Dark Money in Education

Last November, Republican Yazmin Navarro defeated incumbent Democrat Rhonda Solis in the race to represent Colorado’s 8th district on the State Board of Education. Navarro’s victory marks the completion of a silent coup that threatens to undermine its public schools and election integrity.

Navarro is an unconventional candidate. A former substitute teacher, she entered the race with limited teaching and political experience. By contrast, Solis brought years of service as a local school board member, over a decade of broader community engagement, and the advantage of incumbency. How did a first-time candidate manage to overcome these odds and flip a key seat? While multiple factors were at play, one stands out: over $300,000 was spent on Navarro’s behalf. The outsized role of dark money in this race cannot be ignored.

What is Dark Money?

The term “dark money” has become ubiquitous in discussions of Colorado’s education races, often leaving it feeling like a vague buzzword. Dark money refers to funds spent to influence elections by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. Unlike other forms of campaign funding, which are subject to strict rules regarding limits, transparency, and reporting, dark money operates largely in the shadows. This lack of accountability is one of the primary concerns. Voters have no way of knowing who is behind the influx of money shaping elections. Beyond transparency issues, dark money undermines democratic processes. Millions of dollars poured into newspaper ads, television, and YouTube can easily sway election outcomes, especially in low-turnout races like those for school boards. According to the National School Boards Association, as few as 5 to 10 percent of eligible voters participate in these elections. In such contests, money holds disproportionate sway, potentially allowing a handful of wealthy donors to determine outcomes.

Dark money played a documented and substantial role in Navarro’s success. A significant contributor was the Colorado League of Charter Schools (CLCS), a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to advance the interests of charter schools. This group poured thousands of dollars into Independent Expenditure Committees (IECs) supporting Navarro. Unlike Political Action Committees (PACs), which face strict contribution limits, IECs can funnel unlimited funds into campaigns to further their agendas. Navarro’s win appears less like an unexpected triumph from a passionate political newcomer and more like a demonstration of the power wielded by deep-pocketed interests. Navarro offered few concrete policy proposals during her campaign, with one notable exception: her strong support for school choice and expansion of charter schools. Navarro made this stance explicit on her Facebook page: “A win for Navarro this year would mean a win for charter schools.” She also stated, “This election will shape Colorado’s charter schools for years to come.”

Her messaging left little doubt about who stood to benefit from her victory.

Bribes, giving money from behind, hidden transactions

A Broader Trend: Money’s Influence in Education Elections

While the focus thus far has been on the 8th district race for the State Board of Education, this is far from an isolated case. Dark money’s influence has been felt in other education-related elections across Colorado, signaling a broader trend with significant implications for the future of public education and electoral integrity. Although much of the focus thus far has been on the 8th district race, it is just one of many education elections where dark money has played a role.

Last June, nearly $1 million was spent supporting Marisol Rodriguez’s attempt to unseat incumbent Kathy Gebhard in the District 2 race. The spending was ostentatious enough to draw attention from various news outlets, including Forbes, and prompted a response from Rodriguez.

“I’m not fighting for charter schools, so no one is buying me in this election,” she told Boulder Weekly.

Despite Rodriguez’s statement, her ties to the charter school agenda are difficult to ignore. She is a former employee of the Walton Family Foundation, a prominent proponent of charter schools. Rodriguez has also worked as a consultant for several pro-charter organizations, including the Colorado League of Charter Schools (CLCS)—the same group that backed Yazmin Navarro. Rodriguez’s campaign, history, and associations all reflected her strong support for school choice—a stance that earned her substantial backing, most notably from an IEC called Better Leaders Stronger Schools (BLSS). BLSS, like CLCS, supports charter schools and is connected to a network of pro-charter organizations, including CLCS, which it has donated to. Despite the significant financial opposition, Gebhard managed to retain her seat.

Following her victory, she said, “I feel like people have spoken in support of public education and their public schools.”

Gebhard entered the race with a strong foundation: years of experience on both local and national education boards, support from the teachers’ union, and the advantage of being a well-regarded incumbent. Her win demonstrates that candidates can overcome the influence of dark money and convey their message to voters despite substantial financial barriers. Unfortunately, this is not the entire story.

It has become increasingly clear that the attempts by organizations like CLCS and BLSS to funnel money into their preferred candidates are not isolated incidents. In 2023, Better Leaders Stronger Schools poured tens of thousands of dollars into education races in Districts 1 and 5, as well as the at-large seat. That time, they succeeded in ousting the incumbents. As in past races, their chosen candidates were all vocal, pro-charter advocates. One such candidate, Kimberlee Sia, was even a former CEO of the pro-charter organization KIPP Colorado and a board member of CLCS.

It is evident that very wealthy groups have a vested interest in promoting pro-charter candidates, investing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, into Colorado elections. But why the sudden surge in spending? One answer lies in the power of the State School Board. Charter schools have a strong interest in maintaining control of the board, as it provides a way to bypass uncooperative local boards. If a charter request is denied at the local level, it can be escalated to the state board. Historically, decisions have been evenly split in favor of and against charter schools, but recent events have heightened concerns among school choice advocates. Gebhard, for instance, drew the ire of charter school supporters after she denied a charter program that refused to include non-discrimination protections for gender identity and expression. This placed her on the radar of pro-charter organizations as a potential “threat” to their interests. Similarly, Solis raised alarms by voicing concerns about charter schools’ lack of transparency and accountability. Further rattling pro-choice advocates was a bill proposed last month to require more transparency from charters. In an environment where charters face increased scrutiny, these recent wins have allowed charter organizations to secure a pro-charter majority. Further rattling pro-choice advocates was a bill proposed last March pushing to require more transparency from charter schools; they considered the legislation an ‘attack.’ In an environment where charters face increased scrutiny, these recent electoral victories have allowed charter organizations to secure a pro-charter majority on the state school board, providing them with some protection.

Charters and Discrimination

It’s important to clarify that neither Solis nor Gebhard could fairly be described as anti-school choice. Both have been vocal in supporting quality charter initiatives, and their records reflect that. Their criticism, however, centered on the lack of oversight for charter schools compared to public schools, particularly regarding issues of discrimination. It’s also worth noting that evidence, both in Colorado and nationally, suggests their concerns should be taken seriously.

In October 2021, charter schools in Colorado were found guilty of discriminating against disabled students. An investigation found that they not only enrolled fewer disabled students than public schools but also had lower enrollment compared to other charter schools in other states. The following year, a law was passed attempting to circumvent this ruling by allowing charter schools to deny disabled students enrollment. A complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, alleging that the law essentially permits legal discrimination. This legal matter is still ongoing and has not yet been resolved. Colorado charter schools have not only been found to discriminate against disabled students.

As recently as last November, Liberty Common Charter School was found guilty of racial harassment, and Rocky Mountain Classical Academy is facing a lawsuit (still unresolved) for allegations of gender discrimination in its dress code. Nationally, similar cases of discrimination have consistently emerged from charter schools.

These cases point to two critical issues: First, there is legitimate cause for concern regarding discrimination and the lack of accountability in charter schools. Second, a state education board that is uncritically supportive of charter schools could lead to students—particularly those from already marginalized groups—being mistreated, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against. This situation underscores the significant risks we face when wealthy and powerful interests are allowed to influence and undermine our elections.

The Rise of City Fund

The nature of dark money, particularly when funneled through nonprofits, is its lack of transparency. These organizations face fewer requirements to disclose who is funding them and why, but that doesn’t mean we know nothing about their operations. We’ve already identified two nonprofits, CLCS, and Progressives Supporting Teachers and Students, that are focused on advancing the goals of charter schools. Tax documents reveal that both organizations receive much of their funding from a national nonprofit known as City Fund.

City Fund was co-founded by Netflix billionaire Reed Hastings and John Arnold, and they’ve been vocal about their goals. Hastings has publicly stated his opposition to democracy in school boards, advocating for an end to school elections instead. Why? He says appointed boards lead to consistency and “stable governance.” He leaves unsaid that this approach shifts power away from the average citizen and into the hands of charters and their wealthy donors. Hastings has also expressed a desire for the near-elimination of public schools, stating, “So what we have to do is continue to grow and grow… It’s going to take 20-30 years to get to 90% of charter kids.”

Through City Fund, Hastings and his associates have funneled millions of dollars into nationwide organizations solely dedicated to undermining public schools and promoting charters. Examples include Engaging Redefined Atlanta in Georgia, KIPP Nashville in Tennessee, New Schools for New Orleans in Louisiana, and Newark Charter School Fund in New Jersey, among many others. Louisiana provides a stark example of what Hastings considers a success—and where Colorado could be heading. In New Orleans, Hastings has celebrated the city’s nearly 90% charter school enrollment rate, achieved after an aggressive push to shut down public schools and redirect funding to charters.

However, this “success” has been a monumental failure for students. “After spending $6 billion of taxpayers’ money to become the only all-charter system in the state, a staggering 73% of our children are not performing at grade level—worse than the 63% in 2005, when the state took control of over 100 schools,” wrote a Louisiana senator. When charters replace public schools, students suffer. The fact that Hastings views this model as a national blueprint is alarming. To be clear, this is not a claim that all charter schools are inherently bad, but they face serious issues, from discrimination to underperformance, making the push to replace public schools with charters shortsighted at best. What charter schools need is more oversight, not less.

Hastings’ money flows into various organizations in Colorado that align with his broader agenda, creating concerns, especially considering his ties to Governor Jared Polis, one of the state’s most influential political figures.

Polis has a long history with charter schools, having worked for one and founded several. He is also closely linked to Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a prominent pro-charter group. From the start of his governorship, Polis has faced criticism for appointing a pro-charter team to oversee education in Colorado.

Cheating and bribery, using money in exchange for votes

While Polis’s connections to Hastings and City Fund are more indirect, they are still significant. His charter schools received $59,000 from Denver Families for Public Schools, which, according to 2023 tax filings, received over $1 million from City Fund. Polis’s ties to DFER, also funded by City Fund, further link him to this network. The clearest connection came during the recent election season when he appeared in ads for a pro-charter group, endorsing Marisol Rodriguez through Progressives Supporting Teachers and Students.

Polis often shows up when charter money is involved.

It’s hard not to be concerned that Polis’s financial ties and associations may bias his agenda. While there is no definitive proof of wrongdoing, the many connections raise serious questions about a politician who appears to be heavily influenced by charter interests. We’ve presented enough evidence to justify skepticism about charter schools and how a charter-dominated era could impact Colorado’s students and teachers. However, it’s unclear whether Polis even cares about addressing these concerns. Also troubling is criticism from The Colorado Sun, which has pointed out Polis’s lack of transparency regarding the substantial amounts of money he receives from private donors and how it may influence his decisions. There are too many backroom deals, too much money, and insufficient transparency from the organizations and politicians involved.

Why is so much money and energy being invested in charter schools in the first place? Several groups stand to benefit from expanding these schools. For one, charter schools face less government regulation, allowing them to make decisions without the constraints of community oversight. Charters also operate without teacher unions, limiting teachers’ ability to organize, protest, or influence decisions within these systems. They’re also often money-making machines. Though charter schools are technically non-profits, they often function as profit-driven entities through various loopholes. A 2021 report exposed how individuals profit from these schools while students suffer from inadequate resources and educational outcomes. If the well-being of students, families, and education is not the priority, many reasons exist to advocate for expanding charter schools.

Money has played a significant role in the 2023 and 2024 Colorado school board elections, shaping how we talk about school choice locally and nationally. The recent polls in Colorado mirror trends across the U.S., with grassroots candidates overshadowing pro-charter candidates backed by dark money. Many of these groups have strikingly similar names and origins, often with City Fund money involved. We must stay alert to what’s happening and recognize what’s at stake. This isn’t about banning charter schools; it’s about demanding accountability, knowing who’s influencing our elections, and questioning whether they truly have our best interests in mind.

Gebhard said after her victory against Rodriguez, “We’ve shown that people’s voices are stronger than money.” Now, we must ensure our voices continue to rise above the influence of money and special interests.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter (and get our printed copy monthly at home.)

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.