Preferential treatment for nonprofits. Straight from the judges' mouths. Speak up if you live in Adams County or CO Springs (or know someone that does).
Preferential treatment for nonprofits
I'm not sure about you, but in some situations I'm less concerned with the rules than I am that the rules are equally applied. Fairness to me means not just reasonable policy, fairness also means we all play by the same rules.
I wonder if the sponsors of HB25-1170 "Lobbying by Nonprofit Entities" feel the same way because their bill, linked first below, would create a special class of lobbyist with special (easier) rules.
Currently, the rules for lobbyists are (quoting the bill's summary):
"Currently, a lobbyist may be either a professional lobbyist or a volunteer lobbyist. A professional lobbyist must register with the secretary of state before conducting lobbying activities with one or more covered officials. For each month in which a professional lobbyist lobbies one or more covered officials, a professional lobbyist must complete and submit a disclosure statement to the secretary of state."
From the bill's fiscal note, you will also see that currently lobbyists must register and pay a $40 fee (per year).
There wasn't much in the bill itself about volunteer lobbyists, so I found the Colorado General Assembly's lobbyist page and linked it second below. Volunteer lobbyists (defined as someone who lobbies but only gets reimbursed for expenses) have things a little easier. They do not need to register with the Secretary of State, though they do need to register with the House (or Senate). I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think volunteers have to do the same kind of disclosure statements as a professional lobbyist does.
That's the state of things now. What would change with the bill? The changes are in screenshot 1 attached (from the bill summary) due to their length and bullet point format.
The upshot here, the meaning behind the bullet points is that nonprofits get to have lobbyists working for them that get special, easier rules. I am not sure of the sponsor's rationale for bringing the bill, but my guess is that the arguments in favor would revolve around the technical and legal difficulties of advocating as a nonprofit (see, for example, the "related" content below).
I'm not on board with making things harder for nonprofits. They should have the exact same ability to press their case and pursue friendly policy as any other, similar entity. They shouldn't get special favors either.
It's easy to think of nonprofits with some sort of mental shorthand where the word "nonprofit" conjures up the image of a scrappy, true believer who makes magic on a shoestring budget. There are nonprofits like that, but there are also plenty who command bank accounts that I could comfortably live on for the rest of my life, who pay their executive directors six figure salaries (Rep Lorena Garcia -- I'm looking in your direction).
I don't particularly care about nor feel sympathy for the well-funded nonprofits. They have resources enough to afford someone to help guide their efforts and avoid breaking rules. They can easily mount the $40 fee too.
For those scrappy few I do have some sympathy along with respect (regardless of whether we agree) for people who dedicate themselves to something, especially something that means long hours and low pay.
Even at that, however, I think that I prefer the rules as they are now and that everyone plays by the same ones. I would rather have rules and a known process even if it means that nonprofits run the risk of breaking a rule. This is preferrable to what the bill proposes with its lax rules for some and not others (which will lead to someone taking advantage, and doing so WITHOUT any sort of check or due process).
I say known for the current state of affairs because the rules for nonprofits are not a secret. If you want to see an example, check out the second link below. It's a guide produced for Colorado nonprofits that gives them the ins and outs of lobbying.
We already have our state government enmeshed into giving special favors to some but not others. Let's not continue that and compound the problem more.
p.s. if you were curious, the bill passed its first House committee hearing as of this writing.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1170
https://afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/PRACTICAL-GUIDANCE-CO-Lobbying-2022-2.pdf
Related:
Below is a link to an op ed by the head of the Colorado Nonprofit Association written in support of the bill above I wrote about above.
I am tempted to go into detail as to why we disagree, but I think I will just state that I don't agree and present it in the interest of balance.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/legislation-to-loosen-adverse-lobbying-laws-empowers-nonprofits-opinion/article_a0e25278-f32c-11ef-911b-c7e39e440279.html
Straight from the judges' mouths
I take plenty of opportunities to bag on Colorado's judiciary, but I've also talked about the importance of reading widely to get a variety of perspectives.
I wanted to share the Colorado Politics article linked below for that reason.
It gives you a perspective on part of a judge's job, in particular at the appellate level: conferring with colleagues and then rendering a verdict.
Quoting from the article, "members of Colorado's Supreme Court and Court of Appeals spoke to law students on Friday about when and how they compromise in their decision-making — and when they feel compelled to register disagreement."
It's worth a read, if for no other reason than to understand the arguments/perspective of people who you might disagree with.
One last thing, it's something I have heard about the US Supreme Court and it's worth noting for Colorado's courts too.
Quoting again (with links intact): "In the Supreme Court's most recent term, 80% of its opinions were unanimous. Seven percent, in contrast, were decided 4-3. Although statistics are not available for the Court of Appeals, dissenting and concurring opinions are relatively rare."
Whether you agree or not with the rulings, it is notable how often there is unanimity. This makes me think of how often judges claim they make rulings based on the law vs how their work is perceived.
Clearly, assuming that all judges are activists all the time cannot be true in the face of statistics like these. I suppose you could also make the claim that the cases are more "mechanistic" in the sense of an easy decision to render and not a values judgment, but as the unanimous rulings pile up, I think it points to the fact that at least some of the time judges are basing decisions on the law as written instead of on their feelings for how things ought to be.
And fairness means remembering that.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/appeals-judges-speak-about-compromises-in-decision-making/article_fa8cd98c-ee41-11ef-8561-c71636171f9f.html#google_vignette
Live in Adams County or know someone that does? Live in the Springs or know someone that does?
If you're in Adams, speak up on how your county will spend some affordable housing dollars they recently got.
If you're in the Springs, speak up on Downtown CO Springs' development master plan.
More details in the articles (FYI, for Adams there is a public meeting as well as an online survey).
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/local-government/adams-county-affordable-housing-hud-funding-grants/article_d69a69bc-4150-51c4-ba33-71d4f7b49ffa.html#google_vignette
https://www.cpr.org/2025/03/11/interview-public-feedback-buses-colorado-springs-new-downtown-master-plan/