Can Your Political Consultant Work for Your Opponent? This Bill Says No.

The Bottom Line

Have you ever wondered what stops a political consultant from working for two opposing candidates at the same time? Currently, the answer in Colorado is practically nothing. This legislation would force campaign strategists to get written permission before playing both sides of the fence or sharing your confidential campaign data with a rival, making them legally liable in civil court if they go rogue.

What This Bill Actually Does

Unlike attorneys, accountants, or real estate brokers, political campaign consultants operate in a professional space with very few statutory guardrails. There is no state licensing board that forbids a strategist from representing conflicting interests, which can lead to a bizarre reality: a consultant could theoretically work for a candidate, gain access to their internal polling and vulnerabilities, and simultaneously cash a check from a political action committee actively opposing that same candidate. HB26-1137 aims to change that by legally establishing a basic baseline of professional loyalty for anyone paid to run a political campaign in Colorado.

The bill specifically prohibits campaign consultants and consulting firms from knowingly engaging in three major ethical breaches. First, they cannot represent an interest adverse to their client without first getting written consent after fully disclosing the conflict. Second, they cannot provide consulting services to opposing candidates in the exact same election without written consent from both sides. Finally—and perhaps most importantly—they are banned from taking confidential information gained during their work for one candidate and disclosing it to an opposing candidate for material benefit. If a consultant violates these rules, the legislation does not rely on a state government agency to punish them; instead, it creates a civil cause of action, giving the wronged candidate the right to take them to district court to seek injunctions, punitive damages, and attorney fees.

To ensure this doesn't accidentally sweep up every business that interacts with a campaign, the bill strictly defines what counts as campaign consulting. It covers professional services like developing strategy, managing staff, organizing events, opposition research, fundraising, and purchasing media. However, it explicitly exempts traditional vendors who provide tangible goods (like the print shop making your yard signs), as well as attorneys providing only legal advice, accountants doing only financial compliance, and pollsters who are strictly hired to conduct polls rather than advise on the broader campaign strategy.

What It Means for You

If you are an ordinary Colorado voter, this bill addresses a fundamental issue of trust in the democratic process. When elections feel like insider games where a handful of powerful consulting firms are pulling the strings for multiple sides of a race, it breeds cynicism. By putting a legal framework in place, this legislation tries to ensure that when a candidate steps up to run for office, they aren't being quietly undermined by their own hired help splitting resources with the opposition.

But this really hits home if you are one of the thousands of Coloradans who step into the political arena to run for a local office—whether that is your local school board, city council, or county commission. Grassroots candidates usually aren't professional politicians; they rely heavily on the expertise of consultants to navigate the complex world of campaign finance, messaging, and voter targeting. When you hire someone, you hand over your campaign's vulnerabilities, your donor lists, and your internal strategies. Under this bill, starting January 1, 2027, you would have legal recourse. If you discover your strategist took your internal data and sold it to your opponent, or if they are secretly running a shadow campaign against you for another client, you can take them to district court for compensatory and punitive damages.

It is worth noting that this legislation doesn't completely forbid a consultant from working for opposing sides—it just makes it illegal to do so in the dark. If a strategist wants to represent two candidates running for the same seat, they have to lay their cards on the table, disclose the conflict fully, and get a signature from both of you. It shifts the power back to the candidate, allowing you to make an informed decision about who you are trusting with your campaign funds and your political future. The bill even extends this protection to individuals seeking federal public office within the state, meaning congressional candidates would be afforded these same state-level protections.

What It Means for Your Business

If you operate a public relations agency, a marketing firm, or a dedicated political consulting shop in Colorado, this bill represents a significant shift in your compliance and liability landscape. You don't have to call yourself a "political consultant" to fall under the authority of this legislation. Because the bill broadly defines campaign consulting to include coordinating media buys, organizing publicity events, conducting opposition research, or participating in campaign management, traditional PR and communications firms that occasionally take on political clients during an election cycle will be fully subject to these new rules.

To prepare for these changes, consulting firms will need to fundamentally update how they handle client intake and internal data management. If your firm has multiple partners or account managers, you need robust conflict-check systems in place before signing a new political client. For example, if Account Manager A is running digital ads for a mayoral candidate, and Account Manager B signs a contract to do debate prep for a rival candidate in that same race, your firm is in violation of state law unless you have drafted rock-solid conflict-of-interest disclosures and obtained written consent from both camps. You will also need to review your standard client service agreements to clearly define what constitutes confidential information, as the bill bases its non-disclosure protections entirely on the definitions agreed upon in your contracts.

Fortunately, there are clear safe harbors if your business only touches the periphery of a campaign. If you own a commercial printing business supplying banners, you are exempt under the tangible goods carve-out. Similarly, CPAs handling campaign finance reporting and lawyers offering strict legal counsel are carved out. But for those squarely in the consulting space, the introduction of a civil cause of action means the stakes are much higher. A disgruntled former client could sue your firm for punitive damages and attorney fees if they feel you misused their data to help an opponent. Firms will likely need to consult with their legal counsel to ensure their information firewalls are legally defensible and should review their professional liability insurance policies to see how they cover statutory breaches of campaign ethics.

Follow the Money

From a taxpayer perspective, this legislation is highly efficient because it does not create a new regulatory board or require the state to hire investigators to police campaign consultants. Instead, it relies on a self-policing mechanism by allowing aggrieved candidates to file civil lawsuits directly in their local district courts. Because the state isn't funding an enforcement apparatus, the fiscal impact on the state budget is virtually zero.

The only notable financial shift involves the judicial system. The state anticipates a minimal increase in court workload and a corresponding slight bump in state revenue from civil court filing fees when candidates actually sue their consultants. These filing fees are subject to the TABOR (Taxpayer's Bill of Rights) revenue limit, but given the relatively narrow scope of the bill and the high barrier to filing a lawsuit, the volume of cases is expected to be low enough that the financial footprint on local courts and state coffers will be negligible.

Where This Bill Stands

HB26-1137 is currently In Committee. The latest official action came on 03/10/2026: House Third Reading Lost - No Amendments.

That means the bill is still in the committee stage, and it is currently sitting in the State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs. To keep moving, it would need to clear committee and then survive floor votes in both chambers.