<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none;" alt="" src="https://dc.ads.linkedin.com/collect/?pid=319290&amp;fmt=gif">
Member Login

Advocacy in action blog

Colorado’s Implementation of Colorado Secure Savings Program bill, SB 200, is on a trajectory to pass. NAIFA, along with the American Council of Life Insurers, Insured Retirement Institute, and National Federation of Independent Business, worked diligently to counter the measure. There was limited time for debate. Also, the proposal is an initiative of the House Speaker. These factors make it all but impossible to defeat.

The bill may not be defeated via vote; however, the counter-coalition's impact was productive in other ways. There will not be a proposal for the implementation of a plan until midway through next year’s session at the earliest, meaning full implementation is at least one to two years away.

“The second victory is that Treasurer Young has kept the door open to NAIFA’s input as this plan continues to develop, and is still open to other suggestions from our industry,” said NAIFA-CO’s lobbyist Carl Larson. “The treasurer made a point to acknowledge our steadfast participation in the work of the study board and stated that we were the only industry group in the room beside the board members. This gives us credibility ad standing as we move forward in the process.”

Larson was the only person to testify in front of the House committee on the bill during a hearing held on June 9. His testimony focused on alternative strategies and the impacts of the SECURE Act. He noted to the committee that these federal reforms occurred between the time that the Colorado’s Study Board had finished its initial work and the introduction of SB 200.

NAIFA and coalition partners sent senators a letter of opposition the evening before its floor vote. Also, the coalition timed a grassroots campaign and conducted social media outreach.

“NAIFA-Colorado is fortunate to have so many of our industry partners rally their support of our efforts to push back against this well-meaning but misguided public policy,” said Larson. “It is unfortunate that legislators have chosen to push this bill through at a time when we are so limited by COVID restrictions to interact with them.”