New TV ad goes for the jugular on lawmakers’ nearly $70K pay proposal

A new television ad is targeting Constitutional Amendment 4, the November ballot measure sponsored by Democrats and opposed by most Republicans that would allow New Mexico legislators to receive annual salaries tied to the state’s median household income.

Our Values PAC announced Thursday that it is opposing the amendment and launching a television ad portraying the proposal as a costly “Politician Pay Package” that would place salaries approaching $70,000 on top of benefits lawmakers already receive.

The ad wastes little time setting the tone.

“Politicians caught red-handed, but instead of accountability, they’re asking you for a huge pay raise to almost $70,000 a year,” the narrator says, with news headlines spotlighting Democrat former floor leader Sheryl Williams Stapleton, who was convicted on federal corruption charges after she resigned in disgrace, and Democrat state Rep. Andrea Romero of Santa Fe, who was forced to resign from an illegal six-figure job with the District Attorney’s office after the state’s attorney general ruled it to be against the law.

It continues by pointing to legislative pensions and New Mexico’s education struggles before declaring, “Don’t let corruption win. Vote no on Amendment 4, the Politician Pay Package.”

The nearly $70,000 figure comes directly from the official fiscal analysis of the proposal.

What exactly would Amendment 4 do?

New Mexico is currently the only state where legislators receive no annual base salary. Lawmakers instead receive per diem and mileage reimbursement for legislative sessions and qualifying interim work.

Amendment 4 would change Article IV, Section 10 of the state Constitution to permit legislative compensation equal to New Mexico’s annual median household income. Compensation would decrease if the household-income figure falls and could increase when it rises. The existing provisions allowing per diem and mileage would remain in place.

Using a median household income of approximately $67,800, the Legislative Finance Committee estimated that paying all 112 lawmakers would cost the General Fund roughly $7.6 million every year. If voters approve the amendment, salaries would begin with members seated in the 59th Legislature in 2029. 

“Our Values PAC opposes Amendment 4 because we believe voters should look at the entire compensation package legislators already receive before authorizing salaries approaching $70,000 a year,” spokeswoman Anissa Tinnin said.

She pointed to lawmakers’ existing per diem, mileage reimbursement, pension eligibility, and ability to continue earning outside income while holding office.

Nearly $68K for a Legislature with 30- and 60-day regular sessions

New Mexico’s regular legislative sessions run for 60 days in odd-numbered years and 30 days in even-numbered years, although legislators also participate in interim committees, constituent work, special sessions, and other official duties outside the regular session.

Our Values PAC is emphasizing how the proposed salary would compare with other states.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reported that the average annual base salary for state lawmakers was $46,279 in 2025. Arizona legislators received $24,000, Colorado lawmakers received roughly $44,000 to $47,500 depending on the beginning of their terms, Texas lawmakers received $7,200, and New Mexico lawmakers received no base salary. 

That would put a $67,800 New Mexico salary well above the national average and above the base salaries paid in several neighboring states.

PAC takes aim at household-income formula

Another major target of Amendment 4 critics is the decision to use median household income, rather than an individual-income measure, to determine what each individual legislator would earn.

The Legislature’s own analysis noted that median household income includes the income of all members of a household and specifically raised the question of whether lawmakers intended for the income of a single legislator to match an entire household’s median income. 

Our Values PAC argues that distinction matters when the proposed salary is being sold as compensation representative of what ordinary New Mexicans earn.

Ad ties the salary fight to education and government performance

The television spot broadens the criticism beyond the mechanics of legislative compensation.

“New Mexico schools ranked 50th. Instead of investing in our kids, they’re investing in themselves,” the narrator says.

The argument attempts to turn Amendment 4 into a larger question about whether lawmakers have earned significantly more compensation based on the state government’s performance.

Tinnin similarly argued that voters should consider New Mexico’s continuing challenges in education, along with past corruption cases in state government, before authorizing a new recurring expense for legislative salaries.

What about term limits and conflicts of interest?

The salary debate is also reviving a separate question: If New Mexico moves toward a salaried Legislature, should that compensation come with term limits, pension changes, and stronger rules governing potential conflicts of interest?

Those reforms are not included in Amendment 4.

Paul Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation, made that distinction central to his organization’s opposition in a recent Albuquerque Journal opinion piece.

“To be clear, the Rio Grande Foundation isn’t completely opposed to paying the Legislature,” Gessing wrote, arguing instead that Amendment 4 is the wrong approach. 

Gessing argued that lawmakers should not simply receive a new salary on top of the existing compensation structure. His organization favors eliminating legislative pensions and per diem if substantial salaries are created, along with additional changes aimed at preventing public office from becoming increasingly attractive as a long-term career. 

One of those proposed reforms is term limits.

The Rio Grande Foundation argues that paying legislators close to the state’s median household income could encourage more lawmakers to remain in safe seats for lengthy careers, particularly when combined with pension benefits. Gessing proposed limiting service to eight years in each chamber. 

He also raised the issue of conflicts involving lawmakers who are simultaneously employed by government entities whose funding is determined through the legislative process.

RGF argues that public employees whose paychecks ultimately depend on legislative appropriations should not simultaneously have the ability to participate in decisions affecting those employers. Gessing contended that salaries should therefore be accompanied by stronger conflict-of-interest restrictions. 

Those concerns extend beyond one conservative policy organization. A recent Think New Mexico-commissioned poll found 64% of respondents supported paying legislators only if mandatory ethics reforms accompanied the salaries, while 81% supported holding lawmakers to a higher ethical standard generally. Think New Mexico is separately advocating stronger conflict-of-interest rules and increased lobbyist disclosure. 

In other words, Amendment 4 asks voters to decide the salary question without simultaneously settling questions about term limits, pensions, outside employment, or tougher conflict-of-interest rules.

That is becoming an important part of the opposition argument: Critics are not necessarily saying lawmakers should never receive compensation, but that a major change in compensation should come alongside broader accountability reforms.

A bigger question than simply ‘pay or no pay’

That leaves voters with more than a simple debate over whether lawmakers deserve compensation.

Some supporters see salaries as a way to make legislative service accessible to a broader range of New Mexicans and strengthen the legislative branch.

Our Values PAC and other critics are asking voters to focus on the roughly $67,800 annual salary, approximately $7.6 million yearly cost, existing benefits, outside employment, and the absence of term limits or new conflict-of-interest restrictions in Amendment 4 itself.

And the new television ad is betting that one number will stick with voters when they reach the constitutional amendment on their ballots:

Nearly $70,000.