DENVER – GOP opposition to a bill passed in the final hours of the 2026 Colorado legislative session around tax dollars going to non-profits stirred up a pot of anger and controversy among Democrat legislators tied to organizations that stood to benefit. So much so that one state senator pledged to pursue restriction next session prohibiting sitting lawmakers from profiting on taxpayer’s money.
House Bill 26-1274, sponsored by Democrat Representatives Monica Duran from Jefferson County and Mandy Lindsay from Arapahoe County and carried in the Senate by Democrats Katie Wallace of Boulder and Mike Weissman of Adams County, changed the way non-profits can collect a portion of state grant money in the future.
But amendments offered in the Senate by Byron Pelton (R-Sterling), caused Sen. Julie Gonzales (D-Denver) to lash out at both Pelton and Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer (D-Brighton) on the Senate floor. Her criticism initially worked, as 13 of her colleagues – many of whom also work for non-profits — voted against an amendment that would not allow sitting legislators or their family members to benefit from the bill.
The background
Currently, when a non-profit in Colorado is awarded state-funded grant money, the organization must ask for reimbursement after the expenditures the grant supports are made. However, HB-1274, changed that so that non-profits can now ask for an advance on up to 25 percent of the funding immediately following execution of the contract.
Pelton did not believe that was appropriate for the numerous legislators who work for or run non-profits, so he introduced an amendment to exclude them from the new law.
All it said is that we can’t do that,” Pelton said. “It just offered transparency to what we do.”
That amendment was presented on second reading where pass/fail is done by voice vote. The chair at the time, Sen. Jeff Bridges (D-Denver) ruled the amendment failed, which Pelton wasn’t buying, so he brought it back to the committee of the whole (COW), where a recorded vote is required. This time it passed with, with Sen. Gonzales taking a “17C,” which is a way to ask for and excusal from voting, usually for a conflict of interest.
Gonzales is the co-founder of the Colorado Latino Forum, a non-profit. Her husband is also involved in Latino non-profits in the Denver area.
While the amendment passed, 13 of Gonzales’ colleagues still voted openly to oppose it, many with ties to non-profits. Those included: Matt Ball, Adrienne Benavidez, James Coleman (who makes his living writing grants for large nonprofits), Lisa Cutter (founding member of March On, and board member of Women’s Bean Project, Doll for Daughters, Underwearness, Season for Non Violence, and the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure), Jessie Danielson (America Votes, NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, Connections for Independent Living, Emerge Colorado, and ProgressNow Colorado), Nick Hinrichsen, Iman Jodeh (Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, and founder of Meet the Middle East), Cathy Kipp, Chris Kolker, Robert Rodriguez, Tom Sullivan (Colorado Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations), Katie Wallace, and Mike Weissman – all Democrats.
However, between second and third readings, Pelton said he talked it over with folks and adjusted the amendment to pertain only to elected officials and not their families.
“I just realized that it wasn’t really fair if (someone’s child) wanted to work for a non-profit that they should have to abide by this simply because their mom or dad was a legislator.”
Although the bill’s sponsor was happy with the change, it didn’t please Gonzales, who took to the well to criticize both Pelton and Kirkmeyer.
“This is about transparency,” Pelton said. “There has been a lot of news stories about folks here in the legislature taking money from (non-governmental organizations), and this is one of those things here where we don’t want to give that extra money in advance.”
Gonzales asked why Pelton felt that a member of the legislature being an employee, officer, director, contractor or paid consultant of the grantee is the appropriate narrowing of the bill’s focus, taking exception to the “officer” language.
“The last time I checked on our annual disclosures that we already file on an annual basis to disclose our memberships as candidates and as elected officials, is that not already transparency enough,” Gonzales asked. “Why punish a nonprofit organization under which you may serve as an officer.”
Conflict of interest
Kirkmeyer raised another issue with the bill.
“How about conflict of interest, “she said. “If you are receiving in any capacity dollar amounts from where you actually work as well, the General Assembly, something you may have voted on, or I don’t know maybe you passed legislation that created a grant program, and now you are taking advantage of that, I would think that is a huge conflict of interest, and in my mind an ethical problem.”
Kirkmeyer pointed out that this was simply about advance payments, not reimbursement.
Pelton agreed, adding it was about making sure they were not doing anything that appeared to be improper or illegal.
The amendment passed with Gonzales taking another 17C excusal after Weissman told the chamber the bill was better with the new amendment.
Pelton, however, told Complete Colorado that the amendment didn’t go far enough and he plans to introduce a bill next year that will prohibit any legislator from taking compensation from a non-profit.
“We should not be voting on things that we are benefiting from, especially with taxpayers dollar that are being sent to nonprofits,” Pelton said.
