SOS dark-money proposal protects public and donors

Whom should government protect: A.) Voters who deserve to know who is shelling out cash to get someone elected, or

B.) Campaign contributors who shell out big money in secret to get someone elected?

N.M. Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat, is unequivocally answering “A.” She just finished up a three-city tour on proposed changes to the state’s campaign finance rules — changes crafted from the bipartisan bill passed by the 2017 Legislature to beef up the state’s campaign finance laws, which have been gutted by the courts. Republican Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed that legislation.

Toulouse Oliver gets that in this hyperpartisan world it’s direly important for voters to know who’s funding dark-money organizations. In part, such transparency allows voters to make informed decisions at the ballot box.

“Dark money” refers to funds donated to nonprofit organizations that can receive unlimited donations from individuals, unions and corporations but are not required to disclose donors. Foes of transparency rules say they curtail free speech and discourage donors who could be criticized or face other punitive action for supporting controversial causes.

Yet public support for more disclosure is unquestionable: Polls conducted by Albuquerque-based Research and Polling over a four-year period consistently show New Mexicans favor increased disclosure requirements on independent political expenditures. And it’s gained support in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which basically said organizations, corporations, unions and others can spend as much as they want as long as they don’t coordinate their activities with candidates.

Toulouse Oliver’s proposal attempts to address both sides’ concerns.

Under the proposal, groups active in New Mexico elections have to disclose their donors if they spend more than $1,000 on political advertising during an election cycle — however, only the names of donors giving more than $200 to the group in the previous 12 months would have to be disclosed. And donors who mark their gifts as not for political purposes do not have to be revealed at all. Groups that give more than $3,000 would face additional disclosure requirements.

It is important to remember the rule only applies to independent expenditure groups; candidates and political parties must list the names and addresses of all their donors, regardless of donation amounts, with the Secretary of State’s office under state law.

So what’s the definition of “political advertising?” Under the proposed rules, it:

Expressly advocates for the defeat or election of a certain candidate or ballot measure, or

Makes any type of reference to a candidate or ballot measure within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, or

“Is susceptible to no other reasonable interpretation” than an appeal to vote for or against a certain candidate or ballot measure.

And while “reasonable interpretation” is in the eye of the beholder — one contributor’s electioneering is another’s educating — and will undoubtedly end up in court, it’s a solid start that could improve with judicial guidance.

New Mexico has an important record of transparency and accountability when it comes to government, from open meetings to public records to sunshine portals. It also would do well to lead the charge for more transparency and accountability when it comes to letting voters know who’s spending big bucks to get someone elected.