No person shall accept employment as a lobbyist and no lobbyist's employer shall employ a lobbyist for compensation contingent in whole or in part upon the outcome of the lobbying activities before the legislative branch of state government or the approval or veto of any legislation by the governor. History: 1953 Comp., § 2-13-8, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 261, § 8. Section does not abrogate common law prohibition of contingency-fee agreements for legislative lobbying. — Where a lobbyist brought an action against the seller of construction equipment, alleging that the seller breached an agreement under which the lobbyist would assist the seller in securing approval of industrial revenue bonds from the county in exchange for a portion of the seller's property tax savings from those industrial revenue bonds, and where the seller moved for summary judgment, arguing that the contingency-fee agreement was unenforceable as in contravention of New Mexico's public policy, and where the lobbyist claimed that the state legislature abrogated the common law's prohibition of contingency-fee agreements for legislative lobbying by adopting § 2-11-8 NMSA 1978, the district court did not err in granting the seller's motion for summary judgment, because in the absence of explicit statutory abrogation, the common law continues to prohibit enforcement of contingency-fee agreements for legislative lobbying. Midway Leasing, Inc. v. Wagner Equip. Co. , 842 Fed.Appx. 209 (10th Cir. 2021), aff'g 356 F. Supp. 3d 1207 (D. N.M. 2018). Agreement in contravention of state's public policy against lobbying pursuant to contingent fee agreement. — Where a real estate developer brought an action against the seller of construction equipment, alleging that the seller breached an agreement under which the developer would assist the seller in securing approval of industrial revenue bonds from the county in exchange for a portion of the seller's property tax savings from those industrial revenue bonds, and where the seller moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged agreement was unenforceable as in contravention of New Mexico's public policy, it was held that although this section only prohibits contingent fee agreements for lobbying before the state legislature or governor, the public policy expressed in this section by the New Mexico legislature voids the contingency fee agreement for lobbying before the county commission at issue here. All agreements whose object or tendency is to improperly interfere with or influence legislative action are contrary to public policy and void. Midway Leasing, Inc. v. Wagner Equipment Co ., 356 F. Supp.3d 1207 (D. N.M. 2018).
‹ Prev All New Mexico sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.