Boddie: Independent expenditure committees effect election outcomes

By CS Boddie | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

One of the reasons candidates lost in the 2024 election may be that independent expenditure committees (IECs), with millions to spend, negatively affected the races.

Was it mainly Democrat-leaning IECs at work or did Republican-leaning IECs play too?

Pertinent facts are available from TRACER, a  ‘campaign financial disclosure website’ to which political candidates and ‘issue committees’ reported for the office of the secretary of state. 

Note that the home page shows a big disparity in ‘contributions and loans filed in 2024’ by political parties, with Democrats receiving about $6.8 million in loans and contributions while Republicans received $1.8 million.

Just one IEC existed to support Republicans: New Day Colorado IEC Fund in Fort Lupton. Its purpose? “To support Republicans and oppose Democrats for the State House of Representatives.” Straight forward. Tammy Klein was the registered agent and the designated filing agent.

As of Oct. 28, 2024, this IEC received donations of about $900,000 and made expenditures of about $700,000. 

I can’t tell you what Republicans sent out for other candidates, but they did not send out communications for us going after the incumbent as far as we know. There were a few critical TV ads. (Peter did criticize the incumbent’s performance in the Legislature publicly. Fair game.)

Two committees existed to support Democrats, both located in Denver.

Colorado Way Forward listed its purpose this way: “To educate and inform Colorado voters about State House candidates, primarily supporting Democrats and opposing Republicans.” The registered agent and designated filing agent for this IEC was Ashley Stevens.

As of Oct. 28, 2024, Colorado Way Forward received about $2.5 million in donations and made expenditures of about $2.2 million.

It seems that this IEC misstated its purpose. I have seen the mailers they sent out about my husband Peter and about another candidate. In truth, they did not inform and educate voters; rather, they smeared candidates with half-truths and lies to fear monger to the voters and make them afraid to vote for Republicans.

One of the mailers said about Peter: “Another election-denying, Trump-worshiping MAGA extremist.” It advised voters not to let Peter anywhere near the State House. 

I can tell you that Peter does not worship Trump; he merely supports him. He is not a MAGA extremist, but he does want America to be better. The mailer listed other lies too: Peter will take away reproductive freedom and repeal background checks on guns. Neither is true. 

The truth? Peter is a person who has worked, lived and volunteered in his community in positive ways for over 40 years. He was seeking to serve his community in a new and positive way by running for state representative. 

Colorado Way Forward targeted eight State House races with their millions, spending about $143,000 solely against Peter. 

Ashley Stevens was also the registered agent and designated filing agent for All Together Colorado. The purpose: “To educate and inform Colorado voters about State Senate candidates, primarily supporting Democrats and opposing Republicans.” I imagine their communications also smeared Senate candidates and fear mongered, but I haven’t seen them myself.

It is possible to see who donated to these IECs, but getting to that on TRACER is complicated. Corporations, unions, out-of-state special interests and Planned Parenthood donated to the Democrat-leaning IECs.  Corporations, Colorado Leadership Fund and some out-of-state interests contributed to Republican-leaning IECs. Colorado Ski Country, USA, donated to both.

IECs with hundreds of thousands and millions to spend surely affected the 2024 election in Colorado. 

CS Boddie writes for Meadowlark Press, LLC.

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.