Legislator with giant megaphone censors himself

State Rep. Jim Townsend won’t name names, but he says a lobbyist used vile tactics to try to intimidate legislators. “It was loud, threatening, abusive language,” Townsend told me.

A Republican from Artesia, Townsend was upset enough to try rewriting legislation. He attempted on March 8 to include malfeasance by lobbyists in a bill covering the Governmental Conduct Act.

“Many of the lobbyists that come in here are very powerful, as you well know, and they come bearing gifts or threats, or maybe the promise of a primary election. And that just shouldn’t be,” Townsend said as he attempted to amend the bill.

Rep. Kathleen Cates, D-Rio Rancho, told Townsend his proposed amendment to the Governmental Conduct Act was improper. Lobbyists aren’t employed by state government, so they can’t be regulated under that law, Cates said.

Townsend’s amendment failed, but he persisted. He wrote a short bill that amounts to a complaint about the worst lobbyists.

Then he inserted his proposal in what lawmakers call “a dummy bill.” This placeholder system allows for late-breaking ideas to be converted to proposed legislation that otherwise would miss the filing deadline.

Townsend’s House Bill 522 would prohibit lobbyists from offering “any money, sexual favor or other thing of value” for an outcome favorable to the lobbyist.

Did any lobbyist propose sexual favors in return for a legislator’s vote?

“Not that I’m aware of,” Townsend said. “My purpose was to address an issue that’s not normal but is very concerning to me. And that was very aggressive lobbying that had some legislators feeling threatened.”

The House of Representatives approved Townsend’s bill on a vote of 68-1. Rep. Matthew McQueen, D-Galisteo, dissented.

Townsend’s proposal is now in the Senate Rules Committee, meaning it has little chance of passing before the legislative session ends at noon Saturday. That’s just as well.

Townsend’s bill identifies a significant problem. But he needs to step up publicly if he hopes to check statehouse bullies. Townsend should identify the lobbyist who threatened legislators.

Like many creatures of the Capitol, Townsend hurts his cause because of his desire to operate in a secret society. A public complaint by a legislator would be sure to hit the offending lobbyist in the wallet.

Businesses and advocacy organizations want schmoozers pitching their bills. A lobbyist castigated for trying to use force would lose clients.

There’s another deficiency in Townsend’s approach: His bill is toothless. It makes no mention of any penalties for lobbyists who threaten or try to coerce lawmakers with cash or favors.

Absent specific consequences for malfeasance, all that remains is an entrenched bureaucratic process.

The existing Lobbyist Regulation Act provides for the secretary of state to accept complaints and initiate investigations. It’s a slow track to nowheresville.

Most legislators are timid when it comes to lobbyists. Money talks, and lawmakers do not want to risk alienating someone who might funnel cash to their campaigns.

Lobbyists also provide fine food and drinks for legislators congregating at nightspots. Every meal paid for by a lobbyist means a legislator pockets more of his or her daily allowance for expenses.

Speaking of drinks, Democratic Sen. Harold Pope of Albuquerque has gotten nowhere with his proposal to curtail consumption of alcohol by members of his chamber.

Pope’s Senate Resolution 1 covers a single sobering sentence: “No senator shall consume alcohol before or during any floor session or meeting of a committee to which a member has been appointed.”

Pope proposed the resolution two months ago. It sits in the Senate Rules Committee, never having been called for a hearing by the chairwoman, Sen. Katy Duhigg, D-Albuquerque.

Why the delay?

“I would ask the chairwoman. I have asked for it to be scheduled,” Pope said.

I had already sent Duhigg questions about why Pope’s resolution had not been heard. She did not respond.

It would take at least a two-thirds majority of the Senate — 28 members — to ban alcohol use while doing business. Pope’s proposal would carry unanimously if it reached the full Senate. That decision could be reached in seconds without any discussion.

A hearing in the Rules Committee is a different matter. If Duhigg called the resolution for consideration, Pope would make his pitch for sobriety and ask committee members if they had any questions.

Boozing on the job seems to be a topic the committee wants to avoid. What else would explain Duhigg’s decision to sit on the measure since the first week of the session?

The crush of more pressing business is the likely excuse. There’s a more plausible explanation.

By ignoring Pope’s proposal, senators will never have to mention or deal with a colleague who’s legislating under the influence of alcohol.