Lyons is the latest to prove the need for ethics reform
State Land Commissioner Pat Lyons is the latest official to prove that pay-to-play politics – or at least the appearance of such – is a systemic problem in
Before last year’s election, developer Philip Philippou gave $20,500 to a political action committee run by lobbyists he employs. The PAC gave most of it to
Since then, Philippou has given another $6,000 to Lyons, who also flew at Philippou’s expense in March to a New Mexico State Aggies’ basketball game in
Lyons, a Republican, isn’t alone in perpetuating such cynicism. Some actions of Gov. Bill Richardson and former Attorney General Patricia Madrid, both Democrats, have had the same smell.

Fulton told me in 2004, when I was a reporter at the Las Cruces Sun-News, that he was handing out large donations in an attempt to buy opposition to the proposal by Gerald Peters and the Jemez Pueblo to build a casino in Anthony.
In 2005,

All three politicians say contributions don’t affect their decisions.
Richardson and his staffers have said repeatedly that he isn’t influenced by massive campaign contributions, but he argues – now that he’s run in his last state race – that
The governor’s reconvened ethics task force began work Tuesday. It will try to overcome resistance in the Legislature that stalled many reform proposals earlier this year. Citizens need to help by demanding limits on contributions to candidates and PACs and additional reforms that will help restore the system’s integrity.
A version of this article was published today in the Albuquerque Tribune. I write a column for the newspaper that runs on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
2 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.





Contact


Subscribe









The real sad part about this is that the PAC that was used in this case seems to be nothing more then a way to divert money, make it harder to track. People should realize however that this is not the usual case. Sometimes PAC are formed for a particular candidate where several citizens and businesses get together to hold an event where tickets are sold or sent and therefore funds are raised. In many cases this may include hundreds of different donors of relatively small amounts ($50 or $100). Usually people do this because they believe in a candidate and the people who attend believe in a candidate. If $5,000 is raise in such an event then the PAC could not give it all to the candidate it was intended under the proposed changes. The Lyons deformation of the real intent of a PAC is to blame for this. Now we have to change the rules again to try and close the holes these people find. Honestly however the people it really hurts are the future candidates, especially those that are not independently wealthy. If you close the doors to tight the only people who can run for office will be the wealthy who can fund their own campaigns. We don’t want that either!!
The time has come for the Ethics Commission to consider the issue of public employees accepting salary and compensation provided them in secret by anonymous private donors.Full disclosure of donors and amounts need to be made public.Why are public employees exempted from accountability,especially when they make appearances in public meetings and take publicized stances on political issues.Mr. Theuss and Mr. Martin should reconsider their positions in accepting these sweetheart deals,Where are the University trustees in this matter?