A fresh look at New Mexico's unfinished ethics agenda
An idea long confined to the margins of New Mexico's campaign finance debates just made it onto a prominent advocacy group's statehouse agenda.
A new ethics reform report from Think New Mexico calls for “true source” disclosure to reveal who is actually paying for campaign spending. It's the first time I've seen the idea included as a core plank in a push for legislative ethics reform.
True-source disclosure follows money through intermediary organizations to its original source. If a nonprofit gives money to a political action committee that buys campaign ads, disclosure wouldn't stop with the nonprofit. Major donors behind it would also be disclosed. Think New Mexico proposes modeling the law on Arizona's Voters' Right to Know Act, which was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week.
New Mexico In Depth has tracked this problem since 2020, when we began reporting on “gray money” — campaign spending in which some donors are disclosed but the original source remains obscured. This year, particularly blatant examples emerged, with PACs reporting nonprofits as major donors while the people funding them remained hidden. At this point, we might as well drop the “gray” and call it what it is: dark money.
The report also calls for closing a loophole we reported on in July. Out-of-state political committees registered with the Federal Election Commission are exempt from swath’s of New Mexico's reporting requirements. Their spending doesn't appear in the state's online system, on the state's schedule or with disclosures state law otherwise requires.
But the report isn't just about outside money. It goes much further, proposing tighter conflict-of-interest rules for legislators and much more disclosure from lobbyists.
Whether these ideas go anywhere depends on a Legislature with a long record of letting ethics reform stall, although a recent scandal involving one of their own might add momentum to this year’s effort.
In August, former House Majority Leader Sheryl Williams Stapleton, a Democrat, was convicted of federal bribery, fraud and money laundering charges. Prosecutors said she used her positions at Albuquerque Public Schools and in the Legislature to steer funding to the school and then to a friend's company, then took about $1.15 million of it for herself.
Think New Mexico, which has a track record of results, intends to put its weight behind reforms that haven’t succeeded at the Roundhouse. That could help keep reform moving as key lawmakers begin to retire.
Its report describes a history of “fits and starts” closely tied to corruption. It begins with the state Constitution, which includes provisions such as the Anti-Donation Clause in response to the graft and influence-peddling of the territorial period. Over the century that followed, scandals repeatedly spurred interest in reform. The biggest change in the past 20 years has been the creation of the State Ethics Commission, which came only after years of failed attempts and multiple high-profile corruption cases.
“The clear pattern is generally big reforms like the ethics commission come about in the wake of a big political scandal,” Fred Nathan, executive director of Think New Mexico, said Wednesday during a briefing on polling the organization commissioned from BSP Research. “Perhaps this recent conviction of the former House Majority Leader…might serve as an impetus for some of these ethics reforms to pass in the 2027 session.”
The flip side is that reform efforts often run out of steam as public outrage fades — even though New Mexicans have consistently said they want stronger ethics laws, including many of the changes in Think New Mexico's report.
During the briefing, I asked what I've wondered for years: Why is there such a gap between public support for ethics reform and legislative action?
Gabriel Sanchez, director of research at BSP Research, said there isn't one easy answer. One explanation he offered was the structure of the Legislature, with its 30- and 60-day sessions.
“When you don't have, like other states, a longer legislative runway, you tend to get incremental policy,” Sanchez said. “By the time you're getting into the weeds of a particular issue, the clock runs out and you start all over again.”
Research suggests that as legislatures become more professional, with paid lawmakers, longer sessions and more staff, “you tend to have greater policy reform activity just because there's more time to be able to make that happen,” Sanchez said.
The Legislature's structure matters to this debate in another way.
For years, its citizen structure has been used to argue against stricter ethics rules. Lawmakers have to make their living outside the Roundhouse, making conflicts between their public duties and private jobs difficult to avoid.
The report points to a striking example from 1992. A state Governmental Ethics Task Force rejected proposals including stronger recusal requirements and a cooling-off period before former legislators could become paid lobbyists. According to the report, the task force concluded that many ethics rules used elsewhere were “wholly inappropriate in the part-time [unpaid] citizen context.”
You hear versions of that argument at the Roundhouse today.
But more than three decades later, the context is changing, with Legislators now having paid staff. And in November, voters will decide whether to amend the state Constitution to allow legislators to receive salaries.
The BSP Research poll suggests many voters connect pay and ethics. Sixty-four percent said they would support paying legislators only if lawmakers were also required to comply with mandatory ethics reforms. Nineteen percent supported salaries regardless of ethics reforms, while 17% opposed salaries either way.
That response crossed party lines: 66% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 62% of independents and others chose salaries with ethics reform.
For decades, lawmakers have cited their unpaid status as a reason to resist stricter ethics rules. If voters approve salaries in November, the question is whether they'll keep making that argument.
Should Think New Mexico’s policy recommendations be adopted, here are the changes that would happen.
When lawmakers have a personal stake
Legislators would have to say so when a bill would directly affect their own finances. Voters would decide, through a proposed constitutional amendment, whether salaried lawmakers should have to step aside on those bills, without needing their colleagues' permission.
Lawmakers would also have to speak up when a family member is lobbying on a bill they're voting on, and the report suggests they sit out the vote if that family member is a spouse.
And legislators, statewide elected officials and agency heads would have to name the specific sources of their income and assets, instead of listing vague categories like "real estate" or "finance and banking."
Slowing the revolving door
Former legislators would have to wait two years before they could become paid lobbyists. Former executive branch employees, who now must wait a year before being paid to lobby the agency where they worked, would have to wait two.
Shining more light on lobbyists
Lobbyists would have to report which bills they're working on, whether they're for or against them, and how much each client pays them.
Lobbyists already report their spending, on meals or entertainment for example, but they'd now have to say which client paid, which lawmakers benefited and what bill or issue it was about.
They'd also have to file reports in the middle of the legislative session and right after it ends, so the public doesn't have to wait until months later to see most of the spending.
Following the money behind political ads
Groups running campaign ads or ads meant to sway officials on issues would have to reveal their major funders, even when the money passes through other groups first.
Out-of-state political committees, which can now skip New Mexico's reporting rules and timelines if they're registered with the Federal Election Commission, would have to file state reports like everyone else.
And it would become explicitly illegal to misrepresent constituents' views to officials, such as sending comments under real people's names without their knowledge.
