"Coloradans for Coloradans" Funding Neither For Nor By Coloradans

Opposition Group 99% Bankrolled by Big Money from Corporations, Insurance Industry

Denver, CO - The first campaign finance reports of the election year drew a stark contrast between the "people over profits" campaign in support of ColoradoCare, Amendment 69, and the corporate insurance industry interests that are lining up to defeat it. 

If contributions equated to votes, Amendment 69 would pass with 98.64% of the vote, based on the campaign finance reporting of ColoradoCareYES and the opposition group Coloradans for Coloradans.  Of the 1,108 contributions both campaigns received from registered voters in Colorado, 1,093 of them were in support of ColoradoCareYES as opposed to 15 for the opposition.

"Unfortunately for the inaptly named Coloradans for Coloradans, their fundraising reflects the character of the corporate insurance industry whose grip on health care they are trying to defend," said Owen Perkins, Director of Communications for ColoradoCare.  "To preserve a status quo that puts profits first and prioritizes eight-figure CEO salaries over the well-being of patients, Coloradans for Coloradans collected 99.85% of their funds from corporations." 

Industry giants like the Ohio-based Anthem contributed up to a half a million dollars apiece to protect their interests and defeat Amendment 69, while actual individuals accounted for only $1,640 raised.

By contrast, 99.75% of ColoradoCareYES's contributions were from individuals, with 94% of the money raised coming from within Colorado. 

While the opposition may crow about a 7-to-1 advantage in fundraising, ColoradoCareYES is proud to have 40 times as many donations as Coloradans for Coloradans, and an 80-to-1 advantage in contributions from individuals. 

"Corporations certainly can attempt to buy elections with big money, but campaigns remain in the hands of voters," said Senator Irene Aguilar, MD, one of the measure's chief architects. "The source of the campaign contributions reinforces what residents of our state have acknowledged from the start: the outside interests funding the opposition campaign are looking out for corporate profits, not for Coloradans."

In addition to $500,000 from Anthem (Ohio), the opposition was bankrolled by other industry interests,  including SCL Health, ($100,000), Davita, ($75,000, Washington State), and Cigna Health and Life Insurance ($40,000, Pennsylvania).  They also received $50,000 each from the oil and gas industry and building contractors.

If Amendment 69 passes on the November ballot, the insurance industry will no longer dominate the discussion and dictate the decisions patients and their providers should be making regarding individual health care.  ColoradoCare - a nonprofit, independent cooperative owned by and answerable to the residents of Colorado -- will eliminate premiums to the insurance industry, do away with deductibles, and provide primary and preventive care without co-pays.  By making every Coloradan a member of the pool and a beneficiary of the plan, ColoradoCare will achieve true universal health care while saving the residents thousands of dollars a year for a collective $4.5 billion in savings.

Funding of Support and Opposition for Amendment 69 (ColoradoCare)
for reporting period 1/1/2016 - 4/27/2016


"Coloradans for Coloradans"
Number of Contributions 1,214 29
% Donations from Corporations 0.25% 99.85%
% Donations from Individuals 99.75% 0.15%
% Funds Raised from Colorado 94% 38%
Average Donation $126.61 $35,642

ColoradoCareYES spokespeople Senator Irene Aguilar, MD and T.R. Reid are available for interviews.  For more information on ColoradoCare and Amendment 69, visit ColoradoCare.org.

Source:  ColoradoCareYES Press Release, 5/3/2016

Showing 17 comments

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
Secured Via NationBuilder
  • Jay Satterfield
    commented 2016-10-10 06:56:18 -0600
    And by the way we have privatized many roads and prisons and the most significant are charter schools that continue to make substantial gains for its students over the failing public education system.
  • Ray Swanson
    commented 2016-10-09 09:28:18 -0600
    And by the way, if the for profit businesses and corporations do so much better, then we should privatize the police, fire departments, roads, schools, libraries, national and state parks, all prisons, FAA, etc.
  • Ray Swanson
    commented 2016-10-09 09:24:37 -0600
    Can it really get any worse?
  • Jay Satterfield
    commented 2016-10-09 06:59:12 -0600
    Obviously we disagree on the ability of government to take care of its citizens. It’s not “the state” running health care? This amendment of our state constitution, if passed, provides for health care. It creates a different group who are accountable to citizens. But what special interests will vie to select and elect these people. Will these interests have our citizens best interests in mind? The reality is that our state governments are a little better than the federal government, but that is not saying much. Our federal government is completely broken! If you like government run health care, think of Obama Care and our Veterans health care system. They are both working wonderfully.? You ask what we have to lose. Creating another broken government program that won’t work but can’t get rid of it and bankrupting our state.
  • Ray Swanson
    commented 2016-10-08 09:07:46 -0600
    And, in any case, how much worse could it get? What is in place is not working. We are the only “developed” nation that does not consider basic health care a right. Instead we are the only one in which profit is the overriding objective. The result is that we spend at least twice as much per capita on heath care for average or worse outcomes. We are the only “developed” nation where many people die or are forced into bankruptcy because they cannot afford health care. And it ain’t getter better! What the hell do we have to lose by trying something different? And, similar solutions are already in place, tried and proven, in many other countries.
  • Ray Swanson
    commented 2016-10-08 08:53:38 -0600
    It’s not “the state.” It is 21 elected reps, three of which will be from your area. They will be responsible to you and other voters only. Very much like a credit union is set up.
  • Jay Satterfield
    commented 2016-10-08 08:02:09 -0600
    What makes you think that the state will or can do a better job. It is a common practice in socialized medicine to ration health care.
  • Ray Swanson
    commented 2016-10-07 17:41:39 -0600
    Ok. Trust your insurance companies. They’ve proven to be reliable, ethical and only looking out for what is best for their policy holders.
  • Jay Satterfield
    commented 2016-10-07 16:53:43 -0600
    Where are the exemptions in the text of the law? If they are not there, then there will be none.
  • Ray Swanson
    commented 2016-10-07 12:07:04 -0600
    The payroll tax will be applied from the first dollar earned. The non-payroll tax starts after the exemptions you clarified. Many, maybe most seniors will pay less than they currently pay for their Medicare supplements. And the lower income seniors will not have to pay at all, yet still get the supplemental coverage from ColoradoCares. Good deal for most seniors and a great deal for most everyone else.
  • Jay Satterfield
    commented 2016-10-07 10:43:38 -0600
    Virtually all of retirees’ income is non-payroll. Why should the 10% burden be levied against them?
  • Ray Swanson
    commented 2016-10-07 08:42:18 -0600
    Employers will pay 6.67% tax on payroll, thus totaling 10% when combined with the employee payroll tax.
  • Jay Satterfield
    commented 2016-10-07 07:25:52 -0600
    Ray Swanson refers to a $60k exemption for joint filers on non-payroll income or retirement income. Unfortunately this is only mentioned in the analysis of Amendment 69 not the text of it. The text is what will be enacted and thus what will be law. Why is non-payroll taxed at 10% and payroll at 3.33%?
  • Ray Swanson
    commented 2016-10-06 19:07:44 -0600
    I am on Medicare as well, but I will be happy to pay 10% of our TAXABLE (see line 43 of IRS form 1040) income over $60k-$75k (~$30k for singles). In return ColoradoCares will replace my AARP Medicare supplement plans. Not only that, but ColoradoCares will be even better for our children. It will be a major help for them, as well as any future grandkids we may have. That is even more important than the impact on my budget, which I believe will be favorable anyway. I will vote YES for ColoradoCares. Wish I could vote multiple times.
  • Jay Satterfield
    commented 2016-10-06 17:24:40 -0600
    I am similar to Charles Rollman. I am retired and on Medicare. As I understand I will be paying 10% of my retirement income to support all other residents not on Medicare. Count me as a no and one who will be donating to Coloradans for Coloradans.
  • Charles Rollman
    commented 2016-09-17 16:05:40 -0600
    Frankly, in this case, I appreciate the support of the ‘big corporations’.
    I will be retired shortly. I’ve paid into Medicare all my life. I’ve also saved carefully for retirement using my IRA and my 401K plans. Once I retire I will be covered by Medicare. I have no need, nor do I want, ColoradoCare coverage, yet a huge chunk will be taken from my retirement savings by the new tax imposed by ColoradoCare. There is no way I will vote for this thing. If it passes, I’ll likely move to another state where I will be treated more fairly.
  • Ray Swanson
    commented 2016-09-08 20:14:56 -0600
    Yes, Mister Tanner, read the amendment. Those 21 “non-elected” board members are INTERIM directors until the election. Also consider the NEVER elected directors and CEOs of insurance companies deciding if you live, die or declare bankruptcy attempting to live in spite of their profit motives.