ROARING FORK BROADCASTING COMPANY
After an election that saw a combined $272,386 in campaign contributions, an idea of capping contribution amounts to issue committees has drawn the attention of Aspen City Council.
Neil Siegel, a longtime Aspen resident and member of the issue committee Our Parks Our Open Space that supported Referendum 1 in the March 4 election, proposed the idea to the city council at its Tuesday. He argued that the outsized financial contributions to Referendum 2 “left a bad taste in people’s mouths around town.”
“Win or lose, I think the manner in which it was approached … people thought it was way out of proportion, and not something we need in local politics,” Siegel said in an interview with Aspen Daily News.
Aspenites for Action, the issue committee supporting Referendum 2, raised $221,826 during the election. A majority of its funds came from three large donors.
The committee outraised Our Parks Our Open Space by $170,726 and outspent it by $75,730. Our Parks Our Open Space raised $51,100 and spent $69,551 during the course of the election, according to campaign finance reports.
Referendum 2 passed by 93 votes, according to the election results certified by the Aspen City Clerk’s Office. It gave the Colorado Department of Transportation the authority to use portions of the Marolt and Thomas open spaces identified in a 1998 record of decision, or any future record of decision, for new highway alignments.
Referendum 1 failed by 700 votes.
Siegel lambasted the fundraising efforts of Aspenites for Actions throughout the campaign. After the election, he argued that regardless of the outcome, big fundraising in a small town should not be permitted.
“It’s not to say that if there was a limit on finances for this election, that the outcome might have still been the same, it could have well been the same, and there’s no way of telling,” he said. “But I do believe, based on a lot of the feedback I’ve received, it was the way it was done.”
Aspenites for Action argued throughout the campaign that its fundraising efforts were necessary to counter misinformation about Referendum 2 and the entrance to Aspen.
Spending and fundraising for issues committees have no limits under the city’s municipal code. Siegel proposed capping contributions for issues committees to $250 per individual. Contributions to Aspen City Council candidates are limited to $250 per person.
The city council agreed to have a future conversation about reforming campaign finance for issues committees.
Ward Hauenstein, an outgoing city councilman and member of Aspenites for Action, supported the idea of limiting contributions for issues committees or exploring other avenues of campaign finance reform. But he countered that the Referendum 2 outcome was not bought by big donors.
“I have faith in the voters of Aspen, and I have faith in the process and the running of the elections,” Hauenstein said. “I think that people generally make up their minds and pay no attention to an advertising campaign that is in support of something they don’t support.”
Fundraising and spending for Referendum 2 neared levels of the 2019 Lift One campaign.
Over three filing periods, Aspenites for Action spent $145,281. In 2019, Lift One proponents spent about $283,000, while opponents spent $15,000. The measure passed by just 26 votes.
During the city council meeting Tuesday, Hauenstein said the spending may not have had an impact on the outcome.
But Councilman John Doyle, who has cited the Lift One project as the reason he first ran for city council, argued the small margin of victory was largely influenced by the amount of money spent.
“$283,000 was spent on (the Lift 1) election, which won by 26 votes against $15,000 in opposition,” Doyle said during the meeting. “So I would say money bought that election.”
Incoming mayor Rachel Richards said limiting fundraising for issues committees may not make much of an impact. She pointed to local nonprofit organizations that can’t donate to political campaigns but may influence voters — Richards referenced the Friends of Marolt, which she said ran messaging for months about fixing the Castle Creek Bridge.
“We saw a really significant spending of funds on the ‘fix the bridge’ campaign … and, you know, that money was never reported because it was a public influence campaign where there was no ballot question,” Richards said. “I don’t know that eliminating issue committees (fundraising) when there is a ballot issue actually evens the playing field at all.”
The Friends of Marolt is a nonprofit organization registered with the secretary of state. It is not allowed to engage in political activity. It did not make any recorded donations to either issue committees in the March election.
In 2012, a newly formed committee at the time was criticized for spending “dark money” after it sent mailers across the city urging against a proposed Castle Creek hydroelectric plant ahead of a ballot question on the project. The city asked Aspen Citizens Committee to register with the city clerk as an issue committee at the time, but it had filed as a nonprofit with the Colorado secretary of state.
Citizens For Responsible Projects, an issue committee against the 2012 hydroelectric ballot question, raised about $7,000 and spent almost $5,000 ahead of the November election. Backyard Energy, the issue committee that supported the question, raised $4,585 and spent $575. Voters narrowly opposed the question.
Changing fundraising requirements for city issue committees would require amending the municipal code, which could be changed via an ordinance before the city council.
It is unclear what the city’s next steps will be if it pursues the change, but a majority of the city council wanted to explore the topic more. During the city council meeting, City Attorney Kate Johnson said she would need to research how such a change could take place, and what legal questions it may face.
Colorado state statute allows home rule counties or municipalities to adopt more stringent local elections rules than what is required by the state. It is unclear if the incoming city council would take up the issue. Richards will be sworn in as mayor on April 8 alongside two council members, who will be decided upon during the April 1 runoff election.