roundhouse-pic1SANTA FE — A bill that attempts to restrict what New Mexico nonprofits can do during an election year has run into an immovable object: the House Judiciary Committee.

The committee’s unwillingness to pass the legislation with days to go in the 2009 session means the bill’s chances for passage are between unlikely and nigh impossible.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Al Park, D-Albuquerque, said Tuesday that lawmakers have too many questions to let the bill out of committee.

“It’s not even that it is dead on the merits,” Park said. “It is dead on the complexity of the issue. It’s going to require a lot of rewriting and legislative surgery to try to make it a bill that is workable.”

Rep. Paul Bandy, R-Aztec, the sponsor of the legislation, acknowledged the difficulties ahead for legislation he had hoped would close what he saw as a loophole.

“Seems like no one likes it except me,” Bandy said Wednesday in understated fashion. The legislation was partly the brainchild of House Majority Leader Ken Martinez, D-Grants, and Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen.

Bandy’s bill would require nonprofits to list donors who give more than $1,000 if the nonprofits participate in “electioneering.” Electioneering is defined 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. The nonprofits would have to provide a list of donors to the secretary of state’s office.

Nonprofits have vocally opposed the bill for several reasons, including a concern that such a measure would abridge their right to free speech if they were required to list donors.

“We feel severely penalized by this law,” Nathan Bush, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society, told lawmakers sitting on the House Judiciary Committee late Tuesday.

Bush added that attorneys for the society had “never seen a state try to take away our tax exempt status and give it back to us conditionally. We understand the intent of this legislation. We don’t appreciate the punitive nature of the bill.”

Supporters for the legislation point to what happened last year when nonprofits sent out fliers months before the 2008 primary and general elections. Several incumbents lost their elections, and three of the ousted lawmakers unsuccessfully sued the organizations. Those legislators and others — as well as state Attorney General Gary King — characterized the fliers as political campaigning.

The bill’s backers also link it to the push for ethics reform that would encompass state lawmakers. One prominent ethics proposal being considered this year would limit the amount of money political candidates could accept from individuals, political committees and political parties. Some lawmakers say if they have to live with limits, nonprofits should have to disclose who their donors are.

Federal law does not require nonprofits to disclose donors.

“If it’s electioneering, it should be transparent,” said House Majority Leader Martinez. “I probably agree that we can’t do it this year. It’s a difficult issue. This may be a way to get at this in the future. There’s no villains here. People trying to get transparency in elections are not villains.”

Still, supporters had a hard time supporting the bill when even a legislative analysis said it would likely run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

The attorney general’s office has said that it is Attorney General Gary King’s conviction that the bill will survive judicial muster because it does not link “electioneering” to the state’s campaign reporting act, but to the state’s tax law.

“The state has the authority to control its own tax structure,” Bandy said.

Park said during Tuesday night’s meeting that he would “roll over,” or table, Bandy’s bill until Wednesday’s committee meeting. But on Tuesday he said it likely won’t come up again before the committee.

That wasn’t strong enough language for Rep. Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque.

“’Rolling over’ means that we don’t have the guts to kill it outright, and we’ll spend time re-writing it before, hopefully, we will kill it,” Stewart said during a live blog hosted by the Independent.

“I hope it never makes it out, but I’ve been wrong before. There are people on this committee who really want to punish the non-profits because they were so successful in the last elections.”

Bandy said Wednesday he might attempt one last legislative maneuver to save his bill. That would call for adding his bill as an amendment to another piece of legislation that would limit campaign contributions to political candidates.

Currently there are two campaign contribution limits bills in the House. One is a bill the Senate passed and sent over. Park is sponsoring the other. It is unclear if or when either will come up on the House floor before Saturday, when the Legislature adjourns.

“If we limit campaign contributions to the individuals and don’t try to get some kind of handle on third-party campaigning, then it’s going to move out of the candidate’s control,” Bandy said.

He is unsure of his chances, he said.