{"id":3577,"date":"2008-08-15T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2008\/08\/nonprofit-dispute-could-have-far-reaching-implications\/"},"modified":"2008-08-15T06:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-08-15T12:00:00","slug":"nonprofit-dispute-could-have-far-reaching-implications","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2008\/08\/nonprofit-dispute-could-have-far-reaching-implications\/","title":{"rendered":"Nonprofit dispute could have far-reaching implications"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Attorney General Gary King<\/a> and lawyers for a nonprofit at the center of an election-year controversy agree on one thing: Making New Mexico Youth Organized (NMYO) comply with the state\u2019s campaign reporting laws would have far-reaching implications in New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state>.<\/p>\n

They disagree, however, on whether that\u2019s a good thing. King says he wants all groups who engage in political activity to play by the same rules, meaning all nonprofits that engage in politics should have to regularly report contributions and expenditures publicly, just like candidates, campaigns and political action committees. Attorneys for the Center for Civic Policy<\/a> (CCP), the parent organization of NMYO, say that would hurt the ability of New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> nonprofits to bring important issues to light.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis will certainly have broader implications, and frankly this is one of the reasons I\u2019m interested in it,\u201d King said in an interview. \u201cI don\u2019t want anyone to think they can create an entity that is exempt from our campaign finance reporting laws. I think all groups should be treated equally.\u201d<\/p>\n

Attorneys Sara Berger and John Boyd of Albuquerque, who represent NMYO and CCP, wrote in a June 6 letter<\/a> to Secretary of State Mary Herrera<\/a> that \u201crequiring groups like NMYO to register as a political committee when they conduct issue advocacy campaigns\u201d would \u201chave a severe chilling effect on these groups\u2019 free speech rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The key issues are the definition of \u201cpolitical purpose\u201d in state law and the question of whether federal law applies to this situation.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Herrera will decide whether to take the AG\u2019s advice and force NMYO to register as a political committee. Staffers from the offices of the AG and secretary of state are meeting this afternoon to discuss the issue. Boyd and Berger have threatened to sue if Herrera changes NMYO\u2019s status.<\/p>\n

King said he wouldn\u2019t be surprised if, whether it\u2019s in this instance or another, the courts decide the overriding issue: whether nonprofits can engage in activities he says cross the line between issue advocacy and political campaigning.<\/p>\n

Boyd said that he hopes a lawsuit isn\u2019t necessary.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat I\u2019m hoping is that cooler heads will prevail in the secretary of state\u2019s office and that people will take a serious, cautious and careful look at this before they start acting, because all it\u2019s going to do is buy litigation, which nobody needs,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

What is a \u2018political purpose?\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Three lawmakers who were defeated in the primary have already filed a lawsuit alleging a vast conspiracy<\/a> to illegally and secretly funnel money aimed at defeating them through NMYO and other nonprofits. At issue are mailers like this one<\/a> NMYO sent out shortly after the legislative session — two to three months before the June primary — targeting several lawmakers, including three who lost.<\/p>\n

Though NMYO says the mailers were issue-based and aimed to influence the upcoming special session, King contends that the mailers cross the line between issue advocacy and political campaigning as defined by the state\u2019s Campaign Reporting Act.<\/a> Under that act, King says, the group meets the definition of a political committee. King has not shared details of his office\u2019s legal argument, but said the key issue is the definition of the phrase \u201cpolitical purpose\u201d in the act.<\/p>\n

The act defines a political committee as two or more people — other than a candidate\u2019s family members or a husband and wife who make contributions out of a joint account — who \u201care selected, appointed, chosen, associated, organized or operated primarily for a political purpose…\u201d The act defines \u201cpolitical purpose\u201d as \u201cinfluencing or attempting to influence an election or pre-primary convention, including a constitutional amendment or other question submitted to the voters.\u201d<\/p>\n

King said the mailers were clearly aimed at influencing the June primary. In the interview, he provided no details to back that up beyond what he has said previously: \u201c\u2026 if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it\u2019s probably a duck.\u201d<\/p>\n

Does the First Amendment apply?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Berger and Boyd wrote in their letter that there\u2019s more that must be considered than the state\u2019s Campaign Reporting Act. Their argument is based on three U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo<\/a>. In the letter they wrote that the Supreme Court has \u201cmade it abundantly clear\u201d that the First Amendment protection of speech allows governments to regulate \u201cadvocacy communication\u201d only when a group \u201cexpressly and incontrovertibly urges voters to support or oppose a candidate for public office.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the interview, Boyd said NMYO\u2019s mailers didn\u2019t do that. They didn\u2019t mention a candidate or upcoming election.<\/p>\n

The First Amendment has nothing to do with the situation, King said. These were state legislative races that are subject to state law, not federal law. But Boyd said King\u2019s argument flies in the face of basic constitutional law. The Supreme Court, he and Berger wrote in their letter, has ruled that forcing nonprofits to comply with registration, reporting and disclosure requirements can hinder their ability to exercise their right to free speech because such requirements can be burdensome for small organizations.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe\u2019s way out in left field on this,\u201d Boyd said of King. \u201cWith all due respect to the attorney general, New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> doesn\u2019t get to have a campaign reporting act that is broader than what the Supreme Court has said is the broadest they can have under the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

King\u2019s office originally expressed concern about the activities of NMYO in a May 22 letter<\/a> to Herrera. When CCP disputed the AG\u2019s position in its June 6 letter, the AG decided to take a close look at CCP\u2019s arguments before issuing its final say. The AG sent a new letter to Herrera on Tuesday, but says it\u2019s not a public record unless the AG\u2019s client, the secretary of state, chooses to release it.<\/p>\n

Herrera\u2019s office is not currently releasing the letter, spokesman James Flores said.<\/p>\n

\u2018A misunderstanding of the facts\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While the AG\u2019s May 22 letter talked about his office\u2019s belief that NMYO\u2019s activities require it to register under the Campaign Reporting Act, it didn\u2019t cite the group\u2019s mailers. Instead, it cited as the basis of its argument information from the Web site of another group — The League of Young Voters<\/a> — and erroneously said that was NMYO\u2019s Web site.<\/p>\n

The state chapter of The League was shut down in December, and NMYO was formed by some of its former members early this year. In their letter, Boyd and Berger said that proved that the AG\u2019s letter was based on \u201ca misunderstanding of the facts.\u201d Berger sent her own May 22 letter<\/a> to King attempting to clarify the issue.<\/p>\n

King said the Web address probably came from the complainant who initiated the AG\u2019s May 22 letter, state Sen. Shannon Robinson<\/a>, one of the three defeated lawmakers who is suing the groups. King said the error and the fact that his office\u2019s May 22 letter does not reference the mailers do not indicate that the letter \u201cwasn\u2019t well-researched.\u201d Instead, he said that probably indicates \u201cthat we had more facts at our disposal than we put in the letter.\u201d<\/p>\n

Officials from CCP say such issues could have been cleared up if the AG had met with them. King said he\u2019s not aware of any communication between the groups and the AG\u2019s office, but said if CCP officials \u201cwant to sit down and talk to us, we\u2019re certainly open to that.\u201d<\/p>\n

The groups responded by providing a copy of a July 31 letter<\/a> their attorneys sent to King requesting \u201cthat we be given an opportunity to discuss this with you before a final determination is issued.\u201d The group sent an additional letter<\/a> to Herrera on Thursday requesting a meeting before her office issues a formal decision on NMYO\u2019s status.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have yet to hear a response from the attorney general\u2019s office, despite a written request for a meeting,\u201d Eli Il Yong Lee, CCP executive director, wrote in an e-mail. \u201cThe attorney general has made his decision clear in the media, even though he has yet to meet with us. This attempt to muzzle New Mexico<\/st1:state>\u2019s nonprofits is due a fair hearing, because New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state>\u2019s citizens have a right to know how their elected officials vote on key issues affecting our daily lives.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

By way of disclosure, I also write for the New Mexico Independent<\/a>, which is owned by the Center for Independent Media<\/a> in Washington<\/st1:state><\/st1:place>. When the group was starting up its New Mexico<\/st1:state><\/st1:place> news site earlier this year, the Center for Civic Policy helped it locate funding sources. The Center for Civic Policy has never tried to use that fact to influence anything I have written.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Attorney General Gary King and lawyers for a nonprofit at the center of an election-year controversy agree on one thing: Making New Mexico Youth Organized (NMYO) comply with the state\u2019s campaign reporting laws would have far-reaching implications in New Mexico. They disagree, however, on whether that\u2019s a good thing. King says he wants all groups […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3577","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}