HB26-1137 creates a new set of ethical and disclosure rules for people and firms that provide campaign consulting services in Colorado. The bill defines “campaign consulting” broadly to include strategy, campaign management, staff coordination, events, polling, opposition research, media coordination, fundraising-related activities, and other political activities. It also defines who counts as a campaign consultant, while excluding vendors of tangible goods, attorneys, accountants, pollsters, and treasurers when they are only performing their ordinary professional duties.
Under the bill, a consultant or consulting firm could not knowingly represent an interest adverse to a client without written consent after full disclosure, could not work for opposing candidates in the same election without written consent from both candidates after full disclosure, and could not disclose confidential information gained through prior campaign work in order to benefit an opposing candidate. The bill also allows an aggrieved person to bring a civil lawsuit for alleged violations and seek injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, filing fees, costs, and other appropriate relief. The act would apply to campaign consulting services on or after January 1, 2027, and would take effect after the normal referendum period unless referred to voters.
The bill would add a new Part 6 to Article 6 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, thereby creating a statutory framework specifically governing campaign consultants and consulting firms. It would extend the definition of “candidate” to include individuals seeking federal public office in Colorado, so the new rules would reach campaign consulting connected to both state and federal races in the state. In practical terms, the measure would impose conflict-of-interest and confidentiality obligations on a profession that is not currently regulated in this way under Colorado law.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of the measure’s purpose: the legislative declaration says campaign consultants should not take on competing clients without consent and that the public interest is served by ethical requirements meant to keep elections fair. However, the bill’s final action shows it did not advance in the House, as it lost on third reading. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of floor debate or bipartisan support/opposition beyond the bill’s failure to pass.
The main point of contention is likely the scope and enforceability of the restrictions, especially the prohibition on representing opposing candidates in the same election and the private right of action allowing damages and attorney fees. Those provisions could be seen as protecting candidates from conflicts of interest and misuse of confidential information, but also as potentially burdensome for political consultants and consulting firms that work in a small, interconnected industry. The bill’s broad definition of campaign consulting and its inclusion of federal candidates in Colorado may also have raised concerns about how far the new rules would reach.
The bill would add new statutory ethics and conflict-of-interest rules for campaign consultants and consulting firms in Colorado by creating Part 6 of Article 6 of Title 24. It would prohibit certain dual representations and misuse of confidential campaign information, and it would authorize civil enforcement through lawsuits brought by aggrieved persons. The measure would affect campaign consultants, consulting firms, candidates, and potentially political campaigns in both state and federal elections held in Colorado, while expressly excluding certain service providers such as attorneys, accountants, pollsters, treasurers, and ordinary vendors.
The bill’s stated purpose is strongly supportive of regulating campaign consulting to protect fairness, client loyalty, and confidentiality in elections. The legislative declaration frames the measure as a public-interest ethics reform for a profession that can influence campaign outcomes. At the same time, the bill did not survive third reading in the House, suggesting that despite its stated policy goals, it did not secure enough support to pass. No transcripts or vote breakdowns were provided, so the record does not show specific arguments for or against the bill beyond its failure to advance.
Likely points of contention include whether campaign consultants should be treated like other regulated professionals with conflict-of-interest duties, whether the bill’s restrictions on representing opposing candidates are too broad, and whether a private civil cause of action with damages and attorney fees is appropriate. Consultants and firms may object that the bill could limit business flexibility and create litigation risk, while supporters would likely argue that it prevents divided loyalties and protects confidential campaign strategy. The inclusion of federal candidates in the definition of candidate and the broad reach of “campaign consulting” may also have been debated as potentially overinclusive.