The camel’s nose under the tent: Why Colorado’s “captive customer” bill matters

By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project

Captive customer price controls–the camel’s nose under the tent?

Colorado Democrats are tinkering in the market again, going after a variety to things including so-called “captive customers”.

Quoting the Complete Colorado article below (with links intact):

“House Bill 26-1012 is part of a package of legislation majority Democrats have in mind to regulate consumer prices and limit what the bill sponsors claim is price gouging. “Consumer Protections to Promote Fair Market Pricing” is the only bill in the package introduced so far.”

There’s more to the bill, but the part relevant to this post relates to what the sponsors define as captive customers. Quoting again:

“The bill also requires all vendors selling to a ‘captive consumer,’ to adjust their pricing according to the average price of the product being sold in the surrounding county. A “captive consumer” is defined as a consumer who is at a location in which the seller has no competitors in their service or products. This includes sporting or event stadiums, ski resorts, airports, hospitals, etc.”

I’m not here to defend $10 hot dogs or whatever. That kind of thing is an annoyance to us all. Whether reflective of costs in a stadium or not, in comparison with similar hot dogs outside the stadium, it’s absurd.

What I am here to do is to defend choice and point out a dynamic that I think underlies this effort.

I put the words “so-called” in front of captive above because you are not a captive when you go to a stadium. You are free to not go to the stadium or not. You are free to purchase a hot dog or not. The stadium is free to put their prices where they see fit and not allow outside food in.

What the sponsors here are betting on is that your agreement about the absurdity of stadium food prices will blind you to the fact that what they want is to put their meddling hands right in the middle of what is a voluntary transaction. They want to do as others (like the Soviets) have done: control prices.

And I’d bet you my lunch that once they get you to agree to price controls on the easy stuff, they’ll move to price controls on other stuff they’d like to have a hand in.

Rent?

Groceries?

This passes in 2026 without too much fuss, you watch how quickly they’ll be back to “protect” us from other prices.

It’s the camel’s nose under the tent.

https://completecolorado.com/2026/02/02/democrats-price-controls-captive-colorado-consumers/

---

Colorado Democrats taking Prop 130 dollars to train police about immigration enforcement?

There’s a whole lot of policy due to come out of the legislature in this session relating to ICE and Federal immigration law and enforcement.

The Sun article linked at bottom is chock full of it. I’m sure you’ll see all you want about that issue in the coming weeks; as something that really animates liberal/Democrat voters, you know the Colorado Democrats will be shouting to the rafters about it.

That same Sun article had a little nibble in it that caught my eye and seemed worthy of special mention. Quoting with links intact:

“Another forthcoming bill would make it illegal for law enforcement officers to wear masks and require that they display identification. It would also require training for local law enforcement officers on Colorado’s immigration laws, paid for by a $350 million fund created through a voter-approved initiative in 2024, and prohibit former federal immigration agents from becoming certified as state or local law enforcement officers, according to Zokaie.”

Amid all the heated rhetoric and hubbub around immigration enforcement and ICE it would be easy to miss what’s (partially) highlighted by that link.

Colorado Democrats want to take part of the money from Prop 130 and make sure that local law enforcement officers get training on Colorado’s sanctuary laws.

Prop 130 was an initiative voters (by about a 6% margin) voted into law back in 2024. If you want some context on the initiative, its supporters, and the vote, the Ballotpedia page on it is linked second below.

When voters voted for this measure, what they voted for, what Prop 130 does is listed in a quote from that page, which for space reasons I attach as screenshot 1.

Providing training is there–the use the Colorado Democrats would put this money to would not be in violation of the law–but I ask you this. If you voted for it, or if you know people who did, did you imagine money from a finite pool would be used to make sure police around the state don’t violate our sanctuary laws?

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.