Summary#

SB 168, Transparency of Legislative Caucuses’ Money, would add a new section to the Colorado Revised Statutes; it would not amend an existing section. Its stated goal is to make money handled by legislative caucuses more transparent. The bill failed and is not law.

• It would define a legislative caucus as two or more legislators organized around a common interest, ideology, issue, identity, or any other reason, if they handle money other than their own private, personal money. Some committees and commissions are excluded.
• A member of each caucus would have to file a report every three months listing money and items the caucus received, accepted, or spent. A caucus with no activity would have to file a no-activity report.
• For money received or accepted, reports would have to list the donor’s name and address, the amount, and the date. Legislative Council Staff would have to remove donor addresses before posting reports publicly.
• A person providing an item to a caucus would have to give the caucus a written statement of the item’s dollar value when providing it. The caucus would have to provide contact information and promptly update it.

What it means for you#

• Legislators and caucuses: Each caucus would have a member responsible for filing reports on set quarterly dates and keeping the caucus’s contact information current. The reporting requirements would cover money and items handled by the caucus, not legislators’ own private, personal money.
• Donors and people providing items: A donor’s name and the amount and date of a money contribution would be reported publicly; the donor’s address would be redacted. A person providing an item would have to supply its dollar value in writing.
• The public: Reports would be posted on a publicly accessible General Assembly website. The bill does not create fines or specify another enforcement process for missed or inaccurate reports.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• Legislative Council Staff would have to set the reporting method, receive reports, and post them publicly. The bill gives no staffing or cost estimate.
• Caucuses would have reporting and contact-information duties, and people providing items would have to give written value statements. The bill does not estimate those costs.
• If it had passed, the bill was set to apply to actions and money or items handled on or after October 1, 2026.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not define what counts as an “item” or set a method for valuing one.
• It does not spell out what details reports must include about items, beyond requiring reports to list items and requiring providers to state their dollar value.
• Legislative Council Staff would prescribe the reporting method, but the bill does not set out the form or explain how errors or missed reports would be handled.
• The definition of a caucus is broad, including groups organized “for any other reason”; the bill does not explain how to determine whether a group falls within it.
• The bill does not provide a penalty or enforcement process for non-compliance.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that the public would get regular reports about money and items handled by legislative caucuses.
• Requiring donor names and contribution amounts to be reported could make financial support more visible, while redacting home or mailing addresses would limit the personal information published.
• Requiring no-activity reports could help distinguish caucuses with no reported activity from those that did not file.

Case against#

• The bill does not state how its reporting duties would be enforced or what would happen after a missed or inaccurate filing.
• The broad caucus definition could leave groups uncertain about whether they must report.
• The bill leaves key reporting details, including how items are described and valued, to later instructions from Legislative Council Staff.
• Requiring a donor’s name and contribution amount to be public could affect donors’ privacy, even though addresses would be removed.