A weekend vote in the House of Representatives on a corruption bill could have reverberations on the campaign trail around the state.

The House on Saturday voted 41-26 to pass House Bill 111, which would increase criminal penalties when a crime is committed by a public official. It also would mean that officials convicted of crimes -- such as embezzlement, bribery and making false vouchers -- could lose part of their state pensions and would not be allowed to become lobbyists.

Not long after the two-hour debate on the bill, the state Republican Party emailed a news release with an all-capital-letters subject line that shouted: "TWENTY-SIX DEMOCRATS VOTE AGAINST ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL."

GOP Executive Director Bryan Watkins said in the release, "It appears some Democrats will run for re-election on the platform of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and taxpayer-funded pensions to corrupt public officials. Republicans look forward to that debate."

The no votes included most of the Santa Fe area's House delegation: House Speaker Ben Luján of Nambé, Rep. Luciano "Lucky" Varela and Rep. Jim Trujillo.

Rep. Brian Egolf, a Santa Fe Democrat, voted in favor of the bill, as did Rep. Rhonda King, D-Stanley, and Rep. Jim Hall, a Los Alamos Republican.

So, why did so many Democrats vote against an anti-corruption bill?

Rep. Nate Gentry, R-Albuquerque, said Monday that some of the votes might have been personal. He said some Democrats might be angry with him for leading an (unsuccessful) move to amend the "Feed Bill," which pays for the session, by prohibiting legislative funds from going to any appeals of redistricting cases.

Gentry noted that he carried a similar bill last year that passed the House 68-0. That bill, he said, was harsher than the current one.

Last year's bill would have required district attorneys to go after the pensions of public officials convicted of corruption-related charges. The current bill gives district attorneys and judges more discretion, Gentry said. It also places caps on the amount that can be forfeited from pensions, he said.

Carter Bundy, legislative director for the state chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said the union helped negotiate the inclusion of the cap, which is five times the amount of the crime's cost to the state.

The bill in its current form is a good balance, Bundy said. "We want to get rid of corrupt employees and politicians as much as anyone," he said.

Democrats interviewed said technical aspects of the bill, not anything personal against Gentry, caused them to vote no.

Both Varela and Trujillo said they were concerned that the bill would mean low-level state employees could be prosecuted. It could happen to any clerk who issued a check because he was ordered to by a corrupt boss, Varela said. "There's nothing to protect him."

The bill "goes too far down into the bowels of government," Varela said. "Isn't it the big money guys we're really interested in?"

Varela said he could support the bill if it only applied to elected officials and high-level appointments.

To that argument, Gentry said, "If a janitor is ripping off $1,000 worth of supplies a month, why shouldn't he be held to the same standards as a principal [engaged in similar crime]?" He also said to be found guilty, an employee would have to have knowingly engaged in fraud or other criminal behavior. "Duress is a defense," he said.

Rep. Tomas Garcia, D-Ocate, was one of the representatives who argued against the bill Saturday. He said the definition of "elected officials" was unclear and raised the question of whether student councils in high schools could be prosecuted under the bill.

Gentry said the language in the bill pertaining to public officials is consistent with other laws on the books. He noted that the bill doesn't create any new category of crime, it just adds the potential of an extra year in prison for some felonies already on the books and creates the possibility of pension forfeiture.

Contact Steve Terrell at 986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com. Read his political blog at roundhouseroundup.com.