Jump to content

Colorado SB26-090 critical infrastructure exemption

From Consumer Rights Wiki
Revision as of 04:07, 4 April 2026 by Louis (talk | contribs) (fix broken soda api citations: moved raw api query urls out of cite web url field (which broke mediawiki cs1 parsing) into code blocks in ref text. all 7 soda refs now link to browsable dataset page with api query shown separately for reproducibility)


Colorado SB26-090 is a 2026 bill that would exempt "information technology equipment intended for use in critical infrastructure" from Colorado's Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment Act (HB24-1121), a law that eliminated the business-to-business exemptions found in other states' repair laws & deliberately excluded a critical infrastructure carve-out.[1] Danny Katz, executive director of CoPIRG, described Colorado as having "the broadest repair rights in the country."[2] The bill borrows its definition of "critical infrastructure" from the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)), a definition that covers 16 federal sectors including communications, healthcare, food & agriculture, financial services, & information technology.[3] It doesn't define "information technology equipment" at all, which Katz said "leaves it up to the manufacturers to determine which items they will need to provide repair tools and parts to owners and independent repairers and which ones they don't."[2]

Colorado's right to repair laws

Colorado has passed three right to repair laws in four years, making it one of the most active states in the movement.

In 2022, Colorado passed HB22-1031, protecting the right to repair powered wheelchairs.[4] The following year, HB23-1011 made Colorado the first state to pass an agricultural equipment right to repair law.[5][6]

The most consequential was HB24-1121, the Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment Act. Sponsored by Representatives Brianna Titone & Steven Woodrow & Senators Jeff Bridges & Nick Hinrichsen, it passed the House 39-18 & the Senate 21-13.[7] Governor Polis signed it on May 28, 2024, with an effective date of January 1, 2026.[8] The law requires OEMs of digital electronic equipment manufactured after July 1, 2021 to provide independent repair providers & owners with parts, tools, documentation, & schematics on fair & reasonable terms. "Fair and reasonable" is defined as costs "equivalent to the most favorable costs and terms that the manufacturer offers to an authorized repair provider."[8] The law also bans parts pairing.[8]

HB24-1121 already exempts motor vehicles, medical devices (except powered wheelchairs), construction & energy-related equipment, fire alarm systems, safety communications equipment, & internet/video/voice routers.[8] Violations are treated as deceptive trade practices.[7]

What set HB24-1121 apart from every other state repair law was its scope. Oregon, New York, California, & Minnesota all carved out exemptions for business-to-business equipment from the start.[1] Colorado didn't. Enterprise networking hardware, servers, & business infrastructure were all subject to the same repair mandates as consumer phones & laptops.[1] Minnesota's law specifically included a "critical infrastructure" exemption; Colorado deliberately excluded one.[1] SB26-090 would add back the same type of critical infrastructure carve-out that Colorado excluded when writing HB24-1121.[1][2]

iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens described HB24-1121 as Colorado "taking a search-and-destroy approach to repair monopolies."[1] The enterprise IT equipment market reaches $50 to $70 billion annually, & companies like Cisco, Oracle, & IBM use restrictive support agreements to force replacement over repair.[1] HB24-1121's B2B scope was a direct threat to that revenue model.

SB26-090: the bill

SB26-090, titled "Exempt Critical Infrastructure from Right to Repair," was introduced on February 10, 2026.[9] Its sponsors are Senator John Carson (R-30), Senator Marc Snyder (D-12), & Representative Tony Hartsook (R-44), the House Minority Caucus Chair.[9]

The bill adds a single sentence to Colorado Revised Statutes sections 6-1-1502 & 6-1-1504: "Nothing in this part 15 applies to information technology equipment that is intended for use in critical infrastructure."[9]

On April 2, 2026, the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee voted 5-0 to advance the bill to the Committee of the Whole.[9][2] Second reading was scheduled for April 7, 2026.[9] The bill still needs full Senate & House floor votes before taking effect.[2]

The "critical infrastructure" definition

The bill defines critical infrastructure as "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters."[10] This language comes directly from the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 & was later incorporated into Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21), issued by President Obama in 2013.[11]

Under PPD-21, CISA designates 16 critical infrastructure sectors: Chemical, Commercial Facilities, Communications, Critical Manufacturing, Dams, Defense Industrial Base, Emergency Services, Energy, Financial Services, Food & Agriculture, Government Facilities, Healthcare & Public Health, Information Technology, Nuclear Reactors/Materials/Waste, Transportation Systems, & Water & Wastewater Systems.[3]

The practical scope of this definition became clear during COVID-19. CISA's "essential critical infrastructure workers" guidance expanded the functional definition to include automotive repair, retail groceries, call centers, & logistics.[12] Under SB26-090's logic, a $20 network switch used in a federal office building could be "critical infrastructure." A Dell laptop at the Pentagon. A printer at a hospital. The bill's definition doesn't draw a line between a server running a power grid & a network switch on a desk.

The bill also doesn't define "information technology equipment." Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the Repair Association, testified at the committee hearing: "I can point out at least five problems with the bill as drafted. The definition of critical infrastructure is completely inadequate. The definition that has been proposed in this bill is not even a definition."[2]

Manufacturer self-classification

The bill uses the phrase "intended for use in critical infrastructure" but doesn't specify who decides whether a product meets that threshold & doesn't define "information technology equipment."[2]

Nathan Proctor, leader of PIRG's national right to repair campaign, called the framing cynical: "The 'information technology' and 'critical infrastructure' thing is as cynical as you can possibly be about it. It sounds scary to lawmakers, but it just means the internet."[2]

Industry lobbying

Cisco

Cisco is the primary corporate backer of SB26-090. iFixit described the company as "the biggest voice in support" of the exemption.[6] Consumer-grade internet/video/voice routers are already exempt from HB24-1121.[8] SB26-090 would create an additional, broader exemption covering enterprise networking equipment.[6]

Cisco's Non-Entitlement Policy states that "unauthorized repair voids the Cisco Warranty Entitlement" & that the company "does not offer or provide any replacement or spare parts to third-party service repair businesses."[13] Third-party repairs are listed as "grounds for Cisco to cancel service or warranty support."[13] The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2302(c)) prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranty coverage on the use of a specific service provider or brand of replacement part.[14]

At the committee hearing, a Cisco representative stated: "Cisco supports SB-90. While it appreciates the arguments offered in favor of the right to repair, not all digital technology devices are equal."[2]

IBM

IBM is also supporting the bill. An IBM spokesperson told Wired: "IBM supports right-to-repair policies that empower consumers while protecting cybersecurity, intellectual property, and critical infrastructure. Given the critical and often sensitive nature of enterprise-level products, any legislation should be clearly scoped to consumer devices."[2]

Lobbying registrations

The Colorado Secretary of State's Online Lobby System lists 68 lobbying registrations on SB26-090: 40 supporting, 11 opposing, 15 monitoring, & 2 other.[15]

Colorado Secretary of State Online Lobby System search results for SB26-090, page 1 of 4, showing 68 lobbying registrations.

Twenty of the 40 supporting registrations (50%) come from lobbyists registered under two different clients on the same bill.[15] HB Strategies registered eight lobbyists for IBM on February 11, 2026: Erin Goff, Micki Hackenberger, HB Strategies (the firm itself), Carrie Hackenberger, J. Andrew Green & Assoc., Lisa LaBriola, Elizabeth Lo, & Kevin Neimond.[15] Nineteen days later, on March 2, the same eight registered for the Colorado Springs Chamber & EDC.[15] That produced 16 registrations from one firm.

Colorado Secretary of State lobbying registrations for IBM on SB26-090, showing eight lobbyists from HB Strategies registered February 11, 2026.
Colorado Secretary of State lobbying registrations for the Colorado Springs Chamber & EDC on SB26-090, showing the same eight HB Strategies lobbyists registered March 2, 2026.

Josh Hanfling & Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs registered for both Cisco & the Colorado Technology Association, adding four more duplicate registrations.[15]

The registrations arrived in waves. Cisco's in-house lobbyist Joseph Lee registered on February 10, the day the bill was introduced.[15] IBM's eight HB Strategies lobbyists registered the next day. Cisco's outside firm (Sewald Hanfling), the cable associations, & the Denver Metro Chamber registered between February 16 & 18. The Colorado Springs Chamber added its matching HB Strategies team on March 2. The Colorado Technology Association added Sewald Hanfling on March 5-6. TechNet registered five lobbyists on March 12. The Colorado Chamber of Commerce was last, 44 days after introduction, on March 26.[15]

Lobbying spending

At least $362,735 in known lobbying spending backs this exemption.[16] Four of the ten supporting organizations have spending data on file with the Colorado Secretary of State. The other six (TechNet, Denver Metro Chamber, Colorado Chamber, both cable associations, & FGR Hub) don't appear in the database during this period, & March & April 2026 filings are not yet available.

Lobbying payments from SB26-090 supporting organizations, October 2024 through February 2026
Organization Total paid to Colorado lobbyists Lobbying firm
Cisco $127,854[17] Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs
Colorado Technology Association $116,000[18] Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs
IBM $74,570[19] HB Strategies + in-house
Colorado Springs Chamber & EDC $44,311[20][21] HB Strategies + Weaver Strategies
Total $362,735

Cisco paid Sewald Hanfling $6,500 per month for at least 14 of the 15 months between October 2024 & December 2025. In January 2026, the payment jumped to $7,500.[17] SB26-090 was introduced on February 10.[9]

SODA API response showing Cisco's monthly payments to Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs, $6,500 per month through December 2025, rising to $7,500 in January 2026.

IBM paid HB Strategies $72,500 in 13 payments between October 2024 & February 2026. IBM's in-house lobbyist Alexi Madon reported another $2,069.76 over three months.[19]

The Colorado Technology Association paid $116,000 to Sewald Hanfling, the same firm Cisco pays.[18] The Colorado Springs Chamber & EDC paid $44,311 split between HB Strategies & Weaver Strategies.[20][21]

Micki Hackenberger, who runs HB Strategies, reported $510,922.50 in personal lobbying income for the year ending June 2025.[22]

Colorado Secretary of State cumulative disclosure statement showing Micki Hackenberger reported $510,922.50 in lobbying income for the year ending June 2025, filed July 14, 2025.

J. Andrew Green & Assoc. is registered as IBM's lobbyist on SB26-090, but the state income database shows zero payments from IBM to Green.[23] Green reports $14,840 from HB Strategies in January 2026.[24] HB Strategies collects from both IBM & the Colorado Springs Chamber, then subcontracts Green from that pool.

The five organizations opposing the bill (CoPIRG, Eco-Cycle, Repair.org, the Digital Right to Repair Coalition, & NFIB) have zero disclosed lobbying spending in the same database during 2024-2026.[16]

Campaign donations

Lobbyists & firms registered to support SB26-090 donated a total of $15,725 to the bill's three sponsors & five committee members between 2024 & early 2026.[25][26][27]

On December 19, 2025, Josh Hanfling of Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs donated $450 (the legal maximum per election cycle) to the Committee to Elect Marc Snyder.[28] Senator Marc Snyder is a sponsor of SB26-090. The bill was introduced 53 days later. Cisco pays Sewald Hanfling $7,500 per month; Hanfling is registered to lobby for the bill on Cisco's behalf.[17][15]

Colorado TRACER filing showing a $450 donation from Joshua Hanfling (Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs) to the Committee to Elect Marc Snyder, dated December 19, 2025.
Donations from SB26-090 lobbying network to sponsors & committee members
Firm SB26-090 client(s) Total Recipients
Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs Cisco, CO Tech Assn $6,225[25] Danielson, Carson, Snyder, Hartsook, Liston
Brandeberry McKenna Public Affairs CO Springs Chamber $3,650[26] Danielson, Carson, Snyder, Liston, Catlin
HB Strategies / Husch Blackwell IBM, CO Springs Chamber $3,575[27][29] Carson, Snyder, Hartsook, Catlin, Liston
Colorado Chamber PAC (self) $1,800[30] Snyder, Hartsook, Liston, Catlin
J. Andrew Green & Assoc. IBM (via HB subcontract) $450[31] Carson
Weaver Strategies CO Cable Television Assn $450[32] Carson, Liston

R.D. Sewald & Josh Hanfling of Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs donated a combined $3,800 to committee chair Jessie Danielson across four transactions:[33]

TRACER contribution search showing four donations from R.D. Sewald and Joshua Hanfling to the Jessie Danielson campaign committee, September 2024 through November 2025.
Date Donor Amount TRACER RecordID
September 24, 2024 R.D. Sewald $450 6858173
September 24, 2024 Joshua Hanfling $450 6858175
July 15, 2025 Joshua Hanfling $1,450 7092122
November 4, 2025 R.D. Sewald $1,450 7186003

Danielson chairs the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee. She voted to advance SB26-090 on April 2, 2026.[9]

On September 4, 2024, Jenifer Brandeberry & Julie McKenna of Brandeberry McKenna Public Affairs each donated $450 to committee member Senator Marc Catlin (RecordIDs 6851546, 6851547).[34] Two days later, on September 6, four employees of Husch Blackwell Strategies (the parent company behind HB Strategies) donated to Catlin on the same day: Micki Hackenberger ($400, RecordID 6851545), Elizabeth Lo ($250, RecordID 6851542), Erin Goff ($200, RecordID 6851535), & Kevin Neimond ($100, RecordID 6851531).[34] Six lobbyists from two firms, all later registered on SB26-090, donated $1,850 to the same senator within 48 hours. Catlin voted to advance the bill.[9]

TRACER contribution search showing six lobbyists from HB Strategies and Brandeberry McKenna donated a combined $1,850 to the Marc Catlin campaign committee between September 4-6, 2024.
Donations from SB26-090 lobbying network by recipient
Legislator Role Total received Number of donors
Jessie Danielson Committee Chair (D) $4,300[31] 4
Larry Liston Committee Member (R) $2,850 7
Marc Snyder Bill Sponsor (D) $2,525 7
Marc Catlin Committee Member (R) $2,300 7
John Carson Bill Sponsor (R) $1,900 7
Anthony Hartsook Bill Sponsor (R) $1,850 5
Nick Hinrichsen Committee Vice Chair (D) $0 0
Iman Jodeh Committee Member (D) $0 0

Senators Nick Hinrichsen & Iman Jodeh received zero donations from any SB26-090 lobbying firm, PAC, or corporate employee in the 2024-2026 TRACER data.[35][36] Both sit on the committee. Both voted to advance the bill.[9]

TRACER search showing zero donations from Sewald Hanfling to the Hinrichsen campaign, 2024-2026.

Colorado's lobbying disclosure system

Colorado law doesn't require lobbyists to break down spending by bill.[37] The $362,735 figure is total client payments to their lobbyists during this period; the connection to SB26-090 comes from separate position filings where those same lobbyists registered as supporting the bill.[15][16] There is no single database where a citizen can type in "SB26-090" & see how much Cisco spent to support it.

Three separate systems hold the data: the Secretary of State's Online Lobby System (lobbying registrations & bill positions), the Professional Lobbyist Income dataset on Colorado's open data portal (monthly payments from clients to lobbyists), & TRACER (campaign donations).[37] Connecting a corporation's lobbying money to a specific vote requires pulling data from all three & matching records by hand.

C.R.S. 1-45-105.5, the Colorado statute restricting lobbyist campaign contributions during legislative sessions.

Colorado law allows lobbyists to donate to legislators they lobby, as long as the donation falls outside the regular legislative session (C.R.S. 1-45-105.5).[38] SB25-148, a bill to ban lobbyist donations to legislators year-round, was killed by the Senate Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs in March 2025.[39] Twelve months later, SB26-090's lobbyists had donated $15,725 to the bill's sponsors & committee members.[25][26][27]

The cybersecurity argument

Manufacturers backing SB26-090 argue that sharing diagnostic tools, firmware, & schematics for enterprise infrastructure could enable bad actors to exploit vulnerabilities.[2] iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens testified at the hearing: "There's a general principle in cybersecurity that obscurity is not security. The money that's behind the scenes, that's what's driving the bill."[2]

Cybersecurity researchers directly dispute the manufacturer framing. Security researcher Billy Rios & threat researcher Andrew Brandt spoke against the exemption on the Securepairs podcast.[6] Paul Roberts, chief of The Security Ledger & founder of Securepairs.org, stated: "A vibrant and healthy market for repair isn't a cybersecurity risk. In fact, it should be considered a cybersecurity imperative!"[6]

Repair advocates also point out that restricting independent repair makes critical infrastructure less secure, not more. If a piece of critical networking equipment fails, the operator needs to fix it immediately rather than wait for manufacturer approval & a service contract dispatch.[2]

Committee hearing testimony

The April 2, 2026 hearing before the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee drew over a dozen repair advocates who testified against the bill.[2] Organizations represented included iFixit, CoPIRG, the Repair Association, & PIRG's national campaign. Repair advocate Louis Rossmann was also present.[2]

Katz, who described Colorado as having "the broadest repair rights in the country," warned that the bill "is a bad policy and would be a big step back for Coloradans' repair rights."[2] Gordon-Byrne pointed to at least five drafting problems.[2]

Despite unanimous opposition from repair advocates, the committee voted 5-0 to advance the bill.[2]

Proctor, speaking after the vote, said: "This only hardens my resolve. We cannot stop until this problem is addressed. In practice everywhere, people need to be able to fix their stuff. This is proof that we have to keep going."[2]

Military right to repair

The Department of Defense has been fighting manufacturer repair restrictions on its own equipment.[40]

On June 10, 2025, Navy Secretary John Phelan testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee: "I am a huge supporter of right to repair."[41] Phelan described conditions aboard the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, where six of the ship's eight ovens broke down. The ship serves 15,300 meals per day. Sailors were capable of fixing the ovens but were contractually forbidden from doing so; the Navy had to wait for a private contractor to arrive.[42]

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll made a similar point at the Association of the U.S. Army convention in October 2025. He held up a broken fin from a Black Hawk helicopter's external fuel tank. The vendor charged over $144,000 for a replacement.[43] Driscoll's team reverse-engineered the part & 3D-printed it in 43 days for $3,000.[44][43] In June 2025 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Driscoll stated: "On a go-forward basis, we have been directed to not sign any contracts that don't give us a right to repair."[40]

Congress responded with the Warrior Right to Repair Act. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) & Senator Tim Sheehy (R-MT) introduced S. 2209 on July 8, 2025; Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) co-led the companion H.R. 5155 in the House.[45][46] The bill would require defense contractors to provide the DoD with fair & reasonable access to technical data, software, tools, & manuals for in-house repair.[46] Language supporting these principles was incorporated into both House & Senate versions of the FY26 National Defense Authorization Act.[45]

Both service secretaries publicly called for right to repair protections for military equipment in the same year that Cisco & IBM backed SB26-090 in Colorado.[40][2][41]

Similar attempts in other states

Colorado isn't the only state where manufacturers have tried to exempt enterprise equipment from repair laws.

In 2025, the Texas legislature passed HB2963, a right to repair bill signed on June 20, 2025 & effective September 1, 2026. The bill used the identical USA PATRIOT Act critical infrastructure exemption (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)) as SB26-090, along with additional exemptions for medical devices & heavy equipment.[47]

Most states that have passed repair laws, including Oregon, New York, California, & Minnesota, exempted business-to-business equipment from the start.[1]

As of 2026, right to repair bills have been introduced in every U.S. state & passed in eight.[2]

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 "Colorado's Right to Repair Law Is The Strongest Yet. Here's Why". Fight to Repair (Repair Association). 2024.
  2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 Boone Ashworth (April 2, 2026). "Tech Companies Are Trying to Neuter Colorado's Landmark Right-to-Repair Law". Wired.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 "Critical Infrastructure Sectors". Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
  4. ↑ "HB22-1031: Wheelchair Right to Repair". Colorado General Assembly.
  5. ↑ "HB23-1011: Agricultural Equipment Right to Repair". Colorado General Assembly.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Elizabeth Chamberlain (April 1, 2026). "A New Colorado Bill Could Blow a Hole in the Nation's Strongest Right to Repair Law". iFixit.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 "HB24-1121: Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment". Colorado General Assembly.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 "Colorado Expands "Right-to-Repair" Law". Proskauer Rose LLP. 2024.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 "SB26-090: Exempt Critical Infrastructure from Right to Repair". Colorado General Assembly.
  10. ↑ "42 U.S.C. 5195c - Critical infrastructures protection". Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved 2026-04-03. Subsection (e) defines "critical infrastructure." Originally enacted as Section 1016 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.
  11. ↑ "Presidential Policy Directive -- Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience". The White House. February 12, 2013.
  12. ↑ "Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce" (PDF). CISA. August 2020.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 "Non-Entitlement Policy v2.0". Cisco Systems.
  14. ↑ "15 U.S.C. 2302 - Rules governing contents of warranties". Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved 2026-04-03. Subsection (c) prohibits conditioning warranty on use of a specific service provider or brand of replacement part.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 Colorado Secretary of State, Online Lobby System. 68 lobbying registrations on SB26-090. To verify: go to the Colorado Secretary of State lobby registration search at https://www.sos.state.co.us/lobby, click "Bill Search," enter "SB26-090" as the bill number, and select the 2025-2026 session. The search returns all registered lobbyists, their clients, and their positions (Supporting, Opposing, Monitoring, etc.). Accessed April 3, 2026.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 "Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado (browsable dataset)". Colorado Secretary of State. Retrieved 2026-04-03. To reproduce this total: query the SODA API at https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json using $select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(clientname) like '%CISCO%' AND fiscalyear in('2024-2025','2025-2026') for each client (Cisco, IBM, Colorado Technology Association, Colorado Springs Chamber), then add the four results. The dataset ID is dxfk-9ifj. The individual queries and their results are cited in the table below.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 "Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: Cisco Systems". Colorado Secretary of State. Retrieved 2026-04-03. To verify via the SODA API, query: https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(clientname) like '%25CISCO%25' AND fiscalyear in('2024-2025','2025-2026')
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 "Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: Colorado Technology Association via Sewald Hanfling". Colorado Secretary of State. Retrieved 2026-04-03. To verify via the SODA API, query: https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(lobbyistname) like '%25SEWALD HANFLING%25' AND upper(clientname) like '%25COLORADO TECHNOLOGY%25' AND fiscalyear in('2024-2025','2025-2026')
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 "Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: IBM". Colorado Secretary of State. Retrieved 2026-04-03. To verify via the SODA API, query: https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(clientname) like '%25IBM%25' AND fiscalyear in('2024-2025','2025-2026')
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 "Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: Colorado Springs Chamber via HB Strategies". Colorado Secretary of State. Retrieved 2026-04-03. To verify via the SODA API, query: https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(lobbyistname) like '%25HB STRATEGIES%25' AND upper(clientname) like '%25COLORADO SPRINGS CHAMBER%25' AND fiscalyear in('2024-2025','2025-2026')
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 "Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: Colorado Springs Chamber via Weaver Strategies". Colorado Secretary of State. Retrieved 2026-04-03. To verify via the SODA API, query: https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(lobbyistname) like '%25WEAVER%25' AND upper(clientname) like '%25COLORADO SPRINGS%25' AND fiscalyear='2025-2026'
  22. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, Online Lobby System, cumulative disclosure statement for Micki M. Hackenberger, FY 2024-2025, filed July 14, 2025. To verify: go to https://www.sos.state.co.us/lobby, click "Lobbyist Search," enter "Hackenberger" as last name, open her profile, and view the cumulative disclosure statement for FY 2024-2025. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  23. ↑ "Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: J. Andrew Green from IBM (no records)". Colorado Secretary of State. Retrieved 2026-04-03. To verify via the SODA API, query: https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$where=upper(lobbyistname) like '%25GREEN%25' AND upper(lobbyistname) like '%25ANDREW%25' AND upper(clientname) like '%25IBM%25' This returns an empty array, confirming zero payments.
  24. ↑ "Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: J. Andrew Green from HB Strategies". Colorado Secretary of State. Retrieved 2026-04-03. To verify via the SODA API, query: https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$where=upper(lobbyistname) like '%25GREEN%25' AND upper(lobbyistname) like '%25ANDREW%25' AND upper(clientname) like '%25HB STRAT%25'
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Colorado TRACER contribution search: donations from Sewald Hanfling employees to SB26-090 sponsors and committee members, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Sewald" or "Hanfling" as Contributor Last Name, and search within the date range 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. Then filter results by recipient for each SB26-090 sponsor and committee member. TRACER bulk data is also available for download at https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/DataDownload.aspx. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Colorado TRACER contribution search: donations from Brandeberry McKenna employees to SB26-090 sponsors and committee members, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Brandeberry" or "McKenna" as Contributor Last Name, and search within 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Colorado TRACER contribution search: donations from Micki Hackenberger to SB26-090 sponsors and committee members, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Hackenberger" as Contributor Last Name, and search within 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  28. ↑ Colorado TRACER, RecordID 7171526: $450 donation from Joshua Hanfling to Committee to Elect Marc Snyder, December 19, 2025. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Hanfling" as Contributor Last Name and "Snyder" as Committee Name, and search within 2025-01-01 to 2026-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  29. ↑ Colorado TRACER contribution search: donations from Goff, Neimond, Lo (Husch Blackwell Strategies) to SB26-090 legislators, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," and search each name individually: "Goff" + "Erin", "Neimond" + "Kevin", "Lo" + "Elizabeth" as Contributor Last/First Name, within 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  30. ↑ Colorado TRACER contribution search: Colorado Chamber PAC donations to SB26-090 sponsors and committee members, 2023-2024. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Colorado Chamber" as Committee Name under the "Committee Giving" tab, and search within 2023-01-01 to 2024-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 "TRACER Public Site: Data Download". Colorado Secretary of State, TRACER. Retrieved 2026-04-03.
  32. ↑ Colorado TRACER contribution search: Kachina Morton (Weaver Strategies) donations to SB26-090 sponsors, 2025. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Morton" as Contributor Last Name and "Kachina" as First Name, and search within 2025-01-01 to 2025-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  33. ↑ Colorado TRACER contributions: R.D. Sewald and Joshua Hanfling to Jessie Danielson campaign, RecordIDs 6858173, 6858175, 7092122, 7186003. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Danielson" as Committee Name, then search separately for "Sewald" and "Hanfling" as Contributor Last Name, within 2024-01-01 to 2025-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Colorado TRACER contributions: six lobbyists from HB Strategies and Brandeberry McKenna to Marc Catlin campaign, RecordIDs 6851545, 6851542, 6851535, 6851531, 6851546, 6851547. September 4-6, 2024. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Catlin" as Committee Name, and search within 2024-09-01 to 2024-09-30. Then search each donor name: Hackenberger, Lo, Goff, Neimond, Brandeberry, McKenna. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  35. ↑ Colorado TRACER contribution search: no results for SB26-090 lobbying firms to Nick Hinrichsen, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Hinrichsen" as Committee Name, and search for each lobbying firm (Sewald, Hanfling, Hackenberger, Brandeberry, McKenna, Goff, Neimond, Lo) as Contributor Last Name within 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. All searches return zero results. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  36. ↑ Colorado TRACER contribution search: no results for SB26-090 lobbying firms to Iman Jodeh, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Jodeh" as Committee Name, and search for each lobbying firm (Sewald, Hanfling, Hackenberger, Brandeberry, McKenna, Goff, Neimond, Lo) as Contributor Last Name within 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. All searches return zero results. Accessed April 3, 2026.
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 "Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-6-302: Disclosure". Justia (mirror of Colorado Revised Statutes, 2023 edition). Retrieved 2026-04-03.
  38. ↑ "Colorado Revised Statutes Section 1-45-105.5: Contributions from Lobbyists". Justia (mirror of Colorado Revised Statutes, 2023 edition). Retrieved 2026-04-03.
  39. ↑ "SB25-148: Concerning Lobbyist Contributions to Candidates". Colorado General Assembly.
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 40.2 "Service Secretaries Advocate for Right to Repair". DoD News (via GlobalSecurity.org). June 10, 2025.
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 "Navy Secretary Declares Support for Legislation to Guarantee the Military's Right to Repair Its Own Equipment". Office of Senator Elizabeth Warren. June 10, 2025.
  42. ↑ "US Navy secretary backs right-to-repair push". The Register. June 11, 2025.
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 "AUSA 2025: Secretary Driscoll Wants Army to Save Time and Money by 3D Printing Replacement Parts". Mobility Engineering & Technology. October 15, 2025.
  44. ↑ "Who Controls the Wrench? The Debate Over Right to Repair". Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 "Warrior Right to Repair: Empowering Soldiers and Enhancing Readiness". With Honor. 2025.
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 "Warren, Sheehy Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Guarantee Military Right to Repair Its Equipment". Office of Senator Elizabeth Warren. July 8, 2025.
  47. ↑ "HB 2963 Bill History". Texas Legislature Online. 2025.
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Colorado_SB26-090_critical_infrastructure_exemption&oldid=49745"