Colorado 2022 Regular Session

Colorado Senate Bill SB237

Introduced
4/28/22  
Refer
4/28/22  
Report Pass
5/3/22  
Refer
5/3/22  
Report Pass
5/4/22  
Refer
5/4/22  
Engrossed
5/5/22  
Refer
5/5/22  
Report Pass
5/5/22  
Refer
5/5/22  
Report Pass
5/6/22  
Refer
5/6/22  
Engrossed
5/25/22  
Engrossed
5/25/22  
Enrolled
5/25/22  

Caption

Ballot Measure Campaign Finance

Impact

The bill impacts Colorado's campaign finance regulations by requiring individuals and organizations to report any direct spending that exceeds $5,000 in a calendar year on ballot measure expenditures. This includes a comprehensive disclosure of the amount spent, the purpose of the expenditure, and the details of the payee. Such regulations are expected to provide voters with clearer insights into the financial backing of ballot campaigns, potentially influencing voter decisions and fostering accountability among contributors.

Summary

Senate Bill 237 aims to enhance the transparency of campaign finance relating to ballot measures in Colorado. By amending existing statutes, the bill introduces stricter rules about the reporting of direct expenditures related to ballot issues and questions. It defines direct ballot issue or ballot question expenditures, which include spending that supports or opposes specific ballot measures, ensuring that groups advocating for or against these measures disclose their financial contributions and expenditures more rigorously.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 237 appears to be cautiously optimistic. Proponents argue that increased transparency will empower voters and elevate the integrity of the electoral process. However, some critics express concerns that the stringent requirements could unintentionally discourage participation from smaller organizations that may not have the resources to comply with the detailed reporting. The discussion reflects a broader dialogue on balancing transparency and accessibility in political engagement.

Contention

While SB 237 seeks to enhance transparency, it has faced opposition, particularly from groups that fear excessive regulation may hinder grassroots efforts. Detractors claim that smaller advocacy organizations may find it challenging to navigate the new bureaucratic landscape, especially if they must report expenditures in real time. The debate underscores ongoing tensions between the desire for clear campaign financing and the potential burden on community groups fighting for legislative changes.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

NH SB105

Enabling towns to adopt budget caps.

MI SB0278

Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; use of campaign funds to pay for child care expenses; allow. Amends secs. 3, 6 & 9 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.).

MI HB4413

Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; use of campaign funds to pay for child care expenses; allow. Amends secs. 3, 6 & 9 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.).

MI SB0306

Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; use of campaign funds to pay for child care expenses; allow. Amends secs. 3, 6 & 9 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.).

MI HB4480

Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; use of campaign funds to pay for child care expenses; allow. Amends secs. 3, 6 & 9 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.).

NJ A481

Permits counties to charge a fee to fund infrastructure through voter approval.

NJ S2304

Permits counties to charge a fee to fund infrastructure through voter approval.

NJ S920

Permits counties to charge a fee to fund infrastructure through voter approval.