Marx Merchandise Store Gap Could Signal Campaign Fraud

"Last week Victor Marx and his gubernatorial campaign argued a hearing officer should reduce their potential fines for campaign finance violations. At the same time, 9News released a recording of Marx admitting his name appeared on a contribution to get money into the campaign."

That is the setup, according to an opinion piece published by the Colorado Sun. The writer, identified as Nicolais, argues that while financial penalties are coming, criminal charges might be next.

To hear them tell it, the situation involves more than just paperwork errors. Nicolais points to a specific incident involving a merchandise store. In a previous interview with 9News, Marx told voters that buying items from a separate shop would support his campaign. The catch? Those sales were supposed to be reported as campaign funds.

The math holds up, at least on the surface. Several news outlets bought goods from the store. Yet, the campaign’s financial reports show no incoming cash from those sales. Nicolais suggests this gap could fit a definition of fraud under state law. Specifically, the writer cites a statute regarding false statements made to promote the sale of services.

"It sounds an awful lot like what is happening with the Victor Marx merchandise store," Nicolais wrote.

There is a complication, though. The company running that store, Not Shook, LLC, is owned by Marx. The campaign listed this ownership on its official records. So, when Marx sells shirts through a company he owns, and tells people it helps his campaign, but never reports the money, the question is whether that counts as a simple oversight or a deliberate scheme.

Nicolais acknowledges that Marx will likely claim political motivation if prosecutors move in. But the writer argues that letting that fear stop an investigation is its own form of bias. "Accommodating him would be politically motivated itself, but with the added consequence of chipping away at the rule of law and democratic principles," the piece states.

The author admits they are not a practicing criminal attorney, having tried only one such case in their career. But they argue it doesn’t take a seasoned detective to notice the inconsistencies. Multiple offices, including the state’s election division and local prosecutors, should be looking into the discrepancy between the public promises and the private ledgers.

For now, the campaign fights for lower fines. But if the investigation digs deeper into the Not Shook transactions, the stakes rise from dollars to liberty. As Nicolais concludes, Coloradans should expect no less than a thorough look from their elected prosecutors. The evidence already in the public domain is "pretty damning," the writer says. Whether that is enough to charge remains to be decided by the courts, not the campaign.