The state Task Force on Ethics Reform is considering a number of proposals designed to increase transparency in state government.
In chairing the subcommittee proposing changes related to transparency, state Rep. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, has an opportunity to make an impact.
The subcommittee made several recommendations to the task force at Monday’s meeting in Socorro:
• Improving the campaign finance reporting system on the Secretary of State’s Web site.
• Requiring lobbyists to wear badges that identify them and disclose their client lists.
• Requiring lobbyists to disclose how much they’re being paid by their clients.
• Forbidding former lawmakers from lobbying the Legislature during the first year after they leave office.
• Opening legislative conference committees to the public.
Some of the issues – such as opening conference committees to the public – had overwhelming support from the group. The proposal to require lawmakers to take a one-year “cooling-off period” before becoming lobbyists also had widespread support, but the task force needs some clarification before it formally votes to recommend that to the governor.
Some proposals – most notably the other proposed requirements for lobbyists – were more controversial.
Some question need for lobbyist badges
Steinborn said the proposed badge requirement is based on similar laws in other states. He told the task force it’s important to “bring as much sunshine to that de-facto branch of government as we do to us as legislators,” and said badges would help lawmakers “understand who they’re talking to.”
Steinborn suggested a requirement that lobbyists update their client lists and obtain new badges within 24-48 hours of taking on new clients, that they display them while they’re working as lobbyists and that there be penalties for not doing so.
But Doña Ana County Commissioner Bill McCamley, a task force member, asked how the rule would be practical for lobbyists who have dozens of clients, saying they would have to wear very large badges. And House Majority Leader Ken Martinez said that, though Steinborn has had problems with a lobbyist hesitating to identify himself, he’s “not sure it’s as big a problem as it’s perceived to be.”
Another task force member suggested that a rule change, instead of a statutory change, could suffice, with the penalty being that lobbyists who don’t comply are kicked out of the Roundhouse.
But Steinborn disagreed with both, saying sometimes lobbyists grab lawmakers in hallways and adding that new legislators and new lobbyists come on board all the time. He also said there’s a public benefit to having lobbyists be identified.
Lobbyist pay disclosure proposal is controversial
On the issue of disclosure of how much lobbyists are paid, Think New Mexico Director Fred Nathan said 18 states have enacted such laws. A bill that would require such disclosure in
Several task force members said the proposal would help the public understand the efforts being put into approval or death of certain bills. But others compared the idea to voyeurism.
“I understand that there’s a quasi-public role that they serve as lobbyists, but they’re not elected officials,”
Task force member Geno Zamora disagreed.
“This is a sunshine issue and it’s an issue of how much different interests… are dedicating toward specific legislation,” he said. “I think the public does have an interest.”
Sen. John Ryan, R-Albuquerque, argued that public disclosure might reveal a “huge difference” between what various lobbyists are paid and drive up lobbyist rates, actually inserting more money into the political system.
He said that would be counterproductive.
“I don’t think this issue really solves any ethics kinds of things,” he said.
Sen. Dede Feldman, D-Albuquerque, said it was still important to consider the proposal.
“Doesn’t the public deserve to know if $500,000 is being spent against a certain issue and that there have been 36 lobbyists hired in the past week?” she asked. “This is not voyeurism, I don’t think. This is something that the public has a right to know about the process of laws being made.”
The task force will take up these issues again at its next meeting to try to reach consensus. In the meantime, Steinborn’s subcommittee will explore the issues further and bring additional information to the Aug. 7 meeting.