Campaign Integrity Watchdog LLC v. Colorado Republican Party Independent Expenditure Committee
2017 COA 32
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- CIW filed administrative complaints alleging Colorado Republican Party Independent Expenditure Committee (CORE) failed to disclose payments made on CORE’s behalf (party paid CORE’s fines/costs; a private person paid $50,000 to a law firm for CORE) in campaign finance reports.
- An ALJ dismissed CIW’s complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), finding the payments were not donations or contributions requiring IEC disclosure and were not expenditures under the constitutional/statutory definition.
- CORE is an independent expenditure committee (IEC); IECs are governed by Colo. Const. art. XXVIII §5 and §1-45-107.5, which impose disclosure duties tied to donations made “for the purpose of making an independent expenditure” and to independent expenditures over $1,000.
- CIW argued the payments should have been reported as donations, contributions, or expenditures; CORE and the Secretary of State defended the dismissal.
- The court accepted CIW’s pleaded facts as true but reviewed the statutory and constitutional disclosure requirements de novo and affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether payments made on CORE’s behalf are "donations" requiring IEC disclosure | Payments (party paying fines/costs; private payment for legal fees) fit statutory "donation" definitions and must be reported | §1-45-107.5 requires disclosure only for donations given for the purpose of making an independent expenditure; these payments were to satisfy penalties/legal costs, not to fund independent expenditures | Held: No. Even if they qualify as "donations" under some definitions, §1-45-107.5 only requires reporting for donations given for the purpose of making an independent expenditure, which is not alleged here |
| Whether payments are "contributions" requiring disclosure | CORE should report the payments as contributions | Definition of "contribution" covers candidate/issue/political committees and not IECs; contributions reporting statute does not apply to IECs | Held: No. The contribution rules do not apply to IECs for these payments |
| Whether payments are "expenditures" requiring disclosure by IECs | Payments (including legal fees settlement) fall within a broader regulatory definition of expenditure and thus must be reported | Constitutional/statutory definition of "expenditure" requires express advocacy; the Secretary’s broader rule applies to §1-45-108 committees, not IECs | Held: No. Payments here are not expenditures under Colo. Const. art. XXVIII §2(8)(a) and §1-45-103(10), and the Secretary’s broader rule does not apply to IECs |
| Whether other disclosure provisions or Secretary forms require reporting | Section 1-45-108 or Secretary forms create additional disclosure obligations for IECs | Section 1-45-108(1) and the Secretary’s broader forms do not apply to IECs; specific IEC statute §1-45-107.5 and the constitution control | Held: No. IECs are governed by §1-45-107.5 and article XXVIII; §1-45-108(1) does not apply to IECs |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Steele, 252 P.3d 476 (Colo. 2011) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(5) dismissal and pleading assumptions)
- Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004) (plain-language statutory and constitutional interpretation principles)
- DeHerrera v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 219 P.3d 346 (Colo. App. 2009) (refusal to consider arguments raised first in a reply brief)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (First Amendment/independent expenditure precedent referenced though court did not reach constitutional objections)