State Sen. Peter Wirth is asking Gov. Susana Martinez to add two bills to the 30-day legislative session starting Tuesday. Both deal with campaign finance and enjoy bipartisan support.

While we do support limiting business during the short sessions so that the essential work — passing a sound budget — gets done, these bills ensure New Mexico would strengthen campaign finance laws in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. With primary and general elections this year, their introduction is timely.

Reportedly, Martinez is considering adding them to her call for the session because of the bills' bipartisan support. We hope she follows through and allows them to be heard this session. Here is what Wirth is trying to accomplish with this legislation.

Senate Bill 11 is designed to fix defects in the current state campaign finance disclosure law, which had required registration and disclosure by noncandidate groups that were disseminating advertising. Because that requirement was held to be too broad, Wirth would bring New Mexico's law into constitutional compliance by requiring registration and disclosure rules to apply only to groups that put out ads for a specific candidate, and which are shown shortly before an election. Contribution limits in effect in New Mexico apply only to candidates and political parties, and not to these independent groups.

Senate Bill 12 would revise New Mexico's voluntary public financing for Public Regulation Commission and statewide judge candidates. Right now, the law offers additional public money to candidates who find themselves facing well-funded opponents — a kind of level-the-playing field trigger. However, the Supreme Court decided this method of matching funds does not pass constitutional muster. The idea being, the court decided, that candidates would be discouraged from raising and spending money if their opponents could receive more public money to challenge them. Such discouragement, the court said, is a limit on free speech.

With that decision, publicly funded candidates in New Mexico who face deep-pocketed opponents are at a disadvantage and might stop seeking public funding. Wirth's solution would be to allow publicly financed candidates to raise private contributions in amounts up to $100 when facing well-financed opponents. Some public money would kick in to match the fundraising. Thus, candidates would have an incentive to stay in the public system, reducing the influence of big-money donors and making candidates beholden to voters instead of dollars.

Both these bills increase transparency and reduce the influence of big money in state elections. Judging from recent races in Iowa and New Hampshire, the more citizens can do to keep special-interest money out of elections, the better. Better elections, we fervently hope, eventually should lead to better governancefor all.