dissenting:
The majority holds that the language of section 1—45—116(l)(a), IB C.R.S. (1996 Supp.) of the Campaign Reform • Act (the CRA) should be read broadly to include all political entities which collect and manage private funds, thereby preventing these organizations from engaging in certain political activities. I dissent because I believe the language of section 1—45-116(l)(a) does not include these entities. I would hold that the Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority (the CCIA) falls outside the reach of section 1—45—116(l)(a) of the CRA because it is a hybrid political organization managing a purely private fund for the benefit of a private constituency.
I.
In 1992, the “Safe Work Environment Amendment” (the Amendment) was included on the general election ballot. In response, the Coalition to Save Colorado Jobs (the coalition) was organized to defeat the Amendment. The CCIA, which supported the coalition’s efforts, spent approximately $30,000 out of the Colorado compensation insurance fund (the fund) to publish negative editorials in its newsletter and send out posters to subscribers urging them to vote against the Amendment.
In December 1992, the Denver Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, and Jack Hawkins (the petitioners) filed a verified complaint with the Secretary of State against the CCIA. The complaint alleged that the CCIA expenditures used to defeat the Amendment violated the CRA as unlawful contributions in kind. The CCIA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the CRA prohibition on contributions in kind did not apply to political entities managing private funds.
The Secretary of State granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the CCIA had not violated the CRA The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that while the CCIA funds “are held in public trust for specified statutory purposes, those funds do not constitute public money.” Denver Area Labor Fed’n v. Meyer, 907 P.2d 638, 641 (Colo.App.1995).
II.
A.
The majority reverses the Court of Appeals, holding that the language of section 1-45-116(l)(a) applies to the CCIA. Section 1-45-116(l)(a) provides:
No agency, department, board, division, bureau, commission, or council of the state or any political subdivision thereof shall make any contribution or contribution in kind in campaigns involving the nomination, retention, or election of any person to any public office, nor shall any such entity expend any public moneys from any source, or make any contributions in kind, to urge electors • to vote in favor of or against any:
(A) Statewide ballot issue ...;
(B) Local ballot issue ...;
(C) Referred measure ...;
*530(D) Measure for a recall of any officer. ...
(Emphasis added.)
The majority interprets the statute’s “from any source” language highlighted above as an indication that the General Assembly intended an expansive definition of the term “public moneys” to include political entities completely funded with private money. Maj. op. at 527. I dissent because I believe the plain language of the CRA requires that the “moneys” spent be “public.” In my view, the CCIA is a hybrid political entity managing a private fund to further the interests of its private membership. For this reason, I would hold that the CRA does not apply because the money spent by the CCIA on in kind campaign contributions is not public money within the meaning of the CRA.
B.
The state compensation insurance fund was created with the passage of the original workers’ compensation statute in 1919 and was subsequently renamed the Colorado compensation insurance fund in 1990. It consists of (a) premiums paid by employers to insure them against workers’ compensation claims, (b) all property and securities acquired by the fund, and (c) any interest earned on those assets. § 8-45-102(4), 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.).
The state treasurer serves as custodian of the fund subject to the direction of the CCIA fund manager (the manager) and the CCIA board of directors (the board). § 8-45-118(1), 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.). The state treasurer is prohibited from transferring fund moneys into the general fund of the state at the close of the fiscal year. § 8-45-102(5), 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.). Furthermore, section 8-45-114, 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.), authorizes the fund to repay or credit estimated premiums paid by employers in excess of actual premiums.
The State Compensation Insurance Authority (SCIA) was created in 1986 to manage and administer the fund and became the CCIA in 1990. The CCIA consists of a seven-member board of directors appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate. § 8-45-101(2)(a), 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.). The board’s membership is made up of four employer representatives, two employee representatives and one representative “experienced in the management and operation of insurance companies.” Id.1 The board’s duties .include appointing the fund manager, developing an annual budget, establishing rules and regulations concerning the operation of the fund and premium determinations, and reviewing and recommending legislation relating to workers’ compensation as well as clarifying legal concepts therein. § 8-45-101(5), 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.).
While the CCIA is “a corporate body and a political subdivision of the state” and enjoys liability protection under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act as well as inclusion in the risk management fund, it is not an agency of state government. § 8—45—101(1), 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.).
Both the fund and the CCIA operate in much the same manner as a private insurance company. Employers pay premiums to the fund, claims are received and processed by the CCIA, and disbursements are made to claimants out of the fund. See § 8-45-115, 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.); § 8-45-118, 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.). The CCIA, like private insurance companies, is subject to regulation by the commissioner of insurance. See § 8-45-117, 3B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.). The fund manager is authorized to exercise his power in the same manner “as the head of a private insurance company.” § 8-45-102(2), IB C.R.S. (1996 Supp.).
Clearly, the legislature set up both the CCIA and the fund to operate as private entities within the state government and *531serve a specific constituency made up of premium paying employers. By informing its membership of an upcoming ballot initiative, the CCIA was acting as the agent for its paying customers.
C.
The CRA was passed to “promote public confidence in government through a more informed electorate.” § 1-45-102, IB C.R.S. (1980). The General Assembly believed that through public disclosure and the regulation of certain campaign practices, it could create a more informed electorate, thus promoting public confidence in government. Id.
The original CRA prohibited political entities from making contributions or contributions in kind to campaigns involving candidates for public office, but allowed contributions and contributions in kind to campaigns involving issues in which the political entity had an “official concern.” § 1-45-116, IB C.R.S. (1980). The CRA was amended in 1988 to prohibit public entities from expending “any public moneys, from any source, or make contributions in kind, to urge electors to vote in favor of or against any issue before the electorate.” § 1-45-116, IB C.R.S. (Supp. 1988).
The majority interprets the phrase “public moneys from any source” in section 1-45-116(l)(a) to include all moneys held by political entities regardless of their source. In so doing, the majority states that “the term ‘public moneys’ may not be construed to refer only to sums realized from the imposition of taxes.” Maj. op. at 527.
The majority’s interpretation overlooks the myriad of sources of public funds besides tax revenue such as fines, tolls, escheats, and federal grants. A more reasonable interpretation of the “public moneys from any source” language would first require that the money spent on political contributions be “public” before disregarding the various sources of those public funds. It would follow that private money outside the reach of the general fund would not fall within the CRA’s prohibition on contributions in kind.2
This interpretation is consistent with relevant case law. In Stong v. Industrial Commission, 71 Colo. 133, 204 P. 892 (1922), this court held that the state treasurer did not have the authority to manage the state compensation insurance fund because the fund consisted of money separate from the general fund. The Stong court stated:
Full control of the fund is given to the Commission; the custodian [the treasurer] is authorized to do nothing with it except upon their order....
[[Image here]]
... [Y]et the constitution is not violated, because the fund in question is not the general property of the state and its custody is no part of the treasurer’s constitutional duty but is conferred on him by statute only. The fund is not “creditable to the general revenue of the state” and is “designated for purposes other than such general revenue,” and so is not in the treasury of the state.
Stong, 71 Colo, at 135-36, 204 P. at 893 (citation omitted).
Similarly, in Pensioners Protective Association v. Davis, 112 Colo. 535, 150 P.2d 974 (1944), we held that a pension fund administered by the State Board of Public Welfare was subject to an award of attorney fees because there was no public money in the fund. The Davis court pointed out that:
The fund is not dependent upon legislative appropriation. The state, in its sovereign capacity, has and can have, no interest therein .... The moneys involved are not public funds. They stand segregated for a special and designated use. The term public funds means funds belonging to the state. The term does not apply to special funds, which are collected or voluntarily contributed, for the sole benefit of the con-*532tñbutors, and of which the state is merely the custodian.
Davis, 112 Colo, at 540, 150 P.2d at 976 (emphasis added).
As Stong and Davis make clear, the state has no interest in funds derived from private sources. The state, therefore, has no authority to prevent the CCIA from spending private moneys in support of, or against, a campaign issue.
D.
The CRA legislative history cited by the majority is ambiguous as to whether the term “public moneys” includes funds derived from purely private sources and held apart from the general fund. Maj. op. at p. 528, n. 4. These passages only address the use of general or individual funds to advocate a position on a ballot issue and shed no light on the issue presented by this case. Id.
During the floor debate on the bill to amend section 1—45—116(l)(a), Representative Green, the bill’s sponsor, stated that she was concerned with government entities using publicly owned and collected funds to advocate a position on a ballot issue. Representative Green stated:
I don’t think it’s appropriate that we be using taxpayers money to push one side of an issue.... It’s not fair to take one group of taxpayers and elevate them above another group of taxpayers.
H.B. No. 1179, 56th Gen. Assembly, 2d Reg. Sess., (Feb. 24, 1988) (emphasis added). Later, Representative Owens reaffirmed this idea:
I think the important point is that we shouldn’t be letting taxpayer funds be used on one side or the other of these issues. Representative Green’s bill will simply insure the government’s neutrality on these issues.
H.B. No. 1179, 56th Gen. Assemb., 2d Reg. Sess., (Feb. 24,1988) (emphasis added).
In her remarks to the house committee, Representative Green also compared the bill to section 43-4-512,17 C.R.S. (1996 Supp.), a provision concerning public highway authorities which provides:
No moneys of the authority may be used to urge or oppose passage of an election to establish or increase any tax or annual motor vehicle registration fee....
If this provision was used as a model for section 1-45-116, then the inclusion of the word “public” to modify “moneys” in section 1-45-116 further suggests that the General Assembly sought to prohibit only publicly funded government entities from making in kind contributions. Additionally, if the General Assembly wished to include privately funded entities such as the CCIA in this prohibition, it could have applied the same “[n]o moneys” language contained in section 43-4-512 to section 1-45-116.
The emphasis on “public money” in the wording of section l-45-116(l)(a) and in the legislative history of the CGA indicates that the General Assembly was concerned with public entities spending money earmarked for public use to influence ballot issues. Clearly, the bill’s sponsors sought to prevent publicly funded entities from using public funds to advocate for or against ballot initiatives. The driving impetus behind section 1-45-116, as amended, was to insure that government remain neutral while its eitizens participated in the democratic process.
III.
I agree with the majority that the use of public money to influence the passage of a proposed initiative violates core values in our democratic system and reduces public confidence in government.3 However, a public *533entity designed to function as a private insurance company should be allowed to expend its private funds to politically mobilize its constituents for an upcoming ballot measure. Such a use of non-public funds does not offend democratic principles and does not run contrary to the CRA.
I dissent because I disagree with the majority’s classification of the fund over which the CCIA operates as “public moneys” subject to section l-45-116(l)(a) of the CRA. I would therefore affirm the court of appeals decision.
. The SCIA board underwent several structural changes in the years prior to 1990, yet always maintained a majority of employer representatives. See § 8-54-102.5(2), 3B C.R.S. (1986) (three employer representatives on five-member board); § 8-54-102.5(2) (1987 Supp.) (four employer representatives on six-member board); § 8-54-102.5(2)(a) (1989 Supp.) (four employer representatives on seven-member board).
By creating and maintaining a majority of employer representatives on the board, the General Assembly clearly intended the CCIA to serve primarily as an agent for employers in the workers' compensation scheme.
. It is true that, for public investment purposes, the term "public funds” is defined in § 24-75-601(2), 10B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.) as "any funds in the custody, possession, or control of a public entity." However, as the court of appeals explains, this definition is not dispositive because it was not incoiporated into the CRA. Denver Area Labor Ped'n, 907 P.2d at 641. Furthermore, the General Assembly declined to make CCIA investments subject to § 24-75-601(2). 907 P.2d at 641.
. District Judge Matsch had this to say about the expenditure of public funds for issue campaigning in a case dealing the original language of § 1-45-116:
A use of the power of publicly owned resources to propagandize against a proposal made and supported by a significant number of those who were taxed to pay for such resources is an abridgment of ... fundamental freedoms. Specifically, where the proposal in question—placed before the voters in the exercise of the initiative power—seeks fundamentally to alter the authority of representative government, opposition to the proposal which is financed by publicly collected funds has the effect of shifting the ultimate source of power away from the people....
*533... When residents within a state seek to participate in this process by proposing an amendment to the state constitution, the expenditure of public funds in opposition to that effort violates a basic precept of this nation's democratic process. Indeed, it would seem so contrary to the root philosophy of a republican form of government as might cause this Court to resort to the guaranty clause in Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.
Mountain States Legal Found, v. Denver Sch. Dist. No. 1, 459 F.Supp. 357, 360-61 (D.Colo.1978) (citations omitted).