Background
Unite for Colorado began operations in January 2020 as a self-described “issue advocacy organization” focused on economic opportunity and government transparency. During the 2020 election cycle, Unite spent a total of $17.17 million, of which approximately $4.03 million (23.4%) went toward advocacy on three ballot initiatives: opposing Proposition 113 (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact), supporting Proposition 116 (state income tax reduction), and supporting Proposition 117 (voter approval of certain new state enterprises). Unite’s ballot-related spending included advertising, direct contributions to issue committees, and in-kind contributions for signature-gathering.
Members of the public filed a campaign finance complaint in August 2020 alleging that Unite was an “issue committee” under article XXVIII, section 2(10)(a)(I) of the Colorado Constitution and had failed to register and disclose. Colorado’s constitution defines an issue committee, in relevant part, as an entity that “has a major purpose of supporting or opposing any ballot issue or ballot question.” After contested administrative proceedings, an administrative law judge found Unite qualified as an issue committee, and the Deputy Secretary of State adopted that finding and imposed a $40,000 fine. The district court reversed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals in turn reversed the district court, finding Unite did have a major purpose of ballot issue advocacy.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve two interpretive questions: what “a major purpose” means under article XXVIII, and whether the phrase “any ballot issue or ballot question” permits aggregating an organization’s spending across multiple propositions rather than analyzing each measure separately.
The Court’s Holding
Chief Justice Márquez, writing for a unanimous court, held that the “major purpose” standard requires a holistic, fact-specific analysis of an organization’s creation, spending, and ballot campaign-related activities—tracking the framework the U.S. Supreme Court applied in Buckley v. Valeo and FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., which voters implicitly adopted when they enacted Amendment 27 in 2002. The court further held that the phrase “any ballot issue or ballot question” allows consideration of an organization’s aggregate spending across multiple ballot measures rather than a proposition-by-proposition accounting.
Applying these principles to Unite, the court identified factors both for and against a major purpose finding. Weighing in favor were Unite’s early engagement in ballot advocacy shortly after its founding and its in-kind contributions for signature gathering on two initiatives. Weighing strongly against was the fact that Unite directed less than a quarter of its total 2020 spending—23.4%—to ballot issue advocacy, a figure the court characterized as a spending pattern inconsistent with ballot advocacy being a considerable or principal organizational purpose. Under the totality of the circumstances, the court held that Unite did not have a major purpose of ballot issue advocacy in 2020 and therefore was not an issue committee. The court reversed the Court of Appeals.
The court adopted a seven-factor non-exhaustive framework to guide future major-purpose analyses, drawn from prior appellate decisions and 2010 statutory guidance: (1) organizational objectives in founding documents and public statements; (2) annual expenditures relative to ballot-measure spending; (3) publications relative to ballot-measure communications; (4) organizational longevity relative to ballot advocacy; (5) organizational structure; (6) interrelatedness with ballot measure proponents or opponents; and (7) the range of issues with which the organization has been involved. No single factor is dispositive.
Key Takeaways
- Colorado’s “major purpose” test for issue committee status is a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry into an organization’s creation, spending, and campaign-related activities—not a mechanical percentage threshold.
- An organization’s ballot-related spending may be aggregated across all ballot initiatives it engaged with; regulators need not prove major purpose on a proposition-by-proposition basis.
- Spending less than one-quarter of total organizational resources on ballot issue advocacy weighs strongly against a “major purpose” finding, even where the organization actively participated in multiple ballot campaigns.
- Courts and regulators should apply seven non-exclusive guiding factors drawn from prior case law and the 2010 statutory definition of “major purpose,” though no single factor controls the outcome.
Why It Matters
This decision is the Colorado Supreme Court’s first definitive interpretation of the “major purpose” standard under Amendment 27 and resolves a longstanding split in approach between administrative agencies and the courts. By confirming that the test is holistic and rooted in the Buckley/MCFL framework—while also holding that Unite fell below the threshold—the ruling gives issue advocates meaningful guidance about when ballot-related spending triggers the registration and disclosure obligations that come with issue committee status. Organizations that devote the substantial majority of their budgets to non-ballot activities retain significant latitude to participate in initiative campaigns without triggering full campaign finance regulation.
The decision also has broader implications for campaign finance disclosure law in Colorado. By rejecting any fixed numerical threshold (reaffirming the earlier invalidation of a 30% bright-line rule) while simultaneously providing a structured seven-factor framework, the court attempts to balance the state’s strong informational interest in transparent elections against First Amendment concerns about burdening organizations engaged in political speech. Practitioners advising advocacy organizations in Colorado will need to conduct careful, fact-specific assessments of their clients’ overall spending patterns and organizational profiles before concluding that ballot campaign participation is or is not a “major purpose.”