Connect with us

Colorado

They hoped their children’s deaths would bring change. Then a Colorado bill to protect kids online failed

Published

on

They hoped their children’s deaths would bring change. Then a Colorado bill to protect kids online failed


Bereaved parents saw their hopes for change dashed after a bill meant to protect children from sexual predators and drug dealers online died in the Colorado state legislature last month.

Several of those parents had helped shape the bill, including Lori Schott, whose 18-year-old daughter Annalee died by suicide in 2020 after consuming content on TikTok and Instagram about depression, anxiety and suicide.

“When the legislators failed to vote and pushed it off onto some fake calendar date where they’re not even in session, to not even have accountability for where they stand – as a parent, it’s a slap in the face,” said Schott, who identifies as a pro-second amendment Republican. “It’s a slap in the face of my daughter, and to other kids that we’ve lost.”

Had the legislation passed, it would have required social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to investigate and take down accounts engaged in gun or drug sales or in the sexual exploitation or trafficking of minors. It also mandated the creation of direct hotlines to tech company personnel for law enforcement and a 72-hour response window for police requests, a higher burden than under current law.

Advertisement

Additionally, platforms would have had to report on how many minors used their services, how often they did so, for how long and how much those young users engaged with content that violated company policies. Several big tech firms registered official positions on the bill. According to Colorado lobbying disclosures, Meta’s longtime in-state lobby firm, Headwater Strategies, is registered as a proponent for changing the bill. Google and TikTok also hired lobbyists to oppose it.

‘[Legislators] chose big tech over protecting children and families.’ Illustration: Andrei Cojocaru/Guardian

“We’re just extremely disappointed,” said Kim Osterman, whose 18-year-old son Max died in 2021 after purchasing drugs spiked with fentanyl from a dealer he met on Snapchat. “[Legislators] chose big tech over protecting children and families.”

Protections for users of social media (SB 25-086) passed both chambers before being vetoed on 24 April by governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, who cited the bill’s potential to “erode privacy, freedom and innovation” as reasons for his veto. Colorado’s senate voted to override the veto on 25 April, yet those efforts fell apart on 28 April when the state house opted to delay the vote until after the legislative session ended, effectively blocking an override and keeping the bill alive.

The bill originally passed the senate by a 29-6 vote and the house by a 46-18 margin. On 25 April, the senate voted 29-6 to override Polis’s veto. Lawmakers anticipated that the house would take up the override later that day. At the time, according to those interviewed, there appeared to be enough bipartisan support to successfully overturn his veto.

“It was an easy vote for folks because of what we were voting on: protecting kids from social media companies,” said the senator Lindsey Daugherty, a Democrat and a co-sponsor of the bill. She said she urged house leadership to hold the vote Friday, but they declined: “The speaker knew the governor didn’t want us to do it on Friday, because they knew we would win.”

Advertisement

The parents who advocated for the bill attribute its failure to an unexpected, 11th-hour lobbying campaign by a far-right gun owners’ association in Colorado. Two state legislators as well as seven people involved in the legislative process echoed the parents’ claims.

An abnormal, last-minute campaign disrupts bipartisan consensus

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) cast the bill as an instrument of government censorship in texts and emails over the legislation’s provisions against “ghost guns”, untraceable weapons assembled from kits purchased online, which would have been prohibited.

RMGO launched massive social media and email campaigns urging its 200,000 members to contact their legislators to demand they vote against the bill. A source with knowledge of the workings of the Colorado state house described the gun group’s social media and text campaigns, encouraging Republicans voters to contact their legislators to demand opposition to the bill, as incessant.

“[Legislators] were getting countless calls and emails and being yelled at by activists. It was a full-fledged attack. There was a whole campaign saying: ‘This is a government censorship bill,’” they said.

The group’s actions were instrumental in a campaign to deter house Republicans from voting against the veto, resulting in the quashing of the bill, and unexpected from an organization that had been facing funding shortfalls, according to 10 people interviewed who were involved in the design of the bill and legislative process. Sources in the Colorado state house spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal from RMGO.

Advertisement

The house had delayed the vote until 28 April, which allowed RMGO time to launch a campaign against the bill over the weekend. When lawmakers reconvened Monday, the house voted 51-13 to postpone the override until after the legislative session ended – effectively killing the effort.

‘It was a full-fledged attack. There was a whole campaign saying: “This is a government censorship bill.”’ Illustration: Andrei Cojocaru/Guardian

The gun activists’ mass text message campaign to registered Republican voters asserted the social media bill would constitute an attempt to “compel social media companies to conduct mass surveillance of content posted on their platforms” to search for violations of Colorado’s gun laws, describing the bill as an attack on first and second amendment rights, according to texts seen by the Guardian.

A familiar, aggressive foe

Founded in 1996, RMGO claims to have a membership of more than 200,000 activists. It is recognized as a far-right group that takes a “no-compromise” stance on gun rights. Dudley Brown, its founder and leader, also serves as the president of the National Association for Gun Rights, which positions itself further to the right than the National Rifle Association (NRA). RMGO has mounted criticism against the NRA for being too moderate and politically compromising. Critics have described RMGO as “bullies” and “extremists” because of its combative tactics, which include targeting and smearing Democrats and moderate Republicans. The group did not respond to requests for comment on its legislative efforts.

RMGO is a well-known presence at the Colorado capitol, typically opposing gun-control legislation. Daugherty described its typical campaign tactics as “scary”. She got rid of her X account after being singled out by the group over her work on a bill to ban assault weapons earlier this year.

“When we were running any of the gun bills at the capitol, they put my and some other legislators’ faces on their websites,” she said. A screenshot of a tweet from RMGO showed Daugherty with a red “traitor” stamp on her forehead.

Advertisement

The group’s campaign resulted in the spread of misinformation about the bill’s impact on gun ownership rights, sources involved in the legislative process said.

“The reason I was in support of the bill, and in support of the override, was it has to do with child trafficking and protecting the kids,” said the senator Rod Pelton, a Republican, who voted in favor of the veto override in the senate. “I just didn’t really buy into the whole second amendment argument.”

skip past newsletter promotion
Advertisement

The bill had enjoyed the backing of all 23 of Colorado’s district attorneys as well as bipartisan state house support.

RMGO’s late-stage opposition to the social media bill marked a break from its usual playbook. The group generally weighs in on legislation earlier in the process, according to eight sources, including two of the bill’s co-sponsors, Daugherty and the representative Andy Boesenecker.

“They really ramped up their efforts,” Boesenecker said. “It was curious to me that their opposition came in very late and appeared to be very well funded at the end.”

In recent years, RMGO group had been less active due to well-documented money problems that limited its ability to campaign on legislative issues. In a 2024 interview, the group’s leaders stated plainly that it struggled with funding. Daugherty believes RMGO would not have been able to embark on such an apparently costly outreach campaign without a major infusion of cash. A major text campaign like the one launched for SB-86 was beyond their financial capacity, she said. Others in Colorado politics agreed.

“Rocky Mountain Gun Owners have not been important or effective in probably at least four years in the legislature. They’ve had no money, and then all of a sudden they had tons of money, funding their rise back into power,” said Dawn Reinfeld, executive director of Blue Rising Together, a Colorado-based non-profit focused on youth rights.

Advertisement

The campaign made legislators feel threatened, with primary elections in their districts over the weekend, Daugherty said, particularly after accounts on X, formerly Twitter, bombarded the bill’s supporters.

‘The bill gave me hope that Avery’s legacy would be to help. So when it didn’t pass, it was pretty soul-crushing.’ Illustration: Andrei Cojocaru/Guardian

“Folks were worried about being primaried, mostly the Republicans, and that’s kind of what it came down to,” Daugherty said.

Aaron Ping’s 16-year-old son Avery died of an overdose in December after buying what he thought was ecstasy over Snapchat and receiving instead a substance laced with fentanyl. Ping saw the campaign against the bill as an intentional misconstrual of its intent.

“It was looking like the bill was going to pass, until all this misinformation about it taking away people’s gun rights because it addresses people buying illegal shadow guns off the internet,” he said.

Ping gave testimony in support of the bill in February before the first senate vote, alongside other bereaved parents, teens in recovery and a district attorney.

Advertisement

“The bill gave me hope that Avery’s legacy would be to help. So when it didn’t pass, it was pretty soul-crushing,” said Ping.

States take up online child-safety bills as federal lawmakers falter

Several states, including California, Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, South Carolina and Nevada, have introduced legislation aimed at improving online safety for children in the past two years. These efforts have faced strong resistance from the tech industry, including heavy lobbying and lawsuits.

Maryland became the first state to successfully pass a Kids Code bill, signing it into law in May 2024. But the victory may be short-lived: NetChoice, a tech industry coalition representing companies including Meta, Google and Amazon, quickly launched a legal challenge against the measure, which is ongoing.

Meanwhile, in the US federal government, the kids online safety act (Kosa), which had wound its way through the legislature for years, died in February when it failed to pass in the House after years of markups and votes. A revamped version of the bill was reintroduced to Congress on 14 May.

In California, a similar bill known as the age-appropriate design code act, modeled after UK legislation, was blocked in late 2023. A federal judge granted NetChoice a preliminary injunction, citing potential violations of the first amendment, which stopped the law from going into effect.

Advertisement

In the US, you can call or text the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on 988, chat on 988lifeline.org, or text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis counselor. In the UK, the youth suicide charity Papyrus can be contacted on 0800 068 4141 or email pat@papyrus-uk.org, and in the UK and Ireland Samaritans can be contacted on freephone 116 123, or email jo@samaritans.org or jo@samaritans.ie. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at befrienders.org



Source link

Colorado

Colorado breweries warn new tax hike bills could lead to more small business closures, job losses

Published

on

Colorado breweries warn new tax hike bills could lead to more small business closures, job losses


A bartender pours a beer at a bar in Summit County on Thursday, Feb. 29, 2024. A new bill intended to provide funds for alcohol-related addiction prevention, treatment and recovery programs could cost small breweries and wineries up to 160% in taxes and fees.
Andrew Maciejewski/Summit Daily News

Colorado brewers are raising red flags over new bills that could increase taxes and fees on small alcohol businesses, many of which are already struggling to keep their doors open.

House Bill 1271, known as the Alcohol Impact & Recovery Enterprises bill, creates three government-run enterprises designed to fund programs for alcohol-related addiction prevention, treatment and recovery programs — all funded through fees imposed on alcoholic beverages. The bill is sponsored by four Democratic lawmakers.

Colorado per capita alcohol consumption is higher than the national average. The state also has one of the higher alcohol-related death rates in the country, with around 24 deaths per 100,000 residents as of 2023, according to data from Trust for America’s Health. 



Data from the Colorado Health Institute shows not everyone who could benefit from treatment for alcohol use disorders currently receives it, largely due to factors like cost, accessibility and stigma.

Advertisement

Were the bill to pass, manufacturers and wholesale distributors would have to pay five cents in fees per gallon of beer, cider and apple wine, seven cents per liter of wine and 35 cents per liter of spirits to be used toward alcohol-related treatment and recovery programs. As state lawmakers plan cuts to balance a $850 million budget deficit, advocates for these programs argue the funding from the bill could help offset any potential losses.



For local breweries and wineries in the mountains, however, this would be a significant financial blow to an already struggling industry.

“This is not the time for us to be implementing new taxes on an industry that is hurting right now,” said Carlin Walsh, owner of Elevation Beer Company and chair of the Colorado Brewers Guild. “As a brewer, I feel like the state is looking a gift horse in the mouth.”

Beer, wine, cider and spirits generate around $22 billion in economic activity for Colorado, according to the Colorado Beverage Coalition. The state is home to nearly 420 breweries, 145 wineries, nearly 20 cideries and 100 distilleries. 

Faced with rising costs and waning appetites, however, over 100 Colorado breweries have shuttered their doors since 2024, marking the first time since 2005 that more breweries closed than opened. Meanwhile, national surveys confirmed alcohol consumption in the U.S. is at a 90-year low.

Advertisement

Walsh said breweries already pay eight cents per gallon in taxes, which for a company like Elevation translates to roughly $30,000 in taxes annually. Fees from the new bill would add another $12,000 to its yearly expenses.

“The alcohol industry at large is one of the most regulated industries in the United States, period. We already pay a very heavy tax,” Walsh said, adding that breweries provide tens of millions of dollars to Colorado’s general fund. “Our position is that there’s already money available. Those dollars go to the general fund, and it’s really up to the state to manage what we already provide and to decide what is their priority. We don’t feel like it should be on our shoulders to increase the amount that we pay to the state just because the state wants to endeavour on new programs.”

The Colorado Beverage Coalition said the imposed fees would be a 60% cost increase on alcohol businesses. Paired with an estimated 100% increase in taxes from a referred ballot measure proposed last week — House Bill 1301 — the impacts would be disastrous for the industry, Walsh said.

House Bill 1301 would refer a measure to the November ballot that would increase excise taxes on alcohol and increase sales and excise taxes on marijuana in order to fund a mental health hospital in Aurora.

“Our brewery and so many other breweries, we just don’t have capacity for that. We’re already a low margin business to begin with,” Walsh said. “If this happens, this is going to drive further consolidation amongst our members. It’s going to drive further closures.”

Advertisement

Larger alcohol companies may be in a better position to absorb some of the costs from increased fees, said Shawnee Adelson, executive director for the Colorado Brewers Guild. Small businesses in rural resort markets, on the other hand, are not in that position.

“At a certain point when costs just keep going up and up and up, there’s no more place to cut,” Adelson said.

Colorado jobs, tourism could see ripple effects

The Colorado Beverage Coalition estimates House Bill 1271 could impact several of the 131,000 brewery, winery and distillery jobs in the state.

The Colorado Beverage Coalition estimates House Bill 1271 would jeopardize 131,000 brewery, winery and distillery jobs in the state, in addition to “greatly increasing cost on consumers.” Walsh said an average brewery would “no doubt” have to cut jobs if either, or both, bills were to pass.

“Depending on the size of a brewery, it could be the cost of a full-time staff or multiple full-time staff to cover the cost of these (fees), so there is a real concern about job losses due to increased costs,” Adelson added.

The Colorado Distillers Guild also argues the bill would be a blow to the tourism industry, as visitors could be deterred by increased consumer costs and a dwindling beer culture.

“A lot of (breweries) will either have to absorb that cost or pass it on to the consumer. And right now, in the current state of the economy, we understand that a lot of consumers are price conscious right now, which is also contributing to lower consumption,” Adelson said. “Passing on that price is going to be really hard for consumers to swallow as well.”

Advertisement

The bill is not entirely new, as similar legislation by the same name was proposed in 2024. The original bill, which died in committee, received significant pushback from Gov. Jared Polis due to concerns that it would end up raising prices for consumers. Polis also requested that sponsors exempt beer companies from the fees.

Aside from a stakeholder meeting ahead of the bill’s introduction, Adelson said the Colorado Brewers Guild had not been contacted by lawmakers about the plan for an excise fee increase.

“We’ve had two years to sit down and have discussions with lawmakers about this. Nobody has reached out. Nobody has sat down with us to say, ‘Hey, this is our goal. We wanna get this done. How can you guys meet us halfway?’” Walsh said.

Being an enterprise fee rather than a tax, House Bill 1271 would not go to voters for approval. Instead, the change would be implemented through legislation only and automatically go live in July 2027. Because the bill would create three separate enterprise fees for beer, wine and spirits — each capped at $20 million annually per state law — the state could collect up to $60 million from all three.

The bill would also create a new 11-member board appointed by the governor to oversee the three enterprises, which would be made up of alcohol industry representatives, behavioral health professionals, public health experts and individuals in recovery.

Advertisement

On top of feeling that a financial change of that magnitude should be left up to voters, Walsh said he’s heard from businesses that are concerned about the potential for the board to increase fees in the future.

“There are very few guard rails around how this enterprise can operate, including the ability for them to raise the tax price that we’re currently paying. There’s very few restrictions within this bill that control how much they can increase that tax,” Walsh said. “In two years they could come back and say, ‘Oh we’re going to increase it another five cents or 10 cents.’”

For Adelson, the fees would impact more than just manufacturing facilities and business  operations.

“They’re community gathering spaces and they’re third places,” Adelson said. “They give back a lot and so I think I just want to make sure that the consumer realizes that we’re not just talking about production facilities, but your local neighborhood brewery that’s down the street and that your neighbours own or your friends work at.”

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

New affordable housing communities in Colorado aim to serve families with the greatest need

Published

on

New affordable housing communities in Colorado aim to serve families with the greatest need


LONGMONT, Colo. — For Skye Beck and her husband, the decision to uproot their family of five from Nebraska and relocate to Colorado for a new job wasn’t easy — especially when it came to the cost of living.

“It was looking like it maybe was not going to be an affordable option for us to come out here,” she said. “We did find one eventually, but it was still just the two-bedroom apartment, and that was just a little tight for us for the year.”

After a year of cramped living, the Beck family moved into a much more spacious apartment at Ascent at Hover Crossing in Longmont. The newest affordable housing development in Boulder County, which officially opened its doors on Tuesday, includes four-bedroom units — a rarity in affordable housing.

“I think they only have six of those [units],” said Beck. “To have that much space for the five of us is a blessing.”

Advertisement

Katie Pung, housing development project manager for the City of Longmont, said the larger units were a deliberate priority.

“Having those larger units for families really came together in a way that we feel like is going to be meaningful for Longmont families,” Pung said.

The mixed-income apartments are available for a variety of incomes, with units ranging from 30% to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) — about $31,650 to $84,400 for a one-person household.

The development also includes an early childhood education (ECE) center on site, giving families an affordable childcare option.

OUR Center, a longtime local nonprofit specializing in subsidized early education for low-income families, will operate the center. The facility is set to open later this year, with availability for both residents and the broader Longmont community.

Advertisement

It reflects a growing statewide push to incorporate childcare into housing projects through state funding and technical assistance for developers.

p2-aff-housing-projects_030326AKB.mp4

A similar effort is underway in Denver’s Berkeley neighborhood, where the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless is partnering with the Denver Housing Authority to develop Charity’s House, a family housing development with 135 new units — also with an on-site child care center.

Advertisement

At least 40% of the units will be reserved for families earning 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) — currently $37,850 for a family of three and $42,050 for a family of four in Denver. All units will be income-restricted to those at or below 60% AMI.

Cathy Alderman, chief communications and public policy officer for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, said land partnerships help reduce both cost and construction time.

“If we can enter into a partnership with another organization that owns land, and we can build on that, that cuts our cost and time down considerably,” Alderman said.

The DHA Delivers for Denver (D3) bond program, a partnership between DHA and the City of Denver, has funded 11 property acquisitions since its inception in 2019, according to Denver Housing Authority Chief Real Estate Officer Erin Clark.

“It is public partnerships like that and public-private partnerships that, even us, working with a nonprofit here, that are what deliver more housing across the community,” said Clark. “It’s just people thinking outside of the box and leveraging resources and saying, ‘What do you do best, and what do we do best, and how can we work together to make all this happen?’”

Advertisement

Construction is slated to begin in late 2027.

Denver7 has heard from multiple experts through the years about the lack of affordable housing options for families and seniors.

Years-long waitlists and housing lottery odds often make it tougher. More than 15,000 children and youth are currently experiencing homelessness in Denver.

Colorado has been making significant housing investments since the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to more affordable housing developments across the state. But Alderman said there is still more work to be done.

“My biggest concern is that not all of that housing is being targeted for those households in the greatest need,” Alderman said.

Advertisement

Longtime Longmont resident Karen Howerton remembers a time when rents hovered in the $600 range.

“When I came back to Longmont six years ago, I was surprised at how much inflation had happened here and how big the town had grown,” she said.

The last affordable housing development she lived in didn’t quite fit all her needs.

Now, she joins the Becks as one of the first tenants at Ascent at Hover Crossing.

“What I wanted to come over here for was a washer and dryer — I didn’t have that at my other place — and the little balcony, you know,” she said. “I’ve met a few of the neighbors already, and I can’t say enough about it. It’s just a great place to be, for sure.”

Advertisement

Howerton and Beck say the little comforts go a long way toward making a place feel like home.

“I mean, everyone deserves to have a space and be able to afford it without worrying about all the other parts of life,” Beck said. “I feel like here we’re able to finally rest a bit and able to enjoy life, but it shouldn’t be limited to just a waitlist.”

Coloradans making a difference | Denver7 featured videos


Denver7 is committed to making a difference in our community by standing up for what’s right, listening, lending a helping hand and following through on promises. See that work in action, in the videos above.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado weather: Up to 14 inches of snow forecast for mountains

Published

on

Colorado weather: Up to 14 inches of snow forecast for mountains


Snow started Monday night in Colorado’s mountains and will continue throughout the week, likely making its way into the Denver area on Friday, according to the National Weather Service.

Colorado’s mountain roads, including Interstate 70 at the Eisenhower-Johnson Tunnel and Berthoud Pass, were already snow-covered Tuesday morning, according to the weather service.

“With more snow to come throughout the day, a Winter Weather Advisory was issued for the Front Range Mountains,” forecasters said.

That advisory will be in effect until 8 p.m. Tuesday for parts of Jackson, Larimer, Boulder, Grand, Gilpin, Clear Creek, Summit and Park counties, including Rocky Mountain National Park. Additional snow accumulations between 6 and 14 inches are possible on Tuesday, forecasters said in the alert.

Advertisement

As of Tuesday, the weather service’s snow forecasts included:

  • 2 inches on I-70’s Vail Pass, with up to 3 inches possible
  • 3 inches in Winter Park, with up to 4 inches possible
  • 4 inches in Eldora and on U.S. 6’s Loveland Pass, with up to 5 inches possible
  • 4 inches on U.S. 40’s Berthoud Pass near Winter Park, with up to 7 inches possible
  • 5 inches at Bear Lake in Rocky Mountain National Park, with up to 7 inches possible
  • 6 inches on U.S. 34’s Milner Pass in RMNP, with up to 8 inches possible
  • 7 inches on Colorado 14’s Cameron Pass near Fort Collins, with up to 8 inches possible
  • 9 inches on Mount Zirkel, the highest summit of Colorado’s Park Range of the Rocky Mountains, with up to 11 inches possible

“Travel could be very difficult,” weather service forecasters stated in the winter weather advisory. “The hazardous conditions will impact the Tuesday morning and evening commutes.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending