Tim Gill Says: Vote My Way Or I'll Dump $2 Million Against Your Party in Colorado


Or, at any rate, that's what Tim Gill's top lawyer Ted Trimpa told FOX 31 news:

Ultimately, the vote [against same-sex unions in Colorado] was more evidence that elections indeed have consequences.

The GOP's one-vote majority in the House won last November entitles them to majorities on all House committees and to effectively kill measures they don't like that pass out of the Democrat-controlled Senate.

As such, supporters of civil unions will now refocus on taking back a Democratic majority in the House.

Put another way, Thursday's GOP vote equates to kicking a hornet's nest -- a hornet's nest named Tim Gill.

Gill, the gay millionaire who's riches are largely responsible for the Democratic takeover in Colorado over the past decade, will now be spending millions more to defeat Republicans across the state, starting with GOP members of the statehouse.

"It might be a difference of, before, spending $200,000 [on 2012 House races], and now spending $2 million," said Gill's lawyer, Ted Trimpa.

Inexplicably, that final quote of Trimpa's has disappeared from the current version of the FOX 31 story, but the quote can still be found elsewhere.

In 2006, Colorado voters rejected civil unions by a strong margin: 53-47%. (At the same time, Coloradans voted for an amendment defining marriage as "a union of one man and one woman" by an even wider margin of 55-45%).

Last week, the Colorado House Judiciary narrowly defeated a SSU bill on straight party lines, after it was passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

This decision comes as a bitter defeat to gay mega-millionaire Tim Gill, who has been pouring millions upon millions of dollars into Colorado for a decade to elect pro-SSM politicians (including $5 million in 2006 alone).

In an op-ed published by Gill in the Denver Post after last week's defeat, he concluded by suggesting that he would work further to "change the legislature" if it did not change course on his issues.

Gill, whose net worth is somewhere in well north of $400 million, is a founding member of the famous "gang of four" - mega-millionaires who put Democrats in office in the CO Legislature (flipping control of the Senate in the process) and the Governor’s office. So his threat has teeth to it.

Ted Trimpa (Gill's top lawyer) has been frank with the press about what the Gill strategy means in practice:

Called “Colorado’s answer to Karl Rove” by The Atlantic magazine, Trimpa believes that to win, you must project strength. “You have to create an environment of fear and respect,” he told the Bay Area Reporter. “The only way to do that is to get aggressive and go out and actually beat them up [politically]. Sitting there crying and whining about being victims isn’t going to get us equality. What is going to get us equality is fighting for it.”

Here's the take away: politicians who voted against this SSU bill knew the risk, because the Gill political machine is so well known in Colorado.

CitizenLink, a Focus on the Family Affiliate, meanwhile notes the difficulty of communicating their pro-family viewpoint in the media.

So, on the one hand, politicians were bearing the force of the Gill political machine, and on the other hand, had reason to suspect that their position might not be accurately reflected to their constituents through the traditional mainstream media.

This means the politicians who eventually voted against the bill did so because of their conscience and because they knew it reflected the will of the people of Colorado:

[Rep]. Delgrosso, who told reporters he couldn't sleep last night, based his vote on the last time Colorado voters weighed in in 2006, when Referendum I, a proposal to recognize gay marriage, was defeated.

"A lot of the folks four-and-a-half years ago said no, they didn't support that, and I just didn't feel it was right for me as a legislator to go against what the will of the people was just four-and-a-half years ago," Delgrosso said. (KWGN)

But what remains to be seen is whether or not politicians who conscientiously reflect the views of Colorado voters on marriage will be able to continue representing those views in office, if Tim Gill and his mega-millionaire friends have anything to say about it.

Top photo: Bob Roehr


  1. Bob
    Posted April 5, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Doesn't NOM "dump millions" into states to defeat elected representatives who support equality and oust judges who protect constitutional rights?

  2. Coloradan
    Posted April 5, 2011 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    If this civil unions bill had passed, I bet they'd purge or harass all county clerk officials who had reservations about granting these partnerships.

    Opponents of civil unions in Colorado really need to step up for their beliefs and, yes, defend the Republican Party's slim majority in the state House.

    One way to counteract lots of money is lots of volunteers.

    NOM might be interested to know that Rep. Rhonda Fields, a black Democrat, supports civil unions but opposes SSM on religious grounds (at least according to some internet activists who are grumbling about her).

    What we also really need are pro-family Democrats to run in safe Democratic districts to whittle down Tim Gill's faction.

  3. Posted April 5, 2011 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    NOM only defend pro traditional marriage candidates after they are threatened by the powerful gay lobby.

  4. Mike Brooks
    Posted April 5, 2011 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    Absolutely, sw. Marriage is under attack by a well-funded homosexual lobby, and NOM is merely defending. If the homosexuals had left marriage alone everybody would have saved a lot of money.

    Personally, after we assure marriase is protected, we should seek to have the sodomy laws reinstated by overturning Lawrence v. Texas. That's where homosexuals began their fight in that trumped-up lawsuit.

  5. CL
    Posted April 6, 2011 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    Oh yeah Mr. Gill... threatening the GOP? Bring it on. You can't buy freedom and you certainly can't buy a brain stem. Amazing that no one from the GOP side threatened your side but just as soon as you don't get a majority you want to pack up your toys and become the school yard bully. Yawn!

  6. Posted April 6, 2011 at 2:47 am | Permalink

    I agree Mike. First after we remove the leftist justices we can remove Lawrence v. Texas.

    SSM followers don't realize it but there's a very fast down-hill trend in those that support them.

  7. Mike Brooks
    Posted April 6, 2011 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    The thing about the sodomy laws was that although sodomy was technically illegal, it was never prosecuted. Effectively, what the laws did was what everybody claims to want: allow people to do whatever they wanted in the privacy of their bedrooms. They didn't stop anybody from commiting sodomy; they just kept it in the bedroom where it belonged, not in the public square.

    When sodomy laws were overturned in Lawrence (where homosexuals set up a situation where law enforcement was forced to act), that made it legal to bring sodomy out into the public, the only impact it had on behavior was to introduce sodomy to those who would never have even considered participating in it, including children. And, as they say, the rest is history.

  8. Bob
    Posted April 6, 2011 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    "NOM is merely defending"
    Almost fell out of my chair in that one. You can't truly believe it. NOM is spending (and pocketing) millions of dollars crusading against the rights of a disfavored minority. NOM is on the offense. LGBT people are the ones defending. The thing is that LGBT people aren't going to stop fighting for their rights. And since the reality, contrary to the rhetoric, is that marriage equality does not restrict the rights of anyone, those leading the continuation of this battle do so only for financial gain. Before long, majority public support for fairness and equality will render anti-gay crusading a dead business and people like Maggie and Brian will move on to some other unethical manner of making a living. 

  9. Mike Brooks
    Posted April 6, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Bob -

    The notion of homosexual marriage is virtually unheard of in the history of the world. When homosexuals demand something that has never existed, that is an offensive move. NOM merely defends the thousands-of-years-old status quo of the history of the world.

    Whatever rights have been gained by homosexuals are anomalies in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD, Bob. NOM seeks to restore the status quo where those anomalies were erreoneously permitted against the entire history of the world. Get it Bob?

  10. Lefty
    Posted April 6, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Whether it's the Koch brothers or Tim Gill, I think this trend of rule-by-billionaire leaves a lot to be desired. I do not like it when these few elites buy the political process for themselves, and use it to shove their agendas down everyone else's throats.

  11. Bob
    Posted April 6, 2011 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    Mike Brooks - I don't think the opinion of someone who supports the criminialization of homosexuality carries too much weight. Unfortunately we can't criminalize ignorance.

  12. Mike Brooks
    Posted April 6, 2011 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    Bob -

    Please fill me in on what is ignorant about criminalizing sodomy. It was the law of the land since our country's founding up until the YEAR 2003, and even then, THREE (ignorant) Supreme Ct. justices dissented against the ruling. Tell me why sodomy is worth protecting, Bob.

  13. Jane
    Posted April 8, 2011 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    Tim Gill can spend as much money as he wants to. Actually if he really doesn't know what to do with it, he can give it to me. I have much use for it. That aside, he can't buy people's moral consciences. There's not enough money in the world for that. Let him threaten to spend his 2 million. What good is that going to do? If he truly had power and influence he'd get his way all of the time, wouldn't he?

  14. ms broker
    Posted April 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    I live in New York City and one day many years ago, i was in the city one Sunday and just as I got to 5th avenue, I saw a parade taking place. The group in front of me were men dressed in dresses, wigs, heels, and feather boas. Nothing you say will EVER convince me that this is normal acceptable behavior. Homosexuals constantly say they don't understand why same sex marriage should bother anyone but you have only to look at Mass. Everyday, the homosexual activists go deeper and deeper into the schools, promoting this behavior, In California, they are trying to pass a bill to make it unlawful for a teacher to say anything negative about homosexuality. Anyone who says a word against it is branded a "homophobe" and a "bigot". Well the last time I checked, there were 1.5 million reported cases of AIDS in America and over 800,000 of those were among gay and bi-sexual males. When they held hearings in Washington DC on it, a lady who was an infectious disease expert tried to testify of the real dangers of allowing men to marry and she was treated rudely and marginalized. There are 15 cancers that are specific to gay men only and the rate of suicide amoung them is 5 times higher than any other group and it's not because of tolerance because they have found that in places where there is extreme tolerance for homosexuality, there is still a high rate of suicide. It's time for people to wake up and smell this coffee before it's too late.

One Trackback

  1. [...] Post reports on a reprehensible move some frustrated gay activists took after last week's close defeat of a civil unions bill in Colorado: A faux Facebook page rips Rep. B.J. Nikkel over her “no” [...]

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.