Comments on: The GOP can be NM’s majority party, Sanchez says

By: wedum59

wedum59 — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:37:11 +0000

macquigg, we have a difference of philosophy. I think that something that is called “free” speech should not cost so much. Our founding fathers could not have forseen the mess that our political system has become. A correction is needed.

I have several more ideas. How about a civics test for political candidates? If you can’t pass, you can’t run. How about limiting the time allowed for political campaigning, that is any spending of money on advertising of any kind, to a few months? It is getting to be a full time activity for candidates and elected officials. How about limiting the total time that one can serve as an elected official? Lyons, for example, is switching from the land commissioner position to running for PRC. How about letting the taxpayers decide where to spend their money, that is, figure the total amount and then divvy it up themselves among the various lines in the proposed budget? Of course the amount for some basic services, public safety for example, could be fixed.

How about bringing back the League of Women Voters as moderators for statewide and nationwide candidate forums? The presidential candidates decided some years back that they wanted to know the questions ahead of time…. and in Roswell, for example, the Republicans have dropped their participation in the Leadership Roswell candidate forum. In fact, my (incumbent) opponent in the House District 59 race only appeared at 2 of the eight forums that we were invited to in 2008. I managed to make 7 of them. And she is not an exception, she is the norm.

By: ched macquigg

ched macquigg — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:14:16 +0000

wedum, wedum, wedum,

The first amendment does not include limits on the amount of free speech (money), Nor does it limit free speech (spending one’s money to support the candidate of their choice) to registered voters. Clearly you understand that, as your solution includes amending the constitution to provide the limits you want.

Where do you get the right to limit anyone’s free speech. The “one week’s salary at minimum wage” may sound good, to you, but it is an entirely arbitrary number and therefore, cannot be defended philosophically. You stand on a slippery slope when you begin to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own money (speech). You may not like what they have to say, or how loudly they say it, but the right is unequivocal.

What if your widow with two mites is not articulate enough to defend her interests, should we limit the words that can be used by those whom she opposes?

The answer is full disclosure of contributions, transparent government so that undue influence cannot be hidden, and actual accountability for those who betray the public trust in exchange for money.

By: That One

That One — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:10:52 +0000

Richardson was more of a Republican than Sanchez could have ever been. He’s the governor that gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy at the beginning of his first term, spent us into near bankruptcy investing in programs that provide little benefit anyone but the very rich (i.e. the Rail Runner, the Space Port), raided the Permanent Fund, cut programs for the middle class along the way and ignored the poor altogether. Richardson was New Mexico’s George W. Bush in other words. So how could have Sanchez done any better/worse? That light at the top of hill Sanchez refers would have been nothing more than the last remnants of our democracy burning in a heap of broken political promises. Now please excuse me while I go vomit.

By: wedum59

wedum59 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:05:58 +0000

Astute Observer, we are not talking about “free” speech, we are talking about very expensive advertisements, paid for by megabuck donors. As cartoonist Ben Sergeant put it on 1-27-10, “Well, FIRSTLY, sir, just how much free speech can you AFFORD?”

The solution, IMHO, is a Constitutional amendment that limits donors to PACs and political campaigns to US citizens who are registered to vote. One (real, living, breathing) person, one donation. The second line of the amendment would give Congress the power to limit the dollar amount of the donation. My preference would be the equivalent of one week’s salary at minimum wage.

Let’s give the widow and her two mites a chance to be an equal player.

By: Astute Observer

Astute Observer — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:44:04 +0000

For wedum – I share the concern, but at what point do we limit that pesky ‘freedom of speech’ thingy? For Sanchez – glad he is in the race … he won’t win and I can’t vote for him, but I’m glad he is in the race. As for Party Building over th past eight years … how is that workin’ for ya, and just where has he been? Weh took over as Party chair in 2004 and the Party went down the tubes – no building, creating exclusionary mechanisms, driving away volunteers and party faithful with ‘my bat, my ball, my way …’ philosophies. Sanchez was no where to be seen – others attempted to stand in the breach and were seen, including Moore, Cravens, and Damron.

By: jivaro99

jivaro99 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:54:59 +0000

Sounds like wedum59 has a case of sour apples stomach ache.

By: wedum59

wedum59 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:28:52 +0000

It always comes down to the money, doesn’t it? The Republican/Catholic members of the Supreme Court have just declared that the corporations can spend as much as they want to control our elections. Welcome to the Corporatocracy of America.

Timothy I, 6:10.