N.M. Stat. Ann. § 10-16G-2
As used in the State Ethics Commission Act:
History: Laws 2019, ch. 86, § 2; 2021, ch. 109, § 14.
Applicability. — Laws 2019, ch. 86, § 40 provided that the provisions of the State Ethics Commission Act apply only to conduct occurring on or after July 1, 2019.
The 2021 amendment, effective July 1, 2021, removed the notarization requirement from the definition of "complaint", as used in the State Ethics Commission Act; and in Subsection D, after "penalty of perjury", deleted "before a notary public".
The state ethics commission has jurisdiction to enforce the registration and reporting requirements of the Lobbyist Regulation Act against all "persons," both individuals and organizations. — Where petitioner conducted a digital lobbying advertising campaign, spending $36,000 on that campaign and then registering with the secretary of state, as required by the Lobbyist Regulation Act (LRA), 2-11-6(I) NMSA 1978, and filing the required expenditure report, but failing to list the identity of the contributors to its advertising campaign, the amounts contributed by each, and each contributor's address and employment, and where, in response to a complaint filed with the state ethics commission (commission) alleging that petitioner violated 2-11-6(I) NMSA 1978, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the commission did not have jurisdiction to enforce 2-11-6(I) NMSA 1978, and where, following a hearing officer's denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss, petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of mandamus with the district court, asking the district court to issue its writ ordering the commission to cease all proceedings against petitioner and to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that 10-16G-9(A) NMSA 1978 of the State Ethics Commission Act limited the commission's jurisdiction to an individual who is a "lobbyist" or to that "lobbyist's employer," as defined by 2-11-2(E) NMSA 1978 and 2-11-2(F) NMSA 1978, respectively, the district court erred in concluding that the commission lacked jurisdiction to proceed, because the sole issue before the commission was whether an organization which engages in a lobbying advertising campaign is a "person" within the commission's enforcement jurisdiction, and by using the word "person" in the State Ethics Commission Act (ECA) to define the term "lobbyist," the legislature intended to include organizations, associations, and other legal or commercial entities within the definition of "lobbyists." Individuals and organizations that are required by any provision of the LRA to register with the secretary of state, are "lobbyists," as the ECA defines the term, and therefore the legislature granted the commission jurisdiction to enforce the registration and reporting requirements of the LRA against all "persons," both individuals and organizations, that are required by the terms of the LRA to register with the secretary of state. N.M. Fams. Forward v. N.M. State Ethics Comm'n, 2025-NMCA-016, cert. denied.