With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". however, the majority merely concludes that it is vague without actually explaining how. I do not see section 15 as vague. When its language is read in conjunction with the knowing or intentional requirement, the basis of liability is quite clear to a person of ordinary intelligence-a contract holder is liable for "knowingly inducing" or "knowingly causing," directly or indirectly, a contribution on behalf of himself or his immediate family members. There is nothing vague about "knowingly inducing" or "knowingly causing" a contribution. Although the intent of an actor is sometimes proven by circumstantial evidence, such is the case with all crimes that require a showing of intent and does not render section 15 vague. See, eg., People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100, 1112 (Colo.1990) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The State notes that this very problem

A: recognizing that a scienter requirement may mitigate a laws vagueness
B: recognizing that statutes requiring intent are not likely to be invalidated because of vagueness
C: holding such statutes are not analogous statutes of limitation for erisa purposes
D: holding statutes are not applied retroactively absent clear legislative intent
B.