UPDATE: The Denver Post’s John Frank asked Lundberg Friday whether he’d back a Colorado clerk who denied same-sex marriage licenses. “I believe that they have that responsibility as an elected official to ask themselves, am I fulfilling my job or not,” Lundberg told The Post. This comment may have led, in part, to the Post’s editorial today pointing out that Lundberg “appears confused about whether state officials can ignore laws they don’t like.” The Post called Lundberg’s stance “disturbing.”

——-

In a string of Facebook posts beginning Sept. 3, Colorado State Sen. Kevin Lundberg hasn’t been shy about his support for Kentucky Clerk Kay Davis, who landed in jail after giving marriage licences to some loving couples but not others.

Who would expect Lundberg to be shy, given his uncompromising stances on social issues in the legislature? But he is a state senator, which is why his fringe view should be aired out by reporters and others. To wit:

On Facebook, Lundberg wrote that Davis is “abiding by the laws of God and man. The Supreme Court and their inferior courts are the ones in violation of the rule of law.”

Lundberg:

Good for Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who is refusing to issue “marriage” licenses on the grounds that it violates God’s law, and her conscience.

Have the Federal judges become kings and queens who can fabricate law out of thin air and then throw state government officials in jail for daring to oppose their plans? What Constitutional authority does the Federal Court have to jail this elected official for exercising her best judgement in fulfilling her duties as county clerk? If the people who elected her want her to change, they can speak through any recall procedures the State of Kentucky allows, or vote her out at the next election for county clerk, but the Federal Courts should stay out of areas of law clearly reserved for state jurisdiction.

The courts have certainly seized this power and demonstrated their autocratic intentions long ago, but they do not derive this authority from the Constitution, which is the law of the land.

In my opinion the clerk is abiding by the laws of God and man. The Supreme Court and their inferior courts are the ones in violation of the rule of law.

In a post last week, Lundberg addresses the question of why Davis shouldn’t just resign:

Additionally, many are saying that the clerk is not following the “rule of law.” I submit it is more accurate to say she is not following the rule of the Court. If anyone is actually following the rule of law, it is clerk Davis.

Lundberg did not immediately return a call for comment.

For an RH Reality Check post yesterday, I interviewed some familiar pundits for their take on the question of whether continued attacks on Planned Parenthood, including the recent demand by 30 GOP state lawmakers for an investigation of the women’s health organization, will affect candidates in next year’s election in Colorado.

They offered a range of opinion on the topic, but I think it’s fair to say that, outside of pleasing hard-core Republican voters, the Planned Parenthood attacks were deemed neutral at best and damaging at worst to the GOP’s electoral efforts next year in Colorado. For example:

“Given what we know at this point, it seems to me that Planned Parenthood is the wrong organization for Republicans to go after, because it has a great deal of good will,” said Norman Provizer, Professor of Political Science at Metropolitan State University of Denver. “Overall, from a political perspective, I think it’s an act of desperation to find a battle you think you might win after a long string of losses on the social issues front. But it’s the wrong organization to go after.”

“It is going to highlight the women’s issue again, which could be damaging to Republicans” continued Provizer.

The others I interviewed (Jennifer E. Duffy, Senior Editor at the Cook Political Report; Prof. Robert Loevy of Colorado College; Political analyst Floyd Ciruli) had somewhat different opinions, which you can read here, but most saw the attacks as dicey, from a political perspective, for Republicans.

A related question, which Duffy addresses briefly in my piece, is, what will Democrats do with the Planned Parenthood issue going forward? Michael Bennet has voted against stripping federal funds from the organization, and you’ve seen some Dems defending the group.

But will we see more proactive responses from Dems as we approach the election, assuming no evidence of actual factual wrongdoing emerges?

Everyone knows how important women voters are in Colorado and how determined the anti-choice activists are to push their agenda forward. That combination will likely keep the Planned Parenthood controversy in play through next year.

A couple candidates have announced their intention to run for the Pueblo County GOP chair, recently vacated by Becky Mizel, who resigned.

First, there’s Dr. Thomas Ready, who wrote, according to a Facebook post by Brian Matar:

“I am running to be the Pueblo County Republican Party Chairman. My goal is to bring the party back together and to include all that want to be there. I’m asking for your support at the next election. Thank you in advance. Tom”

Ready made headlines last year when he asserted, during a debate, that there’s no proof the Sandy Hook school shooting happened at all. At the time, The Pueblo Chieftain quoted him as saying:

“I don’t think (the Sandy Hook shootings have) been proven. And what’s wrong with open discussion?”

Ready didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment and verification.

But you wouldn’t think Pueblo Republicans would let an election go by without a fight.

Yesterday, former State Sen. George Rivera announced he’s also running. Rivera, you recall, took the seat from Sen. Angela Giron in a recall election in 2013. Leroy Garcia defeated Rivera last November.

Republican activists blasted GOP State Chair Steve House today for failing to provide basic information about the party’s finances.

In a letter to House, Nick Lundberg, Dick Childress, Ken Clark, and Randy Corporon raised questions about numerous instances when Steve House referred to financial problems plaguing the state party, including one instance when he called the financial situation so “dire” that it should be concealed from party donors.

The letter stated, in part:

We are concerned about the fairness and accuracy of financial disclosures in state and federal campaign finance reports and the “quarterly financial statements” based on statements you have made about the party’s financial reporting…

The reputation of the Colorado Republican Party is at stake, and confidence of members, donors, and candidates will continue to erode unless the party is complying with financial disclosure requirements.

House dismissed these concerns on KNUS 710-AM today:

“I don’t think the party is on the same page, but you have to go through a process,” House told host Steve Kelley (at 38:30 hour one Aug. 26). “…Yeah, it was a little bit painful for a couple of months, but at the same time I thought it was very very enabling,”

Asked how fundraising was going by host Krista Kafer, House said (at 43 min 45 seconds here), “It’s been going great!” He added that every state party in the country “that’s not 100 percent red” has some debt right now.

“We are very comfortable with where we are,” House said. “The first thee months were records. The next two months, we beat our budget by 25 or 30 percent.

“I’m very happy with where it’s going and where the donors are in supporting us.”

Donald Trump sort of clarified some aspects of his immigration position over the weekend, giving local media a chance to educate us about the illusory stance of Rep. Mike Coffman of Aurora.

Trump released a document outlining a number of ideas, but the headliner was his newly articulated opposition to “birthright citizenship,” the longstanding U.S. law granting citizenship to people born on American soil, even if their parents are not citizens.

Coffman has been way ahead of Trump on this one, reaffirming his opposition to birthright citizenship in a Denver Post interview in 2013.

Coffman: You know, I think we should probably adopt the policies of other countries, that you are a citizen of your parents. But the fact is, that we have children who were born under current U.S. law. And therein lies the challenge that I have, particularly in meeting families up in what is a very new district. And that –

Denver Post: You’d see that changed, right? Is that what you’re saying?

Coffman: Sure. I mean, I think we ought to look at that. But , the fact is, what we have to understand, the fact is, we don’t revoke citizenship once it’s given. [BigMedia emphasis]

Trump’s immigration paper, which received substantial attention, also renewed his call for deporting all undocumented immigrants, cattle-car style, back to their country of origin. And then expediting the return of the good ones, but not granting them a path to citizenship.

Like Trump, Coffman has also called for giving a vague “legal status” for adult immigrants, without a path to citizenship. He hasn’t said whether he’d require cattle-car deportation first. Either way, Coffman appears to be aligned with Trump on creating an underclass of workers, in the great tradition of taxation without representation.

High-profile policy pronouncement by celebrity presidential candidates continue to offer a great avenue to educate the public about the positions of their local politicos. I’m hoping reporters jump all over these local angles as we get closer to next year’s election.

UPDATE: In the FAQ below, GOP activists have clarified and corrected a couple issues in this blog post, but the central points still stand.

—–

In an email distributed Friday by GOP activist Marilyn Marks, three GOP Central Committee members express dismay over the financial health of the state Republican Party and accuse State Chairman Steve House of concealing outstanding liabilities from donors.

The letter was signed by Nicholas Lundberg and Doug Childress. They did not immediately respond to my request to verify the letter, but other sources have verified it.  It was addressed to members of the Republican Central Committee.

The email lists 11 specific items, and it requests that the Executive Committee, which beat back an effort to oust House, address the financial concerns at its Aug. 19 meeting.

Most of the points focus reporting failures; others allege deception:

3.        Chairman House acknowledged that he concealed and failed to report outstanding liabilities and bank debt to avoid donors learning that the party was in “dire financial straits.” Such failure to disclose violates campaign finance laws, violates bank covenants, and is unethical with respect to reporting obligations to the CRC.

4.        Chairman House states that at least $188,000 in unrecorded liabilities have intentionally not been disclosed. He states that unpaid legal bills make up a significant amount of the liability and relate to the Independent Expenditure Committee (IEC) legal issues. He further states that it is undetermined whether the party will ultimately pay for this liability.

An email seeking comment from the Colorado Republican Party was not immediately answered.

The letter asks that the Committee insist that an “independent CPA firm be immediately engaged to audit the books and records and prepare financial statements as required” by the bylaws of the state Republican Party.

The letter summarizes the situation this way:

We write you as concerned legal and financial professionals to explain our growing concerns about the Colorado Republican Party’s financial reporting and disclosures. The party appears to be materially out of compliance with federal and state reporting requirements, bank loan covenants, and bylaw financial reporting requirements. This situation is exacerbated by Chairman [Steve] House’s disregard for basic requirements of financial transparency, decisions to conceal material liabilities, and his lack of candor regarding financial matters…

Repeated efforts made by several other CRC members to persuade Chairman House to address the issues have been unsuccessful. Instead, he has demonstrated a lack of basic business knowledge and financial literacy resulting in significant financial reporting problems and reputational damage to the party.

The text of the letter, without attachments, follows:

Dear Fellow Central Committee Members:

As we work to prepare for an exciting 2016 election, our state party must undertake some preparatory work to ensure that the party is in a strong position going into election season.  Financial health and transparency are essential foundations for success as we seek to attract voters, candidates and donors. The party faces concerning financial reporting issues we wish to bring to your immediate attention for a timely remedy.

We write you as concerned legal and financial professionals to explain our growing concerns about the Colorado Republican Party’s financial reporting and disclosures. The party appears to be materially out of compliance with federal and state reporting requirements, bank loan covenants, and bylaw financial reporting requirements. This situation is exacerbated by Chairman House’s disregard for basic requirements of financial transparency, decisions to conceal material liabilities, and his lack of candor regarding financial matters.

The problems are attracting the attention of the press, candidates, volunteers and donors. They must be promptly addressed by the officers of the party to repair the reputation of the party, and to diminish the financial risks. Repeated efforts made by several other CRC members to persuade Chairman House to address the issues have been unsuccessful. Instead, he has demonstrated a lack of basic business knowledge and financial literacy resulting in significant financial reporting problems and reputational damage to the party. We ask that you join with us to seek the commitment of Chairman House, the Audit Committee and the Executive Committee to bring the party into compliance with: Federal Election Commission financial reporting requirements Affirmative Loan Covenants with Centennial Bank requiring the books and records be kept in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP); Bylaw requirements for independent CPA firm annual audits; Bylaw requirements to provide quarterly financial statements to membership.

Non-compliance may have been a problem in prior administrations, but improper past practice cannot stand in the way of the transparency and compliance. Nor can the excuse of “competitive secrets” be used to conceal financial information that must be public. The public has access to exceptionally detailed financial transactions through required FEC reporting, such as this 35 page June, 2015 report. Political parties are by law not permitted to have much “confidential financial information.”

Our concerns are based on the correspondence attached to this letter, the Quarter 1 and 2 schedules transmitted to the CRC, and recent FEC reports. We have also referenced loan documents and party bylaws. Our major concerns are:

1.         Chairman House improperly asserts that the party is not required to use GAAP. However, bank loan covenants require GAAP. The party is in technical default with the loan’s affirmative covenant to maintain its books and records in accordance with GAAP.

2.        Party members have a reasonable expectation of meaningful quarterly statements. Chairman House makes the nonsensical argument that the “books” are kept on different basis of accounting than used in the preparation of the financial statements.

3.        Chairman House acknowledged that he concealed and failed to report outstanding liabilities and bank debt to avoid donors learning that the party was in “dire financial straits.” Such failure to disclose violates campaign finance laws, violates bank covenants, and is unethical with respect to reporting obligations to the CRC.

4.        Chairman House states that at least $188,000 in unrecorded liabilities have intentionally not been disclosed. He states that unpaid legal bills make up a significant amount of the liability and relate to the Independent Expenditure Committee (IEC) legal issues. He further states that it is undetermined whether the party will ultimately pay for this liability.

5.        Chairman House states that he did not want to “dump” all the liabilities onto the required disclosure statements because it would appear to be blaming Ryan Call for large unpaid expenses.

6.        The bylaws require an annual audit by an independent CPA firm and to report the results of the audit to the executive committee. To our knowledge, no such audit was conducted for the year ending December 31, 2014, a clear violation of the bylaws.

7.        Chairman House’s staff wrote an email on July 9, 2015 that first quarter audit was under way, causing the delay in the CRC receiving the financial statements. However when the financial “statements” were released, they had not been audited.

8.        The recently released nonstandard, incoherent quarterly financial schedules were supplied to the CRC in lieu standard “quarterly financial statements.” Chairman House refused to provide the fundamental statements required by GAAP, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows and Income Statement. He argued that such statements are not required, although they are universally understood to be essential elements of an organization’s “financial statements” required under GAAP.

9.        The nonstandard financial schedule provided to the CRC classifies the $70,000 proceeds from a bank loan as a contribution and income, not as a liability. Chairman House considers it a “contribution” in his communication attached. Treating loan proceeds as income is not compliant with GAAP.

10.    Chairman House acknowledges that, despite the many month delay in producing financial statements, material adjustments must be made to the financials once they are “through the August ExComm meeting,” and “before month end,” implying that the ExComm will still not receive accurate financial statements in August.

11.    Chairman House indicates that the Q1 and Q2 financial schedules were prepared based on an “sense of” current “running rates” rather than actual financial activity. This is a serious departure from GAAP maintained books and records required by CRC’s lender, Centennial Bank.

Our concerns about the loan covenant default and CRC bylaw compliance are serious. The Audit Committee, which requires one of the three members to be a CPA, must provide immediate and direct oversight of financial management and reporting. It is imperative that an independent CPA firm be immediately engaged to audit the books and records and prepare financial statements as required in Article X of the bylaws.

We urge each of you to contact voting and non-voting members of the Executive Committee prior to their August 19 meeting to ensure that these issues are addressed by the Executive Committee. Urge the Executive Committee to direct the Audit Committee to set the scope of the audit at the Formal Audit level, as opposed to a review or a compilation, consistent with Article X.A.1.d of the bylaws.  All county chairs and congressional district chairs are members are the Executive Committee, whether they are voting or non-voting members. Non-voting members can attend executive sessions and take a meaningful part in requesting information and offering suggestions.

The linked pages of correspondence are included as supporting documentation for the summary of our concerns. We have highlighted some of the more concerning statements in yellow. While House’s assertions may appear reasonable if you skim his communications, a thorough reading reveals illogical deflection and lack of candor that represents an ethical breach and failure to disclose material financial information.

With the attention of the CRC and its Executive Committee, financial management issues can be brought under control in a timely manner so that our party can prepare itself for 2016 success.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Lundberg, Accountant, Denver CRC member

Doug Childress, CPA, Jefferson County CRC member

Celeste Gamache, Attorney, Denver County, CRC member

The day after the above email was distributed, Marilyn Marks send out a second email below, signed by the same GOP activists along with Randy Corporon, clarifying and/or correcting a few points:

Dear Central Committee Member:

You should have received an email yesterday that we wish to update to answer some of your inquiries and correct a few errors.

FAQs

Is the party insolvent? Is it able to pay the bills?  

Given Chairman House’s statements that liabilities may exceed $188,000 and a recent FEC report showing cash on hand of $125,000, there is reason for concern and Executive Committee review.

If the party is out of compliance with bank debt agreements, does that mean that the bank will call the loan?

Not necessarily. The bank will likely undertake a review of the financial condition, and make their decisions based on current risks and liquidity. They will likely demand financial statements based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

Aren’t these just petty accounting technicalities that make no difference in getting Republicans elected in 2016?

No. If the party is in stable financial condition, the reporting issues can be promptly remedied. However, if the organization is facing a cash crisis, it will shake the confidence of donors, candidates, and vendors.

Chairman House’s emails state that he plans to have a closed-door session to discuss financial matters at the August meeting. Can he do that? 

Yes, but the Executive Committee should discourage that, given the legitimate interest that members, candidates, and donors have in the party’s financial picture.

Also, non-voting members may attend. All county chairs, CD chairs and chairs of affiliated organizations should be encouraged to attend, speak up and get answers for their constituents.

Shouldn’t this criticism be behind closed doors? Aren’t we just giving the Democrats ammunition and making 2016 tougher for us?

Private inquiries and requests have been unsuccessful. Chairman House has not been candid and has concealed information that the party is required to disclose.

The Democratic Party does opposition research and likely knows more about the issues than most Central Committee members do. We should expect them to use it mid-next year when it is too late for us to remedy the issues.

These financial reporting issues were inherited. Why are you blaming Chairman House?

Chairman House is responsible for complying with the bylaws, bank covenants and campaign finance laws, which all require a recognition of liabilities, whether or not they were reported in the past.

If you have additional questions, please let us know at ColoradoConcernedGOP@gmail.com .

Thank you for your questions and concern.

Sincerely,

Randy Corporon

Doug Childress

Nicholas Lundberg

This blog post originally listed Celeste Gamache, Attorney, Denver County, CRC member, as a signer of the Aug. 7  letter. She did not sign it. 

If you take a close look at Colorado State University President Tony Frank’s July 23 decision to suspend school’s use of fetal tissue from vendors “implicated in the Planned Parenthood investigation,” you’re left wondering what kind of strange and half-assed process the University implemented in making its new policy.

There’s of course the overarching fact that journalists are saying Planned Parenthood has broken exactly zero laws, and you can be pretty sure that, if laws had been broken, the undercover anti-choice video tapers would have provided the evidence by now.

But beyond that, the description of the process by which CSU arrived at its decision, as described in Frank’s letter to Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO Springs), raises serious doubts about whether the process was fair. (Lamborn had complained to Frank about CSU’s fetal-tissue policies.)

Frank: Since receiving your letter, I have reviewed the video that was released by the Center for Medical Progress; sought clarification on the points of law you’ve raised; and discussed the issue further with Colorado state Senator Kevin Lundberg, who provided additional insight. We also convened our Bioethics Advisory Committee to assess the known facts and make a recommendation directly to me regarding University practices going forward.

Frank “reviewed” the heavily edited video? He talked to Lundberg! Lundberg is a passionate advocate to be sure, but he  happens to be one of the least objective sources you could find in the entire state of Colorado, when it comes to abortion issues.

Frank makes no mention that he talked to any entity that might have given him Planned Parenthood’s perspective–and he writes as if he may not have even reviewed the unedited version of the Center for Medical Progress’ video.

CSU’s public-relations office isn’t taking questions from me, though it provided copies of the documents linked in this blog post.

So we have no clue about the input received from the Bioethics Advisory Committee, which made recommendations to Frank and which consists of seven scientists, who might be five-star research geeks but appear to have no clue about the politics and mechanics of this kind of political drama.

Why do I think they have no clue? Take a look at their key recommendation, as stated in the Committee’s July 22 letter to Frank:

The committee recommends that CSU suspend acquisition of fetal tissue from StemExpress or any other vendor in question with Planned Parenthood until the congressional investigations are concluded and there is affirmation that all vendors used by CSU under NIH support are in compliance with federal law regarding the acquisition and use of fetal tissue.

I’m sorry, but this is a ridiculous recommendation, and it was adopted happily by Frank. First, using congressional investigations as a litmus test for innocence is completely absurd, because we all know they are often initiated and terminated for reasons that have everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the rule of law.

And are congressional investigations “concluded” in any rational manner or time frame? Nope.

And whose affirmation is the bioethics committee going to rely on to clear the vendors of wrongdoing? The vendors used by NIH are already affirmed by NIH to be in compliance.

I’m not saying CSU’s Bioethics Advisory Committee is opposed to fetal-tissue research. In fact, you can see from their letter to Frank that they’re strong supporters, and they want it to continue. But the politics is beneath them, and their judicial process–along with Frank’s–appears to be rotten.

In today’s scripted political environment, you don’t often see one arm of an advocacy organization rip into, say, a school board member, when other arms of the same organization are fighting wildly for the survival of the same school board member.

But that’s what the appendages of the Independence Institute are doing.

On Colorado Public Television July 10, Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel criticized Jeffco School Board member Julie Williams.

Kopel said, Williams is “by far the least capable member of that group, and the one who has gotten the rest of the board into trouble with a lot of  foolish, barely thought-out ideas she has expressed inappropriately.”

At the same time, down the figurative hall, the Executive Vice President of the  libertarian/conservative outfit, Amy Oliver, has been slaving to save Williams, defending her and the jeffco board in a relentless string of tweets and sporadic media appearances. Oliver, who keeps any criticism she might have of Williams to herself, was the spokesperson for her organization’s website set up to battle alleged mean-girl tweets directed at the Jeffco board and staff.

Meanwhile, another tentacle of the Indy Institute churns out articles favorable to the board–with nary a word of criticism of Williams.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with having a sometimes schizo organization, and it’s actually refreshing. Plus, Kopel speaks for himself. But his criticism of Williams, in the midst of his organization’s agenda, is noteworthy, and may reflect the polarizing effect Williams, in particular, has had on her Jeffco school community.

UPDATE: Here is the letter, without any deletions, as provided via the Secretary of State’s Office. It’s from Richard Westfall, not Ryan Call, as alleged below. A couple items of note are 1) a matter under investigation by the Federal Election Commission and 2) a matter involving the notorious Jaxine Bubis, who appears to have turned against the state party.

——-

Kathryn Porter, who wrote a lengthy Politichicks post yesterday illuminating Republican efforts to protect GOP Chair Steve House, appeared on a Denver radio station this morning claiming that the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office is refusing to release a letter allegedly outlining ten legal issues possibly faced by state party.

Porter told Boyles that the letter was sent to Steve House from Ryan Call, whose law firm, Hale Westfall, had apparently been representing the state Republican Party. When House defeated Call, Call allegedly sent the letter to House, informing him that Hale Westfall would no longer be representing the state party, according to Porter.

For some strange reason, the letter was sent to the Secretary of State’s office, and it was heavily redacted and released, under CORA, to Porter, as she explained it to Boyles below.

Among other things, Porter questions the grounds on which the SOS redacts the alleged letter from Call to House.

Porter (@10:15): I did a CORA with the Secretary of State’s office on Steve House, regarding election issues, and a letter came back. It was a letter from Ryan Call to the Secretary of State’s office. And you know, Ryan Call is our former state chair. It was a letter to Steve, not the Secretary of State, saying that we inform you that we are immediately no longer representing you, basically, is what it says. So it’s a very interesting letter. And, of course, all the contents were redacted. And there were 10 legal issues that Hale Westfall listed that they were representing the state party in or that they were aware of. So I found that very interesting. And what I found even more interesting is that the Secretary of State’s office refuses to give me the unredacted version…We have basically the first two sentences and the closing sentence. And the number of how many things they redacted.

Boyles: They treat this like Watergate or something. Like an atomic secret.

Porter: It raises so many more questions. It makes me wonder, is the Secretary of State hiding something? Or covering something up for the Colorado Republican Party? They claim deliberative process and they claim attorney-client privilege. And we know Hale Westfall was not sending this letter to the Secretary of State’s office. There is no attorney-client privilege between Hale Westfall and the Secretary of State. So the only leg they have to stand on is deliberative process. And in order to not give me that information, they need to show me that irreparable harm would occur if they share that information with me. Is there some type of legal issue involving the Secretary of State’s office and the Colorado Republican Party? This opens up a whole new can of worms, a whole new set of questions.

I have yet to see a copy of this alleged letter, so we need to take this allegation with some grains of salt. But I’ll stay on this. Maybe The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels can help us out whenever she starts over there.

The three-day Western Conservative Summit, which recently drew six GOP presidential contenders and over 4,000 participants to Denver, featured debates, galas, and speeches by high-profile conservatives.

But outside the media spotlight, the gathering offered 30 “Citizen Action Workshops,”  most focusing on nuts-and-bolts tactics that conservatives believe will help them advance their agenda. Examples: “Social Media Secrets for Winning Online, with American Majority,” “Run for Office with Victory Guaranteed (Almost), with American Majority,” and “How to Deal with the Media, with Tea Party Patriots,”

In one such workshop, titled “Energize Your Church for Civic Engagement,” Gayle Levin, Associate Director of Salt and Light Council, outlined ways conservative churches can organize to make a difference in the public sphere.

“We’ve had a one-two punch from the Supreme Court, and there’s only one place to turn, God,” said Levin, after presenting a video to workshop goers lamenting that “homosexuality” is considered “normal” in America, abortion is “accepted” and, generally, the Bible has be set aside is by secular society.

“If churches would rise up, we could turn things around in one election cycle,” continued Levin, adding that her anti-choice organization, founded by, among others, Mathew Staver of the right-wing Liberty Council, trains pastors and churchgoers in 23 states.

Levin said her group helps pastors craft two-minute messages designed to be delivered “from the pulpit,” and pastors are asked to encourage church attendees to stop by a Salt and Light table, as they leave the service. At the table, church volunteers get instructions on how to take action on the pastor’s message from the sermon.

For example, in 2012, Levin said, her organization worked with churches whose members were directed to other organizations which, in turn, sent them to rallies, organized by the Liberty Council and other organizations, in swing states.

The Salt and Light Council also encourages churches to provide voter guides, organize candidate forums, and to register and transport voters to the polls. And if a church runs afoul with the law or needs anything else, the organization will provide “legal and background support,” said Levin.

Though IRS rules limit political work by religious entities, both left- and right-leaning groups encourage political involvement by the religious community. Left-leaning organizations, such as Sojourners, organize with allies across the country.

The conservatives American Renewal Project and right-wing activist David Lane has set up meetings with pastors and GOP presidential candidates in swing states, including Colorado.

Also here, conservatives have organized a July 12-15 conference in Colorado Springs, called Breaking the Silence, which features prominent right-wing evangelicals from across the country.

Some right-wing conservative activism focuses on church practices. One conservative organization, Alliance Defending Freedom, has published a guide, titled Protecting Your Ministry from Sexual Orientation Gender Identity Lawsuits, to help churches and institutions use loopholes to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Here’s an excerpt from the manual:

A new concept – that “sexual liberty” trumps religious freedom – has begun to impact churches, ministries, and individual Christians across this nation. This concept has led to the passage of sexual orientation, gender identity ordinances (SOGIs). SOGIs elevate sexual special interests over our cherished fundamental freedoms, especially religious freedom. These ordinances place terms like “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” in the same category as race or religion. But they are not designed for the innocent purpose of ensuring all people receive basic services. Rather, their practical effect is to legally compel Christians to accept, endorse, and even promote messages, ideas, and events that violate their faith.

Those promoting these ordinances use public sympathy – gained through misleading rhetoric about “discrimination” – to silence dissenting voices. And no ministry will remain immune if they remain true to Scripture’s teachings about sexuality and gender. Alliance Defending Freedom created this manual to help you prepare for the legal intrusions some of your fellow believers and Christian leaders around the country have already faced, and for other threats on the near horizon.

At Denver’s Western Conservative Summit, Levin discussed a number reasons churches reject help from her organization, ranging from, “The rapture is coming,” and “I don’t want to scare people away,” to, “You’re being too political,” and, “Separation of church and state.”

“We do need to stand up,” said one workshop participant, Pastor Mark White of Park View Bible Baptist Church in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, referring to recent Supreme Court decisions. “It is our fault, as Christians, that we are in the state we’re in.  We’ve sat on our hands too long.”

“This [Western Conservative] Summit is here for a reason,” said Levin. “We are looking for who will stand for god.”

Though most of the workshops offered at the Summit focused on developing practical skills, like the one on church organizing, others were broader or agenda-driven. These included, “Young Voters Meet Team Carly, with Fiorina for President (under-30s only),”  “Lessons from the Left, with Americans for Prosperity,”  “Trump the Race Card, with Frederick Douglass Republicans,” and “We’re the Millennials, Give Us a Look, with Turning Point USA.”