Colorado Prop 137 Supporters Outspend Opponents 1,000 to 1

Glenwood Springs —The fluorescent lights of the Glenwood Springs Post Independent newsroom hummed quietly on a Tuesday afternoon, casting a sterile glow over the latest campaign finance filings. There, buried in a spreadsheet of numbers that most voters will never scrutinize, sat the reality of Proposition 137. One side has poured millions into the fight; the other is running on fumes.

The Post Independent reported that proponents of Prop 137 have raised and spent more than $4 million, while opponents have managed just $4,700 in fundraising and $3,000 in spending. That is a 1,000-to-1 disparity. It’s not a close race in the boardroom, even if it feels like a coin flip on election day.

Prop 137 is a fiscal lever with significant weight. It would create a pool of about $175 million for existing conservation and outdoors programs, including wildfire mitigation projects. The mechanism is simple on paper: the state keeps more of the taxes collected from sports equipment sales. But that simplicity hides a cost. If approved, the measure would reduce Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) refunds by between $26 and $83 for single filers, or double that for joint filers, in some years. For folks around here who rely on those refunds to cover property tax spikes or heating bills, that’s not a rounding error. That’s money gone from the check that finally arrives in June.

The coalition behind the "Yes" vote is deep and well-funded. The proponents, registered as Protect Colorado’s Land and Water, Prevent Wildfires, have pulled in heavy hitters. The Nature Conservancy contributed more than $2 million. Western Resource Advocates and its action fund added a combined $900,000. The Fund for a Better Future chipped in $350,000, while the Trust for Public Land provided $215,000. Even the Holdfast Trust, associated with Patagonia, donated $200,000.

But the money doesn’t just sit in a bank account. Filings show supporters spent more than $3 million on consultants and professional services, covering everything from signature gathering to compliance consulting. Since mid-September, they’ve burned through more than $800,000 on advertising, much of it digital. They also received two distinct donations of $125,000 from Olivia and Thomas Walton. The Waltons are part of the family that owns Walmart, a detail that tends to make neighbors pause when they see their name on a ballot measure about conservation.

On the other side of the ledger, the opposition is registered as Protect Colorado’s Land, Communities, and Tax Dollars. Their bank account looks like a jar of loose change next to the proponents' war chest. They’ve received a handful of donations ranging from $15 to $3,500 from individual Colorado residents. Their total spending is about $3,000. That budget covers ads in The Gazette newspapers, social media posts, yard signs, a website, and some consulting. It’s a grassroots effort in the truest sense, but it is also a logistical nightmare when you’re trying to counter a machine that spends $800,000 on digital ads in a single month.

The part everyone skips past is the scale of that imbalance. You can’t out-shout a megaphone with a whisper, no matter how loud the whisper is. The opposition argues that the fiscal impacts are too high and questions whether the funds support the right kind of wildfire mitigation. The proponents argue it increases funding for existing programs without raising taxes, a distinction that matters because "no new tax" is not the same as "no cost."

Stand there long enough and you start to wonder if the dollar amount reflects conviction or just capacity. The Nature Conservancy has a global budget; a resident in Eagle County does not. Yet the ballot doesn’t ask who has more money. It asks what you want for your land, your water, and your wallet.

In the quiet of the newsroom, the spreadsheet remains open. The numbers are stark, unblinking, and final. One side has spent $4 million to tell you what Prop 137 is. The other has spent $3,000 to tell you what it costs.