Campaign Finance
What Does the Record Show?
Campaign finance is one area where voters can examine something other than campaign promises: the public record of contributions, expenditures, required filings, complaints and enforcement actions.
The Colorado Secretary of State maintains those records through its TRACER campaign-finance system.
A review of the current TRACER records for the gubernatorial candidates shows that the candidates do not all have the same campaign-finance history.
Some have open matters. Some have closed complaints. Some have late filings or other compliance issues. Others currently show no complaints or penalties in the state database.
There is an important distinction, however:
The presence of a complaint does not establish a violation. An open matter is not a finding of wrongdoing. Penalties and settlements are reported separately from allegations, and late filings are not equivalent to prohibited contributions.
That distinction matters because a campaign-finance complaint is an allegation submitted to the state election system. The existence of the complaint tells voters that someone has raised an issue for the Secretary of State to consider. It does not, by itself, establish that the candidate or campaign violated Colorado law.
So what does the current record show?
Victor Marx - Open Complaints and Penalties
Republican candidate Victor Marx has the most extensive campaign-finance enforcement record among the candidates reviewed.
The TRACER record currently lists multiple open complaints involving alleged prohibited contributions and expenditures, as well as late-filing matters involving the Marx campaign. One current complaint, for example, alleges a prohibited contribution; the case remains open and has been subject to a rescheduled hearing.
The Marx campaign also has open late-filing penalties listed in TRACER, including a September 8, 2026 report and a major-contributor report.
Separately, the Marx campaign has already been the subject of a significant campaign-finance enforcement proceeding involving contributions that the state determined violated Colorado campaign-finance requirements.
Earlier reporting documented more than 140 complaints filed against the Marx campaign, many of which were consolidated because they involved similar allegations. Colorado Politics reported that the state Elections Division moved the matter into the investigation/hearing process after determining that the campaign had not substantially complied with efforts to cure the alleged violations.
The important point is that the open complaints and the completed enforcement action are separate matters.
An open complaint remains an allegation until the state reaches a disposition.
Phil Weiser - Two Current Complaints, No Current Penalty Listed
Democratic candidate Phil Weiser's TRACER record presents a different situation.
The Secretary of State currently lists two open complaints against the Phil Weiser for Colorado committee.
Both were filed in September 2026 by Danielle Neuschwanger and both concern alleged prohibited contributions. The cases are identified as ED2026-97 and ED2026-98 and are currently listed as Open.
Weiser's record also contains a 2025 complaint alleging an incomplete or inaccurate filing, but that matter is listed as Closed.
Most importantly, the TRACER record currently states:
“No penalties found.”
That means the two current complaints should not be described as established campaign-finance violations.
They are allegations that remain open in the state system.
The eventual disposition could provide additional information, including whether the complaints are dismissed, resolved through a correction, result in a settlement, or result in an enforcement finding.
At this point, the public record establishes the existence of the complaints — not their outcome.
Greg Lopez - Current Complaint Closed; No Penalty Listed
Unaffiliated candidate Greg Lopez also has campaign-finance complaints in the TRACER record.
A September 10, 2026 complaint against Greg Lopez for Colorado alleged an inaccurate or incomplete filing. The Secretary of State currently lists that complaint as Closed.
His TRACER record also contains an older 2018 complaint alleging a violation of Colorado campaign-finance law. That complaint is also listed as Closed.
The current record states “No penalties found.”
Therefore, the appropriate description is not that Lopez currently faces a campaign-finance violation.
The accurate description is that his campaign has had complaints filed against it, including one during the 2026 campaign, and those matters are currently listed as closed without a penalty appearing in the current TRACER penalty section.
Erik Underwood - Late-Filing Matters, No Complaints Listed
Approval Voting Party candidate Erik Underwood presents another example of why campaign-finance records need to be described carefully.
TRACER currently lists three late-filing matters involving the Underwood campaign.
The May 18, 2026 late filing was waived.
The August 3 filing is listed as an open late-filing matter with a waiver requested.
The September 21 filing is also listed as an open late-filing matter.
At the same time, the TRACER record states:
“No complaints found.”
A late filing is a compliance issue involving the timing of a required report.
It is not the same thing as an allegation that a campaign accepted an illegal contribution or made a prohibited expenditure.
That distinction is worth preserving.
Eric Mulder - No Complaints or Penalties Currently Listed
Libertarian candidate Eric Mulder's current TRACER record shows a different picture.
His campaign has filed its recent required reports, including the October 6 report, which was filed September 30 — before its October 6 due date.
The TRACER record currently states:
“No penalties found.”
It also states:
“No complaints found.”
That does not mean that no question could ever be raised about the campaign.
It means that, in the Colorado Secretary of State's current TRACER record reviewed for this article, there is no listed campaign-finance complaint or penalty.
Stephen Hamilton - Late-Filing and Personal Financial Disclosure Matters
American Constitution Party candidate Stephen T. Hamilton also has compliance matters listed in TRACER.
His campaign committee, Pro-Growth Colorado, has three open late-filing matters involving reports due May 4, May 18 and June 1, 2026. Each shows that a waiver was requested and each remains listed as Open in the current record.
TRACER also lists an open Late PFD matter involving Hamilton's personal financial disclosure.
The campaign-finance complaint section, however, states:
“No complaints found.”
Again, the distinction is important.
The state record shows compliance matters involving filing deadlines and a personal financial disclosure. It does not currently show a campaign-finance complaint against Hamilton.
Jeff Peckman - Record Requires Additional Verification
Unity Party candidate Jeff Peckman is also on the November gubernatorial ballot.
The available election records identify Peckman as one of the seven candidates running for governor.
However, a current TRACER candidate-detail record for Peckman was not located through the Secretary of State's searchable public results available for this review.
That means the responsible approach is not to assume that no complaints or penalties exist.
Absence of a record found through a search is not the same thing as a verified finding that no record exists.
For that reason, this article does not characterize Peckman's campaign-finance history beyond what can currently be established from the available records.
That is less dramatic than filling the gap with an assumption, but considerably more useful to readers.
What Does the Comparison Actually Show?
The current public record produces several different categories of campaign-finance activity.
Victor Marx has open complaints and open late-filing matters, in addition to a significant completed campaign-finance enforcement action.
Phil Weiser has two open complaints alleging prohibited contributions, but TRACER currently lists no penalties against his campaign.
Greg Lopez has complaints in the historical record, including a 2026 complaint that is now closed, but no current penalty is listed.
Erik Underwood has open late-filing matters but no complaints listed.
Eric Mulder currently has neither complaints nor penalties listed in TRACER.
Stephen Hamilton has open late-filing and personal financial disclosure matters but no campaign-finance complaints listed.
Jeff Peckman's campaign-finance record requires additional verification before making a factual claim about whether complaints or penalties exist.
Who Filed the Complaints?
There is another piece of information that is important when examining the campaign-finance records: complaints are filed by individuals or organizations, not necessarily by the Colorado Secretary of State.
The identity and background of the complainant do not establish whether an allegation is valid. However, they provide relevant context for understanding how a complaint came to the attention of the Elections Division.
Two individuals are particularly relevant to the complaints involving candidates in this year's gubernatorial race.
Darcy Schoening and the Victor Marx Complaints
The campaign-finance complaints involving Republican candidate Victor Marx were filed predominantly by Darcy Schoening.
Schoening previously ran as a Republican candidate for Colorado House District 20 in 2022. Her Colorado Secretary of State TRACER record identifies her as the candidate and shows that her campaign committee is now terminated.
Schoening later served as the Colorado Republican Party's Director of Special Initiatives. In 2025, she was also a candidate for Colorado Republican Party chair.
According to the Colorado Secretary of State records and reporting on the subsequent investigation, Schoening filed 109 campaign-finance complaints against the Marx campaign on May 8, 2026. She filed additional complaints afterward, bringing the total to more than 140. The Elections Division described the volume and manner of filing as “atypical.”
The complaints concerned alleged campaign-finance violations, including prohibited contributions. Many of the complaints were subsequently consolidated because they involved similar allegations.
The significance of the number of complaints should be kept separate from the merits of the allegations. The volume demonstrates that the Marx campaign received an unusually high level of scrutiny from one complainant. It does not, by itself, establish that the complaints were either justified or unjustified.
In Marx's case, however, the matter subsequently moved beyond the complaints themselves. The Colorado Elections Division conducted an administrative enforcement proceeding, which ultimately resulted in a final finding of campaign-finance violations and a penalty.
Danielle Neuschwanger and the Phil Weiser and Greg Lopez Complaints
Danielle Neuschwanger is another politically active complainant appearing in the 2026 gubernatorial campaign-finance records.
The Colorado Secretary of State's historical election database shows Neuschwanger was a candidate for governor in the 2022 general election as the American Constitution Party candidate.
Neuschwanger is the complainant listed on both of the current campaign-finance complaints against Democratic candidate Phil Weiser. TRACER identifies the complaints as ED2026-97 and ED2026-98, filed September 8 and September 10, respectively. Both allege prohibited contributions and remain listed as Open.
Neuschwanger also filed the September 10, 2026 complaint against unaffiliated candidate Greg Lopez. That complaint, ED2026-99, alleged an inaccurate or incomplete filing and is currently listed as Closed. Lopez's TRACER record also lists an older 2018 campaign-finance complaint, filed by Nicholas Jay Oliva, which is likewise closed. The current record lists “No penalties found.”
The fact that Neuschwanger previously ran for governor is relevant background when describing who initiated the current complaints. It does not establish that the complaints were politically motivated, nor does it establish that the allegations were incorrect.
Why the Complainant Matters - and Why the Complaint Still Has to Stand on Its Own
The identity of a complainant can provide useful context, particularly when the complainant has a political history or has directed an unusually large number of complaints at a particular campaign.
At the same time, the identity of the complainant does not determine the merits of the allegation.
A complaint is an allegation submitted for review. The Colorado Secretary of State's Elections Division determines whether the matter warrants further action, and an administrative proceeding can ultimately determine whether violations occurred.
The Marx case demonstrates the distinction. The initial complaints came from Schoening, but the eventual enforcement action was conducted by the Elections Division and resulted in findings against the Marx campaign. The fact that the original complaints came from a political participant does not eliminate the state's independent role in determining what happened.
The same principle applies to the current Weiser complaints and the closed Lopez complaint.
For voters, the useful question is therefore not simply who filed the complaint?
It is:
What did the complainant allege?
What evidence supported the allegation?
What did the Elections Division do with it?
What is the current status of the matter?
Why Does This Matter?
Campaign-finance laws exist to establish rules governing how candidates raise and report money.
But the enforcement process matters just as much as the rules themselves.
A complaint is an allegation.
An investigation determines whether there is a factual or legal issue requiring further action.
A settlement resolves a matter without necessarily being equivalent to a litigated finding.
A penalty is an enforcement action.
A late filing concerns compliance with a reporting deadline.
Those categories should not be collapsed into one label such as “campaign-finance violation.”
Doing so would give readers an inaccurate picture of what actually happened.
The Colorado Secretary of State's TRACER system provides the underlying public record, allowing voters to examine the filings and enforcement history themselves.
And there is another important limitation: a clean record today does not guarantee a clean record tomorrow. Campaign-finance reporting continues throughout the election cycle, and additional complaints or penalties can be filed or resolved before and after Election Day.
For Colorado voters, the useful question is therefore not simply:
“Which candidate has complaints?”
The better question is:
“What exactly was alleged, what happened to the matter, and has the state actually made a finding or imposed a penalty?”
That distinction allows voters to examine the record without turning an allegation into a conclusion.
Colorado's seven gubernatorial candidates are asking voters to place them in charge of state government.
Their campaign-finance records are one part of the public record voters can examine before casting a ballot.
Sources: Colorado Secretary of State TRACER campaign-finance records and current election records. Secondary news sources are identified where used to provide context concerning enforcement proceedings.
#Colorado Politics, #Colorado Governor, #Campaign Finance, #Election 2026