TRACER provides fuller picture of campaign contributions

Dear Editor,

A recent Daily Sentinel article described a “shake-up” in the District 51 School Board election and noted that the Mesa Valley Education Association (MVEA) made what it called a “substantial” contribution of $5,000 each to the winning candidates: Kaci Cole; Vicki Woods; and Mike Rathbone. That statement is accurate – but incomplete.

Colorado’s campaign-finance system is built on disclosure, not simplicity. To understand the scale of organized support in this election, voters must look beyond a single headline number and examine the public filings in the Secretary of State’s TRACER database.

TRACER exists so that citizens can see not just whether money was spent, but how, by whom and in what form. When those filings are reviewed together – cash contributions, in-kind support and independent expenditures – a much fuller picture emerges.

Start with the local union. According to TRACER filings, the MVEA provided $15,543.40 in combined cash and in-kind contributions across the three campaigns (TRACER; Mesa Valley Education Association SDC). These figures include direct contributions as well as nonmonetary support such as campaign flyers, production and postage.

Next, look to the state level. The Colorado Education Association (CEA) and related committees reported $50,834.99 in combined cash and in-kind support connected to the same candidates (TRACER; Public Education Committee). Multiple committees list the same physical address – 1500 Grant Street, Denver – a fact plainly visible in public filings and relevant for understanding how closely aligned various organizations are.

Then, there is the independent expenditure activity.

“Students Deserve Better,” registered as an Independent Expenditure Committee (IEC), reported more than $121,000 in expenditures during the reporting period for mailers, digital advertising and voter outreach (TRACER; 48-hour IEC reports). Payments were made to professional political firms, including Mission Control Inc. and Battleaxe Digital, companies routinely used in large-scale, professionally managed campaigns (TRACER; Transparency USA).

IEC spending is legally separate from candidate committees, but it is not invisible. The filings show that the same IEC both promoted Cole, Woods and Rathbone and opposed their opponents, sometimes within the same reporting window (TRACER expenditure descriptions).

When aggregated – local union support, state-level union support and IEC expenditures aligned with the same candidates – the total exceeds $164,800 in cash and in-kind political spending connected to this election (TRACER summaries; Transparency USA data through 6/30/2025).

This matters because Colorado law limits how much a candidate committee may receive, currently $25,000 per candidate, but it does not limit how much influence can be generated when spending flows through multiple legally distinct entities. The law regulates form, not effect.

During the campaign, questions about union support also arose outside the formal question-and-answer portion of public forums. Following one such event, a teacher asked candidate Vicki Woods directly how much money the teachers union had contributed to her campaign. Woods responded, “I don’t have to tell you that.”

While candidates are not required to provide dollar amounts in informal exchanges, they do have a responsibility to understand the financial support being spent on their behalf. Campaign contributions and in-kind expenditures do not appear in TRACER automatically; they are entered, itemized and certified by campaign representatives. Whether spending is welcomed, underestimated or later described as excessive, candidates who benefit from it are expected to know what is being reported in their name.

All of this activity appears to comply with campaign-finance law. But compliance is not the same as ethical clarity. Laws determine what is permitted, not what is appropriate. Systems can be designed so that influence is diffused, responsibility is blurred, and accountability is technically satisfied while public understanding is not.

Voters are not unreasonable to ask whether a system that allows six-figure spending in local school board races — while public discussion centers on a single $5,000 check — truly serves transparency.

Every figure cited here is publicly available. Anyone can follow the same trail by searching TRACER, committee by committee, line by line. A trip down TRACER lane does not require suspicion – only attention, arithmetic and the willingness to distinguish between what is legal and what is right.

How to Look This Up Yourself (TRACER in 5 Minutes):

1. Go to the Colorado Secretary of State’s TRACER website.
2. Search by candidate name to view direct cash and in-kind contributions.
3. Click on linked committees to see who funded them.
4. Search for Independent Expenditure Committees active in the same race.
5. Review 48-hour notices and itemized expenditures to see timing, vendors and purpose.
6. Add cash, in-kind and IEC spending together to understand total influence – not just one headline number.

–CynDee Skalla, Fruita  

– Kirby Richardson, Grand Junction