Colorado House Speaker Crisanta Duran on Wednesday rolled out a series of bills to require that more “dark money” be disclosed under the state’s campaign finance laws, calling it a necessary step to ensure that out-of-state interests can’t “drown out the voice of our people.”
The four bills, all sponsored by Democrats, won’t stop — and probably won’t even slow — the flow of out-of-state money, but they would make it easier, in some cases, to see where the money’s coming from.
“Anyone who wants to influence our elections in Colorado has to be transparent about where their money comes from and take responsibility for what they say,” said state Rep. Jeff Bridges, D-Greenwood Village, a freshman lawmaker who sponsored two of the four bills.
But at least one Republican suggested the changes could ultimately have the opposite effect.
“There’s not a single piece of campaign finance reform that has done anything other than drive contributions further into the dark and make it more difficult,” said state Sen. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs.
For the voting public, one of the most visible changes would be House Bill 1261, Bridges’ measure to require groups that run political ads and send out mailers to disclose who paid for them on the advertisement itself — just as candidates are required to do when they say they “endorse this message.”
Other bills would add fundraising limits for county officials to bring them in line with state politicians (House Bill 1260) — currently, county-level politicians can collect unlimited donations — and close a loophole that an independent watchdog says allowed $1.9 million in political spending to go underreported in 2016 (House Bill 1262).
It has been 15 years since Colorado voters adopted Amendment 27, which added campaign finance limits and disclosure requirements to the state constitution. But the landscape of campaign finance — and the types of groups that pour money into elections — has changed dramatically since the amendment was passed in 2002. That, in large part, is because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which overturned a federal ban on corporations and unions financing their own political ads, citing free speech.
The Amendment 27 reforms, which limited individual contributions, were built around the idea of individuals being the primary financiers of campaigns — not corporations, said Peg Perl, senior counsel for Colorado Ethics Watch.
“The underlying premise (of campaign finance) is a lot different now,” Perl said. “We’re just trying to make sure voters aren’t left behind.”
In 2016, independent expenditures topped more than $11.6 million into state and local races, according to an analysis by Colorado Ethics Watch. Large chunks of that money came from conservative and liberal mega-donors alike, including liberal billionaire George Soros, who flooded the Jefferson County prosecutor’s race with more than $1.1 million in contributions last year.
Gardner, the Republican state senator, said that’s fine with him — although he and Soros don’t agree on much.
“You know what, everybody seemed to know that George Soros was doing that,” Gardner said.
And while billionaires such as Soros can navigate Colorado’s campaign finance laws — hiring attorneys or digging for loopholes — regular people who want to run for public office often can’t, Gardner argued. He says that additional restrictions, including requiring more disclosures on advertising, will lead to opponents “playing gotcha” when a citizen-led group forgets to disclose by mistake.
That, he said, could stifle free speech.
“Average citizens are having to comply with things that presidential candidates don’t have to, practically,” Gardner said.
Some of the biggest so-called “dark money” groups are nonprofit 501(c)4s, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts. Like anyone else engaged in political activities, such groups have to disclose the money they’re spending, but — under federal law — nonprofits don’t have disclose their donors.
In Colorado today, these “dark money” donors do come to light in certain circumstances. Within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of the general election, anyone who runs a political ad — including a 501(c)4 — has to file a report disclosing the donors that paid for it. But that leaves about a three-month gap between the primary and the general election reporting periods in which “dark money” donors stay dark.
In an analysis of campaign finance reports, Colorado Ethics Watch found that at least $1.9 million was spent on political advertising during this period last year, with no way of knowing who paid for them.
The fourth bill, House Bill 1259, was described by its sponsor, state Rep. Mike Weissman, as a pre-emptive strike against a new loophole that may emerge due to a recent court case. The proposal would prevent candidates from controlling their own independent expenditure committees, a kind of campaign finance entity that can raise and spend an unlimited amount of money.
At a Wednesday news conference, the bill sponsors said they hope to get bipartisan support — but so far, they haven’t spoken with Republican lawmakers about the proposal.
