It’s time to take the next step to end pay to play
Photo by Neubie/flickr.com
This column is excerpted and adapted from Think New Mexico’s newest report, “Restoring Trust: Banning Political Contributions from Contractors and Lobbyists.”
New Mexico has a long history of battling political corruption dating back to well before statehood.
The Lincoln County War (1878-1881), which is usually recalled as the backdrop for the exploits of Billy the Kid, began as a political fight over the control of government contracts for beef and other provisions. Those government contracts were heavily influenced by the patronage of the powerful “Santa Fe Ring,” a group of lawyers, judges, businessmen and politicians from both parties who gained control of the territorial legislature and courts and dominated the economic life of New Mexico by manipulating public offices for private gain.
Unfortunately, this culture of corruption has continued into modern times. It can be seen in the troubling attitude that this is simply how business is done in the state. For example, in 1984 New Mexico State Investment Officer Phillip Troutman and Deputy State Treasurer Ken Johnson were convicted of conspiracy to commit extortion. According to the sworn testimony at trial, Troutman solicited a political contribution from a bank executive, emphasizing that he controlled the bank’s ability to receive state business.
Johnson then stated, “You have to pay to play,” because “this is how business is done.”
The same phrase surfaced in the testimony of a witness in the successful 2007 prosecution of former state Treasurers Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil for soliciting kickbacks from contractors who invested hundreds of millions of dollars in state money. One witness in the case stated, “My understanding is that’s how business is done in New Mexico.”
In Vigil’s case, jurors saw videotape of then-Treasurer Vigil accepting cash payments in 2005 of $11,500 from a state contractor. Vigil contended that he was not accepting a bribe for steering a state contract to the investment advisor, but was rather accepting the cash as a campaign contribution, which would make it perfectly legal. This defense underscores the frequently murky line between bribes and campaign contributions.
A similar situation came to light in the fall of 2008, when former Senate President Pro Tem and Majority Leader Manny Aragon pleaded guilty in a scheme designed to skim about $4.2 million from a state contract to construct a new federal courthouse in Bernalillo County.
Senator Aragon sponsored legislation to pay for the new courthouse, and then conspired with courthouse administrator Toby Martinez to hire a specific architectural firm to design the building. The architectural contractor kicked back some of the dollars from the contract to Aragon and Martinez. Former Albuquerque mayor and registered lobbyist for the architectural contractor, Ken Shultz, also pleaded guilty in the case for delivering the kickback payments to Aragon and others.
The common denominator: High-dollar public contracts
The common denominator in these recent scandals is public contracts worth millions of dollars. Because of the high stakes there is a temptation for individuals and businesses seeking government contracts to make political contributions to the elected officials who will decide whether to award them the contract. Meanwhile, for elected officials running increasingly expensive campaigns, there is a similar temptation to accept those contributions.
In fact, relationships between contractors, lobbyists and elected officials often begin on the campaign trail at political fundraising events. To change how business is too often done in New Mexico, we need to start at the beginning – before officials are elected and already indebted to contractors, lobbyists and various special interests.
Two years ago, the Legislature and Governor Richardson took an important step toward changing this culture of corruption when they enacted New Mexico’s Gift Act by a strong bipartisan majority. The law bars government contractors, potential contractors, special interests seeking major government subsidies or tax breaks and lobbyists from giving gifts worth more than $250 to the state candidates or public officials.
The Gift Act begs the question: If we believe that special interests and lobbyists should not give gifts worth more than $250, why should they be able to make campaign contributions worth as much as $4,600 in a single election cycle?
Think New Mexico has just released a new report, Restoring Trust: Banning Political Contributions from Contractors and Lobbyists, calling for the Legislature and Governor Richardson to take the next logical step: Enact legislation prohibiting government contractors, special interests seeking major government subsidies or tax breaks, and lobbyists from making or bundling political contributions to state or local elected officials.
Please visit Think New Mexico’s Web site for more information, to obtain a copy of the report, or to learn how to get involved in this effort to change the political culture in New Mexico.
Nathan is Think New Mexico’s executive director. Fisher is the organization’s associate director and webmaster.
Absolutely wedum59.
Amen Wedum59.
It sounds like this kind of legislation would have to be carefully worded to keep from violating the contractors’ “personhood” rights. I think we need our state legislature to introduce a US Constitutional amendment to remove ALL organizations, for-profit and non-profit, from the “personhood” category.
Good points qofdisks. However, if all those things really happened, no one would want to run, who would want a job like that? Not sure that kind of person could be trusted to run government.
We need to change the nature of political campaigns so that they are not so expensive. There has to be better criteria for choosing our leaders than raising (begging for and taking) money. This relationship between have a ton of money and qualifying for elective office must be severed.
Our political campaigns have become a circus engaging no critical thought on the part of the public.
We need standard rules restricting the format of the campaigns themselves and not just the funding of campaigns. Campaigns to sift out our public servants should not be privately funded at all. They could take on a more serious and somber atmosphere of applying for a job and looking for a qualified candidate. The cost of campaigns are escalating beyond reason and we are wasting too much time and resources on these circuses. Campaigns must purposely be made boring, serious and somber.
I suggest our media publish the candidate’s resume, a photo, a quick bio, and one written essay each week addressing an issue or two. This could appear in every newspaper in the state with a special dedicated section and on the internet. Perhaps there could be a blog for public input and commentary as well as feedback from the candidate to the public. The candidate may publish their opponent’s factual record only.
No debates, no speeches, no parties, no political travel, no radio or TV, no gimmicks, no slogans, no bumper stickers, no signs, no ads. The political parties may throw matanzas, and get out the vote drives for one week only.
At the level of governor, senator or representative, they may have one small office from which they may generate and distribute only the publications above. Depending on the level of office they may be publicly financed for a few personnel no more. Other “smaller” campaigns could be conducted from a common office run by the respective party that will operate under the same restrictions.
Campaigns need to be restricted and made to operate within standardized budgets. While there would not be restriction on meaningful political speech, there would be restriction of circus and graft.
Worthing hearing … but these are the guys that helped bring about removing the GRT on food, which only INCREASED the tax burden on the poor, not help it – and screwed up the finance stream of every village, town and city in the State. Beware – having some vision that goes beyond the next corner is important here and I don’t think these guys have it. Having said that – as Michael Douglas said in the movie “An American President” .. it is ALL about character and we need leaders that have it, not leaders who are characters. We should try and legislate it … but we need leaders who go beyond what the law requires … we need men and women with character to lead this State. They exist – a couple of them are running for governor … but not all of the gubenatorial candidates fall into that category. Our form of government requires an educated electorate … oops …
This article sounds good, especially Restoring Trust and controlling the corruptive behavior of special interests.
Questions: Aren’t NGO’s with 501(c)(3) tax exemption status — Special Interests? And, isn’t wanting your tax dollars to fund baby sittin (Full Day Kindergarten) and the Green “Strategic River Reserve” merely socialistic causes that have proven throughout history to create impoverishment and eventually total societal failure.
Perhaps, we all should start doing our own THINKING instead of allowing others to do our thinking?
Bravo! You have my support and the support of every politiician who truly wants to end corruption and pay for play. But alas I think there are few who would dare challenge La Politica and introdcue and vote for this excellent bill.
You must be logged in to post a comment.