Laserfiche WebLink
which would reasonably tend to influence that public official, it <br /> likewise excludes "[c]ampaign contributions" as something of value. <br /> § 24-18-104(1)(b), (3)(a), C.R.S. 2021. <br /> Based on these authorities, Ready-Mix posits that conflict-of- <br /> interest issues stemming from campaign contributions have been <br /> comprehensively addressed, and therefore applying Caperton to <br /> evaluate whether Donnelly was improperly influenced by campaign <br /> contributions is unnecessary. <br /> 5 1 Ready-Mix takes an extreme position. Under its theory, an <br /> individual appearing before a board of elected officials can never <br /> mount a due process challenge to the impartiality of the board's <br /> adjudicatory actions if that challenge is premised on the improper <br /> influence of campaign contributions. So, regardless of the relative <br /> size, timing, and apparent effect that the contribution has on the <br /> quasi-judicial actor, his impartiality — a cornerstone of due process <br /> — can never be questioned. <br /> !; 5 2 We decline to adopt such an extreme position. Indeed, doing <br /> so would defy the underlying logic of Caperton— namely, that in <br /> certain "extraordinary situation[s]," campaign contributions can <br /> create a constitutionally impermissible risk of actual bias on the <br /> 25 <br />