PERRY: Dark money shrouds an Aurora legislative primary contest in wariness 

When it comes to keeping people, corporations and especially the government honest, nothing is as potent as transparency.

Nothing.

It can be as simple as the powerful “CC” or “carbon copy” feature in an email, making it obvious that others are watching what’s going on, intentionally or as a courtesy.

Or, it can be as effective as state and federal election campaign laws that require campaign donation amounts and donors to be cataloged and made public.

It is not a tired trope when journalists covering elections say, “follow the money.”

When a candidate has to disclose whom they take campaign money from, and voters pay attention, politicians become strategically discriminating.

Taking a $1,000 campaign donation from Vladimir Putin would be ugly if it showed up in the newspaper.

The ability for voters to scrutinize who gives political candidates campaign money, and how much, not only works to keep everyone honest, it also has the power to actually help voters decide whom to vote for.

Gun rights activists might easily be drawn to candidates who attract big donations from the NRA or Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

Gun control activists, not so much. 

For years, the smartest thing governments have done is work to ensure that every campaign donation is documented and made public.

Without doubt, the most destructive event to undermine election integrity was the infamous 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United decision.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court said that corporations and other groups had to be allowed to raise money for political candidates in secret, to preserve their right to “free speech.”

What common sense and court dissenters have repeatedly pointed out, is that corporations are not people.

The tortured decision allows secretive groups and organizations to create “independent expenditure committees.” These committees can receive unlimited donations from anyone, for anything, secretly, and then spend it on campaigns, as much as they want, as long as they don’t “coordinate” with regular campaigns.

A congressional effort in 2019 to legislate against the Citizens United decision sputtered.

Former Justice John Paul Stevens famously wrote in his dissent of the Citizens United decision that the conclusion by the slim court majority was “a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government.”

Yet, they’re doing it here in Aurora, right now.

Oddly, there’s a big-money primary race for state Senate District 28, which encompasses much of Aurora, between Democrats Mike Weissman and Idris Keith.

Weissman, a state representative, was the political heir-apparent to the seat, being vacated by term-limited state Sen. Rhonda Fields. Weissman, a lawyer, has been handily re-elected to his state House seat in neighboring Dem-heavy House District 36 for the past eight years. Popular among fellow Dems, the race looked to be virtually uncontested all the way to the finish line.

Not now.

Keith, an Aurora lawyer for Pinnacol Assurance, the state’s workers-comp mega-corp, has previously run for county commissioner and leaned into local politics.

By all outward appearances, Democrats Keith and Weissman are much more aligned politically than they are opposed. 

Despite that, dark-money group Representation Matters has amassed and spent almost a half-million dollars on mailers, canvassers and other advertising promoting Keith, according to state election records.

It’s a stunning sum of dark money even in a race between two warring political parties, but between two amicable Democrats?

Unheard of, local pundits say.

Like almost all dark-money IEC’s, the story is part shell game and part money-laundering scheme. And it’s a ploy long used by both conservative and liberal causes, benefitting Democrats and Republicans alike. 

Colorado Sun reporters Sandra Fish and Jesse Paul took a hard look last week at the race.

They found that Representation Matters was created solely to benefit Keith’s campaign last month. The bulk of that group got its money from another state political campaign group called Brighter Colorado Futures, created May 10. That campaign committee got its money from a super PAC called Democracy Wins.

Weissman says that years pushing against big-business interests to protect consumers is behind the third-party scheme. Why spend so much funding another Democratic vote in the state Senate? Weissman said it’s a testament to how effective he was as a legislator.

Keith told the Sun he, too, laments outside money in a race where both candidates have worked to keep their campaigns transparent and fair.

Where do all these hundreds of thousands of Super PAC dollars come from?

Without the donors stepping forward, voters won’t know until July 15, weeks after the June 25 primary election decides the race between Keith and Weissman.

That’s because the feds don’t require at least some semblance of disclosure, indifferent to down-stream state election milestones.

The problem for Aurora voters, and everywhere else dark money enters political campaigns, is that they don’t know for sure who’s willing to pony up a half-million dollars in an apparent attempt to keep Weissman from moving from the state House to the state Senate, and why.

Dark money depends on secrecy enshrined in the Citizens United decision, and public indifference to it while it’s being collected and spent.

While most political types publicly click their tongues about dark money politics, few in power are willing to do what it takes to end it.

What can voters do? Do your own campaign recognizance. Ask your own questions. The Sentinel pressed both candidates for details about issues and campaigns. All that is available in our Primary Election Voter Guide.

Read and decide for yourself.

 Follow @EditorDavePerry on BlueSky, Threads, Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook or reach him at 303-750-7555 or dperry@SentinelColorado.com