Panel advances bill that seeks to shed light on 527 political ads

Measure would force more timely donor disclosure

Alan Gathright, Rocky Mountain News

Published January 26, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Colorado Government

Wealthy, anonymous contributors who fund nasty, controversial election ads would be exposed under a bill that moved forward in a House committee Thursday.

Donors to the so-called 527 political groups have become the 800-pound gorilla of politics because they can raise and spend unlimited millions.

Candidates, on the other hand, are bound by fundraising disclosure requirements and restrictions on how much money they can receive.

Colorado 527s alone raised nearly $30 million in the last election cycle, Rep. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, said. Election officials estimate that there are 40-150 of the political groups in the state.

Yet, the TV, radio and "robo-call" attack ads produced by 527s are "where the public was most exposed to . . . distortions on (candidates') records, deceitfulness or even outright lies," Carroll, sponsor of House Bill 1074, told the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

Voters are the ones who are losing, she said.

"To have this kind of money, literally millions of dollars, affecting - and perhaps deciding - the outcome of Colorado's elections has a very real potential, I believe, of distorting or potentially corrupting the very fairness of our democratic elections," she said.

The bill aims to strengthen state fundraising disclosure for 527s, named for the Internal Revenue Service code that defines them, to help identify the corporations, unions and wealthy individuals who fund them.

Currently, 527s are only required to file six financial reports with the IRS in election years. This provides a critical window just before elections when 527s can unleash a barrage of negative ads, without identifying who gave money and how it was spent until after the election.

Carroll's bill would require 527s to report 15 times during an election year, with the frequency of filings increasing as the election nears.

But election attorney Scott Gessler warned that the bill's wording was overly broad and that it might be struck down under Supreme Court rulings that have long equated political funding with free speech rights.

The committee voted 9-to-1 to move the bill to the House floor.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News