Colorado could soon establish a statewide limit on donations made to candidates in local elections, if a new bill is passed into law.

House Bill 1245 would cap donations from individuals at $250 and donations from small-donor committees at $2,500 in municipal elections, among other requirements.

The bill cleared its first vote Monday in the House State, Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee.

Bill sponsor Rep. Jennifer Parenti, D-erie, said the bill is intended to decrease the role of money in local elections, restricting the influence of wealthy individual donors and encouraging candidates to connect with more people in the community.

“Over the past several election cycles, we have seen a disturbing trend in the amount of money pouring into our local elections,” Parenti said of her district.

“I can tell you it is having a negative impact on the atmosphere in our community, well beyond the end of election season. ... I hope to get in front of this before it becomes a problem for more town across our state.”

Some critics counter that the bill’s provisions are “excessive and unworkable,” calling the measure an administrative burden.

Local elections in many Colorado cities have gotten increasingly expensive in recent years.

Even with the city’s contribution limits, the candidates in Denver’s current mayoral race have raised $5.3 million through the end of February, compared with the 2019 race, which saw only $4.6 million raised in the election and runoff.

In Colorado Springs — a city without caps — developers, business interests and outside groups have heavily backed certain candidates in the upcoming April 4 election. Defend Colorado, a nonprofit that

does not have to disclose its donors, has given $300,000 to two committees backing City Councilman Wayne Williams for mayor. At the same time, a committee backed by a Denver-based business called Stand Against Monopolies has put $100,000 into ads blasting Williams.

Denver and Colorado Springs are home rule cities. Because Denver has its campaign donation limits, HB 1245 would not apply to the city. However, there is some question about whether the bill would apply to Colorado Springs despite being home rule, since it doesn’t have its own limits.

Elizabeth Steele with the nonprofit Colorado Common Cause said even if HB 1245 doesn’t apply to all cities, it will make a difference in leveling the playing field for voters and candidates. Steele said it will increase the value of support from everyday citizens, and make it easier for candidates who aren’t independently wealthy to run for office.

“HB 1245 might not address some of the issues we are reading about related to money in the mayoral races in Denver and Colorado Springs … but it will address other important contests throughout the state where large money interests can easily outspend and out-speak the voices of ordinary citizens,” Steele said.

The bill is backed by several groups, including America Votes, New Era Colorado and the League of Women Voters of Colorado.

Other organizations oppose the bill, such as the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, Colorado Municipal Clerks Association, Colorado Municipal League and city of Colorado Springs.

Karen Goldman with the Colorado Municipal Clerks Association said most clerks “don’t really care” about the donation caps. Instead, she raised concerns about other elements of the bill intended to increase transparency in campaign contributions, calling the proposed changes “excessive and unworkable.”

Goldman objects to a provision in the bill that requires campaign contribution reports to be kept on file for 10 years — up from the current one-year requirement.

“While some municipalities are up to date with digital records, we have a lot of very, very small municipalities that don’t have the staff, the capacity or the capability to keep those digitally,” Goldman said. “It’s going to be a question of where you keep them, how you keep them.”

Other opponents criticized the bill for requiring the campaign contribution reports to be made available to the public free of charge, and for adding earlier filing deadlines. As drafted, the bill requires candidates to report their contributions 90 days, 60 days, 30 days and 15 days before an election, and 30 days after an election. The earliest report now is due 21 days before an election.

While proponents said these provisions are in the best interest of the public, helping to inform voters on where candidates are getting their money, opponents described them as an administrative burden.

Parenti amended the bill Monday to remove the first reporting deadline 90 days prior to an election and to clarify that, even though the reports must be publicly available without charge, the municipal offices can choose how they’re made available. For example, keeping a printout in a box in the office or uploading scans onto a public website.

Other amendments exempted towns with populations below 1,000 from adhering to the new filing schedule, and removed a part of the bill that would have prohibited political parties from contributing to candidates in local elections, limiting them to $250 instead.

Heather Stauffer with the Colorado Municipal League said the amendments are good, but they don’t “fully get to our concerns.”

The bill ultimately passed the committee in a 6-3 vote, with all Democrats voting “yes” and all Republicans voting “no.”

Rep. Ken Degraaf, R-colorado Springs, said he supports limiting money and increasing transparency in local elections, but voted against the bill “as a placeholder for the concerns that have been raised.”

The bill will next face the full House for a vote in the coming weeks.