This story was first published at ColoradoSun.com
DENVER | Hundreds of thousands of dollars from a group that appears to be maneuvering to hide its donors is pouring into Democratic state Senate primary in Aurora, raising questions about the organization’s intentions and how it may affect the trajectory of the race.
Representation Matters has spent $271,000 thus far on mailers, digital ads and canvassing to help Aurora attorney Idris Keith in his Senate District 28 race against state Rep. Mike Weissman. Keith has the backing of business groups, while Weissman is endorsed by a slate of his Democratic colleagues in the legislature, as well as union, environmental and progressive groups.
The district is so favorable to Democrats that whoever wins the June 25 primary will almost certainly win in November, too.
The big spending in the district, which in total accounts for about 20% of all the $1.7 million in outside spending on state legislative primaries reported through midday Thursday, reflects how much of an impact individual senators can have on how legislation fares in the Capitol. Over the past two years, progressive housing and drug policy bills have been blocked in Senate committees where there is a one- or two-vote Democratic majority.
There are a handful of Democratic legislative primaries where outside groups are spending money to help more moderate candidates beat their more progressive opponents.
Weissman, a lawyer who served eight years in the House, including as the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is decrying the spending.
“I’m surprised and dismayed to see this very large amount of essentially untraceable mystery money coming into north Aurora and Colorado,” he said. “For eight years as a representative I have tried to go to bat for my district and my city … to stand up for working families, even if that means taking on powerful interests.”
In an interview with The Colorado Sun, Keith likewise condemned the “infiltration of big money into our political campaigns.” He highlighted how he’s agreed to adhere to the state’s voluntary donor limits, which allows him to collect larger individual donations but caps his campaign’s spending at $141,950.
Representation Matters, as an independent expenditure committee, which is similar to a super PAC, cannot coordinate with Keith’s campaign.
The Representation Matters mailers and ads seen by The Sun have so far all been supportive of Keith and don’t attack Weissman. They feature photos of Keith with his children and say he will “stand up to racism in state government” and “fight to protect women’s rights.”
The ads have been featured on SentinelColorado.com, with notices posted they are paid for by Representation Matters. Sentinel Colorado political advertising policy requires all political ads feature such a notice, but the advertising sales department does not disclose buyer details, according to Sentinel Colorado.
Following the money
Because of how Representation Matters was formed and funded, it’s unclear who is paying for the group’s work.
The committee filed with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office on May 20 with the express purpose of helping Keith get elected. That was three days after one of its pro-Keith mailers was sent out.
State campaign finance filings show Representation Matters received $320,000 on May 22 from a different state spending committee called Brighter Colorado Futures.
Brighter Colorado Futures registered as a committee on May 10 and received $315,000 from a federal super PAC called Democracy Wins on May 21.
Democracy Wins registered with the Federal Election Commission on May 13 — and it won’t have to report its donors until July 15, nearly three weeks after the June 25 primaries in Colorado. When it reports its donors, it may be that it is funded by a political nonprofit that doesn’t disclose where its money came from. The group’s website portrays it as working to defeat Republican U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert.
All of Representation Matters’ expenses to support Keith thus far occurred before the May 26 deadline after which such spending has to be reported within 48 hours. That kept the group’s spending secret for more than two weeks after the first mailer went out.
It’s not atypical for large sums to be spent on legislative primaries or general elections in Colorado, but it always happens with a purpose. The funds often come from an issue group hoping to advance a cause or a wing of a political party hoping to expand their ranks. Since Senate District 28 is a safe Democratic seat, it’s unlikely to be the latter.
A closer look at Senate District 28
Senate District 28 is currently represented by Democratic Sen. Rhonda Fields, who is term-limited and running to be an Arapahoe County commissioner. She hasn’t endorsed a successor.
“I want the people to make their decision,” she said of why she hasn’t made an endorsement in the primary. “We have two very confident, capable candidates.”
She said Senate District 28 residents are increasingly facing food and economic insecurity, and that she believed Weissman and Keith have solutions to address those issues.
The district is highly favorable to Democrats. Fields won her 2022 reelection bid by 37 percentage points.
The district is 39% Latino, 32% white and 18% Black, according to 2022 census numbers. That is much more diverse than most of the legislative districts in the state. Weissman is white. Keith is Black.
Keith’s donors include small-donor committees operated by the Colorado Medical Society, Colorado Association of Realtors, Colorado Apartment Association, Apartment Association of Metro Denver and COPIC, the state’s medical malpractice insurer. His website features endorsements from the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, the Colorado Medical Society and the Colorado Association of Realtors.
Weissman’s donors include committees run by several unions, the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, Conservation Colorado and Healthier Colorado. Weissman has endorsements from 10 Democratic state senators, Attorney General Phil Weiser and U.S. Rep. Jason Crow, as well as the Working Families Party, Colorado AFL-CIO, Colorado Education Association and Colorado Ceasefire.
Keith has raised $67,000 compared with the $109,000 raised by Weissman. Keith had spent $54,000 and had $13,000 in cash as of May 29, while Weissman had spent $32,000 and had about $77,000 in cash.
Weissman hasn’t benefited from the same level of political group spending that Keith is receiving, but in the past week three groups have started spending to support him.
Conservation Colorado Victory Fund, an environmental group, has spent $30,000 on two mailers supporting Weissman. Colorado Labor Action, which backs pro-union candidates, has spent about $30,000 on canvassing and ads for Weissman.
Better Schools for a Stronger Colorado spent $66,000 for digital ads supporting Weissman and opposing Keith, along with about $6,000 on phone calls supporting Weissman. Better Schools is funded primarily by Stand for Children, a nonprofit based in Portland, Oregon, that doesn’t disclose its donors.
Keith was originally running this year to represent House District 36. He switched to run for state Senate in August. He ran for a seat on the Aurora City Council in 2021, but dropped out of the contest before the election, saying he wanted to devote more time to his family. Keith also ran unsuccessfully to be an Arapahoe County commissioner in 2020, losing by about 150 votes to his Republican opponent.
Groups with unknown donors are spending in other legislative primaries
The Democratic primary in Senate District 28 is far from the only contest where groups with unknown donors are spending money.
For instance, State Rep. Elisabeth Epps has been targeted by tens of thousands of those hard-to-track dollars in her House District 6 Democratic primary race against Denver attorney Sean Camacho.
Fighting For a Stronger Colorado is an independent expenditure committee formed in February that’s sent four mailers to voters in the district since mid-May at a cost of about $57,000.
The group had raised $66,000 through June 3, roughly $55,000 of which came from Citizens For a Great Denver, a political nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors. The nonprofit helped block Candi CdeBaca from being reelected last year to the Denver City Council.
Fighting For a Stronger Colorado also received $8,000 from the Colorado Democracy Action Fund, another state-level super PAC that has been entirely funded by donations from Education Reform Now Advocacy, a national political nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors.
Two other donors to Fighting For a Stronger Colorado are:
Barry Curtiss-Lusher, who sits on the board of the Anti-Defamation League and is the former CEO and co-founder of Nexus BPS, an energy development company. He gave $1,000.
Andrew Feinstein, the CEO and managing partner of EXDO Development. He gave $2,500.
Servicios Sigue Action Fund has spent nearly $35,000 on advertising to support Camacho after receiving $37,000 from fellow state-level super PAC A Whole Lot of People for Change.
Thus far, there is no outside spending supporting Epps.
Organizations with secretive donors have the opposite effect on my choice of candidates. They make me more skeptical of the candidate, even though he/she has no involvement in that organization.
I am alway suspicious of dark money. I will never trust it. And I will never trust support from real estate and business. They are usually anti- union and anti- conservation. Which means anti-people
And last year you reported about the $2 million that came from secretive PACs to conservatives in Aurora. Those amounts seem pretty heavily weighted…
This is the biggest issue for voters that resulted from the Citizen’s United ruling by SCOTUS. It allows all these PAC’s to form that serve as a shield for donors. It’s an issue with both parties, and serves to muddy the waters on who is really behind the campaign funding engine for any given candidate. Since elected officials serve the people, donor transparency should be of the utmost importance to voters. Somehow, Citizens United needs to be overturned, but not sure how or when. It’s highly unlikely with this current SCOTUS.
I don’t think it is correct to say Cani C de Baca was “blocked” from re-elected. She was a controversial Council member and many of her constituents disapproved of her behavior. So they voted for her opponent.