A complaint alleging illegal lobbyist activity filed against former state Rep. Joe Salazar, a Thornton Democrat, is on its way to dismissal.

It’s not the complaint filed with the state’s Independent Ethics Commission, although it’s identical to the one filed by the Public Trust Institute in December.

This complaint was filed with the Secretary of State’s office on the same day a similar complaint was lodged with the ethics commission.

Salazar served in the Colorado House for three terms, from Jan. 9, 2013 through Jan. 3, 2019. He decided to run for Attorney General in 2018 and forego a fourth term.

On Jan. 4, 2019, Salazar was named executive director of Colorado Rising, an environmental group that focuses on oil and gas activity.

Amendment 41 prohibits statewide elected officials, including members of the legislature, from engaging in lobbying for two years after leaving office. A professional lobbyist, as defined by the amendment, is an individual who engages in lobbying for pay or other consideration. The latter provision, the definition of a professional lobbyist, applies to the complaints filed with the Secretary of State as well as the ethics commission.

In the complaint, Public Trust Institute director Suzanne Staiert made three allegations:

• On March 4, 2019, Salazar engaged in direct lobbying, the complaint claimed, in a press conference at the state Capitol. That lobbying was in the form of asking people to “contact specifically named state legislators to influence the passage of Senate Bill 19-181.” The press conference, which was covered by Colorado Politics, was held in a House committee room and was streamed over Facebook.
• On Aug. 8, 2019, Salazar sent an email to 10 lawmakers, urging them to propose or support legislation on immigration reform.
• Salazar held another press conference on Aug. 14 in a House hearing room to announce “new legal actions that the group has taken in response to the passing of SB-181.” The complaint noted that committee rooms “can only be reserved by current members” of the legislature. The committee room in question was reserved by Rep. Jonathan Singer, D-Longmont, the complaint said. “It appears that not only did Mr. Salazar engage in lobbying, but he coordinated his lobby efforts with Representative Singer, using public facilities available only to current members of the General Assembly.”

In the July 14 motion to dismiss, Theresa Conley, legal & internal operations manager in the Elections Division for the Secretary of State, wrote that with the Jan. 4, 2019 press conference, the Aug. 8 email correspondence and the Aug. 14, 2019, press conference did not violate the state’s lobbying laws because “the underlying conduct did not meet the definition of lobbying.”

“First, neither Respondent nor Colorado Rising made specific asks to the entering legislators about a specific or pending matter,” Conley wrote about the January 4 press conference. “Instead, Respondent and Colorado Rising announce they plan to hold the Governor and legislators accountable and to ensure they protect the interest of the people and not oil and gas lobbyists. Second, the event was held the morning of opening day at the legislature, before the session had officially opened and before any legislation had been introduced.”

The email, Conley wrote, was from Salazar’s personal email address, which included a caveat: it was written “not at the behest of a paying client or employer,” and hence did not qualify as a lobbying activity. Conley also noted that immigration is not an issue that Colorado Rising works on.

The Aug. 14 press conference was held more than four months after the bill in question, Senate Bill 19-181 was signed into law, “foreclosing the possibility that the event was seeking to aid or influence that bill. Second, the purpose of the event was to announce litigation Colorado Rising was commencing for its client, Our Longmont, to revive a fracking ban in the city of Longmont based on new legal authority contained in SB 19-181,” Conley wrote. “Respondent’s conduct is explicitly excluded from the definition of ‘lobbying’ as a communication by an attorney-at-law on behalf of an identified client. Finally, Representative Singer reserved the room and participated in the event not to aid in Respondent’s lobbying but because of his personal involvement in the suit.”

The Public Trust Institute also claimed the Facebook Live event tied to the March 4 press conference constituted an act of lobbying. Conley said it was lobbying, but not directed at lawmakers. Instead, Colorado Rising was asking its members to contact lawmakers regarding SB 19-181. That act falls under an exception to lobbying rules that do not require reporting or registration, Conley wrote.

Conley also pointed out that while she was deputy Secretary of State, Staiert dismissed a complaint against the American Lands Council that hinged on a similar set of circumstances.

Conley wrote that ALC sent a detailed email correspondence that “listed the committee members and their email addresses” asking the recipients to “consider attending the hearing to show your support for the bill” or to “please send these Committee members an email letting them know that you support [the bill]” that was sent the day before the bill was scheduled for a committee hearing.In that instance, the prior Deputy Secretary, now Complainant here, found the email was a clear example of grassroots lobbying that was sufficiently minimal.”

The next step in the process is a formal action by the Secretary of State regarding the motion to dismiss. Conley asked that the decision be made by July 31.

The complaint against Salazar with the ethics commission is currently in the investigative stage.

The ethics commission has never publicly acted on a lobbying complaint in its 13-year history, and Amendment 41 does not spell out what the penalty would be for such a complaint.

Staiert declined to comment.