SB26-147: A Great Idea Almost Certain to Be Vetoed

By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project

 

 

SB26-147: a great idea almost certain to be vetoed

The CPR article linked first below was my first introduction to the bill SB26-147, which is linked second below. The focus of the article is on how the legislature is pushing back on Governor Polis’ micromanaging by requiring his staff to register and hold to the same rules as any other lobbyist would.

Quoting from the article with link intact:

“Currently, lobbyists are required to register a stance on any bills they’re trying to influence with the Secretary of State’s Office, which makes that information publicly available. Legislative liaisons doing the same type of work for state agencies or the governor’s office directly don’t have those disclosure requirements to indicate their position on a bill. Senate Bill 147, which seeks to eliminate that exception, passed unanimously in the House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs committee on Monday. It has already passed the Senate. Backers said the measure is necessary to restore transparency to the legislative process. They argue that without the rules, the governor’s administration can often withhold its positions on any given bill until the last minute, which precludes good faith conversations about executive branch concerns and can torpedo strong bills that have already gone through lengthy stakeholder processes.”

Interparty (and inter-branch of government) drama aside, this is to me a really great idea. You see, if you do more than just read the story, you get a fuller picture.

Screenshot 1 attached shows you the parts that (to me at least) matter just as much as sticking it to Jared Polis.

If the governor, if the judicial branch, wants to be in the mix on legislating, put your money where your mouth is instead of playing footsie with legislators (and, frankly, the media).

It also keeps former legislators from migrating on over to the governor’s office to be a liaison (lobbyist) for two years after they leave the legislature.

Good ideas all, but despite handily clearing one house of the legislature and sailing through its first committee hearing, you can gather from the CPR article that this bill is almost certain to get vetoed.

https://www.cpr.org/2026/04/29/lobbyist-regulation-bill-state-agencies-polis/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-147

Related:

Perhaps it’s just me, but why did it seem to take so long for the mainstream Front Range press to acknowledge what nearly everyone knew: that Jared Polis was and is a micromanager in the legislature.

Feels like this has only been mentioned in the last couple years or so.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve read in articles where Jared Polis blithely mentions that he’ll look at the bill when it comes across his desk (while his staff has been down meddling the whole time at his direction), and the reporter just as blithely swallows that whole.

Guess it’s better late than never.

---

Something smells really fishy with Front Range Passenger Rail (FRPR).

A while back, in the middle of FRPR’s campaign to name their train, I recall sending something out on Twitter about how I wished the reporters at CPR and the Colorado Sun spent as much time digging into the financials of the name the train campaign as they did gushing over it.

Rocky Mountain Voice did what they did not. The first article below details what one of their reporters dug up on FRPR’s promotional efforts leading up to them asking for money this coming Fall.**

I will leave it to you to read the article in detail, but the essence is this. FRPR got your tax dollars, via CDOT and a $3 million grant, to publicize and lay the groundwork for their ballot campaign.

The thing is, the Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act puts strict limits on what can be done by municipalities regarding public money and spending on ballot measures. Quoting the piece with link intact:

“The Fair Campaign Practices Act, C.R.S. § 1-45-117, prohibits government entities from spending ‘any monies from any source” to urge voters to support or oppose a ballot issue — including measures that would direct more public funds to those same entities.'”

I’m sure (and you’ll see why soon enough, though no one at FRPR responded to RM Voice’s questions on this topic) that FRPR sees taking CDOT’s money for public outreach–money spent on “polling, coalition building, 40 to 50 town halls across two waves, a digital engagement platform called “Friends of Front Range Rail” and branding development” per the RM Voice piece–as perfectly okay under state statute.

I don’t.

This strikes me as little different from what I called the “dumbest of fictions” regarding (formerly) public media running ads but then hair splitting in calling them sponsorships since they were technically forbidden from running ads while getting public money.

I mentioned above that FRPR likely sees no problem in taking public money to lay the groundwork for success with their later ballot measure, and I want to firm that contention up now.

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

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.