Tracking what's destroying Colorado
A curated collection of bills, news, and resources about Colorado politics and policy
A curated collection of bills, news, and resources about Colorado politics and policy
The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pivotal case challenging the state's requirement that ballot measure committees disclose the names of their registered agents in all election-related communications, such as ads and social media posts. The dispute originated in 2020 when the "No on EE" committee, opposing a nicotine and vaping tax measure, was fined $30,000 by the Secretary of State's office for omitting the agent's name from its materials—despite promptly correcting the oversight after a complaint. A divided Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in August 2024 that the mandate violates the First Amendment, deeming it an unnecessary burden with little informational value, as agents are merely legal paperwork recipients, not key decision-makers. Secretary of State Jena Griswold appealed, arguing it ensures voter awareness of who influences elections, while the Institute for Free Speech, representing No on EE, contends it imposes excessive compliance costs, especially on digital platforms. The outcome could reshape disclosure rules, balancing free speech protections against transparency demands in political advocacy.
This case is a textbook example of government overreach masquerading as "transparency," and it's high time the Colorado Supreme Court slams the door on it. At its core, the state's demand to plaster the name of some bureaucratic paper-pusher—your so-called "registered agent"—on every tweet, flyer, or ad about a ballot measure isn't about empowering voters; it's about harassing grassroots activists and chilling free speech under the guise of election integrity. Remember, No on EE fixed their paperwork glitch the moment it was flagged, yet unelected bureaucrats like Deputy Secretary Andrew Kline slapped them with a $30,000 fine anyway. That's not accountability—that's a shakedown designed to scare off ordinary citizens from challenging bad policies like that 2020 nicotine tax grab, which would've crushed small businesses and everyday Coloradans already battered by overregulation.
From a conservative standpoint, this reeks of the same big-government tactics we see nationally: Democrats like Jena Griswold and Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib preaching "more information for the public" while conveniently ignoring how their own dark-money allies flood elections with undisclosed cash. If transparency is the "North Star," as Murib claims, why not start by forcing full donor lists on every union-backed or Soros-funded outfit? The First Amendment isn't optional—it's the bedrock of our republic, protecting the little guy from state-sponsored censorship. The appeals court's ruling was spot-on: forcing irrelevant names into 280-character posts doesn't inform voters; it just pads compliance lawyers' pockets and silences dissent.
We need the Supreme Court to uphold this victory for liberty, striking down these mandates once and for all. Anything less hands the keys to electioneering to the administrative state, eroding the very democratic process conservatives fight to preserve. Coloradans—and all Americans—deserve to speak truth to power without Big Brother's fine print. Let's keep the focus on real threats like voter ID laws being undermined, not this nanny-state nonsense.