In a blog entry posted Friday, I wrote that U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff shut down a personal PAC in January that had accepted money from September 2004 up through its closing.
In fact, financial records show the fund did not receive any contributions after November of 2006, after which it lay dormant until Romanoff, who was speaker of the Colorado House before being term-limited out of the Legislature in 2008, closed it earlier this year. I apologize to readers, as well as the candidate, for my error.
It's beginning to look like challenger Andrew Romanoff has more and more ground to gain if he's going to take the Democratic party nomination.
On the plus side, the former Speaker of the Colorado House did pick up an endorsement last week from Bill Clinton (although that didn't end up helping Hillary all that much back in 2008).
On the minus side, a recent poll conducted by the Denver Post and KUSA-TV found appointed Sen. Michael Bennett leading Romanoff by a margin of 53 to 36 percent. (The same poll found Republican Ken Buck leading former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton 53 to 37 percent.)
Complicating Romanoff's balance sheet even further is the fact that he was forced to go on the "mea culpa" media trail Wednesday due to an ill-timed controversy. The candidate had just released his first television advertisement (clip below), which condemns Washington politicians for running a corrupt "casino" that's funded by special interest money.
"The difference is, I don't take a dime of their money. I stand with you," says Romanoff in the 30-second spot.
Unfortunately, the candidate has since had to explain away his accepting money through a personal PAC from September 2004 up through January 2010. The candidate has since had to explain a personal PAC he began in September 2004 and which received contributions through November of 2006. Romanoff shut down his PAC in January of this year. Of course, Romanoff's ad is technically correct, since he did shut down his PAC six months ago. To borrow a line from Bill Clinton, "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."