When progressive political consultant Ian Silverii agrees with Jimmy Sengenberger, you know hell has frozen over — or, at least, the Fair Elections Fund proved to be a raw deal for Denver taxpayers, as easily predicted.

“Eight million dollars that could have been used for anything else going into the pockets of schmucks and consultants like me doesn’t seem like a great use of taxpayer dollars,” Silverii said. “I think this is proof that it is an abject failure.”

And a failure it was — categorically. In exchange for campaign caps on contributions over $50, candidates who agreed to participate received taxpayer matches for each contribution of $50 or less. At a 9-to-1 ratio, a $50 donation netted $450 — totaling nearly $8 million in taxpayer money for all candidates this spring alone.

Approved by voters in 2018, the Fund promised to give upstart candidates a shot — a chance for someone with “good intentions, good ideas (to) compete.” That’s what Aurelio Martinez told a mayoral candidate forum in November, saying he was running for mayor because the fund “does level the playing field.” If you don’t recognize Martinez’s name, that’s probably because he garnered only 0.44% of the vote — after raising just $12,000 in donations and $51,000 from the fund.

“It was great for the voters of Denver to have so much choice,” claimed Owen Perkins, president of CleanSlateNow Action, which was behind the ballot measure that established the Fund. “You had an important discussion, and important issues, that rose to prominence that I don’t think would have happened if we hadn’t had these kinds of candidates getting access to the ballot.”

Nonsense. Candidates like Martinez expected a genuine, fair shake — not just a platform to discuss “important issues.” The Fund made average Joes think they could raise the money they needed to, say, run for mayor. But once again, reality has demonstrated that establishment politicians will almost always raise more than the newcomers.

As I predicted in January, participants in the Fair Elections Fund who were the most well-connected — Mayor-elect Mike Johnston, Kelly Brough, State Rep. Leslie Herod, State Sen. Chris Hansen and outgoing City Councilwoman Debbie Ortega — ranked in the top five fundraisers.

Herod, for example, garnered substantial financial support — $346,500 in direct contributions and an additional $587,000 in taxpayer matches from the Fund. With ample resources at her disposal, Herod strategically spent her taxpayer dollars on consultants and marketing firms. However, even with all that consultant cash, Herod fell short in securing the leading progressive position. Lisa Calderón received a quarter of Herod’s funding yet achieved the same third-place finish she’d attained in 2019. Clearly, financial advantage alone does not guarantee electoral success.

What the fund makes possible, though, is the potential misuse of campaign funds. The lack of proper controls thereby enables professional politicians to target political enemies. Herod, for example, used her taxpayer funds to pay attorney Mario Nicolais, a former Republican operative, a hefty $50,500. Nicolais bullied a small grassroots organization, Citizens for a Safe and Clean Denver, for criticizing Herod online, costing the group a $250 fine. Why would a prominent politician abuse taxpayers’ campaign funds to suppress a tiny citizens group?

Against the sizable mayoral campaign war chests of well-connected contenders, novice candidates couldn’t afford the inflated salaries of a dwindling number of available campaign consultants, let alone the best staffers. They may have been stuck with lower-skilled or shadier operators.

The runoff finalists — Johnston and Brough — were arguably the most established candidates. It’s no coincidence that, even before the runoff, they were by far the top fundraisers and greatest beneficiaries of taxpayer dollars. They each collected some $2 million in contributions from donors and the Fair Elections Fund. But that’s not all.

“Restricting campaign fund-raising by individual candidates’ campaigns only diverts the money into the coffers of ‘independent expenditure committees,’” The Denver Gazette editorialized Wednesday. “There’s far less disclosure of their contributors; far less accountability over their expenditures, and no limits on the size of their bankrolls.” Out-of-state billionaires like Michael Bloomberg can and did have an outsized impact.

Outside spending is one way to tell how viable a candidate is, reflecting big-money supporters and indicating who influential heavy hitters think can make the cut. Ultimately, Johnston and Brough, who had the most independent expenditure support ($5 million for Johnston, $1.6 million for Brough), made the two-person runoff. On the other hand, Herod received $184,396 in independent expenditure support — and she ultimately placed fifth after Ortega.

Let’s be real: The deceptive allure of proposals like the Fair Elections Fund is enticing, but its promises are illusory. In the wake of yet another failed experiment to “get money out of politics,” politicians and activists will almost certainly propose “fixing” Denver’s system. This would be a fool’s errand, doomed to backfire again and again — with new loopholes that crafty politicos will inevitably identify.

Denver voters would be much better off repealing the whole thing outright rather than perpetuating this boondoggle.

The next effort should focus on greater transparency in political expenditures — which would be the opposite of a boon for Denver’s professional political class.

Jimmy Sengenberger is an investigative journalist, public speaker, and host of “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” Saturdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. on News/Talk 710 KNUS. Reach Jimmy online at JimmySengenberger.com or on Twitter @SengCenter.