Clarifying the Terminology: Deep Pockets and Dark Money in Colorado Politics

In a recent article, the author discussed the financial landscape of Colorado politics, focusing on the upcoming property tax relief plan known as HH. While the piece offers valuable insights into campaign funding, there are some important points that require clarification and a counterargument. Let’s delve into these issues:

1. The Definition of Deep Pockets:
The author refers to HH as having “deep pockets.” However, it’s essential to distinguish between “deep pockets” and “dark money.” Deep pockets typically imply significant financial resources readily available for spending. In the context of politics, this often pertains to wealthy individuals or organizations with substantial funds to influence elections. In the case of HH, it’s accurate to say that supporters have financial resources, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to dark money.

2. What Constitutes Dark Money:
Dark money is a term used to describe funds spent on political campaigns where the true source of the money is concealed, typically through the use of nonprofit organizations that do not disclose their donors. The author mentions that “No on HH” and “Property Tax Relief Now” are funded by dark-money nonprofits. While it’s essential to emphasize the need for transparency in campaign financing, it’s equally crucial to verify if these organizations genuinely fall under the definition of dark money. 

Counterargument:
The author asserts that “No on HH” accounts for most of the $1.2 million raised by four committees opposing the property tax relief plan, while “Property Tax Relief Now” is the only committee supporting the measure. While this information sheds light on the financial landscape of the campaign, it’s vital to consider the reasons behind this distribution of funds.

It’s not uncommon for opposition groups to receive more substantial financial support than those advocating for a particular measure. This is often due to concerns within the community or among specific interest groups who believe the proposal may have unintended consequences or raise valid concerns.

Furthermore, the use of dark-money nonprofits in political campaigns has been a subject of controversy and debate. However, it’s essential to highlight that not all nonprofit organizations engaging in political activity are necessarily nefarious. Some genuinely aim to represent the interests of their members or communities, even if they opt for non-disclosure of donors.

In conclusion, while the article offers valuable information about campaign financing for HH in Colorado, it’s essential to clarify the terminology surrounding deep pockets and dark money. Additionally, acknowledging the reasons behind the distribution of funds among opposing groups provides a more comprehensive view of the political landscape. Finally, it’s crucial to scrutinize the activities of nonprofit organizations to ensure transparency while acknowledging that not all nonprofits engaging in politics have sinister intentions.