A direct examination of Lauren Boebert’s shameful voting record. Part 4.

Updated: Jan 26

Eagle County Democrats has published three articles entitled “A direct examination of Lauren Boebert’s shameful voting record”.

Part 1 demonstrated that Boebert's votes against the Build Back Better Act, The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and The American Rescue Plan are in direct opposition to the economic interests of her constituents.
In Part 2 we delved into Boebert’s shameful No Votes across a wide range of humanitarian issues. Her No Votes harm women, seniors, Indigenous communities, American Allies, the LGBTQ+ community, and even the health and safety of children and infants.
In Part 3 we outlined how Rep. Boebert’s No Votes are literally endangering her constituents. From opposing education campaigns for preventing opioid addiction, to voting against hearing aids for deaf infants and children, to her execrable and idiotic diatribes against vaccines and masks, her constituents are unnecessarily dying of COVID.
Just some of Rep. Boebert’s No Votes

Now, in our final installment of “A direct examination of Lauren Boebert’s shameful voting record,” we are veering away from Rep. Boebert’s reprehensible voting record in order to shed light on another issue voters should be aware of; Boebert’s numerous financial missteps. Specifically, we will look beyond how her actions fail to meet the ethical, moral and legal standards we all expect and deserve in elected leaders, and focus on the bigger picture – and the bigger risk: how Congresswoman Boebert’s financial issues affect us as voters, as residents, as constituents, as Coloradans, and as Americans.
Boebert’s most egregious financial failings:
1) Violation of House Ethics Rules: Apparent failure to disclose $1 million in income. Ethics and campaign finance laws require candidates disclose sources of income to let voters evaluate potential conflicts of interest. This specific omission failed to disclose not only income, but significant income connected to the oil and gas industries.
2) Violation of campaign finance law: Alleged use of over $6,000 in campaign contributions to bail out her distressed restaurant and clear up old tax liens (according to the Federal Election Commission).
At a minimum, Boebert’s financial dealings show a serious lack of judgment and respect for basic ethical behavior. Beyond that, this “law and order” legislator flagrantly disregards the law. She may still face further legal action from the Federal Election Commission, which means that this self-inflicted quagmire of legal issues she finds herself in will no doubt be a major distraction from her day job as an elected public servant (i.e., attending to the issues facing Colorado and her constituents during a time of unprecedented challenges and hardship for many.)

According to the New York Times, Boebert “represents an incoming faction of the party for whom breaking the rules—and gaining notoriety for doing it—is exactly the point.” In searching for social media stardom Boebert has vocalized her bigoted views and publicly insulted many marginalized groups. Beyond the disrespect for constituents that she proudly displays, we should look closely at how her financial mismanagement only amplifies the self-dealing mindset with which she approaches her job.

Many voters in her district (CD-3) believe that Representative Boebert is focused more on her own celebrity than on her constituents, or the needs and interests of western Colorado. During her tenure she has not passed a single bill. In fact, she has voted against earmarks for $150M for Colorado transportation projects and against the National Forest Restoration and Remediation Act which preserves Natural Resources in rural Colorado. Installment one cited how her vote against Build Back Better diminishes economic opportunities for residents in CD-3 – most of whom, including a majority of Republicans in her district, support the plan and the high paying jobs it creates.

In voting against these bills, she has deliberately acted against the economic interests of those she was elected to serve while catering to special interests…or simply to her own personal agenda. According to the U.S. Census, the average per capita income in CD-3 is $34,029. Median household income is just under $60,000. Boebert’s $174,000 salary places her at a much higher income level than most of her constituents, and apparently unconcerned with the economic realities of those she was elected to serve. Boebert’s wide array of no votes across a myriad of economic issues denies voters an opportunity for the economic advancement Boebert has herself achieved.

Democrats and Republicans surely have policy disagreements, but all Coloradoans should agree that basic moral, ethical, and legal requirements for minimally responsible financial behavior exist to protect the interests of voters against potential self-dealing and bias that no doubt play out in legislative duties and obligations of elected leaders. We must hold ANY elected leader accountable for financial mismanagement and the consequences that eventually harm constituents.

No one can argue that Boebert’s financial errors have benefited her personally. Some might choose to see these issues as inadvertent paperwork errors or oversight, as she has claimed. In the best light, these issues might somehow be forgivable if she was acting with regard for the best interest of Colorado and Coloradans. But there’s scant evidence she’s using her newfound celebrity, or the power of her legislative vote, to do that. Boebert’s agenda is not Colorado’s agenda. So, has Lauren Boebert’s track record of no votes hurt or helped you? We want to know. Email us at info@eagledems.org and let us know.

83 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All