An Editor’s Note – Dark Money in Boulder & Transparency

Last week, we published a story examining the role of independent political groups in Boulder’s election. Election coverage always attracts scrutiny, especially when it touches on dark money and the influence of private spending. That’s expected, and we welcome it. Our coverage of money in politics is ongoing. This isn’t the first or last time we’ll report on organizations shaping local elections.

This year’s New York City’s mayoral race, won by Mr. Zohran Mamdani, reflected more than local divides. It touched on the national split between corporate Democrats and progressives, rising affordability issues, and even foreign policy debates like Gaza. One thread deserves more attention: the growing divide between candidates backed by deep pockets and those running grassroots campaigns. Mamdani often contrasted himself with his opponent Andrew Cuomo by calling out his alleged billionaire donors and emphasizing his own independence. That framing resonated because Americans across the spectrum are increasingly uneasy about private money, gerrymandering, and other forms of influence shaping elections.

At Yellow Scene, our job is to help voters understand who’s funding what and how that funding shapes local politics. “Dark money” isn’t a simple topic. The funding streams are often complex, and organizations are not monolithic. Each group operates differently, with its own goals and methods. While broad trends matter, we agree that nuance is essential.

We stand by our reporting on Boulder but recognize that some details deserve clarification. In the interest of transparency, we’re addressing a few of the critiques directly.

Firstly, a letter sent to us from one organization.

Letter from Open Boulder

Dear Mr. Clichenbeard,

Your reporter, Bella Farris, wrote an article on dark money in Boulder politics. She included Open Boulder as an independent political organization leveraging undisclosed funding and no funding caps.

Actually, Open Boulder formed a UCC (unaffiliated candidate committee). All contributions and expenses are disclosed, and donations are capped at $100. We have followed the rules down to the letter of the law and have not co-mingled funds as other organizations have done.

In fact, our public filings show every donor and every expense. Your inclusion of Open Boulder in a “dark money” discussion is slanderous. What will you do about it?

—Open Boulder 2025 UCC

A quick note before we respond: our editor hasn’t been Austin Clickenbeard for a while now, though his work helped define Yellow Scene for a time. Angry letters about our current coverage should instead be directed toward me, Destiny Hale. I read them all, I promise.

Now, to the point.

The accusation is that we slandered Open Boulder. To be clear, the article’s primary focus was on Engage Boulder. Here’s the full and only mention of Open Boulder:

“Caruso is not the first to form an independent political group in Boulder. Open Boulder, a civic organization with a more centrist reputation, has endorsed several 2025 candidates — including Jenny Robins, Rob Kaplan, Matt Benjamin, and Mark Wallach. Both groups reflect a broader trend in local politics: small organizations and well-funded individuals seeking to shape Boulder’s political direction outside formal campaigns.”

A fairly tame and accurate statement hardly indicative of slander. That said, grouping Engage Boulder and Open Boulder together was somewhat imprecise. Open Boulder has endorsed candidates that Engage Boulder opposes and operates more transparently. It’s fair to acknowledge that difference. But it’s equally fair to note that Open Boulder remains a private organization seeking to influence elections, as its own materials make clear. Our role is to help voters understand those dynamics and then many people vying to influence their vote.

Comment on Dan Caruso

“Why am I not surprise that you would lie to your readers. Dan Caruso is not even close to being a billionaire. In fact, he’s not even worth a $100 million. For every billionaire representing the Republican party there are two representing the Democratic party. As journalist espousing to speak the truth, the only truth here is your lying. Spreading misinformation and disinformation. It is shameful and necessary for me to call you out. Please do better and start by admitting to not researching you statements in this article and that it is misinformation. Although you risk losing some readership (subscribers) will earn some respect from many of them.”

Our article described Dan Caruso as a billionaire. Public records suggest his net worth is closer to the hundreds of millions, not billions. However, companies he’s led have managed and negotiated investments worth billions, and his role as a venture capitalist makes precise valuation difficult. Calling him a billionaire may have been an overstatement; calling him a major financial power player is not. The broader point about large financial interests shaping Boulder’s elections remains accurate.

The more serious criticism here is about bias. Yellow Scene Magazine has clear values: transparency, accountability, and fair elections. We’re loyal to those principles, not to any party. We’ve called out dark money and election manipulation by Democrats and Republicans alike. Mamdani’s race in New York and the Democratic establishment’s quiet backing of Cuomo are just one example that this issue cuts both ways.

Private organizations and wealthy donors continue to shape outcomes. The candidates backed by Caruso and Engage Boulder performed strongly. And ignoring that would be a disservice to Boulder voters.

Final Word

Our commitment is simple: report the facts, show our work, and correct when precision demands it. The role of journalism is to exam and critique power. Boulder’s voters deserve transparency from everyone shaping their democracy, including us.