Panel advances bill banning consultants from representing opposing campaigns without consent

Lawmakers advanced House Bill 11-37, which would require campaign consultants and consulting firms to disclose and obtain written consent if they represent opposing candidates or issue sides in the same contest, and prohibit sharing confidential client campaign material with another client.

What the bill does: Sponsors described the proposal as a common-sense transparency and conflict-of-interest rule. Under the bill, a consultant who represents materially adverse interests without written consent could face a civil cause of action in court. The statute would not prohibit dual representation where both clients give written consent.

Support and rationale: Rep. Titone and Rep. Garcia framed the bill as protecting campaigns and voters by reducing the risk that strategic, confidential material is used against a prior client. "You cannot unknow something when you know it," Rep. Titone said. Common Cause testified in support, arguing campaign professionals should be held to similar disclosure standards as lobbyists.

Concerns: Some members questioned whether government should intrude on private contracting and whether the law could create unintended contractual cover for firms that secure dual consent. Witnesses supporting the bill said consulting firms and many practitioners already considered such cross-representation unethical.

Outcome: After testimony and limited debate the committee voted 6-5 to send HB 11-37 to the Committee of the Whole.