While we’re in an election campaign lull between now and Labor Day, we have time to consider the impact of $102 million in campaign contributions in the primary. In the general election, more money will fill candidate campaign coffers, and from the looks of things, ballot initiatives will get plenty of attention as well. The primary provides clues.

Up to now, about 110,000 individuals and entities have given somewhere between $10 and $2 million in contributions, with a grand total of about 300,000 donations when duplicates are added. 

It’s easy to see who has donated in the $0 to $2500 range, about 115,000 individuals and entities, because these dollars typically go straight from individuals to candidates under strict campaign finance rules. Those dollars add up to about $32.6 million spread across statewide candidates (governor, attorney general, etc), legislator candidates, and local office seekers as well as prospective ballot initiatives and propositions. Of the $102 million, these dollars represent 33 percent of the total but the vast majority of donors.

The number of individuals or unique contributions above $2500 drops dramatically down to  650 between the amounts $2501 to $10,000. The total in this range is $7.1 million. Voters may begin to wonder at what point, or if, these amounts influence candidates’ positions or political actions. Often, these amounts are collected by various types of campaign committees representing interest groups to maximize their impact.

It’s illustrative to compare the independent expenditure committees (IECs) of the two Democratic candidates for governor. These committees gather up money without limits on amounts. They support candidates but they cannot “coordinate” with them. Contributions to IECs are reported at the Secretary of State, but some entities don’t disclose their donors so it’s unclear who is contributing or why a candidate is receiving a boost.

The independent expenditure committee supporting Phil Weiser’s campaign, Fighting for Colorado, had 252 total contributions with three at $100,000, seven at $50,000, and nine between $20,000 and $35,000. Only four contributions came from entities not identified as individuals. Most of the money collected by Fighting for Colorado is “visible” from a donation perspective. The top donors are apparent and no doubt influential in the campaign.

The IEC supporting US Sen. Michael Bennet, Rocky Mountain Way (RMW), has a much different donation profile. Former NY City mayor Michael Bloomberg is definitely in the influential category at a total of $5.1 million out of $11.5, or almost 50 percent of proceeds. The good news for voters is that there’s nothing opaque about his money. People know what Bloomberg represents. Why he and other generous New Yorkers were so interested in the Colorado governor’s race is a curious question. 

Unlike Weiser’s campaign, a lot of RMW’s money came from entities not easily revealed from their committee names. Brighter Future for Colorado contributed eight times to RMW for $1.25 million total. In the past, it contributed to candidates running on the Democratic side and against Republicans, according to SOS contribution reports. It’s registered as a 501c4 according to the SOS, but there’s no information about why its contributors supported Bennet. Voters cannot determine what brighter future for Colorado this money is buying. 

American Opportunity Action gave $70,000 to RMW, similarly dark. 50Can Action Fund is out of Washington, DC. It gave $20,000 to RMW. Colorado election reporting doesn’t disclose its orientation, but the entities in Colorado that have received its donations in the past support charter schools. Its website indicates it’s a charter school, grassroots advocacy organization. Campaign for Great Public Schools gave $100,000 to RMW. Who are they? The money is connected to a 501c4 associated with The City Fund. City Fund supports charter schools and “portfolio” style school reforms. 

Add these dark dollars to $200,000 from the Colorado League of Charter Schools. Denver Families Action pitched in $85,000. Denver Families for Public Schools dished out $40,000. These entities were prominent participants in the Denver Public School board election in 2025 supporting charter candidates. Bit by bit, the meaning of influencers in the Bennet campaign can be inferred, but is that right? These donations enter campaign coffers like dim sunset light slipping through window shutters on a late summer day.

Some Democrats might be surprised that Prosperity through Property Rights contributed to RMW at $50,000. Covering its bases, the entity also gave $50,000 to the Colorado Conservative Leadership Fund. Nothing ties this entity to Phil Weiser, so it didn’t cover that base, but Prosperity did pass another $50,000 to support Jena Griswold’s campaign for attorney general.

Griswold is our Secretary of State who is running for Attorney General. Under her eight-year SOS watch, these gaping gaps in campaign finance transparency have continued. A 2025 bill to improve transparency by forbidding lobbyist donations, speeding disclosures, and disclosing top donors was ignominiously ditched.

With so much money pouring into candidate and ballot initiative campaigns, the public must know the stakes are high. In this primary, the stakes pit Dem on Dem, R on R. Voters mostly rejected the monied candidates. There’s a message in that.

Paula Noonan owns CapitolCommons.ai, the state’s premier legislature tracking platform.