This story was originally published in New Mexico In Depth’s mid-week newsletter, in which we offer insights and analysis. We think it’s crucial to stay in touch and tell you what’s on our minds every week. Please let us know what’s on your mind as well. Or, got tips? What do we need to know? Contact us: [email protected]
A political action committee for a commercial realtor group and a state representative gave money to a dark money group that attempted to sway last week’s primary election while keeping its sources of funding secret — a violation of state law according to the state’s independent ethics commission.
Much of the several hundred thousand dollars the nonprofit New Mexico Project raised in the months leading up to the June 4 primary remains shrouded in mystery.
But a review of campaign finance reports reveals the origin of at least a portion of the group’s money.
A disclosure report filed on May 13 shows the realtors political action committee — NM NAIOP PAC — gave New Mexico Project $15,000 on April 17. The political action committee (PAC) is largely funded by people in the commercial development field giving $250 each.
And State Rep. Joseph Sanchez in his third primary disclosure report filed on May 28 reported giving the group $2,000 on May 20. Sanchez is a Democrat representing District 40 in northern New Mexico.
The New Mexico Project was formed last fall by Robert Montoya, Ron Marquez, and Jeff Apodaca, a former gubernatorial candidate and son of former New Mexico Gov. Jerry Apodaca.
The group unveiled a splashy website endorsing a slate of candidates running in the primary election last week, and Apodaca in early April made the media rounds to promote the group’s purpose and direct people to the website. He made clear on several radio shows the political motives of the group – to help some candidates win while opposing others.
The $17,000 given by NAIOP and Sanchez is a small fraction of what Apodaca claims to have raised. On an early April radio show he said the group had $300,000 and that oil and gas companies were some of his donors. Apodaca said the group didn’t have to disclose its donors because it’s a 501c4 nonprofit organization and he’s not filed any public spending reports so far.
His decision to not file campaign finance reports leaves the public in the dark about the scope of special interests at play in the primary election, and looking ahead, in the general election if the group continues to operate.
The State Ethics Commission has sued the group and Apodaca to try to compel disclosure of who funded the New Mexico Project, along with an accounting of how the group spent its money.
Other dark money
Other nonprofits spent money during the election, and unlike The New Mexico Project, have filed reports. But two are noteworthy for a lack of disclosure even while following the rules.
Equality New Mexico, a New Mexico based 501 c 4 nonprofit, filed a report showing it spent $30,054.67 – for “voter persuasion” using text, email and snail mail, and digital ads. Almost all of the spending was to support a slate of progressive candidates.
The group did not disclose its donors. Executive Director Marshall Martinez told me that all of the contributions they used for political spending were under $200. Martinez said that because the Campaign Reporting Act exempts disclosure of contributors who gave less than $200, the group did not disclose those donors.
I looked up their most recent 990, and they reported raising slightly more than $30,000 from their annual fundraiser last year. And frankly, it’s not a stretch to think a community organization that likely fundraises year round could raise more than $30,000 from small donations.
Is this lack of disclosure still “dark”? Yes, by definition. But the group is playing by the rules, and happy to point to the language in state law that guided their decision.
EDF Action Votes spent $72,792 on a media campaign supporting some candidates and opposing others. This is a federal super pac and sister organization to the Environmental Defense Action Fund, which touted the success of its work in New Mexico on its website after the primary:
“EDF Action Votes ran a 5-figure direct mail program in support of Representative Angelica Rubio, as well as Angel Charley, Heather Berghmans and Michele “Paulene” Abeyta. EDF Action and EDF Action Votes have been active in the state since 2018, investing more than $1.5 million in state and federal politics in New Mexico.”
Because EDF Action Votes already files reports to the Federal Elections Commission, it isn’t required to file a separate report detailing its donors to the New Mexico Secretary of State. Matt Tresaugue, senior communications director for political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund, pointed me to the group’s federal filing here. It reported that the Environmental Defense Action Fund gave it $1,504,000, which is 86% of what it raised.
Is EDF Action Votes a dark money group? No. But it does qualify as a gray money group – the phenomenon in which a PAC or nonprofit gives to another PAC or nonprofit, which may in turn give to another PAC or nonprofit, and so forth and so on – eventually resulting in political spending that is for all intents and purposes unable to be traced to its original source.
Unlike other states, New Mexico has not sought to broaden its reporting requirements in a way that would capture the original source of spending by gray money groups.