Even family members would be barred from donating

On October 6, the Colorado Independent and the Rocky Mountain News each published reports that highlighted the lack of transparency behind the ballot measure that demands transparency and "clean government."

Backers of an initiative campaign hyping the values of “clean government” are funding their efforts with anonymous cash, and the mainstream media is starting to catch on. As was reported by The Colorado Independent last week, proponents of an anti-union amendment allegedly focusing on government transparency have funded their campaign with over a million dollars in anonymous cash, making it impossible to know who is supporting the initiative and who paid to put it on the state ballot.
...
Now it would appear that the mainstream media is starting to catch on to the transparency questions, with a recent article from The Rocky Mountain News pointing out the same facts:

Clean Government Colorado has raised about $1.5 million to promote Amendment 54. All of that money has come through Colorado At Its Best, a nonprofit founded by Independence Institute fellow Dennis Polhill.

Most recent campaign finance disclosures from Clean Government Colorado show that the nonprofit Colorado At Its Best has already contributed an additional $200,000. The nonprofit has given a total of $1.7 million in anonymous dough to the committee, according to the finance documents.

Media catches on to ‘clean government’ campaign’s transparency woes

Two days later, the Independent took a closer look at the ballot measure itself and discovered "a little-known clause targeting the immediate family members of union officials and supporters."

A so-called “clean government” initiative that would snuff out political contributions given by certain labor unions has a little-known clause targeting the immediate family members of union officials and supporters. If passed by Colorado voters and made into law, Amendment 54 would prohibit both unions and sole-source contractors with the state from giving to political campaigns, and the law even applies to various family members of union officers.

The text of the initiative actually includes “domestic partners” under the definition of family members:

“Immediate family member” means any spouse, child, spouse’s child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, stepparent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, niece, nephew, guardian, and 1 domestic partner;

Joel Heinemann, president of the Littleton Firefighter Association located in the Denver area, has been working to oppose Amendment 54, and says he’s worried about how the measure may be interpreted into law.

“It includes language that includes relatives, so it wouldn’t just affect me, it would affect anyone related to me, and politicians would have no idea who to take money from,” Heinemann told The Colorado Independent while being interviewed last week. “They’re going to need fingerprints and a retinal scan before they can take a dime from anybody. It’s just a mess.”

On top of that, Heinemann worried about whether his two children would be eligible for state scholarships after Amendment 41, an “ethics in government” initiative, was passed by voters in 2006, prohibiting the giving of certain gifts to public employees. Just this week — nearly two years after Amendment 41 was approved by voters — a state panel found that indeed, scholarships of any amount would be permitted under the the law’s provisions.

Amendment 54 would bar political donations from union officials’ kin