By Rep. Ken DeGraaf | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
If citizens want representation that reflects their values, they must be willing to invest in it—consistently, deliberately, and collectively.
“When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.” — Thomas Sowell
Here is the truth: if citizens want constitutional, accountable representation in Colorado, they must invest in it.
We are rightly proud of the principle that helped found this Republic—no taxation without representation. But in today’s political reality, there is a necessary corollary: there is no meaningful representation without participation.
Participation is more than voting. It requires time, attention, and yes, financial support.
That may be uncomfortable to say—but it is reality.
Campaigns are expensive. Not because they should be, but because that is the system within which we currently operate. And in that system, influence tends to follow investment.
Politics ultimately comes down to who wields power and money. That is why so much money is spent influencing who holds it—often by those seeking a return on that investment.
The question, then, is not whether money will shape outcomes—it will. The question is who provides it.
Will representation be supported by a narrow set of interests seeking a return on investment? Or by many citizens, each contributing modestly, expecting nothing more than principled leadership?
The math is simple: $1,000 from one donor concentrates influence. One thousand citizens giving $1 each distributes it. Broad participation does more than fund a campaign—it protects independence.
This is not theoretical. It is achievable.
Colorado has roughly one million registered Republicans. If each contributed just $100 total—spread across General Assembly races—that would translate into approximately $1 million per race. That is the level of citizen-backed support required to compete with—and ultimately offset—concentrated, institutional funding.
More importantly, it would send a clear signal: that representation in Colorado is not for sale to the highest bidder, but grounded in the consent and support of the governed.
But we must also be honest about a harder truth.
Most people will not participate.
In any given outreach, only a small percentage respond. Many assume others will step forward. The burden falls, again and again, on a small fraction of engaged citizens.
There is an old lesson: “Everybody thought somebody else would do it—and nobody did.”
If we accept that pattern, we guarantee the outcome.
The good news is that success does not require everyone. It requires more.
If participation grows even modestly—if more citizens choose to engage rather than observe—the entire dynamic shifts.
Campaigns become competitive. Independent voices are no longer drowned out. Representation begins to reflect the people rather than the best-funded interests.
Many hands do make light work—but only if those hands show up.
Across Colorado, many families are feeling financial pressure. The idea of giving—even modestly—can feel out of reach. That concern is real. But it is worth asking: what is the cost of not participating?
In recent years, the state has moved through billions in surplus while taking on additional long-term obligations and now faces a significant fiscal shortfall.
However one interprets those decisions, the scale is undeniable. Spread across millions of voters, the impact reaches into the thousands of dollars per citizen.
Disengagement does not avoid these outcomes—it accepts them.
There is also a less visible cost: time.
“Tax Freedom Day” marks the point each year when the average citizen has earned enough to cover their total tax burden. In 2011, that day arrived in early April. More recently, it has moved later into the month—representing additional days each year when earnings are directed away from personal priorities.
Time and money are not separate. Every additional dollar extracted is time redirected.
Seen in that light, even modest civic participation begins to look different. A small investment to support accountable, limited government is not simply political—it is practical.
The purpose of engaging in politics is not to extract from government, but to ensure it remains limited, accountable, and protective of your rights—to limit government extraction from you.
Because the cost of disengagement is almost always higher than the cost of participation.
There is another reality we should acknowledge: a relatively small number of people tend to carry the greatest share of civic engagement.
That is not ideal—but it is where we are.
So how can those who are engaged make their participation more effective while encouraging broader accountability?
One answer is to align support with performance.
Today, tools exist that evaluate legislative voting records, allowing citizens to distinguish between rhetoric and results. One example is the Liberty Scorecard, which ranks legislators based on how consistently their votes align with defined constitutional principles.
The Colorado Union of Taxpayers is more focused on financial legislation, and CPAC looks from a national vantage.
None are perfect, but they each provide a means of essential accountability.
That creates an opportunity for citizens to act with precision.
Here is a simple way to put it into practice:
- Review the scorecard and identify top-performing representatives
- Choose a fixed contribution amount—$10, $20, or $50
- Allocate that amount proportionally based on score
For example, a legislator with a 95% score would receive 95% of your selected contribution amount. You might distribute across the top 10 or 20 legislators—those who have demonstrated consistency, not just promises.
This approach rewards performance, encourages accountability, and aggregates small contributions into meaningful support.
It also sends a powerful signal: that citizens are paying attention—and that support is earned.
In one sentence: fund the people who vote to secure your values—not just the ones who campaign on them.
At scale, this kind of participation begins to reshape incentives.
Instead of a few large donors dictating outcomes, many citizens—acting independently but with shared purpose—create a distributed, values-based funding model.
Too often, “big money in politics” becomes an excuse for inaction. But that reasoning only reinforces the problem it claims to oppose.
The only viable counterweight to concentrated funding is broad participation.
And there is a deeper truth behind all of this:
“Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
Support is not just financial—it reflects priority. When citizens invest, even in small ways, they become more engaged, more attentive, and more committed to outcomes.
That is how self-government functions.
Not automatically. Not passively. But through participation.
In 2024, my campaign relied heavily on grassroots, boots-on-the-ground engagement. That effort matters, and it will always matter. But it is increasingly clear that well-funded interests are willing to invest heavily—even in historically strong communities like El Paso County—to reshape Colorado’s political landscape.
Effort must be matched with the resources necessary to compete.
Citizens who believe in constitutional limits, fiscal responsibility, and the protection of fundamental rights are not a minority in Colorado. But too often, they are underrepresented—not because they lack numbers, but because they lack coordinated participation.
That is a solvable problem.
But it requires a shift—from expectation to ownership.
If citizens want representation that reflects their values, it must be supported. If they want leaders who will not trade principle for influence, those leaders must be sustained by the people they represent.
Self-government is not self-executing.
It depends, as it always has, on citizens willing to take part—not someday, but now.
In the end, the Republic belongs to those who show up to sustain it.
Self-governance is not a spectator sport—it requires active participation.
Rep. Ken DeGraaf represents House District 22 in northeast Colorado Springs and has served in the Colorado House since 2023. He’s a 27-year U.S. Air Force veteran and pilot, a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and holds a master’s in structural dynamics from Columbia University.
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.