Keim v. Douglas County School District
2017 CO 81
| Colo. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Douglas County School District contracted with AEI to produce the "Hess Report," a white paper endorsing the District's reform agenda; the District paid $15,000 of the $30,000 fee.
- The Report praised the District's reforms, profiled incumbent board members supportive of the reform agenda, and discussed the upcoming November 2013 school board election.
- The District emailed a weekly e-newsletter with a link to the Hess Report to about 85,000 county residents several weeks before the election.
- Candidate Julie Keim filed a complaint alleging the District used public funds to produce and disseminate campaign material favoring the "Reform Slate," violating the FCPA and the constitutional definition of "contribution."
- An Administrative Law Judge found the District had made a prohibited contribution; the court of appeals reversed. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District's commissioning and public dissemination of the Hess Report constituted a prohibited "contribution" under Colo. Const. art. XXVIII § 2(5)(a)(IV) and § 1-45-117(1)(a)(I) | Keim: The Report was created and distributed using public funds to influence the election and provided an indirect benefit to reform candidates, so it was an illegal contribution. | District: The Report was publicly distributed information; nothing was "given to a candidate"—no item of value was provided directly or via an intermediary to any candidate or campaign. | The Court held a contribution under § 2(5)(a)(IV) requires (1) something of value (2) given to a candidate, directly or indirectly (i.e., ultimately placed in the candidate's possession or provided to an agent for the candidate) (3) for the purpose of promoting election; here the District did not "give" the Report to any candidate, so no prohibited contribution occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagby v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 528 P.2d 1299 (Colo. 1974) (school districts are political subdivisions subject to campaign finance restrictions)
- Coffman v. Colo. Common Cause, 102 P.3d 999 (Colo. 2004) (judicial deference and rules for interpreting campaign finance law)
- People v. Boyd, 387 P.3d 755 (Colo. 2017) (constitutional interpretation reviewed de novo; give words their ordinary meaning)
- Colo. Ethics Watch v. City & County of Broomfield, 203 P.3d 623 (Colo. App. 2009) (addressed ALJ findings and intent to promote a candidate; discussed by the Court though not dispositive here)
- Colo. Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC, 269 P.3d 1248 (Colo. 2012) (principles for giving words their ordinary and popular meaning when construing constitutional campaign finance provisions)