Colorado democratic candidates receive 557 times more out-of-state money than their opponents. Between 66 and 91 percent of campaign funding comes from New York, California, and Washington, DC. Citizens United v. FEC made this legal when the Supreme Court declared in 2010 that restricting corporate election spending violates the First Amendment.
High Country Advocate’s reporting on Colorado’s 2026 races documented the systematic purchase. Federal races showed a 3.5-to-1 fundraising disparity; state races revealed 557-to-1 out-of-state money advantages. The infrastructure operates through ActBlue and WinRed—ActBlue processed $9.18 million for Colorado Democrats while WinRed processed $708,000 for Republicans, a 13-to-1 gap.
Jessica Killin raised $1.66 million for CD-5—91.5% from out-of-state, with New York providing $173,000, DC $158,000, California $125,000. Julie Gonzales’s Senate challenge shows 66.6% out-of-state funding, with Massachusetts alone providing 62.7% of her itemized contributions.
John Hickenlooper raised $7.6 million with 75.2% from outside Colorado. Shannon Bird raised $1.21 million with 94.7% from Colorado and trails competitors funded by coastal money.
The mechanics are simple: New York donors click ActBlue links, ActBlue processes contributions with a 3.95 percent fee, and money flows to Colorado candidates those donors have never met. The candidates win primary aims funded by out-of-state interests. General elections become formalities.
George Washington spent £40 on alcohol to win his 1758 House of Burgesses seat—roughly $12,700 in 2026 dollars, or $32 per voter. Today’s Colorado candidates spend millions, and most of it comes from people who will never set foot in the state. One Supreme Court decision made this legal.
The Founders who wrote the First Amendment never intended this. Thomas Jefferson warned in 1816 against “the aristocracy of our monied corporations.” The revolutionary generation that dumped East India Company tea in Boston Harbor wrote “We the People,” not “We the Corporations.”
In the Founders’ era, corporations were state-created instruments chartered for specific purposes. States could dissolve corporations that exceeded their purpose. Early states made corporate political contributions a criminal offense.
When the Founders wrote the First Amendment in 1791, “speech” meant individual expression: spoken words, written pamphlets, assembly. No debate occurred about artificial entities having speech rights. Madison’s Federalist 10 warned against “factions” overwhelming the public good.
The 2010 Court built on flawed precedent. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad established corporate personhood in 1886 through a court reporter’s headnote—the Chief Justice told the reporter the court had “avoided” the personhood question. Buckley v. Valeo equated money with speech in 1976, a century after the Founders regulated election spending without First Amendment concerns.
Citizens United made three constitutional breaks. It treated corporations as rights-bearers like natural persons, defined “speech” to include spending the Founders never contemplated protecting, and limited corruption to quid pro quo bribery while rejecting the Founders’ broader concerns about “undue influence” and “dependence.” Justice Kennedy wrote that independent spending couldn’t corrupt.
The decision also inverted federalism. The Founders gave states sovereignty over corporations they created. Citizens United prevents states from restricting political activity by entities they chartered—federal courts removing state control over state-created instruments.
Outside spending in federal elections was $144 million in 2008. By 2024, it reached $4.5 billion. The top 1 percent of super PAC donors provided 97 percent of all funds by 2024.
The current Supreme Court could fix this. Six justices hold originalist commitments. They overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs when that precedent lacked constitutional foundation.
The originalist case against Citizens United is straightforward. Corporations aren’t natural persons under the 1791 understanding of “We the People.” Preventing corporate political dominance serves the anti-faction purpose Madison articulated in Federalist 10.
Average citizens can force reconsideration by pressuring state legislatures to pass laws restricting corporate political spending. When those laws get challenged and reach the Supreme Court, citizens can file amicus briefs supporting reconsideration or fund legal organizations defending the restriction. Montana attempted this in 2012 with its Corrupt Practices Act—the Supreme Court struck it down 5-4, but the challenge created the opportunity for reconsideration.
The grassroots Colorado candidate can’t compete against coastal money flooding primaries. When 66 to 91 percent of campaign funding comes from out-of-state, representatives answer those funders, not Colorado voters. Until the Court acts, local candidates will face a stacked deck the Supreme Court created.
Our Disclaimer – We are not lawyers. We are average people who believe in the original intent of the Constitution.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 