One signature away from becoming law, lobbyists worry over reporting bill
Mar. 20—SANTA FE — Some New Mexico lobbyists say a bill headed to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's desk is a targeted, logistical nightmare, but backers say more transparency from individuals who work to influence legislators is long overdue.
Sitting on the governor's desk is legislation that would require lobbyists, or their employers, to file "lobbyist activity reports" disclosing stances on bills they're influencing, and, if positions change, to update their stances within 48 hours.
The legislation, which has failed repeatedly to pass the Legislature in the past, surprised even the bill's sponsors in its passage of both chambers.
Currently, lobbyists only need to publicly report who's employing them and money spent to benefit legislators for lobbying purposes. Bill sponsor Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, described that as negligible, "next to nothing."
So he's been working for years to pass additional reporting legislation, only to have it fail time and time again. He said transparency changes are some of the most difficult measures to pass in the Roundhouse, and this year's passage of House Bill 143 shows the uphill battle is worth it.
"It's given me a hope that we can continue to fight for big things and fight for transparency and good government," Steinborn said.
Who's at the table
The Senate Tax, Business and Transportation Committee passed the bill over the weekend. Charlie Marquez, a contract lobbyist who doesn't support the legislation, said leadership initially said it would be rolled — at which point he left the committee — but ultimately heard it when the bill sponsor showed up.
That was the last chance for public comment, as the bill went to the full Senate after that and then the full House again.
"Lobbyists have a lot to bring to the table, and I think they should be at the table helping craft legislation like this," said J.D. Bullington, a big-name lobbyist of 28 years representing more than 20 clients this year. Both he and Marquez said nobody asked them for input on the bill.
Steinborn said he didn't really confer with lobbyists when crafting the legislation, which he described as straightforward.
"They never liked it, and they never wanted it," he said.
Co-sponsor Rep. Sarah Silva, D-Las Cruces, said the lobbyists she reached out to either would only support the measure off the record or didn't respond.
Silva also expected more of a fight getting it through the House floor again for concurrence, a process of agreement when the other chamber makes changes to a bill. But in about a minute on Wednesday evening, the House floor agreed to send the bill to the governor.
It was different from the version the House sent over to the Senate, which Republicans amended to include restrictions on spending money on meals and beverages for legislators. The Senate stripped that out. Republicans voted against the bill in the House as well as the Senate.
Silva said the last time the Legislature passed a major transparency bill — updating the Lobbyist Regulation Act — was six years ago. Lujan Grisham signed that measure, which gives her hope now.
"I am just really excited that folks that can't make it to the Roundhouse (could) now have a better, more true picture of what happens here," she said, "because these are their bills, this is their Roundhouse, and they can't be here full time."
While the bill sponsors said they haven't heard anything from the Governor's Office, they're relieved it's at least through the Legislature. Lujan Grisham has until April 11 to sign or veto the legislation.
Red flags
The bill has raised red flags for some lobbyists, who are concerned HB143 would worsen existing logistical issues and be overly burdensome. The lobbying activity for specific bills would be linked on the Legislature's website alongside the bills.
Bullington said this has the potential to create a "logistical nightmare" for the Secretary of State's Office, where reports are filed, and the Legislative Council Service, which would have to update the Legislature website to post the filings alongside bills.
The secretary of state's filing system is also incredibly difficult to navigate, according to Marquez, who said it took two months for him to get through the registration process this year because of a glitch in the system.
Both lobbyists said they might support less burdensome filing requirements. Marquez said reporting should only be required once every 30 days in a session, and Bullington suggested filing one report at the end of the session.
Steinborn said the filing will become second nature, and the bill doesn't go into effect, if signed, until 2027 so the Secretary of State's Office can work out all the technical kinks.
"So no, it's not overly burdensome, or maybe even burdensome," he said.
A legislative analysis of the bill describes it as a modernization effort that follows nationwide trends.
Dick Mason, an unpaid lobbyist for the League of Women Voters, echoed the sentiment and said even still, many other states will have better transparency measures than New Mexico.
"It's not a question of trust (for lobbyists). It's a question of putting the information out there," Mason said.
Still, the measure could act as an impetus for now-disconcerted contracted lobbyists to form an organization of their own to lobby on their positions.
"I think there's going to be more conversations about the professional lobbyists organizing a little more formally to better represent our profession," Bullington said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Congress to grill Kathy Hochul on NY sanctuary laws — and local GOP offers spicy advice over what questions they should ask
ALBANY – State Republican lawmakers offered advice to their congressional counterparts ahead of Gov. Kathy Hochul testimony on Thursday over sanctuary policies – outlining a list of questions to fling at the Democrat. The GOP legislators sent a letter to House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer ahead of Hochul's trip to Washington, DC where she'll be grilled by a congressional panel on the Empire State's sanctuary laws. 'Governor Hochul's sanctuary state policies have played a direct role in the ongoing migrant crisis throughout our state, despite bipartisan concern including repeated warnings from New York City Mayor Eric Adams,' Assemblyman Michael Tannousis (R-Staten Island) wrote in the letter, cosigned by various other New York GOP lawmakers. Advertisement 'We believe that Governor Hochul must be held accountable for her failure to reverse the state's sanctuary policies and recklessness with taxpayer dollars,' Tannousis continued. Gov. Kathy Hochul is set to testify on capitol hill Thursday on New York's sanctuary city laws and its handling of the influx of migrants. Hochul is voluntarily appearing before the House committee on Capitol Hill and will testify alongside Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Advertisement In their letter, the Republican state lawmakers ask the House Republicans to ask Hochul to outline: Why New York continued to accept migrants during the height of the crisis The vetting process for migrants and concerns about public safety A shady $432 million no-bid contract awarded to DocGo to help mitigate the crisis Her justification for roughly $4 billion the state has spent dealing with migrants Why some municipalities weren't reimbursed with costs associated with the migrants Tannousis said he wants the House Oversight committee to follow through after Hochul's testimony to deliver 'accountability.' The governor has tried to navigate a vague middle ground when it comes to the state's sanctuary policy, which is still based on a 2017 executive order issued by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo who is now running for mayor of New York City. Advertisement Assemblyman Michael Tannousis and other Albany Republicans wrote a letter to the House panel suggesting areas where they should hammer Hochul. Michael McWeeney Hochul had promised specifics and clarity over her guidance on how New York would work with federal immigration authorities. Instead, her office only provided a list of four broad categories of situations that would trigger state law enforcement to work with the feds, such as if ICE has a judicial warrant or when relevant to investigating another crime committed in New York. Hochul had previously said she was 'happy to go down' to DC for the hearing. 'I'll tell them our policy in the state of New York is not to use state resources, our state police, to enforce the civil infractions,' Hochul said earlier this year.
New York Post
30 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats are in the polling dumps — fighting America on this key demand
The Democratic Party has never been more unpopular — yet no Democrat seems to understand why. Some say they're not fighting President Donald Trump hard enough. Others say they aren't messaging their agenda well enough. In reality, they're fighting too hard for an agenda that Americans reject, with a central demand of welfare for all. Thirty-two years after President Bill Clinton promised to 'end welfare as we know it,' no idea unifies the Democratic Party more than the belief that welfare should be never-ending. This vision of government dependency spurred their most notable policies of recent years, and explains their intransigent opposition to Republican reforms. While some Democrats show an increasing willingness to compromise on other leftist priorities, such as biological men in women's sports, the party brooks no dissent on welfare — even though Americans want to fix the system's many failures. Consider the ongoing federal budget battle. House Republicans have put together a reconciliation bill that would slow the rate of Medicaid growth — from a projected 59.6% increase to 40% — over the next decade. Democrats oppose even that, including GOP attempts to end waste, fraud and abuse. Yet the latest federal data show that 22% of Medicaid payments and 12% of food-stamp payments went to ineligible recipients. More than 70% of likely voters want to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse, polls show, yet Democrats essentially deny there's a problem that needs to be solved. In fact, when the Trump administration proposed a rule in March to end $11 billion in improper ObamaCare subsidies — aiming solely to curtail fraud — Democrats immediately opposed it. Democrats are just as adamant when it comes to work requirements for welfare recipients. My organization, the Foundation for Government Accountability, recently found that six in 10 able-bodied adults on Medicaid don't work at all, hoovering up resources that would benefit the truly vulnerable. When voters in purple Wisconsin were asked two years ago if welfare recipients should work as a condition of receiving benefits, nearly 80% said yes — but national Democrats now say no. They also reject Republican attempts to block Medicaid payments for illegal immigrants, which would save billions of dollars over the next decade. More than 70% of voters don't want illegal immigrants to receive government benefits, yet Democrats bizarrely disagree. But it's not just Congress; Democrats are striking the same strange tune in state capitols. Over the past 10 years, virtually all Republican-led states have taken steps to purge waste, fraud and abuse from welfare programs. By contrast, Democrat-run states have expanded illegal immigrants' access to Medicaid and pushed able-bodied adults onto welfare programs. In recent months, Democratic governors in Kansas and Arizona have vetoed Republican bills that would ban food-stamp purchases of soda and junk food — a reform that could lower state and federal Medicaid spending and encourage healthier choices. Democrats have a long history of supporting restrictions on consumers' options, but as soon as welfare enters the picture, they oppose it. Apparently limiting freedom is fine by them, but limiting federal welfare is unthinkable. The left's unwillingness to support even modest welfare reforms reflects the reality that government dependency is the biggest thing Democrats now offer Americans — even beyond limitless immigration and the Green New Deal. The Affordable Care Act, the central achievement of Barack Obama's presidency, dramatically expanded Medicaid while creating a new welfare system for the individual health-insurance market. Joe Biden enacted a work-destroying child tax credit and sought perpetual expansions of Medicaid and food stamps under the guise of pandemic relief. A slew of Biden regulations made it easier for people to abuse the taxpayer's generosity, from Medicaid to food stamps to free school lunches for rich kids. Democrats' end goal is clear: Get every American on the dole. Yet insisting that government dependency is always the answer means Democrats can't publicly admit that seemingly infinite welfare has any shortcomings. In fact, the left's agenda of welfare-for-all is profoundly harmful, and voters know it. Democrats have built a welfare system that taxpayers can't afford while pushing millions of people out of the workforce — a dual assault on the economic growth. They've left fewer resources for disabled children and the elderly by prioritizing able-bodied adults and illegal immigrants. And they're corrupting the foundational American belief that welfare is temporary assistance whose recipients should work to get back on their feet. No wonder Democrats are so unpopular: They're fleecing taxpayers, crippling the economy, hurting the truly needy and giving handouts to those who don't deserve them — none of which has Americans' support. The first Democrat who wakes up on welfare will be the hero their party desperately needs. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability.
New York Post
30 minutes ago
- New York Post
Kathy Hochul's gutless silence on assisted suicide is a betrayal: Rep. Stefanik
Last month, Gov. Kathy Hochul attacked Republicans for their budget bill that aims to rein in wasteful and fraudulent federal spending. 'I believe that we should try to prevent our constituents from dying,' she declared. Now, just two weeks later, New Yorkers have proof that these words from Hochul's lips are a cruel lie. My heart shatters for our state: Hochul's gutless silence on the so-called assisted suicide bill passed by Albany's far-left Democrats isn't just cowardice; it's a betrayal of every New Yorker clinging to hope, a dagger in the backs of the vulnerable she swore to protect. In the last days of this year's legislative session, New York state Senate Democrats forced through a despicable measure, in a 35-27 vote, empowering doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to the terminally ill. This isn't 'dignity' or 'choice,' but a death sentence cloaked in deception, telling our elderly, our disabled and our sick that their lives aren't worth fighting for. The bill now sits on Hochul's desk, and where is she? Hiding. Silent. Dodging with a spineless 'she'll review the legislation' statement from her team. All while families of all political and spiritual backgrounds, all across New York, weep at the thought of our state allowing companies to profit off death. Hochul's hypocrisy knows no bounds. New York ranks dead last in access to palliative care, a compassionate lifeline that eases suffering and restores dignity for the terminally ill. Palliative care envelops patients in holistic support to manage pain and address emotional and spiritual needs, and it helps families navigate the unthinkable. It's doctors and nurses sitting bedside, listening to fears and crafting plans that honor life. It's the hand squeezed during a sleepless night, the reassurance that no one faces the end alone. Yet in Hochul's New York, only a fraction of those who need palliative services can access them — leaving the suffering to beg for comfort while leftist Democrats under her watch push a culture of death and despair. This failure compounds a broader crisis caused by Kathy Hochul's worthless leadership. One in five New Yorkers battles mental illness yearly, and hundreds of thousands go untreated. Those who live with disabilities are crushed by a cruel bureaucratic maze, worsened by Hochul's heartless overhaul of the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program, which put the desires of politically connected contractors over the needs of suffering families and caregivers. Again and again, her policies destroy hope for those in need — and yet she stands mute and inept as her party peddles a bill that whispers 'Give up' to a depressed veteran, tells a grandmother with cancer 'You're a burden' and screams to a disabled New Yorker, 'Your life isn't worth saving.' It's anti-human, it's anti-American, and it's a betrayal of the values that bind us as New Yorkers. Hochul's silence here speaks volumes, and it isn't indecision but complicity, trading vulnerable lives for political points with her far-left Democrat base. New Yorkers are heartbroken and furious. Under Hochul's catastrophic reign, crime surges, costs crush families, corruption festers — and now the sanctity of life itself is under assault. People are fleeing to Florida and other states, driven out by the worst governor in America who fails them at every turn. Hochul has the power to veto this moral travesty. She could champion life by investing in palliative care that wraps the suffering in dignity and love. Instead, her silence screams surrender. I won't stay silent. My heart burns for the mother praying for one more day with her child, for the disabled New Yorker fighting for respect, for every soul this bill would discard. New York needs real leadership — robust palliative-care programs, accessible mental-health services and dignified support for the disabled — not a state-encouraged push toward the grave. In 2026, New Yorkers will reject this failed governor at the ballot box and restore principled leadership that cherishes every life. Kathy Hochul, the clock is ticking. Veto this bill or you'll be remembered as the governor who truly let hope die. New Yorkers are watching — and we won't forget. Republican Elise Stefanik represents New York's 21st District in Congress.
