This past month, Yellow Scene Magazine published our endorsements for the upcoming primary election. What haunted much of our coverage was the specter of dark money: who has it, who does not, which donors we viewed as disqualifying, and which we did not. Particularly in a post-Mamdani electoral landscape, a candidate’s financial connections are beginning to resonate deeply with everyday voters.

Candidates have learned to capitalize on this shift, weaponizing their opponents’ financial ties against them to sell themselves as grassroots alternatives. Whether pointing out candidate Heidi Henkel’s ties to One Main Street or the hundreds of thousands accepted from AIPAC by Senator Michael Bennet, opposing campaigns are leveraging these relationships to paint themselves as the true champions of the common person. At the same time, there is far more nuance here than what is typically expressed during the mudslinging and political shots taken in debates. How did we get here, how should we understand the mechanics of dark money, and most importantly, if almost everyone agrees its influence on elections is undesirable, which candidates are actually willing to curb it? Yellow Scene Magazine reached out to candidates and conducted our own digging to tackle these questions.

To understand the current crisis, it is necessary to first separate how political campaigns are financed. Campaigns are expensive, and spending correlates strongly to winning. Traditional election spending, or “hard money,” comes directly from campaign fundraising. Hard money features strictly disclosed donors and legal limits to individual donations, and includes standard Political Action Committees (PACs). On the other hand, outside or “soft money” comes from external corporations and nonprofits, which can under certain conditions accept unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, or unions. Outside groups that are not required to disclose their original sources of funding are what we define as dark money groups.

As a nation, we arrived at this point in 2010, when five conservative Supreme Court justices hampered campaign finance laws by overruling four liberal appointees in the landmark Citizens United case. The Court ruled that a ban on independent expenditures from corporations violated free speech under the First Amendment, allowing corporations and nonprofits to spend unlimited amounts on political races. In the following years, the Courts have reversed even more legal precedents, allowing entities to use their treasuries for electioneering expenses and independent expenditures directly for political candidates. Later in 2010, the Court ruled that PACs could accept unlimited money as long as they did not coordinate with campaigns, which prompted the creation of independent expenditure committees, commonly known as Super PACs. These decisions granted outsized political power to these organizations and facilitated the spread of dark money.

According to Colorado law, independent expenditures are contributions made “without the support of or coordination with a candidate, candidate committee, or candidate’s agent”. Independent Expenditure Committees (IECs) in Colorado are required to disclose the occupation and employer information for any donations exceeding $250. In theory, IECs must legally function without candidate coordination. In practice, this boundary is incredibly difficult to enforce.

This dynamic creates a scenario where a candidate can be running a completely clean, grassroots race, only for a wealthy, moneyed interest to decide to throw its financial weight behind them unprompted. Conversely, other candidates deliberately cater their platforms to court these financial windfalls. Because of how IECs operate, it is challenging for voters to distinguish one from the other and know exactly when a candidate should be held accountable for the outside groups bolstering their campaign.

Furthermore, nonprofits and shell companies can give unlimited money to these PACs, effectively turning them into dark money outlets when the original donations cannot be traced. IECs thus give the appearance of being transparent while potentially operating as conduits for dark money. Nonprofits funding these PACs are legally required to spend less than half their money on political activity, but these organizations routinely skirt the rules by funneling money back and forth between different entities.

Dark money has become rampant across federal and state elections. Yellow Scene Magazine published a deep dive last year detailing how anti-public school billionaire Reed Hastings routinely funded pro-charter school candidates, essentially buying access to educational boards over the course of several years. We have also reported on moneyed interest groups popping up across Boulder County over the last five years, exerting influence in Louisville, Erie, Broomfield, and beyond.

Television ads, online ads, and mailers constitute the bulk of dark money spending, representing the front-facing result of outside money that Colorado voters see the most. Kenny Nguyen, running for re-election in House District 33, noted that voters are tired of the “bombardment of advertising” during campaigns.

Nguyen stated that reporting rules for donations are too loose to track, and repercussions are far too few. 

“Colorado is a complaint-based system, and as a grassroots campaign we don’t have an army of attorneys to file complaints,” Nguyen wrote.

Mapping the paper trail of dark money remains the most difficult hurdle for anyone hoping to understand who is spending on whom. With shell companies, LLCs registered in other states, and creative funneling methods, the trail is often too convoluted for an informed voter to follow.

Anil Pesaramelli, a candidate for House District 19, echoed these concerns. 

“Most voters do not have the time, expertise, or resources to trace money through layers of Independent Expenditure Committees, nonprofit organizations, political committees, and pass-through entities.”

Junie Joseph, running for House District 10, agreed that tracing IEC money “often requires significant time, expertise, and resources”. She added that “transparency should be meaningful and accessible, not something only political insiders can understand”.

Even if a voter could excavate all the outside money in a given election, they would be forced to make voting decisions based on which organizations are deemed “good” or “bad”. Nguyen made a point to note that all IECs are not the same, acknowledging that his own campaign is a recipient of financial support from union backed IECs. He argued that groups like the Colorado AFL-CIO identify themselves transparently when spending, whereas corporate special interests like oil and gas or private prisons do their absolute best to hide who they are behind nonprofits before dumping cash into an IEC. Cervantes noted that labor and conservation groups, organizations considered by some to be defensive IECs, are often created in direct retaliation to those built by major corporations. This ethical proposition introduces a heavy moral obligation, leaving voters wondering if certain financial connections are strong enough to mar a candidate’s credibility, or if certain links are tenuous enough to forgive. 

Even though IECs are barred from coordinating with campaigns, politicians have found ways to dodge these rules with few repercussions. A prominent example includes a retreat at a Vail hotel last October between Colorado lawmakers and lobbyists, which ultimately spawned an ethics complaint. The retreat was hosted by the nonprofit Colorado Opportunity Caucus. One Main Street, a group heavily invested in Democratic primaries in recent years, maintains financial connections to that nonprofit. This May, lawmakers backed by the caucus struck down legislation that would have required caucuses like themselves to disclose their funding.

The systemic nature of the problem is acknowledged even by those within the majority party. Junie Joseph wrote that money’s “influence can be used not only between political parties but also within parties to reward allies, punish opponents, and shape political outcomes”. She noted, “The difficult truth is that many people in positions of power, including Democrats in a state like Colorado, where we hold a trifecta, understand the power of money and are often reluctant to give up tools that can be used to maintain influence.” 

Kenny Nguyen reinforced this reality, writing simply, “Dark Money is truly all over Colorado”.

Because political gridlock at the federal level has prevented changes to campaign finance laws, the responsibility has fallen to individual states to corral unregulated spending. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) experiences its own partisan gridlock and rarely reprimands organizations, citing the protection of free speech in line with Citizens United.

The newest effort to nullify Citizens United comes from Montana. Former state officials created “The Montana Plan,” which uses state corporation law to strip corporations of their political spending power. Under this framework, out-of-state entities are only allowed the same rights as in-state corporations, effectively ending outside corporate spending in state elections. The Montana Plan will be a ballot initiative in that state this year, and reform organizations are attempting to adopt it state-by-state. The Transparent Election Initiative is currently working to get a similar ballot initiative on the Colorado ballot in 2026 or 2028.

Attorney General Phil Weiser

Local support at the highest levels of state government has already begun to crystallize. In a 2025 op-ed, current Colorado Attorney General and candidate for Governor Phil Weiser wrote in favor of Colorado joining The Montana Plan. In a televised debate in June, Weiser stated, “I’ll be the candidate who overturns Citizens United in Colorado”.

When we turn to individual platforms, the candidates who identify campaign finance laws as a major issue have devised a variety of local and state-level solutions.

Jillaire McMillan noted that the systemic issues in Colorado intensified when maximum contribution limits to individual campaigns were capped at $450, while unaffiliated groups were left free to give unlimited sums. The low limit “requires a lot of work to raise the amount of money needed for mailers, cards to leave when knocking doors, online ads, staff salaries, and the other necessary expenses of a campaign,” McMillan wrote. She added that this framework creates a strong incentive for wealthy individuals to self-fund their campaigns, which has no legal limit.

To improve transparency, McMillan suggested investing in a comprehensive overhaul of the Secretary of State’s online Tracer system to create a streamlined, user-friendly portal to track finances. However, she remained candid about voter priorities, noting that while candidates obsess over campaign finance, her potential constituency has other concerns. 

“As I knock doors and connect with voters, they talk to me about affordable housing, the cost of child care, losing their jobs to AI, and their worries about water and clean air,” McMillan wrote.

Anil Pesaramelli wrote that “democracy works best when voters can evaluate messages knowing exactly who is paying for them.”

He stated he would support state-level legislation that reduces outside money “while respecting constitutional protections for political speech”. Specifically, Pesaramelli advocates for the real-time disclosure of major expenditures, clear identification of the original funding sources behind IECs, stronger anti-coordination rules, and clearer disclaimers on political advertisements. If elected, he committed to actively sponsoring or co-sponsoring these transparency reforms as a legislative priority.

Junie Joseph proposed implementing lower contribution limits, faster reporting of political expenditures, and a public matching funds system to amplify small donations. Acknowledging the financial constraints imposed by Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), Joseph suggested a creative workaround. She proposed exploring a state enterprise “funded through a dedicated fee on a service, or a voluntary donation during a government transaction such as a license plate renewal, that could support a public matching fund for elections”. Such public financing has already been successful at the local level through existing municipal fund matching programs in Denver and Boulder. Joseph noted that public financing would empower ordinary working-class individuals and first-time candidates to run for office without needing access to wealthy networks.

Gabriel Cervantes took a direct regulatory stance against outside groups. “I will champion legislation that revokes a corporation’s ability to spend in elections and ban IECs,” Cervantes wrote, describing the execution of this legislation as top of mind. When asked how he would handle a hypothetical $1 million expenditure on his behalf by an IEC, Cervantes admitted his response would depend entirely on the source. Pointing to his own race, he wrote, “over $100,000 has been spent in my district supporting Rep. Phillips and viciously attacking me, so if a labor backed or conservation backed organization were to spend that level of money, it would be responsitory [sic] to the dark money already being spent here”. He stated explicit plans to run legislation modeling the reforms in Montana and Hawaii.

Heidi Henkel in her response to Yellow Scene Magazine focused heavily on reducing ballot barriers, reforming endorsement incentives, and increasing lobbyist transparency. She noted that the high cost of ballot access forces candidates to rely heavily on professional signature gatherers who can charge up to $17 per signature. 

“I’ve often wondered whether candidates could instead collect signatures directly at county offices, reducing reliance on professional signature gatherers,” Henkel wrote.

Henkel also criticized the existing endorsement system, stating that “too often, endorsements function as a form of political currency” where elected officials offer endorsements while simultaneously seeking commitments on future legislative votes. She called for greater transparency by making endorsement questionnaires and responses publicly available, and advocated for stronger disclosure requirements for lobbyists. “Currently, candidates can claim they are not receiving contributions from industries such as oil and gas while accepting donations through lobbyists whose clients are not immediately apparent to the public,” Henkel wrote.

Kenny Nguyen emphasized that the spending by IECs now completely dwarfs the actual spending of grassroots campaigns, turning overnight organizations into multi-million dollar startups that vanish after three weeks. He committed to sponsoring legislation to address dark money, noting his past support for SB26 -168, the legislative caucus transparency bill that died in committee earlier this year. Nguyen argued that, at minimum, IECs should be legally required to publish major donor reports within 24 hours just as individual candidates do, and should be barred from accepting money from nonprofits that do not report their own original donors.

With a federal system locked in partisan gridlock, states like Colorado must work to end the spread of outside money in local elections. Whether through transparency portals, public matching systems, or structural overhauls like the Montana Plan, the future of local corporate influence rests entirely on the willingness of state lawmakers to reform the very systems that put them in power.

John Hickenlooper, Julie Gonzales, Michael Bennet, Melat Kiros, Wanda James, Diana DeGette, Shannon Bird, Manny Rutinel, and Jacque Phillips did not respond to Yellow Scene Magazine’s requests for comment.

Yellow Scene’s 2026 Summer Support Drive is underway with a goal of 1,000 Sustaining Supporters by summer’s end.

For 26 years, we have remained fiercely independent, free from sponsored content and outside editorial influence.

Reader-driven support keeps local journalism unbossed, unbought, and our journalists fed. Become a sustaining supporter for $8/month and get Yellow Scene delivered to your home.

Join the Summer Support Drive and keep local journalism strong.

The post Decoding Dark Money in Colorado Elections appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Correction: An earlier version of Yellow Scene’s 2026 Primary Election Endorsements incorrectly identified Heidi Henkel as the incumbent in House District 33. The incumbent is Rep. Kenny Nguyen. The error was corrected shortly after publication.

Editorial endorsements are a longstanding function of journalism. Yet as media has consolidated and nonprofit restrictions have reshaped the industry, fewer newsrooms continue the practice.

Yellow Scene believes election endorsements remain an important public service. Our editorial board debates the issues, examines policy and records in depth, and does not lightly arrive at endorsement decisions, particularly in closely contested races. This guide focuses on races within Yellow Scene’s Boulder County and North Metro coverage region rather than attempting to cover every contest statewide. Over 26 years, Yellow Scene’s Election Guide has received multiple journalism awards, including three first-place honors, and earned a reputation for asking difficult questions and examining candidates beyond campaign slogans.

U.S. Senate

John Hickenlooper v. Julie Gonzales

The Pick: Julie Gonzales

Julie Gonzales

John Hickenlooper

State Democrats deemed this the most contested statewide race this spring. At the state assembly, activist turned politician Julie Gonzales took home nearly 75% of the delegate share. Gonzales, who has been working in the Colorado Senate since 2018, will face incumbent US Senator John Hickenlooper. While the Hickenlooper campaign leans into terms like “grassroots” and “independent perspective,” his lengthy résumé as the former mayor of Denver, Colorado governor, and current senator tells a different story.

Having taken over $500,000 in AIPAC money, Hickenlooper’s narrative conflicts with his status as a political insider. Some argue Hickenlooper has been unable to meet the political moment, voting with Trump 11% of the time in his first term and saying Democrats need to “select our battles.” In 2020, an ethics committee ruled he violated state law by flying in a donor’s private plane.

Gonzales has decried the war in Gaza, pledged to back antitrust enforcement to break up monopolies, and supported Medicare for all, positions that demonstrate she has the energy and fresh perspectives the party needs.

Governorship

Michael Bennett v. Phil Weiser

The Pick: Phil Weiser

Phil Weiser

This race features two prominent Colorado politicians vying for higher office, starting with Michael Bennet, a former school superintendent turned U.S. senator. During his years in Washington, Bennet has drawn criticism for confirming eight of Donald Trump’s nominees and for his extensive campaign support from major donors and political action committees.

Michael Bennet

He has accepted over $300,000 in AIPAC funds and holds a significant edge in super PAC support. In fact, a May report showed Bennet tallying over $4 million, including substantial “dark money” from undisclosed donors, compared to Weiser’s just over $1 million. Policy-wise, Bennet’s affordability platform caps housing costs at 30% of household income, and he champions a public Medicare option alongside childcare tax credits. However, these are proposals that some progressive Colorado Democrats might view as lukewarm or tepid at best.

In contrast, Phil Weiser enters the race as the state’s former attorney general and one of the few Colorado leaders boasting a rising approval rating. As AG, Weiser built a reputation as a consistent fighter during the Trump administration, taking the federal government to court when it threatened funding for hospitals, Social Security, and Medicare. He has also leaned heavily into consumer protection, returning millions of dollars to Coloradans by taking on corporate landlords, fraudsters, and major pharmaceutical companies.

Attorney General

Hetal Doshi v. Michael Dougherty v. Jena Griswold v. David Seligman

The Pick: David Seligman

David Seligman

Jena Griswold

Jena Griswold, current CO Secretary of State, has leveraged internal polling to claim her campaign is running away with this race. Griswold claims a lack of familiarity with the other candidates is solidifying her position among voters. In her time in office, she attempted to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot and urged the Supreme Court to remove him as president. She is hoping her name recognition and history of standing up to the administration will win her the race.

Michael Dougherty has perhaps the most impressive experience of these candidates. He has a string of high-profile, Colorado DA endorsements. In Manhattan, he led the sex crimes unit at the DA’s office. In Colorado, he developed a DV response team and a vehicular response team. He prosecuted the King Soopers mass shooting and the Boulder Pearl street firebombing.

Michael Dougherty

Dougherty, however, has a lackluster vision for AI, vaguely promising to enact “smart policies” at a time when data centers are contaminating water in states facing droughts. Dougherty has faced harsh criticism for his decision to neither press charges nor launch a criminal investigation into the death of Jeanette Alatorre. Furthermore, he remained silent when the city moved to illegally block access to the body camera footage. While his extensive experience is undeniable, Dougherty’s platform ultimately plays it too safe and misses the vision Colorado needs.

Hetal Doshi

Hetal Doshi is a first-generation American who has been an assistant attorney in CO and a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. Her career has focused on breaking up big tech monopolies and protecting Colorado from Trump’s funding cuts. In Colorado, though she supports investing in “entrepreneurs working in tech,” a position at odds with her previous work against monopolies. Doshi also maintains a stance against oligarchs, a group Seligman has promised to go after. Whereas Seligman’s proposals are comprehensive, Doshi’s are vague.

David Seligman is the director of the nonprofit Towards Justice, which he built to support labor rights. He was the Supreme Court Chair of the Harvard Law Review. Seligman is more of an outsider than the other candidates, and it shows in his policy proposals. He’s focusing on breaking up tech monopolies and holding corporations that exploit workers and drive up housing and healthcare costs accountable, and drive up housing and healthcare costs. Affordability is one of the biggest political issues facing Coloradans, and people need elected officials who will fight for it fiercely.

For that reason, we think that Seligman’s ambition makes him the strongest candidate.

Secretary of State

Jessie Danielson v. Amanda Gonzales

The Pick: Jessie Danielson

Jessie Danielson

As the first Latina and openly queer recorder in Jefferson County, Amanda Gonzalez would certainly bring a fresh voice to the state office. However, in contrast to Danielson, her experience is underwhelming.

Amanda Gonzalez

At her nonprofit, Jessie Danielson helped develop the bills that would become voter modernization acts in Colorado. Appointed by the governor at the time, she expanded mail-in ballots and access for those with disabilities. She also helped codify abortion into Colorado law.

Her track record makes her the best option for Democrats in this race.

Congressional District 1

Diana Degette v. Wanda James v. Melat Kiros

The Pick: Melat Kiros

Melat Kiros

Diana DeGette

This district features three candidates. Diana DeGette, the incumbent, has a great track record on climate but has come under fire for tiptoeing around the war in Gaza, as well as taking corporate money. 

Wanda James

On the other hand, Wanda James built the first Black-owned dispensary in Colorado and serves on the CU Board of Regents. Her campaign focuses heavily on serving Black and Brown communities and peaceful foreign policy. She is, however, in favor of “smart, technology-driven” border security, which is linguistic cover for technologies that harvest biometrics and drive racial profiling. She has a weaker position on combating ICE and supports entrepreneurs like herself. Her withdrawal from assembly and switch to petition also signal a lack of local support.

Melat Kiros is the Democratic Socialist candidate. She is championing the types of policies that have won the mayoral election in New York and have launched Graham Platner into political stardom in Maine. She supports federally subsidizing 30% of all long-term house developments, universal childcare, an end to military aid to Israel, and a zero-emissions US grid.

Democrats who want to see the continued growth of a bolder party with a clear vision for the future should vote for Kiros.

Congressional District 8

Shannon Bird v. Evan Munsing v. Manny Rutinel

The Pick: Shannon Bird

Shannon Bird

Manny Rutinel, a rising star in the party, tore through the assembly process, garnering over 90% of the delegate vote. He is a fresh, young voice whose background as an economist for the Army Corps of Engineers promises to combat Colorado voters’ most important issue: affordability.

Manny Rutinel

Evan Munsing

Evan Munsing also has a military background. The former Marine’s bare-bones platform and lack of vision on immigration suggest that the candidate’s plans may be under-conceived.

Incumbent from the 29th District, Bird was ranked the most effective Colorado lawmaker in the ‘23-’24 term by the independent organization, Center for Effective Lawmaking. She is now running to face off the Gabe Evans, the incumbent in District 8. That effectiveness is reflected in the detailed, clear proposals Bird has made central to her campaign. Of particular note are her detailed pragmatic proposals for restraining ICE. In the same study, Rutinel was ranked 45th out of 50. Bird sponsored 104 bills in 2025, passing bills supporting affordable housing, workers’ rights, and education, among others. Bird was one of 17 subjects of an ethics complaint related to a dark-money-funded 2024 retreat connected to the Opportunity Caucus. The complaint was ultimately dismissed, however, and Bird was neither part of the caucus at the time nor did she attend the event.

Her record makes Bird the choice.

State House District 19

Jillaire McMillan v. Anil Pesaramelli v. Colton Jonjak Plahn

The Pick: Anil Pesaramelli

Anil Pesaramelli

Anil Pesaramelli has taken the traditional approach in this election; he knocked on 4,000 doors, gathering local support and listening to the community about local issues. He is an immigrant and former engineer. He has stood firm during several closely divided 4–3 Erie Town Council votes, challenging the council majority on issues including mineral rights negotiations tied to Draco, housing affordability, and support for local nonprofits and community organizations.

Colton Jonjak Plahn

Colton Jonjak Plahn was a late addition to the ballot in this district. At 25, he would be the youngest state legislator in Colorado. While his idealism and separation from political money and machinery make him an exciting voice, his limited experience weighs heavily in our consideration.

Jillaire McMillan

Jillaire McMillan, a small business owner and community leader, is no slouch either: she ran in 2024 when the incumbent dropped out with only 89 days left and only lost by 110 votes. Her experiences in legislation are limited, and while she states civic engagement, it is Pesaramelli who is hitting the streets.

Pesaramelli’s support for universal healthcare and stronger unions align him more with what the electorate in Colorado desires. McMillan has establishment endorsements without a stronghold of local support.

Pesaramelli is the pick. 

State House District 31

Gabriel Cervantes v. Jacque Phillips

The Pick: Gabriel Cervantes

Gabriel Cervantes

Gabriel Cervantes, a nonprofit cofounder, places a large emphasis on affordable housing, specifically blocking private equity and corporate entities from buying single-family homes. His campaign also promises to explore avenues to prosecute ICE agents overstepping their authority. He supports grants and tax credits for Colorado’s growing senior population, an under-discussed issue in this election. Cervantes also has an endorsement from Julie Gonzales.

Jacque Phillips

Incumbent Jacque Phillips’ platform offers no plan on immigration, vague promises on climate change, and broad references to “high-quality jobs and vocational training.” While her voting record is okay, she is an establishment, smaller-scope candidate whose vision pales beside Cervantes’ ambition.

Our choice is Gabriel Cervantes.

State House District 33

Heidi Henkel v. Kenny Nguyen

The Pick: Heidi Henkel

Heidi Henkel

Henkel has been working for Broomfield since 2007, where she was a teacher and a math tutor. She worked on the Broomfield Resettlement Task Force, helping refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan. Henkel supported Senate Bill 181, legislation born from years of advocacy that returned greater local control over oil and gas development near homes and schools. Henkel also garnered over 60% of the delegate share at assembly.

Incumbent Kenny Nguyen has worked for nonprofits as well as the lieutenant governor in recent years. However, Nguyen brings less experience and a less developed policy platform than Henkel in this district. His platform on climate and workers’ rights lacks specificity, and while his platform mentions immigration, it makes no reference to ICE.

With her focus on affordability, Democrats should be excited to see what Henkel can do in this term.

The post 2026 Colorado Primary Election Endorsements appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

On June 30, Democrats in Colorado will decide who makes the midterm ballot in November. It is another in a string of high-stakes elections in which voters feel their agency diminished. While the process may feel opaque, the state’s unique process offers various ways for candidates and locals to participate.

There are two ways for prospective candidates to reach the democratic primary ballot: assembly and petition. 

Shad Murib

“What I like about Colorado is we give myriad options for candidates,” said Shad Murib, chair of Colorado Democrats, “Colorado increases options to get on the ballot for everybody.” 

Candidates can build a grassroots following during the caucus and assembly process. 

“If you’re someone who is not well known or doesn’t have an established base,” said Carol Burkhart, on her 54th year working at Weld County Democrats, “going through the assembly process is where you develop a name, you pick up volunteers, you pick up donors.” Candidates partaking in assembly must receive more than 30% of the delegate share at each assembly to advance.

Caucuses are the first of three gatherings in the assembly cycle. Any registered democrat can turn up to the precinct caucus in their area. Typically of smaller attendance, delegates are selected based on their views and the candidates they say they will vote for at the assemblies. Delegates advance from precinct caucus to county assembly and then state assembly, where their votes determine which candidates advance to the primary ballot.

In 2022, Colorado Democrats changed the caucus process. Traditionally, Democrats voted in a preference poll at caucus, electing delegates to go on to assembly for key races. Preference polls now occur at county assembly, seemingly stripping the caucus of its utility. 

“It was to make it easier on counties to have fewer items to keep track of throughout the process and kind of winnow down the delegate field,” Murib said. “It’s not necessarily a decision that I supported.” 

The state party chooses the highest-contested race to poll for. In 2026, it was the state Senate race in which Julie Gonzalez received overwhelming support.

Without polling, the work at the caucus seems paltry to some Dems. Calls abound for shedding the caucus altogether, in favor of a leaner system straight to the primary, a structure many states have already adopted. 

Murib, however, values Colorado’s rare setup, “I maintain that our hybrid model is worth defending because it builds strong and resilient campaigns for the general election.” 

Without a caucus, essential democratic work, deciding who will be a delegate, electing judges and precinct organizers, gathering ideas for the party platform, would vanish.

Additionally, some have floated ending the caucus for what they view as an inherently exclusionary structure. It is conducted in person, on the weekend, in March and April. They argue that the system by nature, alienates those working weekends, full-time caregivers, and others unable to travel to be in person.

Petition candidates can acquire verified signatures from their constituents, between 500 and 1500 per congressional district. They then only need 10% of the delegate vote at the assembly to make the ballot. Some speculate that candidates will pivot to petition due to fear of their delegate turnout at the assembly. This is how incumbent senator John Hickenlooper will appear in 2026, after dropping out of the assembly process on March 13. Theoretically, candidates acquire signatures by knocking on doors, but some petitioners hire private firms to do it for them, with costs estimated anywhere from $15-$60 per signature.

This year, many incumbents have relied on the petition method, using their wealth and established support for a method requiring fewer delegate votes to advance. Meanwhile upstart, political outsiders have exercised the assembly process, condemning the establishment’s status quo and weaponizing populist sentiment.

“I always say the best campaigns are the ones who both go through the caucus process and the petition process,” Murib said, “you can build the strongest campaign that’s ready to win when you go through both.”

In counties like Boulder, at the caucus, Democrats choose who will represent them as delegates in the further assemblies. In Weld, everyone who wants to be a delegate gets to go to the county assembly. These policies belie the criticisms that the process is only for political “insiders.” Of people who cry foul that the process is only for elites, Murib said “join us and help us make it better.”

Ansel Barnes, an electrician in Erie, participated in his first caucus this year, continuing to garner votes that sent him all the way to the state assembly, where he fulfilled his promise to those who sent him there: voting for progressives. “I will be going to push out incumbents,” he said, “to put in new people who run clean campaigns.” He described himself as a “populist” and said that his youth (he’s 30) inspired support amongst the typically aging demographic patronizing local politics.

Barnes recalled that at the state assembly on March 28, there were 127 delegates from Boulder County. He said some delegates went in with an uncommitted designation for races, opting to choose on the day from candidate presentations. Delegate fidelity remains an open-ended aspect of the process.

“There’s no guarantee that they’re going to vote for the person they pledged to,” said Andrew Nicla, communications manager at Colorado State Dems.

Barnes was particularly interested in the race for State House District 19 between Anil Pesaramelli and Jillaire McMillan. The race exemplified a perceived fissure in the party. To Barnes, McMillan’s endorsements from establishment Dems raised concern. Pesaramelli, on the other hand, represented “people who are actually doing the work.” At the state assembly, both received above the 30% vote threshold and will be on the ballot in June.

Some counties, like Weld, hosted their first in-person assemblies since 2018. Burkhart said the supply of local Dems hoping to be delegates has never been higher, “it is a happy problem to have when you have more people who want to run as delegates to higher assemblies than you have places for them.” Colorado Democrats used AirTable, a digital voting platform, for the first time, which crashed under the weight of traffic at Weld. The new system overloaded at their March 21st assembly, resulting in the county having to email ballots out, delaying the results until the following Monday.

Like many things of our electoral system, Colorado’s is a process whose structure sometimes obscures the will of its participants. Evidence of its inconvenience confirms to some what they have long suspected, a belief that’s infiltrated much of modern politics: that the system is unfair, that it benefits the ruling class, that the odds are stacked against real people. They cite the weakening of the caucus, cumbersome steps, and feeling like the process is only for those who already have a seat at the table.

Inconvenience, however, does not equate to malice. The mixture of candidates and the party platform is as progressive as it’s ever been. Many candidates have arrived on the ballot from the ground up. A publicly-funded healthcare system being a highlight, the party has leaned into other popular progressive policies like establishing a Department of Economic Justice to redistribute wealth. Colorado Democrats say “justice is the destination,” of their platform.

While the party may be at what Murib described as a “crossroads,” the themes liberals care about remain the same. Equitable taxation, humane immigration policy, and preserving democracy unite Democrats in Colorado. “I don’t think it’s actually that divided,” Murib said, “we all care about the same things.” The party said they doubled total turnout and tripled youth turnout this year. One in four delegates, they said, were under forty. 

The evolution of the Colorado Democratic party mirrors that of the party writ-large, one desperate for new leadership and running out of time in their fight against a surging authoritarian right. A split between career politicians and populist outsiders has furthered an identity crisis some argue the awkward nature of Colorado’s system exacerbates. This same system, however, will have as many progressives on the ballot as in recent memory, and hasn’t cushioned incumbents. Colorado’s structure still values local beginnings, with a clear path for neighborhood democrats, whether they be candidates or delegates, to work their way from caucus all the way up to the primary ballot. 

In today’s corporate world, finding true, honest journalism is getting harder, and that includes local news, too. From corporate takeovers to the nonprofit industry, finding reporters willing to ask the hard questions seems like a thing of the past.

Which is why Yellow Scene remains fiercely independent and never, ever accepts quid pro quo. We are only beholden to our readers, not funders.

The truth is, we really cannot do this without you. If you value our journalism, become a sustaining supporter for $8 a month. Your support keeps honest reporting alive and gets the hard copy delivered to your home.

The post The Primary Filter: Colorado’s Shifting Caucus System appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Phil Caragol says his newest book will attempt to bring his two clashing identities together. “This [book] shows a different side of me. And for people who went to CU, they’ll get some real first-hand account of what it was like to go to CU and live in Boulder in the first half of the 1970’s.”

There’s the local celebrity, “Buffalo Phil,” a viking-helmeted CU fanatic. And then there’s Caragol the writer, now stepping into the spotlight with the publication of his memoir-in-vignettes, “The Blunder Years.” Reconciling those two personas wasn’t easy. At times when he looked in the mirror and saw his black and gold beard, his beer koozies, and eye makeup, it was difficult for him to feel like a ‘real’ writer. “I asked myself at one point, is this a good look for a serious author?” he laughed.

The book darts from his childhood on Long Island through Boulder’s hippie heyday to the beginning of his ad-man years in New York City. Written in short, skit-like buzrsts, the style mirrors the “scatterbrained” label teachers once gave him. In it, Caragol recalls the national unity he felt as a child cracking after JFK’s assassination, and how the upheavals of the ’60s echo the uncertainty of today.

His first attempt at writing, a sprawling dystopian thriller, collapsed under its own weight. “I got maybe about a third of the way through and there were so many subplots, so many characters that I just got tangled up in it,” he said. “I stepped back and I said, okay. Mark Twain once said, ‘write what you know’. What do I know? I know what it was like growing up.”  

That decision gave him both purpose and momentum. “Our lives are so serious right now,” he said. “My readers helped me […] to realize that people are remembering how to laugh again when they read this book.”

Caragol has been making people laugh since his ad-agency days in New York and San Francisco. He once launched The San Francisco Comicle, an absurdist annual parody of city life that ran for 15 years and even landed him on the local evening news. After three decades in big cities, he and his wife Susie returned to Boulder, her long-promised reward after his 25-year “urban tour.”

What he found upon his return was a town very different from the “magical” Boulder of the 1970s. “Everybody got along,” he said, “we were accountable. We were responsible. I think it may have been a bubble.” Today, he worries about congestion, sameness, and less room for civil dialogue.

Even with his worries, he still thinks that Boulder County has much to offer, “Culture, check. Creativity, check. Those major careers, check. And work-life balance, check, check, check, check, check.”

Even as Buffalo Phil, he’s kept his independence, politely rejecting CU’s invitations to make him an official mascot. He wants to keep his own schedule and engage with the team on his own terms with a beer in hand. “I’m indie,” he said.

Caragol hopes his October 22 Boulder Bookstore reading can help fuse his twin personas permanently; the crazed buffs fan with a dyed beard and the satirist with the sharp eye and alligator grin.

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.

The post “Buffalo Phil” Caragol: From CU Superfan to Memoirist appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.