Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary Committee gives due pass to bill tightening campaign disclosure and reporting windows
Summary
Senate Bill 85, which expands definitions of expenditures and contributions, requires segregated accounts for certain donations, and changes reporting timelines, received a due-pass recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee after extended debate and public testimony.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on a voice vote recommended a due pass on Senate Bill 85, a package of changes to New Mexico’s campaign reporting and election code that sponsors said closes disclosure loopholes and modernizes filing timelines.
Senator Peter Wirth, one of the bill’s sponsors, told the committee the measure updates definitions and disclosure windows created after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and targets several practices that have reduced transparency in independent expenditures. “This is a continuation of the work that I've done to close loopholes as a result of the changes that have occurred over the years with our election code,” Wirth said.
The bill as presented would: broaden the definition of “expenditure” to reduce circular carve-outs that can defeat disclosure; require, for donations specifically marked by donors not to be used for independent expenditures, that those funds be placed in a segregated bank account before they can be withheld from disclosure; prohibit certain forms of candidate self‑loan interest repayment; and add reporting requirements that would require candidates to disclose the terms of loans they make to their campaigns.
Senator Dede Feldman’s earlier work on campaign limits was cited in the presentation as background to the measure; sponsors said Section 1 clarifies the 30‑day/60‑day disclosure windows for independent advocacy around primaries and general elections. Section 3 would add the segregated‑account requirement that supporters and the Secretary of State’s office said is intended to prevent donors from claiming opt‑outs that are subsequently ignored by recipient groups. Sections 5 and 6 would limit repayment and require disclosure of loan terms where a candidate loans money to their own campaign and interest is charged.
Molly Swank, executive director of Common Cause New Mexico, testified in support of SB 85, calling it “supportive of SB 85 because it closes major loopholes in the Campaign Reporting Act, including disclosures and the timing of those disclosures, expanding the definitions of expenditures and contributions, and abuse of the opt out provisions.” Lindsey Bachman of the New Mexico Secretary of State’s office joined the committee to answer technical questions about reporting and enforcement.
Committee members pressed sponsors on multiple specifics. Senators asked how the bill treats recurring automated contributions, whether the “prohibited period” around the Legislature applies to candidates who happen to receive unsolicited contributions, and how the bill would treat loans from candidates to campaigns that carry interest. Senator Miguel Maestas proposed a drafting change to focus the prohibition on payment of interest rather than on repaying a loan in full; sponsors indicated they would work with the committee on clear language. Committee members also debated whether the bill reaches payments routed through limited liability companies and political entities that make large, non‑candidate‑specific disbursements; sponsors said SB 85 targets reporting and disclosure requirements but does not by itself regulate every entity structure being used.
On enforcement questions, the Secretary of State’s office said the typical process is to seek voluntary compliance and that additional penalties can be pursued through the state Ethics Commission or by charging violations under the election code, which may be a petty misdemeanor or subject to civil fines depending on the violation.
The committee advanced the bill by general consent after the motion for a due pass was made and no objections were raised; several senators spoke in support during the floor of the committee. The committee record shows an intent to return to drafting clarifications — particularly on loan terms, the prohibited period, and treatment of recurring contributions — before final passage.
Votes at the committee level: the bill received a due‑pass recommendation (no roll call was recorded in committee minutes; chair announced no objections).
