ECIElection Campaign-Finance Index

Colorado's complete repeal of the contribution-limit section via statutory amendment (L. 2000) explicitly establishes in statute the absence of contribution limits. This satisfies CONT.1 because the jurisdiction's framework—absence of limits—is codified in statute rather than left to administrative discretion. Both left-leaning and right-leaning scholars would agree that a statutory repeal creates clear, procedurally-grounded policy, regardless of their views on whether such limits should exist.

“L. 2000: Entire section repealed, p. 129, § 12, effective March 15.”

The section provides comprehensive statutory codification of independent-expenditure rules, including registration requirements (§ 1-45-107.5(3)(a), timing (two business days), threshold ($1,000), disclosure of entity information (§ 1-45-107.5(3)(b)), and donor-reporting requirements (§ 1-45-107.5(4)(b)). These procedural elements are enumerated in statute rather than delegated to administrative discretion, satisfying the criterion's demand for statutory grounding of IE frameworks.

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly defines two disclosure thresholds in statutory text: (1) $1,000 for independent expenditure registration and reporting, and (2) $250 for donor-name disclosure. Both are enumerated directly in C.R.S. § 1-45-107.5(3)(a) and (4)(b), establishing clear statutory rather than regulatory authority for the disclosure obligation.

No matching sections in corpus.

Section 1-45-107.5(4)(b)(II) explicitly requires disclosure of donor name and address (from (I)), plus occupation and employer for natural persons donating over $250 per calendar year. This satisfies the full-identity requirement under DISC.3 for contributors above the statutory threshold, with clear statutory enumeration of all required identity fields.

Colorado law statutorily mandates that reports electronically filed must be made available 'immediately' on the secretary of state's website, establishing a defined timeline and a mandatory online public-access requirement. The statute explicitly requires electronic filing capability and immediate online publication, satisfying the procedural-clarity requirement for timely public access to filings.

The statute codifies multiple civil penalties with specified dollar amounts for distinct violations: $50/day for general filing failures, up to $500/day for repeated independent expenditure committee reporting failures, and up to $1,000/day for knowing and intentional repeated failures. Additional penalties are prescribed in subsections (c.5) and (1.5) for disclosure violations. The section provides clear statutory grounding for civil enforcement; no criminal penalties are enumerated in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1-45-109 addresses filing locations, timeliness, public access, and website requirements for campaign finance reports. It does not establish or describe an enforcement body, its appointment process, or protections from political control. The section mentions penalty appeals to 'the appropriate officer' but provides no detail on that officer's appointment, independence, or insulation from in-cycle political pressure. Procedural clarity regarding enforcement-body independence is entirely absent from this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1-40-118 concerns petition-signature verification and protest procedures in the context of ballot initiatives; it does not address campaign finance violations or establish a private right of action for such violations. The section deals with procedural mechanisms for challenging petition sufficiency, not with enforcement of contribution limits, disclosure rules, or other campaign-finance requirements. No statutory private right of action for campaign-finance violations is present in this text.

The statute clearly prohibits foreign sources from making independent expenditures and bars independent expenditure committees from knowingly accepting foreign donations. However, the section does not address direct contributions to candidate committees or campaign committees themselves—it addresses only independent expenditures and independent expenditure committees. The statute thus addresses foreign-source restrictions for one class of political spending but leaves the prohibition on direct candidate-committee contributions potentially unaddressed in this particular section.