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.

“800-pound gorilla”

Kent Thiry is a wealthy Coloradan looking to fundamentally change the way elections are held in the state. Thiry has poured millions into different Colorado ballot initiatives over the years, including the passage of the state’s open primaries and the reimagining of the previous redistricting process. 

While Thiry is officially registered as an independent voter and has stated publicly to be a defender of democracy, his large financial contributions to local and state politics have raised questions about the fairness of money in politics. 

“I’m passionate about democracy,” he told The Colorado Sun.

Thiry was CEO of Colorado’s largest kidney care company from 1999 to 2019, he also served as the executive chairman of the board of directors for DaVita from June 2019 until May 2020.

During his time as an executive, Thiry became highly involved with politics, contributing financially to ballot measures in both Colorado and California. Between 2016 and 2018 Thiry supported four different ballot measures regarding redistricting and open primaries, all of which passed.

Both of these wins were made through the help of organizations at which Thiry either founded himself or held leadership positions. He and his company spent $2.5 million to help pass Propositions 107 and 108, the 2016 ballot measures that opened the door for independents to vote in party primaries. Nearly all the $2.5 million came from Thiry himself.

Like Thiry, other healthcare executives have made it their personal mission to pour millions into ballot initiatives, which are only allowed in about half the states. Thiry has given at least $6.9 million to Colorado ballot measures from 2011.

Overall, those in the health industry have spent more on ballot measures in Colorado than in any other state except Missouri and California, according to data from the National Institute on Money in Politics, and that’s largely due to Thiry.

“He really has become the 800-pound gorilla of the ballot initiative process in Colorado,” Josh Penry, a Republican campaign strategist who has worked with Thiry, told the Denver Post. “He wields more power in an informal way than virtually all the elected officials if you look at the impact he’s had.”

Thiry’s only political loss was a ballot measure that required dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients or patients’ payers for revenue above 115 percent of the costs of direct patient care and healthcare improvements. As of November 2023, Thiry had donated $6.7 million to state and local candidates and ballot measure committees in Colorado.

DeVita headquarters in Denver. Photo by SportsGuy789 via Wikimedia commons

DaVita, accusations and settlements

In 2015, Thiry’s dialysis company, DaVita, paid $495 million in a whistleblower settlement where the company was accused of defrauding the federal Medicare program. The suit was filed in 2011 when  Dr. Alon J. Vainer and Nurse Daniel D. Barbir noticed that DaVita was throwing out medicine that was still usable and billing Medicare and Medicaid for it.

Apart from the Vainer and Barbir case, DaVita settled two other whistleblower lawsuits. This includes a $55 million settlement in 2012 concerning double billing for the anemia drug Epogen and a $389 million settlement in 2009 related to kickbacks provided to kidney doctors for patient referrals. Additionally, DaVita paid $22 million to settle associated claims across five states.

“Health care providers should generate business by offering their patients superior quality services or more convenient options, not by entering into contractual agreements designed to induce physicians to provide referrals,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Jonathan F. Olin said of the kickback case.

DaVita has also been involved in legal disputes related to labor practices and employment issues. In 2017, the company settled a class-action lawsuit to the tune of $383.5 million filed by current and former employees alleging violations of wage and hour laws, including failure to pay overtime and provide meal and rest breaks.

And if you thought things couldn’t get any worse, a federal jury ordered the dialysis company to pay $383.5 million to families in a 2018 wrongful death suit. According to the lawsuit, three patients Irma Menchaca, Gary Saldana, and Deborah Hardin all suffered cardiac arrest and died after receiving treatment from DaVita centers. 

In 2022 Thiry and DaVita were acquitted of federal charges of suppressing competition within the healthcare sector. The charges came when federal prosecutors accused DaVita and Thiry of committing antitrust violations when they made agreements with competitors to not hire each other’s employees.

Antitrust laws aim to curb unlawful mergers and business practices that hinge on the formation of monopolies. While Thiry and DaVita were not found guilty of breaking antitrust laws they did engage in practices that severely limited the mobility of their employees from seeking employment with competitors.

Citizen United, nation divided

Until 2017, Thiry was a registered Republican, he gave financial contributions to the presidential campaigns of Republican candidates such as Mitt Romney and John McCain along with state and federal candidates from either party. Thiry has also contributed to several political action committees including Fairness Frontier PAC, Unite America, and the Shared Purpose Super PAC. 

Since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the prevalence of PACs and Super PACs has increased tremendously. Controversy surrounding PACs and Super PACs stems from concerns about the disproportionate influence of money in politics, exacerbated by the lack of transparency in campaign finance. 

The Supreme Court. Photo credit: Adam Szuscik via Unsplash

Critics argue that these groups enable wealthy individuals and special interests to exert undue influence over elections and policy outcomes, potentially leading to corruption or the appearance thereof. This influence undermines democratic principles by prioritizing the interests of wealthy donors over those of ordinary citizens, eroding public trust in the political system and creating the perception that politicians are beholden to the highest bidder rather than accountable to the electorate.

These same criticisms could be applied to a single individual funneling millions of dollars into local politics in an effort to transform the way elections are held. Not only that but the newest ballot measure Thiry is supporting, Senate Bill 101 is facing startlingly similar criticism that it would turn Colorado’s ballot access process into a “pay-to-play system” by completely replacing the state’s assembly and caucus system with signature gathering.

Critics argue that signature gathering bypasses the grassroots involvement and community engagement inherent in the caucus and assembly process. The caucus system allows ordinary party members to have a direct voice in selecting candidates, whereas signature gathering relies more heavily on paid signature collectors and fundraising efforts, potentially excluding those without financial resources.

Signature gathering typically requires significant financial resources to hire paid collectors and fund the campaign. This can disproportionately favor candidates with access to wealth or support from special interest groups, undermining the democratic principle of equal representation and opening the door to undue influence by wealthy individuals or organizations.

“Only the wealthy millionaires and billionaires and self-funders would have access to elected office in Colorado,” Colorado Democratic Party Chairman Shad Murib warned The Sun, last year.

For reference, in her bid for the position of Republican secretary of state candidate, Pam Anderson expended over $121,000 in efforts to gather the requisite 8,000 voter signatures required for her candidacy to be included on the ballot in 2022.

Rep. David Ortiz, a Littleton Democrat is also concerned that Thiry’s proposal would make getting on the Colorado ballot more difficult for wheelchair users like himself. Ortiz who was injured in an Army helicopter crash in Afghanistan says that signature collection requires going door to door or standing outside for long periods in public spaces which might not always be accessible.

Aiming higher

One theory of Thiry’s critics is that this newest ballot measure is part of a larger bid for the Governor’s office, though he and his team have denied any plans for a future campaign. By advocating for sweeping changes to the state’s election process, such as replacing grassroots involvement with signature gathering, Thiry may be laying the groundwork for a gubernatorial campaign, leveraging his wealth and political connections to shape the political environment in his favor. 

But replacing the current assembly and caucus isn’t the only thing the ballot measure could change. The bill would adjust the rules regarding when candidates can start gathering petition signatures and who can sign these petitions. Furthermore, the bill would adopt an open primary system in which unaffiliated voters could participate via ranked-choice voting. 

Other states have switched to open primaries with ranked-choice voting like that in Alaska. Open primaries with a four-candidate general election could weaken the power of both Democrats and Republicans, making ranked choice a favorite among those who’ve grown weary of the two-party system. 

Photo credit: Harold Mendoze (Unsplash)

Thiry’s significant financial involvement in Colorado politics, combined with the controversies surrounding his business practices and legal entanglements, has raised serious questions about the fairness and integrity of money in politics.

Currently, he has approximately 64 ballot initiatives he is working on getting on the ballot. He has withdrawn some since starting. YS will be working on a list of all of the proposed ballot initiatives once the dust settles.

His leadership at DaVita was marked by a focus on corporate profitability and efficiency in some cases over the lives of his patients. DaVita, under the leadership of Thiry, engaged in considerably anti-labor practices and in more than one case fought against fair and equal access to healthcare. 

Thiry’s emphasis on corporate interests and profit maximization, coupled with his resistance to certain regulatory measures, reflects a business mindset more in line with conservative values than the independent or nonpartisan persona he presents publicly. While Thiry touts that he is a staunch lover of democracy, his contributions to various political action committees and expensive self-funded campaigns to overturn the state’s election process have left some rightfully concerned. 

However, not every initiative Thiry has supported has been a detriment to democracy. Thiry presents an interesting dichotomy of a man who will support measures to increase the fairness of our electoral process but does so in a way that weakens it. Whether you support the measures Thiry is pushing in Colorado or not, it is hard to ignore the shadowy millionaire behind them.

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.

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 Kent Thiry: Democracy Defender or Real-Life Monopoly Man? appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Standing Rock changed my life. I had no idea what was in store when a group of us connected through  social media, and packed two vehicles full of food and supplies, loaded up in a two-car caravan, and headed to the  Dakota’s.

In spite of the mainstream media, the conditions left were not as reported.

There were hundreds of people still in Standing Rock as of this morning. They have asked for more time to clear the final elements of camp (contrary to reports, it is not piles of trash, and the majority of donations have been moved. What is left are the structures built to house this resistance). They are forcibly removing people now. They removed all media except the two Morton County Sheriff approved. They broke the hip of one Media member who was showing no resistance and instead filming. He was rushed by the police, after they broke his hip. The protestors were peaceful, the police not so much.

The head of the Energy Transfer Partners was  quoted as using the slur,’ dirty Indians.’ Maybe because of, or despite, the spin large, powerful conglomerates chose to use, I support this Movement. I would ask people to question why this resistance is taking place.

Many want it to be one-dimensional, but it is not. It may have started from DAPL choosing to move the pipeline from Bismarck (as residents of Bismarck were worried about their water) to the reservation but it has become much bigger. Years of broken promises, years of oppression, years of fossil fuels dominating our wars and land, years of loss of freedoms to corporate monopolies have resulted in Standing Rock. Tho abused harshly through this resistance, Water Protectors have remained peaceful and in prayer. This is not just a fight for a piece of land but a fight for us as citizens to have our government serve the people.

Currently, O&G is pushing multiple legislative bills written to silence those exercising their First Amendment rights-through at many states (several are up here in Colorado, for which I have posted about), to silence and imprison those who ask for clean energy. This shows the depth of what our government has become. (www.snopes.com/lawmakers-criminalize-peaceful-protest)

Citizens United has all but eliminated individual rights and granted sovereignty to corporate business, even if it costs lives through wars, the prison industrial complex, and supremacy.

America should be better than this. Most care about healthy drinking water, clean air,  equal opportunity and, a large number care when businesses are profiting from others suffering. We care about being a fair and just nation seeking to make the world better for all, not just a small few.

Water is life, and Standing Rock is people demanding we stop the injustice and corruption through peaceful resistance.

For additional live streaming:
Democracy and Class Struggle
Unicorn Riot
Digital Smoke Signals

Native Nations March on Denver; March 10, 2017

The post Standing Rock is more than a one-dimensional fight appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.