Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Transparency bill on independent expenditures draws divided response; committee rolls measure
Summary
Senate Bill 85, an update to New Mexico's campaign reporting law aimed at expanding disclosure of independent expenditures and modernizing reporting rules, drew both endorsements and strong objections before the committee opted to roll the bill for further work.
Senate Bill 85, a multi-part update to the state's Campaign Reporting Act, was presented to the House Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee and received a mix of support and opposition before sponsors agreed to roll the measure for further review.
The bill would (1) tighten disclosure rules for independent expenditures (sometimes called "super PAC" spending), (2) broaden language to cover modern "electronic communications" such as texts, (3) require segregated bank accounts in some independent-expenditure circumstances, and (4) change candidate reporting deadlines and supplemental reporting thresholds.
Supporters said SB 85 closes disclosure loopholes that permit large anonymous electoral spending. Molly Swank, executive director of Common Cause New Mexico, told the committee the bill "closes major loopholes in New Mexico's Campaign Reporting Act and overall increases the transparency of who is trying to influence elections in our state," and said the changes do not burden grassroots advocacy.
Opponents — including civil-liberties and nonprofit organizations represented in a joint letter to the committee — raised First Amendment and operational concerns. Witnesses urged caution about removing the term "political purpose" from the expenditure definition, arguing the change could sweep routine, nonpartisan communications into regulated campaign spending and chill protected speech. Denali Wilson, staff attorney for the ACLU of New Mexico, said the bill "appears to broaden reporting requirements to include routine and nonpartisan communication... [creating] significant First Amendment concerns." Other opponents suggested adopting an FEC definition for electronic communications as a narrower alternative.
Secretary of State staff and other proponents said the bill largely codifies rules and practices already in regulations and court decisions, and that the changes reflect modern media. Lindsey Bachman of the Secretary of State's office explained existing rule language governing disclaimers and windows for disclosure, and said published administrative rules already define when disclaimers are required for advertising and independent expenditures.
Committee action: After testimony and questions, sponsors agreed to roll SB 85 and reschedule it for further work; the record shows the bill was not finalized in this hearing and will be heard later.
Ending: Supporters urged quicker transparency for large electoral spenders; opponents cautioned against language they said might chill issue education and nonprofit activity. The committee elected to roll SB 85 for additional stakeholder engagement and technical changes.
