Level the playing field for Colorado elections

Is there anything more American than spending your own money to chase your dreams? When wealthy men and women spend their own fortunes on the campaign trail, that’s what they are doing. We shouldn’t begrudge them or rich donors like George Soros, Tom Steyer, or the Koch brothers for supporting candidates and causes they embrace. They’re putting their money where their hearts are and that’s admirable.

Even so, it does create an unequal playing field. For example, it’s hard for a nonwealthy candidate to match the $18.7 million gubernatorial candidate Congressman Jared Polis has given to his own campaign.

Although his opponent, Treasurer Walker Stapleton, has do nated $1 million of his own money, he’s had to raise the remainder of the $3.2 million in contributions his campaign has received. While an individual candidate can legally donate millions to his own campaign coffers, Stapleton is limited to a maximum donation of $1,150 per individual donor.

Fundraising limits can have serious repercussions.

In the final weeks of the election, the Polis campaign plans to spend $3 million, nearly as much as the Walker campaign has raised altogether, on television advertisements.

The late campaign advertising could make a difference. According to the most recent poll, 11 percent of voters are undecided at this point. Advertising is expensive.

Current constraints on donations are unfair to candidates of more modest means. It diminishes their ability to convey their message.

This imbalance need not affect the next election. This November 6th, Colorado voters will have the option to approve Amendment 75 to equalize campaign funding opportunities for nonwealthy candidates. The amendment states that if one candidate gives $1 million or more to his or her own campaign, all candidates in the race may accept five times the amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. For the governor’s race, the amount an individual could donate would increase to $5,750. This would surely help candidates without deep pockets to raise more money and thus gain more advertising exposure during the campaign.

Sixteen years ago, Colorado voters passed Amendment 27 to limit campaign contributions because they believed that (to quote the amendment) “large campaign contributions made to influence election outcomes allow wealthy individuals, corporations, and special interest groups to exercise a disproportionate level of influence over the political process; that the rising costs of campaigning for political office prevents qualified citizens from running for political office.”

Because Amendment 27 did not address selffunding, wealthy individuals who give to their own campaigns have gained a disproportionate level of influence. At the very least, they can buy a lot more advertising than someone of more modest means in both the primary and the general elections.

Again, there is nothing unethical about selffunding. Polis earned his fortune with his entrepreneurial skills and hard work and there’s nothing wrong with him spending it to advance his campaigns over years. The accusation of “buying elections” places a negative spin on what is essentially a measure of personal commitment to a cause.

That said, it’s time to level the playing field for candidates who are equally committed but less welloff. Amendment 75 would give these candidates the opportunity to fill the funding gap with the commitment of others. It’s a good idea worthy of voters’ support.