Joan Fitz- Gerald speaks during a candidates forum in 2008. (Daily Camera file | Paul Aiken)Colorado's version of liberal super PACs spent nearly 150 times more money than their Republican counterparts in the last election cycle, with most of the money coming from a small circle of unions, wealthy individuals and advocacy organizations, a Denver Post analysis found.
Collaborative and well-coordinated, the groups not only funded television and radio ads, but put large amounts of money — almost $600,000 for one state Senate race — into canvassing neighborhoods, phone calls and direct mailings that often contained withering attacks on GOP opponents.
The results: In a political climate favoring Republicans, Democrats retained control of the state Senate and lost the House by only one seat. They also won the governor's mansion three months after unleashing a half-million dollars in ads targeting Scott McInnis, the stronger candidate in the GOP primary, who was pushed out of the race.
"We do what it takes to win day in and day out," said Joan Fitz-Gerald, former Colorado Senate president and current head of America Votes, a Washington D.C.-based liberal organization that coordinates election campaigns with 37 Colorado groups.
A 2010 state law required so-called super PACs — independent expenditure committees that directly advocate for or against a candidate — to disclose not only their donors, but their disbursements. The Post analyzed that data to calculate for the first time the vast disparity between Democratic and Republican independent expenditure committee spending — about $4.24 million to $28,644. Interviews with those familiar with the Democrats' operations also gave The Post a glimpse into their long-term strategy to dominate state politics.
Unless there is a drastic change over the next eight months, Republicans say they have a tough road ahead.
The party, which continues to splinter among different interest groups, also struggles to attract big donors and faces a Democratic-drawn redistricting map. And while the GOP has started to construct a political infrastructure and tapped nonprofit advocacy groups for message delivery, they remain years behind the Democrats whose vast philanthropic, political and wealthy donor network shares everything from voter files to strategy.
"We've had a lot of chiefs trying to solve a lot of problems, but they aren't well-coordinated," said Colorado GOP consultant Katy Atkinson. "We need to get fed up with losing like the Democrats did. But I don't know if Republicans have hit bottom yet."
State politics transformed
It has been eight years since four rich liberals — Pat Stryker, Tim Gill, Jared Polis and Rutt Bridges — were brought together by Al Yates, a former Colorado State University president. The group transformed state politics by funding independent political committees, which can spend unlimited amounts of money as long as they don't specifically advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate or coordinate with a candidate.
The committees — called 527s, after the section of the tax code that governs them — launched surprise attacks on a handful of vulnerable Republican legislators. When the smoke cleared, the Democrats controlled the state Senate and House for the first time in 44 years. Two years later, similar groups helped Democrat Bill Ritter get elected governor.
The 2004 strategy sessions of the so-called Gang of Four evolved into the Colorado Democracy Alliance, or CoDA, a corporation that focuses on supporting candidates, as well as coordinating and funding a network of independent groups with similar agendas. And that model was exported to other states.
"We don't stand alone in silos. We meet on a consistent basis.We understand each other's issues and how to thread them together," said Fitz-Gerald, who became the state's first female Senate president after the 2004 election.
Democrats involved with the network are unwilling to publicly share details of their strategy. Part of the strategy is not talking about it, one said. But interviews with Democrats who asked not to be identified reveal a few simple principles.
Winning is everything
To start, state races have specific plans and funding sources. That way no one relies on money trickling down from the top of the ticket. Consistent interaction and a strong political infrastructure build trust and collaboration. Losing is inevitable, so the key is to never let the pendulum swing so far that those losses can't be recouped in a better climate. And most importantly, winning is everything. Policy and ideology can never get in the way of putting a Democrat in office.
Using this framework, Colorado Democrats have been able to recruit and organize wealthy donors, as well as bridge gaps in the party, even uniting unions with what one consultant calls the "Chablis and brie crowd."
Republicans have been trying to catch up for years, said conservative Jon Caldara, but their political and financial strategy remains out-of-date.
"Republicans still have 12:00 blinking on their VCR, while Democrats are asking, 'What's a VCR?' " said Caldara, head of The Independence Institute.
Colorado Democrats leaped ahead of the GOP again in 2010 after two federal court rulings gave corporations, unions and other independent groups the right to directly influence elections. Democrats quickly set up independent expenditure groups, which can lay out unlimited amounts of money and expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate as long as they do not coordinate with the office-seeker. Then they transferred money from the 527s, as well as infused fresh money, into the newly created groups, The Post found by examining financial records from the two types of organizations .
Both 527s and independent expenditure groups can roll out negative ads. But a 527 is limited to stating "call your legislator and tell her to vote no" on a certain issue, while an independent expenditure group can go a step further, using what has become known as the "magic words": "vote for," "reject," "defeat" or "elect" a specific candidate.
"Those words make a difference at the point of sale. When it's the second week of October and voting starts, you want to make the most direct statement. You want to tell them exactly what to do," said Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli.
So while the GOP stuck to a beat-around-the-bush strategy, Democrats hit Republicans head on with targeted and coordinated messages.
In the end, liberal groups won 17 of the 24 legislative races they put direct advocacy money into, The Post found. Senate Majority Leader John Morse of Colorado Springs raised $163,769 for his re-election campaign. Outside groups, however, put in nearly $600,000 on his behalf. Morse won by about 340 votes.
Two other victorious Democratic Senate candidates — Jeanne Nicholson of Black Hawk and Gail Schwartz of Snowmass Village — saw independent groups put in more than $300,000 for each race. And one group, Environment Colorado, spent $200,000 for neighborhood canvassing on behalf of the Democratic candidates for governor, attorney general, state Senate and state House.
"Even when the political environment is rotten to them, (the Democrats) have the capacity to turn the tide by targeting money at the very top and at the bottom of the ticket," said Republican Josh Penry, former minority leader in the state Senate. "It should be a call to arms for conservatives who have resources and can match the effort."
In the Colorado governor's race , a liberal group called The Freedom Fund spent $500,000 in the 10 days leading up to the GOP primary for attack ads against McInnis, who was caught up in a plagiarism scandal. Even though a Post poll six weeks earlier showed McInnis ahead of his GOP opponent by 28 percentage points, he lost.
"It seemed that we were actually starting to recover a little. And then, bam! They dropped the piano on our head," said Sean Duffy, former communications director for McInnis.
The Democrat, now-Gov. John Hickenlooper, easily won the general election.
During the 2008 and 2010 elections, Democrats spent roughly 70 percent of the $23 million shelled out by all 527s. The top contributors included a handful of unions, Gill and Stryker, and, especially in 2010, a few "social welfare" organizations, known as a 501(c)4s under the tax code. They included America Votes, which gave $464,250 and Progressive Future ($425,000).
These groups are legally allowed to engage in political activities as long as it it's not their primary purpose. But they are not required to disclose their donors.
Contributors who want to shield their identities often funnel money through 501(c)4s. Nationally, these groups have been effectively utilized by the GOP, most prominently by George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove. Colorado Republicans also used these groups to put out fliers and ads in 2010 races.
""We haven't gotten big money out of politics. We've just driven it into the shadows," said Rob Witwer, former GOP state representative and co-author of "The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)."
In a state where current voter registration is 37 percent Republican, 32 percent Democrat and 30 percent unaffiliated, Democrats have also found other ways to use their money in a way hidden from public view. Philanthropic organizations are often responsible for voter-registration and get-out-the-vote efforts. Legally, the charities are prohibited from partisan activities. But their members can go to neighborhoods or cities, like Denver or Pueblo, that heavily lean Democratic and register voters there, Democratic sources said.
Additionally, Democrats have Catalist, a for-profit company that has an uber-voter file: demographic, political and commercial/marketing information for 280 million Americans.
President Barack Obama tapped into Catalist for his 2008 presidential race, according to The Atlantic, and Colorado Democrats say it was used for U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet's race. In the final two weeks, Democrats said, they targeted voters household by household, helping Bennet win by a narrow margin.
Also fully funded are layers of Democratic political infrastructure. Various Colorado and local chapters of national groups handle policy, opposition research, candidate recruitment, leadership and training, and media.
A news outlet does a story
A typical, hypothetical scenario might look like this: A liberal group with a nonpartisan name like Colorado First puts out a list of polluters and demands official action. A Republican running for Colorado office is on the list. Paid liberal bloggers chatter. An online liberal publication with a newspaper-like name writes an article about the candidate and his company polluting Colorado's streams. A liberal advocacy group puts out a news release, citing the group and the publication, which sound reputable to an ordinary voter. They mass e-mail the release and attach a catchy phrase to it like "Dirty Doug." At some point, the mainstream media checks out the allegations. Depending on the facts, a news outlet does a story.
Another group, or even the opponent of "Dirty Doug," uses the media story in a mail piece. And another group runs a TV or radio ad.
These types of integrated offenses were used against McInnis; Republican Bob Beauprez, a candidate for governor in 2006; then-Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave in 2008; and countless legislative candidates.
Republicans do have their own versions of some of these groups, but they still lack disciplined coordination. Some told The Post that the "it-takes-a-village" approach adopted by Democrats just isn't in the DNA of big-money Republicans. Many come from the business community, where they have a lot of control and don't like to delegate it. Others are focused on individualism, not the collective whole, and still others only want to back groups with certain social agendas. Additionally, it's hard to get donors excited when their team is losing and struggling to recruit fresh candidates, said Republican consultant Sean Tonner.
"Big donors got mad in '06 and '08. They are tired of the same people asking for money every cycle, especially when we aren't winning," he said.
Colorado GOP chairman Ryan Call, however, said he believes Republicans this year will have sufficient resources to compete with the Democrats.
"We will be able to draw contrasts," he said. "We're going to be aggressive under the First Amendment."
Karen E. Crummy: 303-954-1594 or kcrummy@denverpost.com; twitter.com/karencrummy
