Part One: The Billionaires Who Bought the Blueprint
Imagine four wealthy conservatives pooling millions of dollars to reshape a state's politics.
Imagine them financing political organizations, voter-registration operations, media watchdogs, activist groups, and organizations that train future political leaders.
Imagine an affiliated donor alliance eventually supporting a network of 37 organizations, some operating under nonprofit tax exemptions and some refusing to disclose their donors.
Now imagine that this system helped Republicans seize control of the legislature, capture the governor's office, and build a political advantage lasting decades.
We would never hear the end of it.
There would be documentaries. Congressional hearings. Breathless investigations into the threat of billionaires purchasing democracy. Every wealthy conservative's bank account would become a matter of intense journalistic fascination.
But when wealthy progressives helped do precisely this in Colorado, the project received a considerably more flattering name.
The Blueprint.
And it worked.
Meet Colorado's Gang of Four
In 2004, four immensely wealthy Coloradans set out to remake the state's political landscape.
They were Jared Polis, Pat Stryker, Tim Gill, and Rutt Bridges.
Polis was an Internet entrepreneur. Stryker inherited extraordinary wealth through her family's medical-device business. Gill made his fortune founding software company Quark. Bridges was a successful petroleum geologist and technology businessman.
Together, they became known as the Gang of Four.
Their political motivations varied, but they shared an objective: ending Republican dominance in Colorado.
At the time, Republicans controlled the governor's office, both chambers of the General Assembly, five of Colorado's seven congressional seats, and several other statewide offices.
Colorado wasn't an uncontested Republican fortress, but the GOP was unquestionably the state's dominant political institution.
That was about to change.
Former Colorado State University president Al Yates helped bring the wealthy donors together. Democratic strategist Ted Trimpa was another influential participant in developing the political strategy.
The premise was simple: stop spreading money across every possible race. Identify vulnerable Republican incumbents, concentrate resources, organize sympathetic voters, and build a sophisticated political operation capable of winning the seats that actually determined control of government.
It was less romantic than the familiar story of ordinary citizens spontaneously rising up to demand change.
It was also considerably more effective.
According to a February 2005 investigation in Roll Call, outside organizations spent a record $10 million on Colorado legislative races in 2004. The newspaper cited The Denver Post's estimate that the Gang of Four accounted for at least $3 million of that spending.
The independent Center for Public Integrity later calculated that the four spent approximately $2.5 million targeting key legislative races. The difference reflects the categories of spending being measured.
Independent pollster Floyd Ciruli told Roll Call that the donors had a profound impact and that Democrats would not have won without them.
And Democrats certainly won.
In 2004, they captured both chambers of the Colorado legislature for the first time simultaneously since the early 1960s.
In 2006, they won the governor's office.
By 2008, Colorado had voted for Barack Obama, and Democrats occupied both U.S. Senate seats and five of its seven congressional seats.
That is a remarkable political transformation in four years.
It is also an extraordinary return on an investment measured in millions rather than the hundreds of millions routinely spent on national campaigns.
The Gang of Four discovered that state-level political power could be acquired at something resembling wholesale prices.
The real genius, however, was figuring out how to make that power last.
Don't Just Win Elections. Build the Entire Political Environment.
Ordinary political donors contribute to candidates.
The Gang of Four helped finance something more ambitious: a permanent political infrastructure.
Their approach recognized that elections are influenced long before anyone fills out a ballot.
Political organizations register voters. Advocacy groups organize activists. Research organizations supply arguments. Communications operations amplify favorable narratives and attack opponents. Political leadership groups cultivate future officeholders.
Coordinate enough complementary activity, and a political party begins enjoying advantages that extend well beyond its candidates.
This was the foundation of what became known as the Colorado Model.
One of the most revealing investigations appeared in The Denver Post on October 5, 2008.
Reporter Jessica Fender examined the Colorado Democracy Alliance, or CoDA, an organization associated with wealthy progressive donors, including Gill, Stryker, and Bridges.
By then, the alliance was supporting a network of 37 advocacy and nonprofit organizations, according to the investigation.
Those organizations performed different functions, including voter outreach, research, leadership development, media communications, and advocacy.
The network included organizations such as ProgressNow, the Bell Policy Center, Colorado Conservation Voters, and other progressive groups.
The newspaper described how the alliance helped connect funders and organizations pursuing related political and ideological objectives.
And here's the particularly interesting part.
Some organizations were structured as tax-exempt nonprofits. Several operated without publicly disclosing their donors.
The groups weren't necessarily violating campaign-finance laws. The Denver Post's subsequent investigation described CoDA's structure as legal.
But legal and transparent are not synonyms.
Nor is technically permissible an especially satisfying answer to people concerned about the influence of wealthy donors over public policy.
The important distinction is between political coordination prohibited by law and the broader, lawful coordination of advocacy and institutional funding. The reporting established the latter, not a criminal conspiracy.
But the result was an extraordinarily sophisticated political ecosystem.
One organization could develop a policy argument. Another could publicize it. Another could mobilize activists around it. A separate political committee could support candidates who embraced similar priorities.
Each organization might appear to the public as a distinct voice participating in a vigorous civic debate.
Behind portions of the network, however, were shared financial relationships and strategic objectives.
It was political influence organized as an industry.
And as with any industry, the people supplying the capital had an important say in where the investment went.
The Money Didn't Disappear. It Became Harder to Follow.
Colorado offers an especially instructive lesson in the unintended consequences of campaign-finance reform.
In 2002, voters approved Amendment 27, placing stricter limits on direct campaign contributions.
The idea was to reduce wealthy donors' influence over politicians.
Two years later, outside political organizations helped bankroll a dramatic transformation of the Colorado legislature.
The Center for Public Integrity examined this paradox in 2012.
The publication described the Gang of Four's use of 527 political organizations, which could receive unlimited contributions under the applicable rules.
It also reported that some outside spending was difficult for ordinary voters to trace.
University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket summarized the problem: restrictions had not eliminated political money; they had made some of it harder to track.
Colorado received a D+ overall grade in the Center's 2012 State Integrity Investigation, which evaluated numerous accountability issues beyond campaign finance.
That distinction doesn't make the campaign-finance findings any less troubling.
Wealthy donors helped demonstrate that limiting direct contributions to candidates could simply push political financing into different organizational structures.
The money was still there.
The influence was still there.
The taxpayer was still expected to celebrate the reform.
There is an obvious question for Colorado's self-appointed guardians of political integrity: When precisely does wealthy political influence become a scandal , when billionaires finance conservatives, or only when they stop financing progressives?
The Machine Outlived Its Founders' Original Partnership
It would be inaccurate to say the original four have personally controlled every progressive organization or Democratic policy decision since 2004.
Indeed, reporting from 2008 indicated that Polis had stepped away from the later CoDA structure.
But a successful institution doesn't need its original investors sitting in every meeting.
That is rather the point of building an institution.
Consider ProgressNow Colorado.
Founded in 2003, ProgressNow became an important component of the emerging progressive communications infrastructure. It specialized in rapid-response political messaging, organizing, and aggressive criticism of Republicans.
Twenty years later, it was still operating.
In October 2023, The Colorado Sun published a detailed retrospective tracing its history.
The newspaper reported that ProgressNow Colorado spent approximately $182,000 in 2004. By 2020, its annual expenditures had reached nearly $3.6 million.
The organization did not publicly disclose its donors. The Sun also documented grants from other politically active nonprofits, including the Sixteen Thirty Fund and Everytown for Gun Safety.
The article described ProgressNow's political stunts, attacks on Republican candidates, and enduring role within the state's progressive infrastructure.
Former Republican state legislator Rob Witwer, co-author of The Blueprint, acknowledged its extraordinary effectiveness.
Here is the significance.
The Gang of Four didn't merely help elect Democratic legislators in 2004. The political infrastructure of that era included organizations capable of operating for decades, influencing public debate and supporting an enduring progressive movement.
And that movement helped establish a new political reality in Colorado.
Democrats have held the governor's office continuously since 2007.
They have controlled both legislative chambers and the governor's office continuously since 2019.
They entered the 2025 legislative session holding 43 of 65 House seats and 23 of 35 Senate seats.
At that point, Republicans weren't simply outnumbered.
They were largely spectators to major policy decisions.
Colorado's political transformation became so complete that the state's most consequential political arguments increasingly occurred between different factions of Democrats.
That's a tremendous achievement for a political machine.
Whether it was a tremendous achievement for the people governed by it is another question.
Sources
[1] Josh Kurtz, Roll Call, February 1, 2005 , "Their Contributions Helped Buy a 'Cadillac Campaign' in Colo." https://rollcall.com/2005/02/01/their-contributions-helped-buy-a-cadillac-campaign-in-colo/ Contemporary reporting on the Gang of Four's contributions, the estimated $3 million spending figure, and Democratic legislative victories.
[2] David M. Drucker, Roll Call, August 27, 2008 , "Democrats' Success in Colorado Fueled by 4" https://rollcall.com/2008/08/27/democrats-success-in-colorado-fueled-by-4/ Documents the donors' electoral strategy, political motivations, and impact on Colorado's transformation.
[3] Hope Hamashige, Center for Public Integrity, March 19, 2012 , "Colorado Gets D+ Grade in 2012 State Integrity Investigation" https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/colorado-gets-d-grade-in-2012-state-integrity-investigation/ Investigates Colorado's campaign-finance structures, the quartet's estimated $2.5 million in targeted spending, political disclosure problems, and broader accountability issues.
[4] Colorado Politics, March 19, 2022 , "10 Milestones That Shaped Colorado's Modern Political World" https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2022/03/19/cover-story-10-milestones-that-shaped-colorados-modern-political-world-c3df9838-a4a8-11ec-83aa-07bad27e348c/ Historical reporting on the donors, the 2004 election, and the development of the Colorado political model.
[5] Jessica Fender, The Denver Post, October 5, 2008 , "Progressive Gang Uses Nonprofits to Push Politics" https://www.denverpost.com/2008/10/05/progressive-gang-uses-nonprofits-to-push-politics/ An essential original investigation into the Colorado Democracy Alliance, its donors, its network of 37 organizations, and its internal organizing documents.
[6] Colorado Public Radio, May 20, 2010 , "New Book Explores How Democrats Won Colorado" https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/new-book-explores-how-democrats-won-colorado/ Interview with Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer, authors of The Blueprint, about how Colorado Democrats rebuilt their political infrastructure.
[7] Sandra Fish, The Colorado Sun, October 18, 2023 , "A Political Group That Helped Lead Democrats' Takeover of Colorado Politics Turns 20" https://coloradosun.com/2023/10/18/progressnow-colorado-celebrates-20-years/ Investigates ProgressNow Colorado's history, financial growth, continuing political influence, and undisclosed donor relationships.
[8] Marianne Goodland, Colorado Politics, September 16, 2024 , "Colorado Election Spending: How Donors Are Shaping the 2024 Races" https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/09/16/colorado-election-spending-how-donors-are-shaping-the-2024-races/ Examines major political donors and describes the lasting changes associated with the original Gang of Four.
