Does it seem at all peculiar to you that a smallish group of rich guys are spending a big chunk of money — $9 million-plus so far, with another million or so in the bank — to present Colorado with the gift of voting reform?
Is it too cynical of me to ask what these people actually expect for their money?
Is it too, uh, rich that in these days when the corrupting presence of big money is by far the greatest problem in politics, wealthy influencers — led by multimillionaire and former CEO of dialysis giant DaVita, Kent Thiry — have come up with the plan to reorganize Colorado’s election system?
Maybe it’s just me, and maybe I’ve become too jaded, but my biggest worry about Colorado’s Proposition 131 — which would dramatically change the way the election system works in the state — is that it would actually open the door wider for big money, and especially dark money, to play an even greater role in politics.
It isn’t that parts of Prop 131 aren’t appealing, even if they tend to be, as critics contend, more than a little confusing. I like, in principle, the idea of ranked choice voting. And as for the concept of a top-four, all-candidate jungle primary, which would reduce the influence of the major political parties, let’s just say I have no great love for America’s present two-party system, which has left us in a state of semi-permanent stasis.
And it isn’t that Thiry — who has championed open primaries in Colorado and other reforms that have greatly benefited voters — isn’t a true believer in election reform, although I am less convinced about the other millionaires supporting the change.
The truth is, I have fewer issues with the actual mechanics of Prop 131 — although some of them are still mostly untested, and voting practices would differ depending on the race — than with a concern over how big money, which isn’t addressed at all in this new reform, could be used to exploit the changes.
Want early access to
Mike’s columns?
Subscribe to get an
exclusive first look at
his columns twice a week.
Thiry argues that there are too many noncompetitive races in the state in districts dominated by one party or the other (true) and that Prop 131 would help make these races more competitive (unproven). He also argues that the Democratic and Republican parties are too much influenced by extremes (far more true of Republicans, of course) and that Prop 131 would somehow moderate that extremism (again, entirely unproven).
In what I guess passes for political irony, Thiry actually has made the best argument for reform with his constant big-money gaming of the system, which he now wants to change.
If you’ll recall, in the last moments of the June primary election, Thiry dumped more than $1 million into a handful of races, backing moderate candidates against so-called extremists — meaning those who are more liberal or more conservative than Thiry would like, anyway. His handpicked candidates in the 13 races — eight of them in Democratic primaries — were, to no one’s surprise, mostly successful.
There’s little reason to believe that under the proposed new system, Thiry and other rich guys wouldn’t continue to have outsize influence in picking winners and losers. There’s certainly nothing in Prop 131 to block the influence of big money or to change it in any way.
Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that money and speech were basically the same thing, thereby loosening or outright banning many restrictions on campaign financing, the influence of big money, which has been a factor for as long as there have been elections, has only grown.
I recently caught up with Sen. Michael Bennet, who opposes Prop 131, on the campaign trail, where he is out in support of fellow Democrats. He says that in his tours of Colorado, the topic almost never comes up.
And he worries that there has been so little debate about what would be such a fundamental change.
“Money is the biggest problem in our politics,” Bennet said. “It threatens our constitutional notion of one person, one vote. And since Citizens United, the avalanche of dark money that has invaded our politics has increased dramatically.”
And he said he fears that Prop 131 — which proposes a system that exists statewide only in Alaska, where it did help to defeat Sarah Palin, but where there’s currently a ballot measure to remove it — is an unproven system that would lead to a greater influence of dark money.
“Why dismantle Colorado’s world-class system election system on a theory that has not been remotely proven? Why not try it in some state with a broken system?” Bennet said.
“From what I can see, the people most likely to benefit (from Prop 131) would be those with unrestricted sources of dark money. And if we do change our system and it doesn’t work as they say it would, we may never be able to change it back again. It’s only on the ballot because of a handful of wealthy people who are willing to spend $10 million. Imagine trying to raise $10 million, on $10 contributions, to overturn it.”
The thing is, if you don’t understand quite how Prop 131 would work, you’re not alone. I’m sure that most voters are unclear on this, which can’t be a surprise. Bennet is right: With the deluge of campaign ads in favor of 131, there has been remarkably little debate about it. That’s hardly a surprise. A group called Voter Rights Colorado, which is the principal group opposing 131, has only raised something like $125,000.
(By the way, there was a terrific debate on Prop 131 at the Colorado Sun’s Sunfest between Thiry and Colorado Democratic Party state chair Shad Murib, who opposes it. You can check it out on the Sun’s YouTube channel. You might also want to try this explainer, which breaks it all down.)
Most of the debate that we’ve seen has been among politicians — not voters. Gov. Jared Polis and Sen. Hickenlooper support it. The mayors of Colorado’s three largest cities support it. The Democratic and Republican parties oppose it. Rep. Diana DeGette opposes it. Progressive politicians, in general, oppose it. Many county clerks, who would have to implement the system, also oppose it.
And the state legislature passed a last-minute, poison-pill bill that would delay implementation — possibly indefinitely — of Prop 131. And Polis, despite his support for 131, unaccountably signed it.
People are rightly frustrated with politics today. Who isn’t? And they want change. Who doesn’t?
But mostly untested change, on a wide-ranging scale, brought to you — and bought for you — by a bunch of millionaires? Is that really what Colorado wants? I guess we’ll find out on Election Day.
Editor’s note: The Thiry-O’Leary Foundation, which is run by the family of Kent Thiry and his wife, Denise O’Leary, is a financial supporter of The Colorado Sun, but has no say in editorial decisions.
Mike Littwin has been a columnist for too many years to count. He has covered Dr. J, four presidential inaugurations, six national conventions and countless brain-numbing speeches in the New Hampshire and Iowa snow. Sign up for Mike’s newsletter.
The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at [email protected].
Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.
Link to original article