Advocates, opponents of Colorado ballot measures have spent $15 million already on campaigns

Supporters and opponents have already spent more than $15 million on the myriad statewide ballot measures Coloradans will decide this November — and that was before the ballot was even finalized earlier this month.

Voters will weigh in on 14 ballot measures. If passed, they would amend the Colorado Constitution or change state law on topics as varied as property tax exemptions for veterans with disabilities, abortion and reproductive rights, firearm taxes, mountain lion hunting and how the state conducts elections for major offices.

Each measure has core constituencies. But less than two months from Election Day on Nov. 5, they do not have equal pocketbooks.

Campaign finance records filed through Aug. 28 show the avalanche of cash some proponents are willing to dump on the electorate — especially to argue in favor of election reform and abortion rights.

The early numbers are just a prelude as campaigns gear up to stuff mailboxes with campaign literature and flood airwaves with ads, as some are already doing. Two years ago, state issue committees reported more than $47 million raised; in 2020, the last presidential election year, they reported more than $64 million in fundraising.

As the fall campaign begins, the state’s campaign finance reporting deadlines are now coming every two weeks. The next round of reports are due Monday, covering the period through last Wednesday.

Here’s an early snapshot of ballot races.

Ranked-choice voting tops money list

The biggest war chest, by a comfortable margin, has been amassed by Colorado Voters First, an issue committee seeking to remake how Colorado elects members of Congress, state officials and the state legislature.

If passed, Proposition 131 would create an open primary, with the top four candidates advancing to the November election. The winner would be determined using ranked-choice voting, in which voters rank their choices by preference. Until a candidate won a majority of votes, the lowest-performing candidate would be eliminated in each round, with their supporters’ next choice added to the results.

The issue committee mustered nearly $5.5 million before Labor Day and spent nearly $4.7 million of that to gather signatures, hire consultants and run advertisements.

Most all of that money has come from either the political action committee Unite America or from Kent Thiry, a multimillionaire with a long history of political activity. Over the past two decades, Thiry has spent nearly $10 million to influence Colorado politics, according to campaign finance records, including $1.4 million — so far —  on this latest effort.

Asked in a recent interview how much he plans to spend this time, Thiry was noncommittal.

“I don’t know,” Thiry said. “The good news is, there’s lots of other people that are contributing to the campaign, so I’ll play it by ear as to what I do. But we’ve been really thrilled by the number of people who are willing to invest in this big step forward.”

In addition to Unite America, which reports dozens of donors in its federal filings — often contributing six-figure amounts — the Colorado effort is driven by Thiry and three other individuals, including the son of a Broncos co-owner and Walmart heir.

The effort isn’t unopposed, however. The state political parties have come out against Prop 131 because it would effectively end partisan primaries, and lawmakers amended a bill in May to slow the proposal if it passes.

The campaign against the proposal, Voter Rights Colorado, has raised comparatively little through the end of August: just $46,000. A representative for the group did not return a request for comment.

Abortion rights supporters take to airwaves

Colorado, which already has some of the strongest laws protecting abortion access in the Mountain West, could enshrine the right in the state constitution if voters pass Amendment 79. Initiative backers already have shown they can raise serious money in their bid to push it across the 55% support threshold necessary to amend the constitution.

Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom so far has raised more than $4.2 million and has spent nearly $4 million of that. Of that, $1.5 million has gone to TV advertising.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg, according to advocates. As of Sept. 6, according to organizers, total donations have topped $13 million, with much of that not yet reported.

“Coloradans are enthusiastic in the belief that it’s time to secure abortion rights into the Colorado Constitution, and our fundraising of more than $13 million reflects that,” said Karen Middleton, the president of Cobalt and co-chair of the coalition backing the measure, in a statement.

Opponents, through a handful of separate committees, have reported raising less than $100,000. The disparity reflects Colorado’s recent history with measures relating to abortion access: In 2020, the last time abortion opponents ran an initiative to limit access to the procedure, it failed with only 41% support among voters, while raising a fraction of what abortion-rights advocates did.

More even footing on pair of measures

Two other measures, one to add veterinary professional associate as a newly created pet-care position in Colorado and another to ban hunting of mountain lions and bobcats, have seen much less of a cash advantage between supporters’ and opponents’ camps.

The group supporting Proposition 129, to create the new class of veterinary professionals, has reported nearly $1.4 million in total donations, while the opponents have raised about $965,000.

Proposition 127, the cat hunting ban, has a similar split between the for and against camps.

The proponents, Cats Aren’t Trophies, reported raising $586,000 to the opponents’ $635,000. The group recently touted a slate of celebrity endorsements, including wildlife conservationist Jane Goodall, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican, and former Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat. The chief opponents, Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better, meanwhile features on its website a fundraising thermometer with a goal of $3.5 million.