I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
SANTA FE — The Senate voted 29 to 10 Thursday to pass legislation that would allow a political candidate or a citizen to ask a state court judge to stop alleged political activity during an election until the group responsible discloses who is bankrolling the effort.
The legislation, SB 652 (pdf), seeks to avoid a repeat of the controversy that arose during the 2008 primary and general election seasons, when nonprofits distributed flyers that targeted incumbent lawmakers.
The bill, sponsored by Senate Minority Whip William Payne, R-Albuquerque, would give political candidates a tool to stop what they perceive as campaign intervention “when someone’s funneling money, or sending out mailers or anonymous phone-dialers and there’s no reporting where it’s being paid for,” he said.
“It’s a more timely manner to address an issue that could affect the outcome of an election,” Payne said.
The nonprofits that authored last year’s flyers, including the Center for Civic Policy and SouthWest Organizing Project, have said repeatedly they strictly adhered to federal Internal Revenue Service rules for 501c(3) organizations and thus did not cross the line between issue advocacy and political campaigning. The flyers did not endorse a candidate, were sent out months before either the primary or the general election and were meant to educate, the nonprofits said.
The attorney general later in 2008 ruled that the nonprofits’ activity amounted to political behavior and that they had to register as political committees and disclose their donors.
The nonprofits then sued the state in federal court to contest the order, saying that it abridged their constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Payne’s legislation passed the Senate easily, but not before a lengthy debate in which opponents amended it because they were worried that the law would create an influx of frivolous lawsuits. That amendment would require the loser in any suit filed under this law to pay all costs.
Payne’s bill also would fit like a puzzle piece with another bill (pdf) that defines exactly what political activity is and directly targets nonprofits.
That bill, HB 808, defines “electioneering” as the naming of a political candidate in a piece of literature or a broadcast ad that targets the candidate’s constituency in the three months prior to a primary election and the three months prior to the general election.
HB 808 would require nonprofits to list donors who give more than $1,000 if the nonprofits participate in such “electioneering.” Nonprofits have vocally opposed HB 808 for several reasons, including a concern that such a measure would abridge their right to free speech if they were required to list donors. Some representatives of the nonprofits also worried that the requirement to list donors could cost them donors seeking privacy.
Payne said his bill would enhance HB 808.
“It enhances a candidate’s ability to protect himself and not have to rely on the secretary of state,” Payne said. “It goes much beyond nonprofits.”
Payne said one candidate who ran last year was receiving legal contributions, but he didn’t report them. His legislation would target that type of behavior as well.
