Federal judge sends dark money group lawsuit back to state court

A federal judge has rejected a nonprofit group’s bid to move to federal court a campaign finance case brought against it by the state ethics commission. In a July 17 opinion, Chief United States District Judge William P. Johnson for the District of New Mexico said his court lacked jurisdiction over the question of whether or not the New Mexico Project, a nonprofit formed last year, must register as a political committee and disclose its donors.

“This is a state law case – with exclusively state law causes of action – that belongs in state court,” the judge wrote in an opinion that sent the case back to state court in New Mexico.

The New Mexico Project spent thousands of dollars on advertising to influence the outcome of the June primary elections. But it didn’t disclose its donors or file expenditure reports, a requirement under New Mexico’s Campaign Reporting Act for almost all spending on political advertising. The State Ethics Commission sued the group in late May to compel that disclosure.

Then in late June, the commission sought a preliminary injunction forcing the group to register as a political committee and file required reports with the secretary of state. The commission said the injunction is necessary because the group’s president, Jeff Apodaca, had publicly stated that the group would continue spending on campaign ads during the general election.

Shortly after, the nonprofit group filed a notice removing the case to federal court, arguing that federal law governed the case because forced disclosure of its donors would violate the group’s first amendment rights. They also claim the commission violated the group’s civil and due process rights.

But it didn’t take long for Johnson to nix hearing it at the federal level.

Even if the New Mexico Project filed a standalone lawsuit against the state alleging violations under federal law, Johnson’s opinion said, that suit would have no bearing on the commission’s campaign finance lawsuit against the group. “A State’s authority over its elections is particularly potent – especially with regard to campaign finance laws to ensure the integrity of elections,” he wrote.

The judge also agreed to the commission’s request that the nonprofit pay its attorney fees and costs associated with the removal to federal court. There was no “objectively reasonable basis for removal” to federal court, the opinion states.  Even further, Johnson said, it was “patently unreasonable,” and “frivolous.”

New Mexico In Depth asked the group’s attorney, Blair Dunn, how he would respond to the judge calling the attempt to remove the case to federal court unreasonable and frivolous.

“We don’t really – there is an entire transcript and briefing that explains why the removal was neither frivolous nor unreasonable,” Dunn wrote in an email, “but judges don’t always get it right.”

Dunn also said that the case being sent back to state court was an “inconsequential aside” given what he said were “far more egregious” violations by the commission that are detailed in the group’s response to the complaint, and that would now be decided in state court.