Colorado’s campaign-finance bullies

Trying to navigate Colorado’s complicated campaign finance rules has long been risky. Unfortunately, it’s about to get riskier, because a recent ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals is poised to make it much harder to get the legal help necessary to comply with the law or fend off abusive campaign finance lawsuits.

The story begins in 2012, when a group called Coloradans for a Better Future (CBF) weighed in on the contested Republican primary for the Colorado Board of Regents. CBF ran two radio ads: one supporting candidate Brian Davidson; and one opposing candidate Matthew Arnold, who ultimately lost.

What came next was a fouryear legal odyssey. Arnold — either personally or through a group he founded called Campaign Integrity Watchdog — sued CBF three times, alleging various violations of Colorado’s campaign finance laws. In an effort to end this harassment, CBF shut down. With the help of a volunteer lawyer, it filed a “termination report” with the Colorado secretary of state. But this simply prompted a fourth campaign finance lawsuit from Arnold, this one alleging that CBF broke the law when it failed to report the value of the volunteer lawyer’s time as a “contribution.”

Unfortunately, in April, the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed, and the consequences of its ruling are immense.

Many political groups in Colorado rely on free or reduced-cost legal services to comply with Colorado’s campaign finance laws. But under the Court of Appeals’ ruling, providing those services will be much harder — and in some cases impossible.

The problem is most acute for groups that are subject to Colorado’s strict campaigncontribution limits. Committees for state House and Senate candidates, for example, may accept no more than $400 per donor per election cycle. Smalldonor committees are limited to $50. Under these limits, less than an hour of pro bono help from an experienced campaign finance attorney could easily violate the law.

This problem is made even worse by the fact that Colorado, unlike most states, allows any person to file a private lawsuit to enforce the campaign finance laws. The result is that people routinely file lawsuits against their political opponents to harass them, divert their resources, or intimidate them into silence.

Now, thanks to the Court of Appeals ruling, relying on pro bono or reduced-cost legal help to defend yourself in one of these lawsuits can land you in even more hot water.

In response to the ruling, CBF this month asked the Colorado Supreme Court to take up its case and reverse the decision. And the Colorado secretary of state has filed its own brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case.

As long as political speakers in Colorado can be targeted by campaign finance bullies, there will be a need for lawyers who can help defend them and their First Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals’ ruling is a threat to free speech, and it must be overturned.