By Brian Porter | Rocky Mountain Voice
Whether those advocating for non-profits in the Colorado capitol or back home in legislative districts should be held to the same disclosure standards as other lobbyists was a discussion Monday of the House’s State, Civic, Military & Veterans Affairs Committee.
At issue in House Bill 25-1170, by Democrat Reps. Eliza Hamrick and Andrew Boesenecker, is whether a third category of lobbyist for non-profit organizations should be established. Currently, lobbyists are required to register with the secretary of state as either a professional or volunteer lobbyist. The bill would also ask lawmakers to support a disclosure exemption related to payments non-profit lobbyists may receive from the organization for which they are advocating.
HB 1170 was laid over in committee to allow for amendments to be written by sponsors. It is unclear when it may be brought back in front of the committee.
“The current system discourages non-profit organizations from participating,” Hamrick said in presenting the bill.
But, not much, one Jefferson County resident countered during her testimony.
“Anytime I testify, there is a line of non-profit [lobbyists] testifying,” said Jessica Fenske, who is known online as ‘Forest Mommy’.
She argues the public has a right to know what non-profit lobbyists are being paid to advocate, as “a lot [of employees] in these non-profits are making more than business owners.” Her testimony was also critical of the imbalance that has been created between a growing number of non-profits and the tax-paying business class in the state.
A pair of Republicans on the committee were joined by at least one Democrat who considered if all non-profits are equal, and whether the bill should tackle the disparity between small and large operations.
“Some of these [non-profit organizations] are making billions of dollars [annually],” said Rep. Brandi Bradley, a Douglas County Republican. “I would love to see an amendment that focuses on smaller non-profits.”
She noted that one non-profit she reviewed had an employee making $7 million annually, who could be considered a lobbyist. It was also debated by the committee what portion of that person’s work, or others like that person, is devoted to lobbying lawmakers.
“Is it critical that I expose my annual salary when I engage with maybe two activities a year?” bill sponsor Boesenecker asked.
But, the specific non-profit employee Bradley notes would stack up the salary equivalent to that of a state representative in fewer than 15 hours of advocacy work with lawmakers.
Rep. Stephanie Luck, a Penrose Republican, says the present process isn’t clear to most Coloradans who simply want to engage with their elected officials. She gave the example of a community dinner, where everyone knows one another.
“I don’t believe most people know they are responsible for filing with the secretary of state,” she said. “They believe they have the right [to advocate a position with an elected official].”
Aurora Democrat Rep. Michael Carter revisited the disparity between small and large non-profits, the latter described by one person’s testimony as the “non-profit industrial complex in Colorado”.
“Why are we putting a lobbyist who [advocates for] huge non-profits in the same category as the little non-profit down the street?,” Carter asked.
The Colorado Non-Profit Association had two employees testify to the committee, one of which was President and CEO Paul Levine, who noted non-profits are fearful of losing their tax-free status because of advocacy work. This is especially true in the faith-based, non-profit space.
“Colorado statute considers a single conversation with an elected official as lobbying,” said Jack Murphy, the associate director of government affairs for the Colorado Non-Profit Association.
Lawmakers should consider, Luck says, striking a balance between transparency and First Amendment rights to petition government. And the process may already lack transparency, as Fenske notes non-profits say they cannot advocate but in reality, often do, just maybe as individuals and not in representation of their non-profit entity.
“Folks who engage in this space are not professional lobbyists,” Boesenecker says.
“[The bill] creates a special category with relaxed reporting requirements,” said Hannah Goodman of Holyoke, the chairwoman of the Colorado Libertarian Party. She opposes the measure.
A fiscal note related to the bill indicates it would cause a $117,000 computer programming expense, which could be a dealbreaker based upon a desire lawmakers have expressed not to allow bills with fiscal notes to advance.
If the bill were to clear committee and the House, it is being carried by Democrat Faith Winter in the Colorado Senate.