A budget bill passed last week during the special session was widely believed to have preserved Medicaid from cuts. But the governor’s office said earlier this week that the language in the bill was incomplete, leaving most Medicaid programs in the mix of executive branch programs available for 7.6 percent cuts mandated by the Legislature.

The letter, from House Majority Floor Leader Ken Martinez and Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, was hand-delivered to the governor’s office Friday. In it, they said that the analysis the Legislature had available last week indicated that Medicaid would be saved from cuts. And, they said, no one from the executive branch informed them before they passed the bill that it left Medicaid vulnerable.

In response to an inquiry from the Independent earlier this week, Richardson spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos said in an email that the Legislative Finance Committee, which did the fiscal impact report on the bill, was informed by the Department of Finance and Administration about the “flaw” in the Medicaid language in the bill:

DFA officials alerted the LFC of several flaws in the bill – constitutional flaws, as well as the flaw in the language dealing with Medicaid. The other flaws were corrected, but the Medicaid language was never corrected.

The legislators concluded their letter by urging the governor to use the “flexibility” the legislation provides to make necessary cuts while preserving Medicaid, as the Legislature intended.

Called combined reporting, the bill (Senate Bill 8)sponsored by Santa Fe Democrat Peter Wirth would require multi-state companies with stores in New Mexico to pay taxes on income earned here.

As it is now, large, multi-state corporations often designate individual stores as subsidiaries that then make large payments to a home office in another state for use of, say, a logo. Those large payments funnel earned corporate income out of New Mexico that should be taxed here, the sponsor, Wirth has said. He says it’s a loophole that gives big corporations a leg up on local businesses.

Opponents, however, say that requiring combined reporting now would send an anti-business message to corporations and industries at a time when New Mexico should be doing everything to entice businesses to relocate here or expand their operations.

Lobbyist Dick Minzner, in a guest op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal today, said that combined reporting legislation isn’t the best way to get at corporate tax avoidance, which he acknowledges may occur.

Minzner wrote:

Most separate reporting states, but not New Mexico, have passed “add back” statutes to eliminate the tax effect of such transactions in certain cases. To prevent the shifting of income it regards as illegitimate, New Mexico could pass such “add back” legislation.

Sen. Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, said he had heartburn voting that Wirth’s legislation was not relevant to the special legislative session agenda.

“This is the hardest for me,” Sanchez said, referring to all the bills before the Committee on Committees on Sunday. “I’ve supported this. I think this bill is really important.”

Added Sen. Minority Leader Stuart Ingle, R-Portales: “I think it is something that we need to look at in the 30-day session.”

Sanchez said that while he was voting against the bill’s relevance Sunday, it did not mean that he would vote the same way if it came up on the Senate floor.

He said he might vote for it if that happened.

Sanchez on several occasions Sunday said that while the Committee on Committees ruled pieces of legislation not germane to the special session, they likely will come up for debate before the full Senate later.

The committee ruled several pieces of legislation not germane to the special session, including one that would increase the income tax rate on the state’s highest earners and one that would close an exemption that soft drinks currently enjoy to the state gross receipts tax.

The panel also ruled that the tax expenditure report legislation was not germane to the special session. I had incorrectly reported earlier that that piece of legislation had passed the panel.

You should follow NMI on Twitter and become a fan of NMI on Facebook. Got a news tip? Want to pitch a story idea? Send us an e-mail.

The vote followed a 25-minute debate on the governor’s authority to narrow the agenda of the 2009 special legislative session.

Feldman’s legislation would have closed an exemption certain insurance companies now have to the state’s gross receipts tax.

“As you know senator, I don’t always get along with the governor,” said Sen. Majority Leader Michael Sanchez. “On occasion he likes me. On other occasions he doesn’t like me that much.”

Sanchez referred to Richardson’s statement on Saturday that tax increases would be addressed in the January regular session.  Richardson and top lawmakers have generally agreed to not broach tax increases to address this year’s

“I take him for his word. And I think those issues will be addressed then,” Sanchez said.

“I don’t mind that we bring up tax proposals” in January, Sanchez said. “I’ll probably vote for a lot of tax proposals. They are not revenue enhancements. They are tax increases.

You should follow NMI on Twitter and become a fan of NMI on Facebook. Got a news tip? Want to pitch a story idea? Send us an e-mail.

And he wasn’t saying Friday how he was leaning on the issue. Richardson has three days to figure out whether to sign or veto legislation to repeal the death penalty in the Land of Enchantment and, based on a released statement, he’ll spend most of the weekend deliberating.

“This is an extremely difficult issue that deserved the serious and thoughtful debate it received in the Legislature,” the governor said in a written statement. “I have met with many people and will continue to consider all sides of the issue before making a decision.”

Richardson’s ruminations were prompted Friday by the Senate’s voting 24-18 to repeal the death penalty after an hours-long, wide-ranging debate that alternated between dizzying flights of eloquence and illuminating history lessons that reached back through 6,000 years of human history.

Meanwhile, supporters were ecstatic that New Mexico had come close to joining 14 other states and the European Union to ban capital punishment.

“I wouldn’t want to be and I don’t think the state wants to be the one that takes the one more day the prisoner needs to find either redemption, forgiveness or justice,” said Allen Sanchez, spokesman for the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops.

New Mexico’s Catholic Church was the highest-profile supporter that pushed for the repeal of the death penalty and dismantling the state’s death row. “We want the governor to know that this does reflect the people of New Mexico,” Sanchez added.

Sanchez has lobbied Richardson on this issue throughout the 2009 legislative session and even sat down for dinner with the governor and Archbishop Michael Sheehan a few weeks back.

Sanchez wouldn’t say whether he thought Richardson was leaning one way or the other based on what he observed during the dinner, but he did say the governor “was asking the right questions.”

The arguments for and against abolishing the death penalty tracked familiar paths Friday for anyone who has heard the debate.

Opponents argued that it was a deterrent to heinous crimes and that abolishing it would amount to the equivalent of canceling thousands of years of practice and would put police and correctional officers in harm’s way.

“Western civilization tells us this is a just penalty for the most heinous crimes,” said state Sen. Rod Adair, R-Roswell, a fierce, often eloquent opponent of the repeal bill. “Many people in this country think our founders were but fools. They were wise, wise people. We lack wisdom.”

Opponents also recalled crimes striking in their horror to drive home the point that the death penalty meted out justice.

Sen. President Pro Tem Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, recalled Dena Lynn Gore, the 6-year-old victim of Terry Clark, the only man New Mexico has executed since 1960.

“A little girl gets on her bike and rides to a 7-11,” Jennings said. “A guy abducts her, rapes her and kills her. What chance did that girl have at life? Dena didn’t have any benefit of the doubt. Dena Lynn Gore. This vote is for her.”

But supporters responded that it was time for New Mexico to join a growing movement of states and countries that represent “an evolution of our moral conscience,” responded Sen. Jerry Ortiz Y Pino, D-Albuquerque. “We shouldn’t be responding with the lizard part of our brain like we did 6,000 years ago.”

Supporters also framed the decision to not execute a person no matter the depth of their depravity as a teachable moment for New Mexico’s youth and the state’s lawmakers could help.

“Lead by example,” said Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen.

Interspersed through the debate on the death penalty were repeated biblical references, leading one Senate wit to crack that he felt like he was somewhere other than the state Capitol.

“I have not heard so much scriptures bandied about since I went to church,” state Sen. William Payne, R-Albuquerque, said to chuckles.

New Mexico’s step toward repealing the death penalty is part of a larger national trend, supporters have said.

Part of that are the mistakes uncovered in prosecutions in recent years. About 130 people in 26 states have been exonerated since the early 1970s, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. That number includes four people from New Mexico.

Sam Milsap, a former district attorney from San Antonio, Texas, joined supporters last week and admitted that he was haunted by a man he prosecuted in the 1980s, Ruben Cantu. Cantu was executed in 1993. A witness in the original case has since recanted testimony, throwing doubt on Cantu’s guilt.

At the same time, states are looking at the bottom line. More states are looking at abolishing the death penalty and citing the cost of prosecuting capital murder. Appeals over a several-year period can often drive up the costs, say death penalty opponents.

The dollars-and-cents argument comes at a time when the economy is in a shambles and many states are struggling to balance their budgets, including New Mexico.

In a practical sense, the repeal of the death penalty in New Mexico is more of a symbolic act than anything else.

The state has executed only one man – Clark – since 1960 and only two men, both from San Juan County, sit on New Mexico’s death row.

Legislation that would repeal capital murder and replace it with life in prison without parole moves to the Senate floor, its next-to-last stop, following Monday afternoon’s 6-5 vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve the bill.

And supporters expect the Senate to approve the legislation and send it on to Gov. Bill Richardson, who has not said whether he would sign the bill or not. But the governor has said publicly that his opposition to abolishing the death penalty has “softened.”

On Monday a Richardson’s spokesman said the governor is still studying the issue, and won’t make a decision until if and when the legislation gets to him: “Governor Richardson continues to weigh all sides of this issue. He will not take a position until a bill reaches his desk.”

Richardson’s signature would make New Mexico the 15th state in the nation to abolish the death penalty.

New Mexico’s move toward repealing capital punishment is part of a larger national trend, said Sam Milsap, a former district attorney from San Antonio, Texas, and who testified in support of the repeal Monday afternoon.

Milsap prosecuted a man in the 1980s, Ruben Cantu, later executed in 1993. A witness in the original case has since recanted testimony, throwing doubt on Cantu’s guilt.

“What is driving this debate is not this old liberal argument is that it’s wrong to kill people for killing people,” Milsap said. “The fact that we know the system is not perfect. I have no problem with the state killing people for killing people if I was certain we could get it right 100 percent of the time.”

About 130 people in 26 states have been exonerated since the early 1970s, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. That number includes four people from New Mexico.

Milsap added that another factor driving other states to consider abolishing the death penalty is the cost of prosecuting capital murder. Appeals over a several-year period often drive up the costs, say death penalty opponents. The dollars-and-cents argument comes at a time when the economy is in a shambles and many states are struggling to balance their budgets, including New Mexico.

New Mexico has executed one prisoner since 1976 — Terry Clark in 2001.

Monday’s vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee provoked applause from supporters and came after an hour-long debate in which supporters and opponents of the death penalty made arguments familiar to anyone who has followed the debate.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque, opened her presentation to the committee by saying, “We are not excusing terrible violence murders by any means. We believe that society should be protected.”

She then explained that what the legislation would do is to replace the death penalty with life in prison without parole.

Death penalty repeal supporter Michelle Giger said she lost her father to murder but said that capital murder trials make victims remember how our loved ones died. All she wanted “is to remember him and how he (her father) lived.”

But Lemuel Martinez, the district attorney for the 13th District, said the death penalty is a deterrent regardless of what opponents say.

“It prevents people from committing murder,” Martinez said.

He also said the cost argument against the death penalty is a misleading one because “we will continue to pay defense attorneys who will try to get people off life without parole.”

The lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee also debated the bill.

“We are not Texas,” Sen. Richard Martinez, D-Española, said, comparing Texas’ execution rate to that of New Mexico’s. Texas has executed more than 400 people since 1976. New Mexico has executed Clark.

“I’m sorry,” Sen. Martinez said. “By enacting this law we will be doing an injustice to our people.”

But Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, a criminal defense attorney, said that the state couldn’t take chances with the death penalty.

Sanchez said he didn’t agree with supporters of the death penalty that “If you get it right 90 percent of the time, that’s good enough. That is not good enough.”

Members of the Senate Rules Committee voted 7-0 Wednesday morning to approve legislation that supporters say would close a huge loophole.

New Mexico is among a handful of states across the country that does not limit what individuals, political action committees, political parties or businesses can give to candidates or elected officials.

Under the legislation, individuals could not give more than $2,300 during a calendar year. A limit of $5,000 over the same period would apply to a political committee and $10,000 for a political party.

The legislation also would cap what political committees and national and state political parties can give to candidates or to other committees or parties — $5,000 for each during a calendar year. It also would limit to $10,000 what a political party could give to a candidate or another political committee.

The legislation that passed Wednesday does not include a ban on money from lobbyists and state contractors to candidates, an idea being pushed by Gov. Bill Richardson this year.

Advocates of ethics reform were ecstatic that the legislation cleared Senate Rules but expressed concerns about the bill.

“We just are grateful that we have what we consider a major ethics reform bill make its way out of the committee,” said Steven Robert Allen, executive director of Common Cause New Mexico.

Still, Allen ticked off a few details that gave him pause, including a provision that would repeal contribution limits two years after the law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2011.

Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Albuquerque, and chairwoman of Senate Rules, said during Wednesday’s committee meeting that the sunset date for the legislation was to give the state a chance to review how limits on contributions were working.

Allen said the state could review the system in a different way.

“It’s entirely valid to want to look two years down the line and examine how things are functioning and maybe make tweaks to the system,” Allen said. “The Legislature is able to do that. They could just pass an amendment to existing law, and I think that’s a more appropriate way to deal with the review process.”

Allen said that capping campaign contributions over a calendar year instead of an election cycle would make it “slightly more favorable towards incumbents than towards challengers.”

Federal law sets separate limits for contributions over a primary election cycle and the general election cycle so a person can give $4,800 to a candidate during both cycles.

“The conventional wisdom is that challengers have a much harder time gathering donations during a (non-election) calendar year,” Allen said.

The swiftness with which the bill cleared the Senate Rules committee Wednesday stood in sharp relief with how the committee has moved during the first five weeks of this year’s 60-day legislative session on ethics reform legislation. The committee has moved deliberately – critics say slowly – to contemplate and vote on ethics reform legislation.

Lopez said the contribution-limits legislation wrapped several other similar proposals into it and was agreed on by the lawmakers sponsoring the other pieces of legislation.

This year’s push for ethics reform comes amid three separate investigations that are reviewing practices in state offices, including a federal inquiry into the business practices of Richardson’s administration. Two state probes, meanwhile, are looking into the operations of a defunct housing authority run by a friend of state House Speaker Ben Lujan and trying to find federal election money that went missing during the tenure of former Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron. In addition, former Senate President Pro Tem Manny Aragon pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges in October.

The limits have faced serious opposition in previous years, partly because legislators wondered why the legislative branch was included in the system when it was Richardson who collected eye-popping contributions. On occasion the governor saw $75,000 and $100,000 contributions go toward his election and re-election campaigns.

The contribution-limits bill now goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, who is viewed in some corners as an opponent of ethics reform, predicted Wednesday that the bill would sail through that committee.

“It won’t be next week,” Sanchez told the Independent.

The vote likely will occur after Wednesday, so it would go to the floor later in the week.

Many senators are expected to attend a public memorial service in Roswell Wednesday for Patty Jennings, the wife of Senate President Pro Tem Tim Jennings. She died this weekend.

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the legislation on to the Senate floor without a do-pass recommendation.

But one proposal for reform is not getting any discussion. In fact, some legislators, when asked about it, thought it already was part of state law, while others said they had never considered it.

The proposal, which appears not to be in any of the ethics reform bills before the Legislature this year, would require a campaign contributor to list his or her employer.

A dozen states require employer information from donors of most or all contributions, according to a report compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures. But New Mexico state law only requires a contributor to list his or her occupation, which is less than what is required in the federal campaign finance laws. (Click here to read New Mexico’s statute.)

“It’s actually brought up to me all the time,” said Steven Robert Allen, executive director of New Mexico Common Cause.

Listing an employer, rather than just an occupation “says a lot about where (a contributor’s) interests lie,” Allen said. “It’s an indication of where they are coming from.”

Knowing a contributor’s employer also helps the public to make connections, as in who is related to whom, Allen said.

The little-known fact about New Mexico’s lack of employer disclosure law caught some lawmakers by surprise Friday.

“I always thought that was the law,” said Senate Minority Leader Stuart Ingle, R-Portales, on Friday. “Absolutely. That should be in the law.”

Sen. Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, said he’d never thought about it and wanted to ponder over it a little more.

“I haven’t thought of it about it much. It seems in terms of the disclosure issues New Mexico is one of the better states,” Sanchez said. “This is the first time it’s ever been brought to my attention.”

Sanchez argued that occupation seemed to offer enough information to the public. And by listing an employer one might miss the exact job they do.

“If your employer is Ford, you could be either a janitor or you could be a car dealer or you could be a chief executive,” Sanchez said. “But you wouldn’t have to put that.”

Some states require both occupation and employer.

“I will take a look at it,” Sanchez said.

Perennial ethics reform advocate Sen. Dede Feldman, D-Albuquerque, said requiring the listing of an employer is a good idea, although it’s not on many people’s radar.

“I don’t think anybody is thinking of it,” Feldman said.

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Sue Wilson Beffort, R-Sandia Park, heads to the Senate Judiciary Committee without a recommendation, primarily because of questions that were raised during the hearing.

Legislative committees usually vote on one of two motions — “do pass” or “do not pass.”

The “no recommendation” motion came from Sen. Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, who raised several concerns, including whether this legislation would require the state’s public defender office to represent a defendant in civil proceedings. Public defenders represent defenders only in criminal proceedings by state law.

Sanchez said if public defenders were called on to deal with civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings, the public defender’s office likely would need additional resources.

Had Beffort thought about that? Sanchez asked.

Beffort responded that she assumed public officials to whom this legislation would apply would use private attorneys, and not public defenders. State public defenders are generally used by low-income defendants.

Beffort also told the committee that the bill would give a public official convicted of corruption three years to appeal the loss of pension benefits. And the legislation would not affect child support payments that are paid for with pension benefits.

The bill ensures that public officials who have “unique access to power … are not able to misuse the public trust and profit from their misdeeds,” Beffort said.

Several groups, including the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce and the New Mexico chapter of Common Cause, stood up during the hearing to express their support for the legislation.

The bill was passed out of the committee on a 4-1 vote. GOP Sen. Dianna Duran, R-Tularosa, voted no on the motion to send the bill on with a no recommendation because she wanted it to move on with a “do pass” from the Senate Rules Committee, she said.

There is much interest in who is selected as chairs to Senate committees after the Senate Democratic caucus was divided over a battle for the Senate president pro tem post. Some lawmakers have publicly worried that they might lose their chairmanships because they backed the wrong candidate.

Senate President Pro Tem Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, named an 11-member panel, including the Senate’s five Democratic and Republican leaders — Jennings, Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, Majority Whip Mary Jane Garcia, Republican leader Stuart Ingle and Republican Whip William Payne.

Jennings also named six other members — five Democrats and one Republican. They are: Sen. Carlos Cisneros, D-Questa; Sen. William Sharer, R-Farmington; Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming; Sen. Cynthia Nava, D-Las Cruces; Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup; and Sen. Tim Keller, D-Albuquerque.