After a long and contentious debate earlier today, the Senate approved a bill that places limits on campaign contributions to candidates for state offices, but only after making several amendments that make it significantly different than the bill already approved by the House.
On a vote of 25-12, the Senate approved Senate Bill 800, sponsored by Dede Feldman, D-Albuquerque. It would create a number of new campaign finance reporting requirements for candidates and political action committees and would limit campaign contributions to candidates to $2,300 for state races during each election cycle. Primary and general elections are considered separate cycles under the proposal.
Midway through the debate, the bill appeared dead when an amendment sponsored by Sen. Leonard Lee Rawson, R-Las Cruces, was approved that stipulated that the bill would go into effect in the year 3007.
After Feldman chastised those who voted for the amendment, senators voted to amend the bill’s effective date back to Jan. 1, 2008.
“I think this is a serious public policy issue for
The primary amendment that makes the bill different than the House version of the proposal makes it apply to contributions both to candidates and political action committees. The House version of the bill, House Bill 821, sponsored by Rep. Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque, only applies to contributions to candidates.
In the Senate bill, the limit for contributions to PACs is $5,000.
Under the proposal, the limit for contributions to candidates would increase to keep pace with the federal limit, which is currently $2,300 and rises slightly every year.
Sen. Steve Komadina, R-Corrales, opposed the bill. He asked for examples of special-interest money having too much influence on the Legislature.
Feldman cited polls that indicate the public supports campaign contribution limits but said she “can’t think of any examples offhand.”
“Senator, a lot of people perceive a lot of things,” Komadina said. “… I think perception and reality are totally different things.”
He added that he “would hate” to pass the bill without facts.
Feldman said she is “not saying that
“I think we are good people… trapped in a flawed system, and we’re trying to do the best we can, and it’s pretty difficult,” Feldman said.
Komadina wasn’t convinced.
“By passing this we tend to, again, just give the public perception more fuel,” Komadina said in arguing that he believes the perception is false. “… This bill absolutely makes no sense to me at all and, again, I refuse to feed to public perceptions of the people of the state of
Senators debate role of PACs
It was Sen. Clinton Harden, R-Clovis, who proposed the amendment that would expand the bill to place the limits on gifts to political action committees.
He said the bill is “clearly trying to level the playing field” and prevent rich people from being able to “buy an election.” He said the limits are more about equal influence than they are about stopping corruption.
“It creates a level playing field for everybody who’s running for office,” he said. “If you’re going to mass a lot of money, you’re going to have to talk to a lot of people.”
But he said, without the amendments, massive contributions could be given to PACs who would “affect campaigns,” and the intent of the bill would be lost.
Feldman accepted the amendment as friendly.
A second amendment that played off Harden’s was defeated after a contentious debate. Sen. Rod Adair, R-Roswell, proposed amendment that would make the $2,300 limit apply to in-kind contributions of labor from political action committees. Feldman objected, saying in-kind gifts of labor “encourage volunteerism.”
“This certainly would not encourage volunteerism,” Feldman said of Adair’s proposed amendment. “Restricting volunteers, whether they be the NRA, unions… is bad public policy.”
But Adair argued that the proposal simply placed a value on volunteerism and other in-kind contributions and would help create “a level playing field, which is supposed to be the intent of the bill.” He said groups that contribute a number of hours to a campaign could influence a candidate as much as a large contribution from a wealthy donor.
Sen. William Payne, R-Albuquerque, said the bill, without the amendment, “clearly benefits the majority party” by hampering Republicans’ ability to accept large contributions of money without also limiting Democrats’ help from labor unions and other liberal lobby groups.
The proposed amendment was defeated on a vote of 18-18. Tie votes result in a failure of motions.
The Senate bill now goes to the House for consideration. The House bill must be approved by one additional committee before heading to the Senate floor for a vote.