With ballots now out for the November general election, the fundraising by groups competing for votes on the measure that seeks to offer property tax relief using state refund dollars has narrowed.

While the the major issue committee in favor of Proposition HH, Property Tax Relief Now, still lags behind those who oppose it, a big check from a New York-based “dark money” group has closed the gap.

Education Reform Now Advocacy, which is tied to Democrats for Education Reform, kicked in another $250,000 in the most recent reporting period that ended on Oct. 11. That brought the organization’s total contribution to the “yes” campaign to $550,000, the most by any group on the pro Prop HH side.

Both founded by New York hedge fund managers who advocate for charter schools and against teachers unions, Education Reform Now Advocacy and DFER don’t disclose their funders; hence, the label “dark money.” 

Property Tax Relief Now has now raised $1.652 million, according to TRACER, the Secretary of State’s campaign finance database.

On the anti-HH side, Advance Colorado Action, also a dark money group, has contribution $1 million to the No on HH issue committee, which has raised a total of $1.652 million. In fact, just $190 separates the two groups’ fundraising efforts, with the “no” side ever slightly ahead. 

In the most recent reporting cycle, the No on HH committee got its biggest boost from Defend Colorado, another “dark money” group. The latest contribution from Defend Colorado, at $100,000, brought its total to $600,000.

Advance Colorado and Advance Colorado Action have also spent independently of its issue committee, with $300,000 for TV ads and another $5,500 for digital advertising, both in the past week.

Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity put in another $100,000 in in-kind contributions through Oct. 11.

Meanwhile, the Taxpayers for a Better Deal, backed by the Denver-based Independence Institute, which also doesn’t disclose its funders, has now spent $12,748 – almost all via in-kind contributions. 

All told, the “yes” and “no” sides have raised a total of $3.95 million. Of that amount, $2.3 million went to groups that oppose the measure.

Proposition HH will ask voters next month whether to use Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights surplus revenue – which is usually refunded to taxpayers – to reduce property taxes, fund school districts and backfill counties, water districts, fire districts, ambulance or hospital districts and other local governments.

A companion measure from the legislature, which would only be implemented if Prop HH passes, would provide a one-time only equalized TABOR refund to all taxpayers, paid next April when tax filings are due. The latest state estimate puts those refunds at $833 for single filers or $1,666 for joint filers.

Beginning the following year, under Proposition HH, TABOR refunds would be reduced over the next decade and potentially beyond that. Under current law, TABOR refunds are first paid to cover senior and veteran property tax homestead exemptions; next through a temporary reduction in the state income tax; and, if any money is left, through a six-tiered sales tax refund with annual tax filings.

Should Prop HH pass, the increase in property taxes will be slightly less, but taxpayers on average will lose $5,119 in TABOR refunds over the next 10 years, according to the Common Sense Institute.

On the other side, an analysis from the Bell Policy Center said all Colorado property owners will receive property tax relief under Proposition HH, but it would be particularly helpful to low- and middle-income households.  

Under Proposition HH, property tax bills would be lowered first by reducing the rate at which a home’s assessed values are taxed and it would also decrease the amount of taxable property value through value reductions, “a progressive mechanism that benefits lower-value homes more than higher-value homes,” the Bell Policy Center analysis said.

The No on HH committee is facing a campaign finance complaint, filed by the elections division of the Secretary of State’s office, for allegedly failing to use “paid for by” language in ads the group ran on Facebook in August.