No on 87 Spends $3.6M Versus Yes Campaigns

Aspen —The opposition to Colorado’s progressive income tax amendment spent $3.6 million in a single reporting cycle. The proponents spent roughly one-tenth of that.

Let’s do the math on what that disparity actually means for the people living in this state, from the high-desert communities of the Western Slope to the urban cores of Denver. The Vail Daily reported that by the October 6 deadline, the "Yes on 87" campaign had reported spending around $1 million. That money came from small, traceable sources: about 300 individual residents who donated between $5 and $500, plus contributions from dozens of local and state nonprofit organizations.

On the other side of the ledger, the "No on 87" coalition reported spending more than $3.6 million after a significant influx of cash just before the deadline. While the reports show a couple dozen individual donations from Colorado residents, the paper noted that the vast majority of those funds came from large contributions by groups that do not reveal their donors.

This is where the bureaucratic jargon hits you in the face. These groups are registered as 501(c)(4) political advocacy organizations. In plain English, they don’t have to tell you who is writing the checks. Ian Silverii of the Colorado Future Protection Coalition, the group that filed the petition to place Amendment 87 on the ballot, called this influx "hidden money." He pointed out that many people have a strong interest in ensuring that the tax rates for Colorado’s billionaires, millionaires, and largest corporations remain exactly the same as the rate you and I pay. He called that dynamic "quite outrageous."

For context, Amendment 87 would replace the state’s flat income tax with a progressive system. It raises the rate for incomes over $500,000 and lowers taxes for those earning less. The proposal aims to generate $2.7 billion in additional revenue, which the state would direct toward healthcare, education, and childcare.

Leading the opposition is Advance Colorado, a nonprofit founded in 2020 by former Republican Governor Bill Owen. The organization does not disclose its donors, but media reports, including those from The Denver Post, have identified significant support from billionaire Phil Anschutz. Advance Colorado is also connected to approximately half of the 14 ballot measures on this cycle’s ballot, including Proposition 136.

Proposition 136 proposes to keep Colorado’s flat tax rate at 4.4%. On paper, it seems redundant because the state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) already mandates a flat tax rate. However, the Vail Daily reported that if Amendment 87 passes, Proposition 136 would effectively block the progressive changes. If both pass, the flat rate wins. If both pass, the flat rate wins.

The stakes here are not abstract policy debates for folks in the valley or along I-70. This is a direct vote on whether your tax bracket stays fixed or shifts based on your income. The $2.7 billion in new revenue is a massive number, but it’s being fought over by two sides with wildly different levels of financial transparency. One side shows you the names of 300 neighbors who chipped in a few hundred dollars. The other side spends $3.6 million and keeps the donor list locked in a vault.

You are voting on November 5. The money is already spent. The question isn't just about the tax rate; it's about who gets to tell you how that money is raised, and whether they have to say their name when they do.