[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6028086,"mediaKeyId","5695663-9e1525705dd0d22aaa66b19916b4cc9f","parentId",5695663,"title","House Judiciary committee advances bill requiring lobbyists to file activity reports within 48 hours","audioSeconds",3047,"startMs",52015,"endMs",3100000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5695663-9e1525705dd0d22aaa66b19916b4cc9f&start=52&end=3100","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5695663-9e1525705dd0d22aaa66b19916b4cc9f/thumbnail_52015.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6028086/New-Mexico/House-Judiciary-committee-advances-bill-requiring-lobbyists-to-file-activity-reports-within-48-hours","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6028086-b3b1abca0da1796f7f78ce83e1602310/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440909&Signature=TQRJ0zOj1wAlkDpa~qKKlKr-Qv-PEkJ4C9vE1PhbVMi5J2PKQ0EiEt2lbNLgjWavM5QioMpkhbT9u5lhDR5dtWW5JiqnnKAM-cIlapUobZ1RfHS5YchwIvtjtg1B-E58KXJe5jdGpu0qlq2PzYkVhqzEhvQozJLLpumxmBLgprCR5jOei8KzNtS3qI5oLy-BKIrjtGGE9Sep9pQs2ssg4cYwDu~wsCiF09m4RARksohWHD4JQvRHODGhGqGL5zl2F5rmAWLv9xE~8oF423w48-uIYEWD2vUQLstARDL5RIYR3i5wf3CgcakRKxbVeWZOubYT1k-weYieZw3OJAbrbw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Mexico Legislature","date","2025-02-22T00:00:00Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee on Monday amended and granted a due pass recommendation for House Bill 143, a lobbying-transparency proposal that would require registered, paid lobbyists to file a lobbying activity report with the secretary of state within 48 hours after they begin lobbying on legislation during a legislative session.

The bill, carried by Representative Silva with Senator Seinborn as a cosponsor, would require a report that names a lobbyist’s employer and lists the specific bills or legislative matters the lobbyist is working to influence. Representative Silva described the measure as a targeted transparency step: “would require a lobbying activity report for, registered lobbyists, that lobby during the session,” she said. Senator Seinborn called the proposal “a super important bill for the increased transparency of the legislature,” and said the reports would be linked to the secretary of state website so the public and media could identify who is attempting to shape legislation.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill gives lawmakers and the public a clearer view of interests shaping legislation. The measure does not require disclosure of expenditures or donations; sponsors said it requires only the employer name and the lobbyist’s stated position (support, oppose, neutral) on specific introduced bills. That information, sponsors said, would be posted online as a ledger so changes in a lobbyist’s position can be seen.

Key provisions and clarifications

- Report contents: The measure directs lobbyists who are required to register as lobbyists to file a lobbying activity report naming the lobbyist employer and the bills or matters they lobby on, and to indicate whether they support, oppose or are neutral on each listed bill.

- Timing and frequency: Sponsors originally described the filing timeframe as “as soon as practicable.” Committee members debated the phrase and approved an amendment—moved by Representative McQueen and seconded by Representative Sapanski—to require reports “within 48 hours after the commencement of the lobbying activity.” Sponsors said a lobbyist would file only once per position unless the lobbyist’s position changed, in which case a new report would be required.

- No dollar reporting: The bill does not require disclosure of money spent, campaign contributions, or other financial transactions; proponents said it is focused on activity and employer identification, not expenditures.

Public comment and support

Five in-person commenters and several online speakers voiced support. Disability advocate Nat Dean told the committee: “It is extremely helpful when someone states that they're a lobbyist and then name the organization they're a lobbyist for.” Barbara Califf, speaking as a registered lobbyist for the League of Women Voters of New Mexico, said the League stands “in strong support of HB 143” and thanked the sponsors for strengthening lobbying regulations. Youth activist Fennel Riley urged the committee to pass the bill so activists and small organizations could “know who is a lobbyist, who is an activist, and just to have more transparency.”

Member concerns and committee amendments

Committee members pressed sponsors on practical implementation. Representative Hall and Representative Martinez expressed concern about administrative burden and multiple filings if positions changed frequently; sponsors replied that the secretary of state would define filing intervals and that the bill’s 48-hour language was intended to prevent after-the-fact reporting that is not useful for legislative decision-making. Representative Romero referenced existing statutory filing thresholds and suggested a 48-hour interval as consistent with other reporting rules; the committee ultimately adopted the 48‑hour requirement.

Formal action

Representative McQueen offered an amendment to strike the clause requiring filing “prior to the adjournment of a legislative session” and tighten timing language; the amendment was discussed, amended on the floor of the committee to require filing within 48 hours after commencement of lobbying activity, and accepted as constructive/friendly. The committee then took a roll-call vote and gave HB 143 a due pass recommendation.

Votes at a glance

- Action: Amendment (require filing within 48 hours after commencement of lobbying activity)
- Mover: Representative McQueen
- Second: Representative Sapanski (initially), with Representative Spansky listed later as second on the combined amendment process
- Outcome: Adopted (friendly/constructive)

- Action: Committee final vote on HB 143 (as amended)
- Outcome: Due pass (advanced out of committee)
- Recorded votes in transcript: Representative Abeyta — yes; Representative Hall — no; Representative Hartman Vigil — yes; Representative Martinez — no; Representative McQueen — yes; Representative Reeb — no; Leader Sapanski — yes; Vice Chair — yes; Chair — yes. (Transcript shows these named votes; other members’ recorded votes were not indicated in the hearing excerpt.)

What the record does not show

The committee adopted the timing and employer-disclosure language, but the transcript does not include the final codified draft text that will appear in the version sent to the floor. Sponsors said the secretary of state will prepare rules and the filing format.

Next steps

With the due pass recommendation, HB 143 is scheduled to move from committee to the next stage of the legislative process. Sponsors said they will continue to work with the secretary of state on implementation details and filing formats.

Ending

Supporters presented HB 143 as a limited, practicable transparency change focused on activity reporting and employer identification rather than financial disclosure. Opponents or skeptics in committee centered on administrability and how frequently lobbyists might have to update positions; sponsors and several members said a short filing window and a single-report-unless-position-changes rule were intended to limit burden while improving transparency.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House - Judiciary - Feb 22, 2025 (Room 309) ","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee on Monday amended and granted a due pass recommendation for House Bill 143, a lobbying‑transparency measure that requires registered, paid lobbyists to file activity reports with the secretary of state within 48 hours after commencing lobbying on legislation during a session.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, New Mexico","taxId",64959,"location","New Mexico","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6028077,"Supporters press for anti‑SLAPP bill to protect public speech; committee will reschedule consideration",507,4955455,5462995,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5695663-9e1525705dd0d22aaa66b19916b4cc9f&start=4955&end=5462","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5695663-9e1525705dd0d22aaa66b19916b4cc9f/thumbnail_4955455.jpg","/articles/6028077/New-Mexico/Supporters-press-for-antiSLAPP-bill-to-protect-public-speech-committee-will-reschedule-consideration","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6028077-18ba0afb9db18cefabbc7c26c53b0455/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440909&Signature=jVn-LgU7qd-ypbi6kPEAHGrJn79tzIfoaPox17rPID7~iuo333ujxlF8p-YgZAmXXEUunOQmWk~~C2lQbgdWPY2aje4xdiXNvRubKMW7om-5~0y2Ev2o87YH6dwUAaUdrT3KA93hWqlL8Yw~YJ4BcuPbT-aGZRJetaMtO3J13o6kxwFMM5t~~iXJHaVvNVN5nU~XoAd-DVfLIYS-~Sp17kvokdBkjtomk4idcK5YAci2HS9tY3lhsJdQXQnwP0bJg9EDsfkZTS9znOgfc6oJpTBBudaFRBVaxbnMsK2EhIC2sQk~-b4rVhC-JjuDHsS1VcZ9KuqrZV3Xl23Uc1e0AA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee heard a series of supportive public comments on a committee substitute titled the Public Expression Protection Act (commonly described as an anti‑SLAPP measure) and agreed to reschedule formal consideration to allow the committee time to review the circulated language.

Sponsor remarks and intent

The sponsoring representative introduced the committee substitute as a measure to protect individuals, journalists and community organizations from meritless lawsuits that aim to chill speech on matters of public concern. The sponsor said the proposal would expand New Mexico’s existing, narrow statute to align with the uniform anti‑SLAPP model used by states that have adopted broader protections.

Public testimony

Supporters included representatives of environmental and civic organizations and legal advocates. Mariela Nassy of New Energy Economy urged the committee to adopt the bill, noting it had passed unanimously in another state. Civil‑rights attorney Jeffrey Haas said the bill “prevents people from continuing with frivolous lawsuits” and protects speakers in a polarized environment. Brian Fano of the Albuquerque Journal said the measure would strengthen First Amendment protections for the public and the press. Youth climate organizer Fennel Rowley and Norm Gomm of New Mexico Water Advocates also spoke in favor.

Why it matters: Backers said a broader anti‑SLAPP law would provide a faster mechanism to dismiss meritless suits brought to silence critics, neighborhood groups, journalists and small organizations that lack legal resources.

Committee process

The committee limited public comment to five in‑room speakers and additional online comments. Committee members did not take a vote; the sponsor and staff indicated the matter will be scheduled for further committee consideration, with timing to accommodate committee workload and the availability of out‑of‑state witnesses.

Ending

Committee staff and leadership said they plan to reschedule the bill to ensure members and out‑of‑town witnesses can participate and to give analysts time to review the substitute language before a vote.","Public commenters and several organizations urged the House Judiciary Committee to adopt the Public Expression Protection Act (anti‑SLAPP). The committee heard supportive testimony from advocates and media representatives but did not vote and said it would reschedule consideration to accommodate scheduling and draft review.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6028081,"Committee debates update to New Mexico’s press‑shield law, defers final action",1690,3210310,4900560,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5695663-9e1525705dd0d22aaa66b19916b4cc9f&start=3210&end=4900","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5695663-9e1525705dd0d22aaa66b19916b4cc9f/thumbnail_3210310.jpg","/articles/6028081/New-Mexico/Committee-debates-update-to-New-Mexicos-pressshield-law-defers-final-action","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6028081-3d3dcb96b645c97d193ce70c21446dcc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440909&Signature=molBH8-4qyycU9zJ9F5-3XubvPjUHTrqVXkkkkJ8t5y7MCJzEYZv3ahbhpUnOEVWZUkzdPvJK~~mb9H9g4KSh~IJwCslYzGY5loAGuFFkpUZKc-1cvSLUa4WZeiUxh-1lNEWr7oIRd2HigFGCyk9EQVxu~WF0YgesWI-Uw36cAQJr4GJEsTodtNouNLVgOtpvgjuOAgfYInWXODwo2rdkUaS6xaKTXY455O49k~8nzS8N3WJmtvQFdbkpRgg0uqavinAHr~VYd5J6ObKZCwkauyQGuZbyG7B9Q9bT-IA3LBRn4IWpFX0P2cohmAstpf6V5iubjpnyPJMjBwQlbWDjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee heard extended testimony and technical questions on House Bill 153, a proposed update to New Mexico’s press‑shield statute that would expand legal protections for journalists and define contemporary forms of media. Committee members did not vote on the measure and asked sponsors and staff to circulate a consolidated draft before further action.

The bill’s sponsor described the measure as an update to a 1973 law that predates the internet and modern communications. Attorney and expert witness Kip Purcell told the committee the proposal is largely modeled on a recent federal template and would expand the statute’s definitions to include digital communication, service providers and electronic stores of information.

Why it matters: Supporters said modern press‑shield language would protect reporters, citizen journalists and digital publishers from administrative subpoenas that would otherwise force disclosure without clear standards; opponents and several committee members flagged concerns that the bill must avoid impeding lawful criminal search warrants or judicial subpoenas.

What the bill would do

- Modernize definitions: The draft would update who qualifies as a covered journalist and what counts as a medium, adding Internet, email, cell phone and text communications to the statute’s scope.

- Administrative subpoenas vs. judicial subpoenas: Counsel and witnesses emphasized the bill is intended to govern subpoenas issued by executive and legislative agencies; New Mexico’s Supreme Court has ruled statutes may not prescribe standards for judicial subpoenas. The sponsor and counsel said the bill excludes judicial subpoenas for that constitutional reason.

- Service providers and stored data: The draft contemplates standards for subpoenas to electronic service providers that store journalists’ materials, and proposes procedural protections and burdens of proof for courts reviewing administrative‑subpoena enforcement.

Questions raised in committee

Committee members asked a series of operational questions and flagged potential conflicts with criminal‑procedure tools such as search warrants. Representative Hall asked whether the bill would cover exigent law‑enforcement requests; Purcell said federal subpoenas and criminal warrants issued by courts fall outside the bill’s state‑statute scope and that the bill addresses state administrative and legislative subpoenas. Other members pressed whether the bill’s proposed standards could unintentionally impede criminal investigations when law enforcement seeks stored data or evidence.

Committee process and next steps

Members and staff discussed circulating a combined draft (referred to in the hearing as a 0.3 sub) that merges committee sublanguage and later amendments. Sponsors and counsel told the committee that versions 0.1 and 0.2 exist and that a consolidated 0.3 had been circulated; members asked for the final consolidated text at least 24 hours before a subsequent hearing so analysts and members could review the changes.

Ending

The committee did not take a vote on HB 153. Committee staff and sponsors will circulate a consolidated draft for review and the committee scheduled further consideration once members have time to examine the 0.3 version and address concerns on criminal‑procedure interactions and administrative enforcement.","The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on House Bill 153, which would modernize New Mexico’s 1973 press‑shield statute to cover digital media and administrative subpoenas while leaving judicial subpoenas to the courts; the committee requested a consolidated draft and deferred final action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Judiciary committee advances bill requiring lobbyists to file activity reports within 48 hours

Supporters press for anti‑SLAPP bill to protect public speech; committee will reschedule consideration

Committee debates update to New Mexico’s press‑shield law, defers final action