Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports
if they are used for other purposes.
Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).
Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and
attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR B Lujan
ORIGINAL DATE
LAST UPDATED
2/4/07
3/1/07 HB 818/aHAFC
SHORT TITLE Public Financing of Statewide Campaigns
SB
ANALYST Baca/Wilson
REVENUE
Estimated Revenue
Recurring
Fund
FY07 FY08 FY09
or Non-Rec
Affected
-10,000.0 -10,000.0 Recurring
General Fund (Unclaimed property)
10,000.0 10,000.0 Recurring
Other State Funds (Public Election Fund)
-100.0 -100.0 Recurring Other State Funds (Unclaimed Property Fund)
100.0 100.0 Recurring Other State Funds (Tax Administration Account)
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands)
FY07
FY08
FY09 3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
Total
Unknown Unknown
Recurring General
Fund
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates to HB 819, HB 820, 821, 822, 823, HB 553 and SB 400.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Responses Received From
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
Department of Finance & Administration (DFA)
Office of the Attorney General (OAG)
Public Defender Department (PDD)
Secretary of State (SOS)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of HAFC Amendment
The House Appropriation & Finance Committee amendment cleans up a drafting error.
Synopsis of Original Bill
House Bill 818
amends the Voter Action Act Section 1-19A-2 NMSA 1978 and expands public
funding of elections to statewide offices of the executive and judicial branches. Currently, this
pg_0002
House Bill 818/aHAFC – Page
2
funding is limited Public Regulatory Commission (PRC) elections. Funding will be available
based on a formula for contested primaries and contested general elections. In judicial races the
funding will only be available for contested elections to the court of appeals and the supreme
court. As such, judicial retention elections are not eligible for this funding.
To become eligible for state funding a candidate must have enough qualifying contributions. For
the governor and lieutenant governor this will be 0.02% of the number of voters in the state or
about 1,100 contributions. For all other races, it is 0.01% of the number of voters in the state or
about 550 contributions. For the PRC it is 0.01% of the voters in that PRC district. No
contribution can exceed $100.00.
Candidates receive funding based on a formula drawn from the number of registered voters in
the state and number registered for each party. For the primary candidates receive funding based
on the number of persons registered for that party. For the general election the formula is based
on all registered voters. For both elections, the amount is listed below.
Governor $1.50
Lt. Governor $0.25
Comm. of Public Lands $0.75
Secretary of State $0.15
State Auditor $0.15
Supreme Court $0.15
Court of Appeals $0.15
Once a candidate becomes certified and accepts the state funding, the candidate cannot accept
any contributions or loans from another source except the candidate’s political party. After both
the primary and general election, the candidate must return all unused funds to the Secretary of
State within 30 days.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
HB 818 changes the distribution of money received under the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act
from the General Fund to the Public Election Fund.
The December 2006 consensus revenue estimate for unclaimed property revenue is for revenues
to be $10,000,000 in FY08 and beyond.
The fiscal impact also assume the minimum retention of $100.0 thousand for payment of
Unclaimed Property claims allowed, in the Tax Administration Suspense Fund proposed by HB-
818 instead of the Unclaimed Property Fund.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
DFA is skeptical that the State’s residents will be well served by diverting existing General Fund
revenues to the public financing of campaigns. The Governor has not taken a position on this
particular bill
In judicial races the funding will only be available for contested primaries and general elections
to the court of appeals and the supreme court. No district, metropolitan, or magistrate elections
pg_0003
House Bill 818/aHAFC – Page
3
will qualify. Judicial retention elections are also excluded from this funding.
The Code of Judicial Conduct 21-700A(3)(d) does not allow a judge to “solicit funds for a
political organization or candidate." A committee that is separate from the candidate, but acting
on behalf of the candidate, does the fundraising. For example, in a recent contested statewide
judicial race, one candidate does not know how many campaign contributors there were because
of these limitations.
Recent data estimate there are about 550,000 registered voters in New Mexico. Based on the
formula in the bill, a candidate in a contested judicial race will receive about $82 thousand.
Recently, the campaign committee for a candidate in a contested statewide judicial race raised
$300 thousand. It is uncertain if this funding formula in this bill will provide sufficient funding
for a judicial candidate to run a viable campaign.
The AOC notes that there is significant concern in judicial campaigns because of the influence of
outside organizations that take an active role in a campaign. This law allows state funding to a
candidate to be increased as much as doubled if spending by the other candidate and independent
organizations exceed the amount the candidate was eligible to receive.
The OAG notes that currently the Voter Action Act provides public funding to the election
campaigns of candidates for the office of Public Regulation Commissioner who agree to accept
limited campaign contributions from individuals and political action committees. The Act is New
Mexico’s experiment with “clean elections", where PRC candidates hoping to receive public
financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" ($5) from registered
voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaign, and agree not
to raise money from private sources. Proponents believe that the “clean election" system will
minimize perceived “undue influence" of wealthy contributors over political candidates.
Participant candidates forego traditional special interest donations and agree to accept public
funding.
This bill would expand coverage of that act to include election campaigns for candidates for any
statewide executive department or judicial department office. Those offices could include
Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor, Supreme Court Justice
etc. Candidate participation is voluntary. The United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo
upheld a federal law imposing campaign contribution limits, but ruled that portions of that law
imposing campaign expenditure limits violated the First Amendment’s protections regarding
freedom of expression and association.
The bill would prescribe the total amount of $5.00 contributions the candidates for various
offices may accept from individual donors (qualifying contributions which are deposited into the
public election fund) based upon percentages of voters within the state. The bill would also
prescribe the amounts each candidate would be entitled to receive from the fund, based upon the
office sought.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
It is not known what the administrative implications are for the SOS as a result of the provisions
of this bill.
pg_0004
House Bill 818/aHAFC – Page
4
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
HB 818 relates to HB 819, HB 820, 821, 822, 823, HB 553, and SB 400.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
The AOC asks if an outside organization comes into a race very late, will additional state
funding be available in time for another candidate.
What if a candidate withdraws. Will his replacement receive the money he is entitled to under
this act.
DW/mt