Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez has introduced two bills that would place limits on some campaign contributions in
The first, Senate Bill 264, would create state limits equal to the federal limits – currently $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general – on what any “person” can give to any candidate. Since a person is defined in the state’s Campaign Reporting Act as an “individual or entity,” this bill would place limits on contributions to candidates from individuals, political action committees, political parties, unions and corporations.
On Wednesday, Sanchez introduced Senate Bill 387. The bill would implement the same $2,300 limits, but only on contributions from “a person who is not required to register pursuant to the Campaign Reporting Act.” Committees – including political parties – are required to register, so the limits would apply only to contributions to candidates from individuals, corporations and unions.
Some will argue that the first bill doesn’t go far enough because it doesn’t restrict contributions to PACs and political parties, but it’s infinitely better than the second, which appears to have a loophole so big that it really doesn’t place contribution limits on any individual or entity.
Issues with both bills
There are some issues with both bills:
• Under Senate Bill 264, any individual, PAC, party, union or corporation could still give an unlimited amount of money to PACs and political parties. You might recall that the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee spent more than half a million dollars in 2006 on advertising for 16 Democratic House candidates across the state. Political Action Committees wouldn’t be able to do that under Sanchez’s bill, because they’d be limited to $2,300 in in-kind contributions to candidates, but they could still spend lots of money on issues campaigns and get-out-the-vote efforts to benefit their candidates.
Many argue that this bill wouldn’t reduce the amount of money in the system – it would simply shift the money from the candidates to the PACs and parties.
• Senate Bill 387 appears to be worthless. Any individual, corporation or union that expends more than $500 for a political purpose in a year can form a committee, which would apparently allow that person or group to avoid the contribution limit because the bill exempts committees. All you really have to do to create a committee is fill out a form stating that you are a committee and pay a $50 fee to the Secretary of State’s Office. Your campaign contribution counts as the expenditure that allows you to form a committee.
So the bill would apparently do nothing to limit the amount of money in the system, though it might slightly increase the revenue generated by the Secretary of State’s Office.
Sanchez and I are playing phone tag, so I’ve been unable to speak with him about the bills.
The best option: limit all contributions
Last year, the Senate approved a bill that placed limits of $2,300 on contributions to candidates and $5,000 on contributions to PACs, but the House would only agree to the limits on contributions to individuals, and the proposal died. The governor’s ethics task force this year recommended contribution limits of $2,300 to individual campaign committees, $5,000 to PACs and $10,000 to political parties – a proposal that would truly limit the amount of money in
Limiting the amount of money in the system would decrease the disproportionate influence of the rich and special interests, which would seem to increase the influence of everyone else and help level the playing field. That can only be good for democracy.
Senate Bill 387 would apparently do nothing to accomplish that goal. Some argue that Senate Bill 264 wouldn’t either.
The federal government and most states limit the amount of money that can be given to individuals and political groups. Gov. Bill Richardson understands the need to do that, and wants a bill that implements the recommendation of his task force. Even House Speaker Ben Lujan – though he opposed limits on contributions to PACs last year – now says he favors a bill that limits contributions to individuals, PACs and parties.
And though House Majority Leader Ken Martinez told the Albuquerque Journal that it’s not clear whether placing limits on contributions violates the right to free speech, it is clear. The U.S. Supreme Court has said limiting expenditures is unconstitutional, but limiting campaign contributions is not. It’s that simple.
The ideal bill would place limits on contributions to individuals, PACs and political parties. That’s what would truly help level the playing field by reducing the influence of the rich and special interests. In the absence of such a bill, Senate Bill 264 is far better than Senate Bill 387.