Meet Gary Community Ventures. My written testimony against Kipp’s CORA bill.
Meet Gary Community Ventures
Earlier, I wrote about an effort by Gary Community Ventures, GCV, to (from their perspective) start a conversation about childcare in this state. I showed you their “Request for Proposals” to pay media outlets to write about Colorado’s struggling childcare system. That newsletter is linked first below.
As before, what I hope you take from this is to get an understanding of how grant-funded coverage like the Colorado Sun’s is generated, as well as a framework with which to assess the players.
Rather than offering you a definitive take on some ulterior motive--something that I’d be lying if I told you I had--I will offer you information with which to come to your own conclusions. At the end, I will offer you my thoughts, likely with a summary op ed I get published.
In today’s post I’ll share the kinds of things I look at when I look at someone or some group “playing” in media. A good starting point is to consider where the group gets their money. To help with that, GCV’s “About” page is linked second below. That will almost always have what you are looking for. GCV’s has plenty of history about the foundation, as well as some info about its financials, but, in particular to my question above, that’s pretty straightforward.
GCV, similar to, for example, Colorado Gives Day Foundation, is not funded by donors, rather it is a foundation endowed by an initial investment. GCV operates strictly on the proceeds of that investment.
This would be in contrast with something like nonprofit gorilla Rose Community Foundation which started with an endowment but also takes donations from all around.**
My next question is often: where do they spend their money? As with people, foundation money talks. There are a couple of things to assess here. The first is any sort of direct advocacy. What sorts of political/policy spending is going on?
One of GCV’s offshoots is Gary Advocacy. The landing page for that is listed second below. When you look at where Gary puts its money, I think one of the best descriptors is right there in one of their animated banners on this page: “unlocking public dollars”. What kind of ways can they get your tax money to do what they think is important?
The number of screenshots required to show in full would be more than I want to manage, but if you scroll down the page to their timeline, you’ll see policy by policy what’s been supported.
Here is a quick sampling:
--Amendment 2B in Denver which raised sales taxes to fund “affordable” housing
--Prop 123 which kept what would have been refunded to you for same.
--And, perhaps the most notable with regard to the theme of this series, 2025’s “Move Colorado Forward” (linked third below). This was notable enough to warrant a closer look. Screenshot 1 attached gives their story in their own words.
Having seen this, I followed up with GCV’s Holden about it. In an earlier talk with him (and in an email response), he told me that the point of their media grants was to start a discussion about childcare. What Gary has supported seems to me to point to a decided perspective on things and a desire to shape them. It strikes me often as a perspective that sees taking money from taxpayers to do things as a better way to help people than loosening regulation and lowering government taxes and fees to give back families the money they earned so they can spend it.
Mr. Holden responded to that with the following:
“In the past, our policy arm Gary Advocacy has supported policies aimed at supporting kids and families. But again, this remains separate and apart from the grant funding we’ve provided to these content creators and journalists through Gary Philanthropy.”
That is a valid point to note. There are two separate arms inside GCV, one is for philanthropy, the other for advocacy. They are all under the same roof, however. I will leave it to you to judge that separation, and how far it is.
Part of what spurred an in-depth look at this Gary and their media grants was a reader question: is this all part of a larger effort to change Colorado’s income tax from a flat tax to a progressive tax? That is, if childcare can’t be fixed by the market, won’t we need to figure out how to get more taxes so we can subsidize it?
I will assume you’re familiar with this effort, but just in case I put a link to the group pushing this tax change fourth below. GCV doesn’t appear on the list of supporters. When I asked GCV’s Holden outright about what (if any) role they have in that effort, he told me the following:
“We are not involved in funding the progressive income tax effort nor are we funding any statewide ballot measures related to child care. We do use our policy arm, Gary Advocacy, to advance policy and advocacy initiatives aiming to ensure public systems work better for kids and families. Through Gary Philanthropy, we fund a variety of organizations with interests aligned to our outcome areas of school readiness, youth success and family economic mobility. Funding from Gary Philanthropy is not permitted for any policy and advocacy work.”
Putting aside legitimate questions about how separated the philanthropy and advocacy arms are, there is something noteworthy to share about the progressive income tax push.
GCV has at one time or another worked with, advocated alongside, doled out grant money to, or had connections with many of the groups which are behind it. You can see the list in the fourth link for yourself, but I will share some noteworthies:
--Colorado Children's Campaign
--Bell Policy Center
--Colorado Fiscal Institute
--And Rep Garcia's own Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition
If you want to check for yourself from GCV's tax forms) I link to a 2021 Gary Philanthropy Form 990 fifth below (this comes from GCV's "About" page). Read through the grants listed there. Read through earlier Form 990's. You will see significant overlap between who GCV is giving to and the groups supporting a progressive income tax, including those above.
Let me be clear, this doesn't establish a link between GCV and the push for a progressive income tax. It is also not meaningless. I will flesh this out more later, but the point here is to note the universe that GCV (and likely many of the folks that work there--I saw in one case where someone from GCV was honored with an award by one of the groups above) operates in.
It's a universe long time readers will find as familiar as an old pair of slippers. It is the spider web of connections involving people, NGO's, nonprofits, our state government, advocacy groups, and the like.
What you've seen here is not something that can be used to refute Mr. Holden, or to show a connection between the push for a progressive income tax and GCV. It's not something that demonstrates an ulterior motive in trying to drive coverage about childcare in Colorado.
It is rather a look at the context behind those efforts. It helps you see which birds of a feather are flocking with GCV, it shows you where their time and treasure go.
In the next part, we'll look at one example of what that treasure has bought. We'll look at the Sun's coverage of childcare in Colorado, along with their connections with Colorado Media Project, one of the groups helping GCV to distribute its funds.
**One similarity to point out. Both GCV and Rose get tax money for doing various things for our state. In keeping with calling Rose a gorilla, they get a lot (A LOT) more than GCV. If you would like more info on either Rose or Colorado Gives, search in my Substack newsletter.
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/the-market-cant-fix-childcare-gary
https://garycommunity.org/about-us/
https://movecoforward.com/
https://protectcoloradosfuture.com/
My written testimony against Kipp’s CORA bill
I wrote in the past about Senator Kipp’s 2026 stab at the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) law.
While her version is decidedly better, I am still a no on it. I have signed up to testify at its first committee hearing (per the bill link below that will be Thurs 3/5 Senate State Veterans and Military Affairs Committee “Upon Adjournment”--this will mean the hearing will start around 10 AM or so but there’s no set time).
I hope to attend virtually and speak up for our right to know what our government is doing, but in case I can’t make it due to my teaching schedule, I wrote and uploaded written testimony. That is copied below. If it’s of any use to you, please feel free.
If you have time and inclination, speak up. Whether or not you are doing open records requests yourself, your ability to know what your government is doing in your name and with your money depends on the government not making the process harder and more cumbersome.
Written testimony follows the link.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-107
Written Testimony for Cory Gaines against SB26-107
To the members of the Senate State Veterans and Military Affairs Committee,
My name is Cory Gaines. I am a resident of Logan County, and I submit this testimony in opposition to SB26-107.
Having followed and advocated against the various attempts by Senator Kipp et. al. over the years I have noted that, to her credit, she has modified her bills responding to concerns as the years go by.
I don’t want to say I am automatically opposed to modifications to CORA, but any efforts to do so should be made with care. I believe modifications should also be done in such a way as to protect what many hold to be a reasonable idea: to protect citizen and media access to what our government is doing.
While I am glad to see that the 2026 effort doesn’t have some of the earlier bad ideas, I am still against it. The changes in this bill have the potential to do more harm than good, especially to people like myself who are not professional, paid journalists with big organizations backing us.
I have (and work to have) good working relationships with almost all records custodians I’ve written to. I say almost because of some notable exceptions. There are simply some records custodians (the one at the AG’s office being an example), who have shown themselves to be contentious, and to walk right on the thin edge of legality in what they do.
As someone who does this sort of work on the side, as a volunteer working to help keep others in Colorado informed with zero budget or assistance, I can tell you that a recalcitrant and difficult custodian makes all of this much harder. When they skirt or don’t follow the law, I have little recourse to challenge it, unless I want to spend what precious little money I have on a lawyer.
I don’t have a big organization with lawyers on retainer to back me up.
Any bill that allows even a little more discretion on the part of custodians, that tilts things to them even a little, allows those with the inclination to abuse their authority and discretion (more than they do now). SB26-107 does just that.
Whether it’s extra time to do things or the decision making authority to lump together separate requests, you are making it easier for the government to hide the ball. The way this is done, because individuals do not have the ability to challenge poor behavior as well as others, allows for a a differential harm on ordinary citizens and their ability to know what the government does with their money.
It might be said that the bill contains a penalty for bad behavior. I’m sure this was included to sweeten the deal; if we allow more discretion, let’s back up that extra freedom with some consequences for poor choices.
At first blush, this might seem a good idea--it would be for the custodians that are cooperative--but we run into the same problem. Rules are great, but for those inclined to be difficult, how do you suggest enforcing them? A rule without any meaningful way to enforce it (outside of my choice above to take money and put it to legal action, something I’m loathe to do) might as well not exist.
No law, no system is perfect, nor can it ever be. Having sat through testimony on bills like these for a while now, I can tell you I am well versed in the stories of abuses by both records requestors and by custodians.
When making policy it sometimes happens that someone has to get more favor than another. When it comes to public records, our default should be to favor the citizens who fund all of what you do.
It should be the citizens, whose job it is to assess what the government is up to and vote accordingly, that get higher protections for their ability to access information about our government.
Thank you.