Another recession (or worse) has landed with a splat. That means another legislative raid on Colorado's cash funds can't be far behind. It's a tradition.

In addition to budget cuts, Gov. Bill Ritter has asked the legislature to shift up to $300 million from more than 20 state-run cash funds to the general fund, in order to cover shortfalls. The Joint Budget Committee is working out the details in a bill soon to be introduced.

Some argue that the raids lead, in a sneaky way, to a violation of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights provision requiring popular votes on tax hikes. After all, the cash funds moved to the general fund must ultimately be replenished by raising or prolonging the fees on the people or companies paying them. But they don't have a chance to vote on those fees.

Cash funds are financed by special fees, surcharges and assessments paid by those who supposedly benefit from the governmental service each fund finances. For instance, the Petroleum Storage Tank Fund, financed by surcharges on oil companies, is supposed to pay for cleaning up leaking tanks.

The legislature last made a series of transfers to the general fund from cash funds during the recession earlier this decade - a total of $442 million from 31 special funds. In 2004 several businessmen sued the state on grounds that the transfers amounted to a "tax policy change" and a new tax that produced a net revenue increase without voter approval.

Of course they lost. Last November the Colorado Supreme Court, which has never liked TABOR, ruled that a fee is primarily levied to pay for a particular service. Just because the money is transferred to the general fund and spent on other things, "doesn't alter the essential character of those fees as fees."

That leaves the door wide open for all sorts of legislative mischief.

It will be interesting to see whether another suit, featuring more aggrieved plaintiffs, follows the next transfer - or the drastically higher auto registration fees proposed in a bill now in the House, ostensibly to pay for roads and bridges. If the state suddenly needs more money for Medicaid or unemployment insurance, say, they too might be transferred to the general fund.

But John Head, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the 2004 case, thinks another suit would stand no chance. "The Supreme Court has settled the issue," he said. "They've said back-door tax increases are OK. There's no hope for stopping this kind of stuff."

If the court wants a particular result, "they'll find a way to get there," he said, even if it takes "backflips."

The court is unapologetic about its stand. "We have consistently rejected readings of [TABOR] that would hinder basic government functions or cripple the government's ability to provide services," it said in the funds-transfer case.

The next TABOR protection to be upended is likely to be the 6 percent cap on annual growth in general fund spending. It was established by statute in 1991, but effectively put into the constitution the following year by TABOR, which said existing spending limits can be lifted only by voter approval.

That's been accepted wisdom for more than 16 years. But now some Democratic lawmakers have concluded it's not a spending limit at all, merely an "allocation" rule that can be changed by statute.

And it's not just Democrats. House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, said he would consider voting to lift the cap if the Democrats would reduce or eliminate the proposed vehicle fee hikes and spend more on transportation out of the general fund and the fraud-ridden Conservation Easement Program.

But first he would seek an opinion from Attorney General John Suthers clearing this move.

Soon all that will be left of TABOR is the requirement that a popular vote be required on direct tax hikes. But why go to the trouble when you can raise revenue in more roundabout ways?

Peter Blake is a former Rocky Mountain News political columnist. He can be reached at pblake0705@comcast.net.