Colorado’s voter-approved caps on campaign contributions survived a four-year federal court challenge Thursday when Senior U.S. District Judge John Kane ruled the limits constitutional under the First Amendment.
Kane’s 142-page opinion held that the limits are “closely drawn to the sufficiently important state interest of preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance” and do not violate the political expression or association rights of candidates or donors.
The limit for legislative candidates is $450 per election cycle. For statewide candidates it is $1,425. Colorado voters set both figures through Amendment 27 in 2002, which passed with more than 66 percent support. Both rank among the lowest in the country.
The plaintiffs — state Sen. Rod Pelton, former Colorado GOP Chairman Steve House, and Greg Lopez, now running for governor as an unaffiliated candidate for the third time — argued the caps burden candidates’ ability to communicate with voters. Their legal team from the Institute for Free Speech and Advance Colorado pointed to Randall v. Sorrell, the 2006 Supreme Court decision striking down Vermont’s $200 contribution limit, as their roadmap. Kane wasn’t persuaded. The Randall factors didn’t tip in the plaintiffs’ favor.
What the ruling doesn’t address is how the limits function in practice. Democratic candidates raise millions through ActBlue, a platform that aggregates thousands of individually capped donations — each compliant with Colorado’s limits — from small donors whose identities go unreported. Republicans have a counterpart in WinRed, but it operates at a fraction of ActBlue’s volume. The per-donation cap is the same for both parties. The fundraising infrastructure is not.
The case was filed in January 2022. Kane denied a preliminary injunction that March, leaving the limits in place for the 2022 election cycle. A two-week bench trial concluded in July 2024, with final briefs submitted through November. The Institute for Free Speech is expected to appeal to the 10th Circuit.
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. 