A. It is unlawful for a candidate or the candidate's agent to make an expenditure of contributions received, except for the following purposes or as otherwise provided in this section:
(1) expenditures of the campaign;
(2) expenditures of legislators that are reasonably related to performing the duties of the office held, including mail, telephone and travel expenditures to serve constituents, but excluding personal and legislative session living expenses;
(3) donations to the state general fund;
(4) donations to an organization to which a federal income tax deduction would be permitted under Subparagraph (A) of Paragraph (1) of Subsection (b) of Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;
(5) expenditures to eliminate the campaign debt of the candidate for the office sought or expenditures incurred by the candidate when seeking election to another public office covered by the Campaign Reporting Act;
(6) donations to a political committee or to another candidate seeking election to public office; or
(7) disbursements to return unused funds pro rata to the contributors if no campaign debt exists.
B. A judge subject to a nonpartisan retention election or a candidate for judicial office shall solicit or accept campaign funds and return unused funds in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
C. No contributions solicited for or received in a federal election campaign may be used in a state election campaign.
History: 1978 Comp., § 1-19-29.1, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 46, § 6; 1995, ch. 153, § 6; 2009, ch. 68, § 3.
ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For the Code of Judicial Conduct, see Rule 21-001 NMRA et seq.
For Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, see 26 U.S.C.S. § 170.
The 2009 amendment, effective November 3, 2010, in Paragraph (6) of Subsection A, after "political", changed "party" to "committee".
Severability. — Laws 2009, ch. 68, § 5 provided that if any part or application of this act is held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
The 1995 amendment, effective June 16, 1995, deleted "federal campaign funds prohibited in state races" following "use" in the section heading; in Subsection A, deleted "elected official" following "candidate" and inserted "or as otherwise provided in this section"; rewrote Paragraph (5) of Subsection A, which related to donations made to a political party, another candidate, or for the elimination of campaign debt; added Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Subsection A and made related changes; rewrote Subsection B which prohibited the use of contributions received in a federal election campaign in a state election campaign; and added Subsection C.
Subsection C of Section 1-19-29.1 violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. New Mexicans for Bill Richardson v. Gonzales, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Cv. No. 93-1135 JP (U.S. Dist. Ct. D. N.M. filed August 2, 1996).
Ripeness of challenge on first amendment grounds. — Although the congressman had not officially declared a candidacy for state office, this section's prohibition against using funds raised during a federal campaign for a statewide race created a direct and immediate dilemma for the congressman, and he should not have had to risk prosecution under this section before his challenge on first amendment grounds was ripe for judicial action. New Mexicans for Bill Richardson v. Gonzales, 64 F.3d 1495 (10th Cir. 1995).