By Daniel J. Chacón
The Santa Fe New Mexican

New Mexico lawmakers want to have their cake and eat it, too.

At least that was the chatter in the Capitol hallways Monday after the Senate Rules Committee voted 6-3 to endorse a bill designed to shine a brighter light on lobbying activities in the state after the panel stripped a House floor amendment many interpreted as capping lobbyist spending at $50 per day per legislator during a legislative session.

Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, who is sponsoring House Bill 143, said in an interview afterward the measure focuses on disclosure, not spending limits, and that removing the amendment ensures its focus remains on transparency.

Steinborn said he believes the GOP-sponsored amendment was an attempt to “undermine the bill” and create a “side show.”

“That amendment wouldn’t affect me at all personally,” said Steinborn, adding he never goes out to dinner with lobbyists outside an occasional meal with other members of a committee and their staff “just to be supportive and spend time with the staff.”

“I’d be fine completely banning it or banning gifts, and at some point, if we want to look at legislation to do that, that would be great,” he said. “But having worked on this issue of lobbyist disclosure, and it’s so incredibly hard — I’ve been working on it for probably 10 years — the bill is farther along than ever. The most important thing is we not allow poison pills, amendments or side shows that would really undermine this bill. … It’s more important to keep the bill focused on disclosure.”

HB 143 would require lobbyists to file a new activity report that identifies their employer and their position on legislation, as well as a supplemental report within 48 hours if their position changed on a piece of legislation.

Rep. Sarah Silva, D-Las Cruces, a co-sponsor, described HB 143 to committee members as an effort to bring lobbying in New Mexico into the 21st century.

HB 43 “would modernize our state’s lobbying reporting system in order to give legislators, constituents and other stakeholders a full picture of what’s happening and who is shaping bills and defining the playing field during each legislative session,” she said. “Transparency enables New Mexicans to understand how their government works and operates, and this bill would enhance public oversight and democratic engagement.”

During the Senate Rules Committee hearing, Steinborn called HB 143 an “incredibly important” transparency measure, saying it’s not always clear who is involved in shaping legislation.

“About 20 states require the transparency being proposed to you today,” he said. “This is not novel. we’re not the first one, but it’s just as important in New Mexico, which currently is rated as having a D nationally in lobbing transparency because we don’t require this type of disclosure.”

Steinborn called it an “equal opportunity bill.”

“It affects the environmental organization that has to hire a lobbyist to the oil industry lobbyist,” he said. “Anybody who has to hire a lobbyist basically has to file this report. The citizen advocate who comes up here for the day does not have to file this report.

A representative from the League of Women Voters of New Mexico and Amelia Bierle, deputy director of the State Ethics Commission, spoke in favor of the bill.

“It affirms that transparency is fundamental to maintaining public trust in government,” Bierle said.

In a somewhat rare move, Rep. Micaela Lara Cadena, D-Mesilla, appeared during the public comment period to advocate for the bill.

“I wish that after the years I’ve spent here, many as an advocate and now six in the [Legislature], that I could believe that what we do here happens in light and in transparency,” she said. “Too often, it doesn’t.”

Lara Cadena said she wished the bill went further.

“Just today in our tax committee, we voted on a bill where two members of the committee who have direct financial interest in the piece of legislation we are considering took votes,” she said.

“I think an incredible amendment to this bill would be that us as members of the body, if we had a spouse or ourselves had a financial interest in the legislation we are considering, would have to at least disclose that since recusal is not something our body is used to or seems to practice.”