By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project
Phil Weiser likes to talk about his Trump suits, but only some things.
The article (lament?) linked first below covers territory I know all too well, having trod it more than once.
Our Attorney General loves to tout his fighting style, bragging about his Trump-lawsuit spree, but he doesn’t want to share all the details. As his office has done in the past, when you go looking for records, they throw up roadblocks and jack up the price to drive those pesky questions away.
Some non-contiguous quotes from the article flesh this out:
“Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has filed dozens of lawsuits against the federal government, priding himself on his ability to fight and win cases against the Trump Administration, but he has yet to answer questions about the costs of those lawsuits to taxpayers. His office publishes a partial list of cases but otherwise keeps the full list behind a $331 paywall. While the partial list highlights ‘the total amount of federal funds successfully defended’ by Weiser’s lawsuits, it doesn’t tell taxpayers the cost of pursuing the lawsuits. It also doesn’t show whether taxpayers paid outside firms to do any of the work.”
“Weiser, who refers to himself as ‘the people’s lawyer,’ is running for governor and has increased his litigation against the federal government since deciding to enter the race. Cases are featured prominently at the top of the front page of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office website.”
“The Center Square has also requested records related to outside counsel hired by the Colorado Attorney General’s Office with taxpayer funds. Pacheco stated the records (such as contracts, invoices and billing statements) could only be provided upon receipt of $289.59. But Pacheco, who taxpayers paid $186,840 last year to respond to media requests, has declined to comment on basic questions related to the records. He refused to explain how the fees were calculated and has not responded to multiple follow-up emails asking for information on how to pay the proposed fees. He also declined to comment on why requests for a fee waiver were denied despite state law permitting free access to public records when records are for a ‘public purpose,’ such as journalism or academic research. ‘The agency does not have a record that provides a detailed fee breakdown,’ Pacheco wrote. ‘The Attorney General’s Office does not have authority to provide legal advice or legal representation to individuals.’”
And lastly:
“Pacheco is a ‘seasoned’ strategic communications advisor who specializes in “crisis communications” and has worked for the Colorado Attorney General’s Office since 2019, according to his LinkedIn profile. His duties include responding to the media and handling requests for public records. He frequently speaks on behalf of the Colorado attorney general and signs his emails as such. Records obtained by The Center Square show the Colorado Attorney General’s Office has previously used similar tactics in responding to other requests for public records. For example, the office declined to answer questions from a requestor named Samuel Newton who sought information under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) related to complaints against local law enforcement agencies. ‘CORA doesn’t allow for asking questions? As they pertain to records?’ Newton asked. ‘Is that the AG office policy?’ ‘This request is now closed,’ the office responded. ‘We are unable to provide you with legal advice in response to your inquiries.’”
The reason that, in an aside earlier, I called the Center Square piece a lament is probably pretty obvious by now (there is more in piece and worth reading, particularly for CFOIC’s J Roberts’ take on the issue). That’s not the only reason. I sympathize greatly with the Center Square reporter: I have more than one horror story about trying to get information out of the AG’s office, the most egregious of which I link to second below.
Something is rotten down at the AG’s office regarding their communications with the public, especially the public that doesn’t want to swallow Phil Weiser’s story whole.
Screenshot 1 attached is the ending of my open letter from that second link.
This letter was sent in Aug 2025 and it’s clear that the behavior I wrote about down at the AG’s office has not changed. Mr. Pacheco’s actions are perfectly agreeable to the AG’s office, because, if they weren’t, he wouldn’t be there or wouldn’t continue as he has.
This is the culture allowed and/or fostered under Phil Weiser.
This is a culture where their press person can brag on their LinkedIn profile about his ability to deliver messages to the right people at the right time when it matches what his employer wants. He does this while ignoring reasonable requests for information, playing cleverly with words to put those off who, presumably, his employer doesn’t want informed. See screenshot 2.
Phil Weiser is currently running for governor. There is no indication that his behavior, the culture he created in the office he’s currently holding, will change if elected.
What will change is the number of executive departments he oversees. What will change will be the scale at which he can continue what he’s already doing.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/colorado/article_323bb9d2-39c3-4e35-ab5e-28a0b897f82b.html
CSI did a good job on measuring Coloradans’ philanthropy, though perhaps should have dug a bit more.
The Common Sense Institute (CSI) report below does a good job of giving you all kinds of stats about Coloradans’ generosity.
We are indeed a generous state, perhaps more so than others. If you want a quick look, I attached a graph from the report comparing Colorado to the national average as screenshot 1.
Perhaps because it’s also the conservative-leaning CSI, they also go into some detail on just how much our tax burden in this state would go up in order to replace all the voluntary charitable giving Coloradans do. There is a gigantic, screaming graphic in the link, but I will give you the text version with the background. That’s attached as screenshot 2.
The idea having government force giving via taxes and redistribution vs. letting private groups handle it (as was more common in the near past) is not a new one. I have seen reasonable arguments both ways frankly. Knowing who CSI is, I almost get the sense that this was the point of their study, to remind people that charitable giving can (and should) be handled by non government actors.
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.