by the Fair Share Committee to Get Big Money Out of Politics.

While no group formally registered to oppose the initiative, at least one member of the state’s congressional delegation, U. S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, has voiced his opposition. Catherine Mortensen, Lamborn’s spokeswoman, said the congressman believes Citizens United was “decided correctly” and that corporations should have the right to speak out politically.

Elena Nunez, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, said the proposal fits into a long Colorado tradition of working to reduce big money in politics.

“(This) is the first step in, really, a long-term movement,” she said of the call for an eventual constitutional amendment. “It’s an opportunity to let our congressional delegation know this is something we feel is important.”

Both Common Cause and the Fair Share Alliance state the goal of overturning the Citizens United decision is to force financial transparency throughout politics, but neither has released detailed lists of its own contributors.

The national Common Cause organization contributed $100,000 to the effort, about 77 percent of the total raised by Coloradans Get Big Money Out of Politics.

Daniel Smith, a professor of political science at the University of Florida, has written extensively about ballot initiatives in the United States, including those in Colorado, and said the lack of financial disclosure by Common Cause is not a new issue.

“To avoid charges of hypocrisy, Common Cause should voluntarily reveal who their donors are to their national organization, as they are concealing the identities of those contributing to their ballot committee, just as they claim is occurring in candidate campaigns due to the Citizens United decision,” he wrote in an email.

Said Nunez, “We’re a membership organization; members pay dues for general operating costs. Anything going forward is coming directly from those.”

Nunez said that Common Cause believes all groups that influence political campaigns should provide full financial disclosure, including nonprofits such as themselves. “We support increased disclosures for any entity that is working to influence our elections,” she said.

The Fair Share Alliance is the main benefactor of the Fair Share Committee, which gave more than $398,000 in in-kind contributions - mostly in the form of funding signature gathering and canvassing efforts undertaken throughout the months of June and July. Brad Martin, executive director of the national Fair Share Alliance organization, said that Fair Share Alliance has “been completely transparent throughout this process. Of course, we also respect the privacy of our individual donors.”

There are two ways an amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be proposed: By a two-thirds majority vote by both houses of Congress, subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states, or by constitutional conventions by two thirds of the state legislatures - a process that has never been used.

“It’s a process,” Martin said. “We know we’re David, and we know who Goliath is.” So far, seven states have passed similar initiatives: Hawaii, California, New Mexico, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts.

Earlier this summer, the high court declined to revisit Citizens United while reversing a Montana Supreme Court decision that upheld a state law limiting independent political spending by corporations.

Critics of the 2010 decision say it has led to vast amounts of money pouring into races at all levels, largely from wealthy individual for use by obscure “super PACs” and other independent groups.

Off

Traditional

White