Photo by AMagill/flickr.com

Officials in Las Cruces have begun exploring possible changes to the city’s election ordinance in an effort to address issues that have come to light in recent years.

Shortly after last year’s municipal election in November, Councilor Miguel Silva asked city staff to begin researching possible changes.

“Our rules are so lax that a person who has a campaign fund can close it out and pocket the money if he wants to,” Silva told NMPolitics.net. “Our rules need to be tighter, and we need more frequent reporting.

Silva was referring to a recent report that former Mayor Bill Mattiace, after deciding against running for mayor last year, donated $10,000 from his campaign account to help pay for the funeral of his sister-in-law’s husband.

Silva said the city attorney and clerk have started looking at other ordinances to come up with ideas for reform.

City Manager Robert Garza said the timeline for reporting, and the size and disclosure of contributions, need to be addressed.

“We have a lot of room to grow our policy and certainly need it,” he said.

I’ve been among those calling for reform. Several issues, including the Mattiace donation, have shown the need. Among them:

• The city doesn’t require that election ads include a disclosure of who is paying for them.
• The city doesn’t outlaw the spending of campaign funds on anything – including personal expenses.
• In 2009, a Las Cruces political action committee failed to report to the city clerk that it had raised money by telling people the funds were for the Las Cruces municipal election, but the clerk found that the PAC violated no city ordinance. Lots of people expressed confusion about the wording in the ordinance that sets reporting requirements for PACs.
• Also in 2009, residents of City Council District 6 received phone calls many described as a push poll. Who paid for those calls remains a mystery.

Silva said he wants the City Council to act now, noting that some councilors are up for re-election next year. He said changing the rules in the middle of an election would be difficult.

“If we don’t do it before the next municipal election, if we don’t do it this year, we’re not going to do it because it’s going to be too close to the next election,” he said.

The Roundhouse in Santa Fe (Photo by Peter St. Cyr)

You can find the updated list of messages Martinez sent to the House here and those she sent to the Senate here.

Gov. Susana Martinez scaled back the agenda for the ongoing 30-day legislative session on Monday, but election reform and various ethics-related proposals including increased penalties for public corruption remain.

Martinez cut the number of messages she sent to the House approving consideration of various topics from more than 40 to 19. She added some new messages to the Senate, bringing the total number sent to that chamber to 48.

There are many duplicate messages sent to both chambers, and the 67 total messages Martinez has issued is still fewer than the approximately 80 she sent last week.

The updated agenda

Martinez’s priorities for the session remain. That includes increased penalties for public corruption and other crimes, repealing a law that allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, ending social promotion, and combining the Cultural Affairs and Tourism departments.

The governor issued separate messages to both chambers allowing consideration of legislation that would require parental notification of abortions.

And, as promised, Martinez sent a message allowing a broad discussion of election reform. She has not endorsed any bills related to that topic.

She is allowing discussion of other reform proposals, including strengthening the Sunshine Portal and the Open Meetings and Fraud Against Taxpayers acts, legislation that would remove elected officials from the State Investment Council, and a proposal to prohibit lawmakers from lobbying for two years after they leave office.

I don’t see a message allowing consideration of reform proposals for the scandal-plagued Public Regulation Commission. I’ve e-mailed the governor’s office seeking clarification on whether the governor intends for that to be a topic of discussion during this session and will let you know what I learn.

Martinez is also allowing discussion of legislation related to mortgage foreclosures. That’s intended for Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, which aims to help homeowners avoid foreclosure by requiring banks to work with them on loan modification before foreclosing.

That bill has been heavily pushed by the Southern New Mexico activist group Comunidades en Acción y de Fé, which is taking several dozen residents of communities in and around Las Cruces to Santa Fe today to lobby for that and other bills.

“Foreclosure message is 24th on her list… phew,” the organization tweeted Monday evening when learning that Sanchez’s bill was still on the session agenda.

And yes, legislation “relating to prescription eye drop refills” is still on the session agenda.

Guv says Dem complaints should go to their leaders

During 30-day sessions, which are intended to be focused on the budget, other topics can only be considered with the governor’s approval. Some Democratic legislative leaders complained last week when Martinez issued about 80 messages, saying it was too much.

Martinez’s spokesman responded by saying the governor was trying to accommodate requests from Democratic and Republican lawmakers but would scale things back if Democratic leaders wanted.

House Speaker Ben Luján was among the most vocal complainers, and after discussions with House leaders Martinez rescinded many messages allowing consideration of topics sought by lawmakers from that chamber. Martinez’s spokesman said Monday that Democrats whose bills were no longer on the session agenda should take it up with their leaders, not the governor.

Update, 9:20 a.m.

No message from the governor is necessary for memorials, and all PRC-reform legislation proposed thus far appears to be memorials that would propose constitutional amendments to voters.

Here’s a statement from Martinez spokesman Scott Darnell on the issue:

“As the governor has said, she believes serious reform is needed at the PRC to restore the public trust, including adding minimum qualifications for its members and transferring some of its current duties to existing state agencies. Resolutions to enact PRC reform, which would require changes to the state’s Constitution, do not need to be messaged by the governor; they can be heard by the Legislature at any time and need to pass each house and be approved by the voters.”

Attorney General Gary King (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Attorney General Gary King has returned part of a $15,000 campaign contribution some said violated the state’s cap on the size of political donations.

From the Albuquerque Journal:

“State Attorney General Gary King says he has returned $5,000 of a $15,000 campaign contribution from a New York City law firm, bringing King in clear compliance with new limits on the size of political donations.

“… While waiting for a committee hearing to begin Wednesday at the Legislature, King told me he returned $5,000 to the law firm just before the end of the year.

“He said he made the move after a discussion with Sen. Dede Feldman, D-Albuquerque, who sponsored the law that imposes the donation limits.

“The Democratic AG said Feldman told him it was her intent that the law apply to all campaign contributions after the general election in 2010, including donations of money to be used to pay off debt incurred before the election.”

Last year, King accepted the donation in spite of caps of $5,000 per election – once each per primary and general – because he was applying the donation to retiring debt from his 2010 campaign. He argued that that meant the law, which took effect upon completion of the 2010 election cycle, didn’t apply.

Secretary of State Dianna Duran was investigating the legality of the donation but has not announced any conclusion.

I was among those who criticized King for pushing the limits of the contribution-limit law:

“New Mexico was supposed to be done with an era in which voters had to consider whether large contributions were affecting the decisions of their elected officials. King’s office even stated, in the fiscal impact report for the bill that eventually became the new contribution limit law, that ‘placing limits on political contributions is the most effective vehicle for addressing the current ‘pay to play’ scandals.’

“Legalities aside, of all the statewide elected officials to not think about the appearance this donation would create, our top crime fighter, the man charged with rooting out corruption, the official who should be the most conscientious about leading by example on ethical issues, is doing the opposite.”

Later, in response to an inquiry from Duran’s office about the donation, King accused me of colluding with Republicans to deflect criticism away from the governor and onto him. As I wrote in another commentary, I took that as an attempt to damage my credibility and intimidate me into silence, and I stated that his red-herring allegation would not silence me.

With their right to lobby the Legislature backed by a federal appeals court, two nonprofits that fought with state officials over mailers they sent in 2008 are out with a new mailer pressuring the governor and lawmakers on various tax-related bills.

The mailer from the Center for Civic Policy and SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP), which hits mailboxes this weekend, tells Gov. Susana Martinez that the “same old” policies “won’t cut it” and urges her to “choose the road that will make things better for New Mexico.”

The mailer (read the front here and back here) states that government shouldn’t “rig the system to benefit the rich and big corporations.” It urges the enacting of a law that would require all out-of-state corporations doing business in New Mexico to pay state taxes and another that would require reviews of tax breaks given by the state. It also states opposition to “giving even more corporate income tax breaks.”

This isn’t the first time the nonprofits have sent out mailers since their fight with Attorney General Gary King and then-Secretary of State Mary Herrera ended, but the situation is noteworthy because of the effect the legal battle between the nonprofits and the state officials over such mailers has had on New Mexico campaign law heading into this year’s election.

In 2010, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals deemed New Mexico’s definition of a political committee “constitutionally infirm,” upholding a lower court’s rejection of the attempt by the secretary of state and attorney general to force the nonprofits to register as political committees because of their mailers.

That’s one of the reasons some say New Mexico’s Campaign Reporting Act is essentially unenforceable headed into the 2012 election. Sen. Peter Wirth has proposed legislation that would help address the issue.

The history

As for the fight between King and Herrera and the progressive nonprofits, the 10th Circuit ruled that, because the nonprofits’ central purpose isn’t advocacy for candidates, and their election-related expenses don’t make up a preponderance of their budgets, they can’t be forced to register as political committees, regardless of what state law requires. That’s why the court tossed out the law that King and Herrera tried to use to force the nonprofits to register as political committees.

The courts ruled that mailers like this one sent out two to three months before the 2008 primary don’t meet the narrow definition in federal law of political activity and thus can’t be regulated as such. King alleged that the groups’ mailers crossed the line between issue advocacy and political campaigning as defined by the state law and alleged that they were designed to help progressive legislative candidates win elections. The nonprofits contended that the mailers were designed to affect matters during a special session of the Legislature.

The issue is important because, under federal law, nonprofits don’t have to disclose their donors or provide detailed information about expenses to the public, but registering as state PACs would have required these nonprofits to do just that.

The Roundhouse in Santa Fe (Photo by Peter St. Cyr)

As NMPolitics.net reported last week, Gov. Susana Martinez has signaled that she will allow broad consideration of campaign finance reform issues. Since then she’s given her support to several government accountability proposals, but not to others.

Closing the revolving door

Martinez used her state of the state address to announce her support for a two-year cooling-off period that would prevent state lawmakers from lobbying their former colleagues for two years after leaving the Legislature.

Rep. Nate Gentry, R-Albuquerque, is expected to introduce that bill shortly.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dede Feldman, D-Albuquerque, has re-filed a bill (not yet online) that would institute a one-year cooling-off period. It’s essentially the same bill she introduced  last year, but would also prohibit former lawmakers from lobbying the executive branch.

“I think one should not be able to use the relationships that one has made while a legislator to further the interests of a private business or other institution,”Feldman said in an interview yesterday. Watch the video to the right for the full interview.

In 2011, Feldman’s proposal failed to get out of the Senate Rules Committee. A bit of trivia: One of the members of the Rules Committee then was Sen. Kent Cravens R-Albuquerque, who recently left the Legislature to become a lobbyist for the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association.

Cracking down on corruption

Gentry and Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, have introduced mirror bills that would increase prison time for elected officials convicted of corruption, ban them from lobbying or contracting with the state, and eliminate their pensions.

Martinez has endorsed the bill, which last year was unanimously passed by the House but died in the Senate.

Reps. Zach Cook, R-Ruidoso, and and Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, will cosponsor a bill, also endorsed by the governor, that would require a public official who pleads guilty to or is convicted of corruption to be removed from office immediately, according to Martinez’s spokesman Scott Darnell. That bill is not yet online.

Another proposal would have taxpayers not pay for the legal defense of a public official being sued by the state for corruption. Sen. John Ryan, R-Albuquerque, will carry that bill, Darnell said in an e-mail Thursday.

Dealing with U.S. Supreme Court decisions

The governor has been mum, however, on a proposal (SB 11) from Sen. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, that he said Thursday will “do the one thing that Citizens United said we could still do, which is… require to disclose the donors so that voters going to the polls… can know where they money’s coming from.” (Video at left.)

The bill would require organizations making independent expenditures to disclose the name of the person who made the expenditure, the names of the people who received the expenditure, and perhaps most notably, the names of every person who donated more than $100 for the expenditure.

Wirth said he has high hopes for passage because a similar bill passed the Senate last year but ran out of time on the House side; this year his bill passed unanimously out of the Interim Courts Corrections and Justice Committee, he said Thursday.

Wirth’s Democratic colleagues, Sens. Steve Fischmann of Las Cruces and Eric Griego of Albuquerque, have sponsored memorials (Fischmann’s is here) in opposition to the Citizens United decision and in support of changes to the campaign finance at the federal level.

Memorials don’t have the force of law, but Griego said (video at right) that passing his memorial will show the federal government that states are ready to pass a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United.

Fischmann said Thursday that he will not accept any corporate money and denounced such donations as a usurpation of shareholders’ rights (video below).

Wirth is also sponsoring a bill (SB 12) that would make changes to the state’s public financing system in the wake of a decision earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court  that invalidated parts of our system — specifically the way the state distributed matching funds to candidates whose opponents raised more private donations.

Wirth is proposing that instead of getting more matching funds, publicly-financed candidates be allowed to raise more money to compete with better-financed opponents.

Gov. Susana Martinez

Gov. Susana Martinez will allow lawmakers to consider bills related to fixing New Mexico’s Campaign Reporting Act during the session that begins next week.

Martinez spokesman Scott Darnell said today that Martinez won’t propose specific legislation but will “message election reform broadly to allow discussion of campaign finance-related legislation” during the 30-day session that starts Tuesday.

30-day sessions are designed for budgetary issues. To be considered, other topics need to be allowed by the governor.

With the 2012 election in full swing, addressing the situation is urgent. As NMPolitics.net reported in October, recent court decisions have rendered the state’s campaign-finance law “unenforceable,” in the words of one good-government activist. The issues:

• The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has deemed New Mexico’s definition of a political committee “constitutionally infirm.” That happened in 2010 when the 10th Circuit upheld a lower court’s rejection of an attempt by the secretary of state and attorney general to force two nonprofits to register as political committees.
• The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case means states can no longer limit the size of donations being spent on independent expenditures, so New Mexico’s law limiting such donations isn’t constitutional. Last week, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of state limits on financial contributions to be used in federal campaigns and for independent expenditures in state races.  A state GOP lawsuit seeking to permanently undo those and other parts of the state’s contribution-limits law is pending.

At the very least, activists say disclosure laws need beefed up to ensure the public knows who’s spending money on campaigns.

Sen. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, is among the lawmakers working to address the situation. In last year’s regular legislative session, he sponsored a bill that would have amended the Campaign Reporting Act to require disclosure of independent expenditures, rewrite the definition of “political committee,” and tweak the law in other ways. It passed the Senate but died in the House.

Wirth plans to try again this year.

Darnell has said Martinez “believes strongly that the public has a right to know who is funding political campaigns and has always gone above and beyond in disclosing contributors,” and that she “is willing to work with anyone sincerely committed to improving our campaign finance laws to ensure that the voices of candidates and political parties are not drowned out by special interest groups operating in secret.”

But the governor isn’t putting her weight behind campaign-related legislation from Wirth or anyone else, at least right now.

Martinez backing sunshine bills

Though she’s currently staying on the sidelines in the discussion about campaign reform, Martinez is backing a pair of government transparency proposals that she will allow to be considered during the session:

• Rep. Jim Smith, R-Sandia Park, is sponsoring legislation that would require that agendas for public meetings be posted online and made available at least 72 hours beforehand.
• Sen. Sander Rue, R-Albuquerque, is sponsoring a bill that would make clear in law that the names of classified state employees will be included in the sunshine portal – though Martinez’s administration has already done that without the law explicitly allowing it.

Heath Haussamen

Former Las Cruces Mayor Bill Mattiace’s donation of campaign funds to help pay for a funeral demonstrates the need for campaign finance and other ethics reform in city government. It’s time for action.

Former Las Cruces Mayor Bill Mattiace says donating $10,000 from his campaign account to help pay for the funeral of his sister-in-law’s husband was “the right thing to do.”

While I certainly understand his desire to help a family member, particularly in a difficult time, Mattiace was wrong to use campaign funds to help his sister-in-law.

Such donations should be illegal, even though they’re not currently, because of the slippery slope they represent.

If you can use campaign funds to pay for funerals, why not also for living expenses? Or your child’s college tuition? Or a new car? Or a trip to Vegas?

Allowing campaign funds to be spent for those purposes is practically inviting bribery. When a public official gets into financial trouble, there will be a temptation to trade an official act in exchange for a personal bailout. Sure I’ll vote for your proposal. Just contribute $2,500 to my campaign…

That’s why what Mattiace did is wrong. That’s why it should be illegal.

Money raised for a campaign should only be spent for campaign purposes, and perhaps, as long as it’s strictly regulated, on expenses directly related to city officials’ job duties.

Reform is long overdue

The fact remains that such spending of campaign funds is not illegal in Las Cruces. Thus, the blame lies with city officials (including, I suppose, Mattiace in his former capacity as mayor) for allowing such spending.

I’ve been trying to start a discussion in Las Cruces about ethics reform since 2009, when I first wrote an article about the need for revisions to the city’s elections code and other ordinances that relate to ethics. At the time, Mayor Ken Miyagishima told me he supported reform and shared with me his own ideas for improvement. Several councilors also told me reform was an important topic to discuss.

But by last year’s election season, city officials had taken no steps toward such reform.

In August, I authored a commentary complaining about the lack of action. Here’s what I wrote:

“Las Cruces should focus on reform. The city doesn’t even require that election ads include a disclosure of who is paying for them. That’s a basic campaign transparency issue required at the state and federal levels, and it’s something this website requires from candidates regardless of whether the jurisdictions in which they’re running require it.

“Ethics reform is long overdue in Las Cruces. Let’s hope the mayor, councilors, and candidates running in the November election make it a priority.”

In their own words

After I wrote that commentary, I asked the candidates about ethics reform. Here’s what those who won last year’s races said (click on the links to read their full statements):

• Mayor Miyagishima: “While I fully support election reform, it would have been very difficult for a new mayor and council to immediately set out to change election rules in the City Charter, because the charge would have been that we were making those changes to benefit ourselves. Municipal election reform is so important that it can’t be seen as a partisan issue, and any changes need to have widespread support.”
• District 1 Councilor Miguel Silva: “The City does not have strong ethics policies and enforcement in place now, and I would like to see them strengthened.”
• District 2 Councilor Gregory Z. Smith (who is new to the council): “I emphatically believe we need ethics reform, but we need to make sure that any reforms we put in place actually have the intended result. We do not want to provide loopholes for those who will seek ways around the system, nor do we want to have unintended consequences that encourage corruption or penalize honesty.”
• District 4 Councilor Nathan Small: “…I support formation of a Citizen Campaign Commission. This Commission should contain balanced political and geographical representation from across the City, and be charged with producing reform recommendations for City elections. From addressing the potential influence of special interests and opaque sources of money to the current absentee ballot request process (out of step with state processes) there is significant work for such a committee. Forming the committee after the upcoming election would give it time to gather public input and pursue reforms free from the pressures of an impending local election, and also allow significant time for formal consideration and passage of campaign reforms.”

Time for action

Miyagishima is in his second term. Whatever concern he had during his first about appearances should no longer apply. As Mattiace’s funeral donation demonstrates, the time for grand statements in support of reform without action has passed.

I believe the council and mayor can tackle reform on their own, but Small’s idea to form a commission would also be a productive step. It’s time for action.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Photo by AMagill/flickr.com

With the 2012 election in full swing, a judge has issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of state limits on financial contributions to be used in federal campaigns and for independent expenditures in state races.

The judge left intact limits on contributions to candidates for state office and to groups intending to spend money on state races in coordination with candidates. Still, the ruling, unless overturned, will likely mean more money raised and spent on state and federal races in New Mexico this year.

U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson’s ruling leaves many types of contribution limits in state law unenforceable, at least for now. For example, the state Republican Party, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to Johnson’s ruling, will be able to accept donations of unlimited size from the Republican National Committee to help candidates seeking federal office. Of course, the state Democratic Party will also be able to take unlimited contributions from the Democratic National Committee.

And individuals such as plaintiffs Mark Veteto and Howard Bohlander will be able to contribute unlimited amounts to political groups for use in state and federal races, as long as there’s no coordination between those groups and candidates on the use of those funds.

The contribution-limits law, which took effect at the conclusion of the 2010 election cycle, capped such donations at $5,000. The preliminary injunction is not a definitive ruling tossing out those limits, but it is a temporary stay against their enforcement based on findings that the plaintiffs were likely to be successful in their challenge to those limits, that they faced irreparable damage if the injunction wasn’t granted, and that the injunction serves the public interest.

Johnson accepted the argument that the 2012 election cycle is underway, so immediate action was necessary.

“Considering that the 2012 election cycle is in full swing and considering that the desired activities of Plaintiffs involve political free speech and association rights during an election year, this Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect pending appeal unless stayed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,” he wrote in his Thursday ruling, which you can read here.

Issue of ‘quid pro quo corruption’ at heart of ruling

The issue of cooperation between candidates and groups accepting contributions was the primary factor in Johnson’s ruling. He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently held “that the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof is the only interest strong enough to justify contribution limits.” That’s why he upheld the state limits on contributions that could be used in state races in coordination with candidates.

But it’s also why he issued an injunction against enforcement of the limits on contributions to be used for independent expenditures. The Supreme Court has ruled in the Citizens United case that, in Johnson’s words, “independent expenditures do not implicate the anti-corruption interest” because of the lack of coordination with candidates. Johnson’s injunction states that New Mexico “does not have an anti-corruption interest capable of justifying contribution limits if those contributions are to be used exclusively for independent expenditures.”

Among the plaintiffs in the GOP’s lawsuit are two right-leaning political action committees that say they intend to solicit and accept contributions of greater than $5,000 to be used for independent expenditures.

Johnson’s decision isn’t surprising. When the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in October, the director of Common Cause New Mexico told NMPolitics.net that they would likely prevail in their challenge to limits on donations for independent expenditures because of the Citizens United ruling.

In issuing his injunction against the state limits on contributions to be used in federal campaigns, Johnson noted the defendants’ concession that federal law trumps state law.

‘Freedom of speech’ central to GOP’s argument

When the GOP and others filed the lawsuit in October, the state GOP’s executive director said the move was intended “to protect New Mexicans’ right to freedom of speech.”

The law in question was enacted in 2009 and took effect following the 2010 election. It limits contributions to non-statewide candidates for office to $2,300 per election from any entity except a political committee, which can give $5,000 to non-statewide candidates. It limits contributions to statewide candidates for office, political action committees and political parties to $5,000 per election from individuals and groups.

The GOP lawsuit challenged the limits on several points, but the underlying issue – freedom of speech – came largely in response to the Citizens United decision. More than once the lawsuit claimed a provision in the law is “unconstitutional because it burdens and chills First Amendment speech and associational rights without adequate justification and is not properly tailored, thereby failing constitutional scrutiny.”

In October, Sen. Dede Feldman, D-Albuquerque and the sponsor of the contribution-limits law, said if the lawsuit was successful it would “open the floodgates to special interest cash from outside New Mexico and dwarf the effect of small donors to local campaigns.”

That concern has led Common Cause and others to express concern about the possibility of New Mexico being inundated with election spending this year and to call for reform.

Eric Griego

Money in politics is destroying our democracy. If we truly want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then we need real campaign finance reform.

Our government’s ability to effectively represent the people is under assault by corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections, thanks to the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United ruling.

Citizens United gives unprecedented power to Big Oil, Wall Street, the health insurance industry and other deep-pocketed corporate special interests to put pressure on elected officials to support their positions, even if they’re in direct conflict with the interest of the public. Those who don’t fall in line face an unlimited barrage of expensive ads distorting their records. And too often these special interests win and the people lose.

That’s why I support a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and regulate campaign finance. I don’t believe corporations are persons deserving of constitutional rights equal to real people. They should be subject to regulations limiting their ability to influence the political process.

Beyond Citizens United, I believe we also need to stop the “revolving door” between politicians and their staff and K Street lobbying firms representing powerful corporate special interests. If elected to Congress, I will not parlay my public service into a career as a registered lobbyist. I will also prevent my congressional staff from lobbying my office if they leave for employment elsewhere.

Finally, I support public financing of elections to limit the influence of deep-pocketed corporate lobbyists and to promote the competitiveness of grassroots-powered candidates.

My commitment to reform is clear, and I have earned a reputation as a champion of campaign and ethics reform in New Mexico.

As an Albuquerque city councilor, I passed voluntary public financing of campaigns in city elections and created the city’s Office of Inspector General to examine allegations of fraud. As a state senator, I have fought to limit individual contributions for legislative elections to $250 and for a strong independent ethics commission in the State Legislature.

As congressman, I will continue to lead the fight for campaign and ethics reform in Washington.

Griego, a Democrat, is a candidate for the First Congressional District seat in the U.S. House.

Heath Haussamen

Until government is redesigned to truly separate it from profiteering special interests, people will view the Downs at Albuquerque deal and any other involving campaign contributors and party insiders with suspicion, as they should.

Gov. Susana Martinez is defending the process that led to the awarding of a 25-year lease of land at the state fair grounds to the Downs at Albuquerque, pointing out that her administration voluntarily sought bids and kept the bidding period open longer than required.

“The process… took place in a very fair and open way, one that we didn’t have to do,” Martinez told Capitol Report New Mexico earlier this week. “…The lease is still being worked on. It’s still being strengthened. It has all the way through the Board of Finance to be strengthened.”

The problem for Martinez is that, regardless of whether the process her administration voluntarily put in place is good, she lost the battle over public perception long ago.

People tied to the Downs gave at least $70,000 to the Republican Martinez’s campaign last year (they also gave at least $50,000 to Martinez’s opponent, Democrat Diane Denish). The Downs also hired attorney Pat Rogers to represent it in negotiations on the deal, and he just happens to be the Republican national committeeman for New Mexico.

It’s possible that none of that influenced the process. In fact, the Downs’ bid appears to be solid and unique: There aren’t many others who could operate a racino on the property because there are only a handful of racino licenses in New Mexico.

But it almost doesn’t matter whether, in practicality, campaign contributions and political connections affected the decision to award the contract to the Downs. The controversy Martinez faces reveals a key truth about America in the 21st Century: People believe their government is corrupt.

And that’s because it often is corrupt.

Companies expect a return on investments

The fact that the Downs gave large campaign contributions to Martinez and Denish points to reality: More often than not, in governments across the nation, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are in control, campaign contributions influence decisions and improve chances of winning lucrative contracts.

Why else would so many companies, which are in the business of making money, give piles of cash to politicians? Those are investments. The companies expect a return.

New Mexicans understand that. They don’t like it. And many are offended at the fact that Martinez has appropriately railed against such situations involving the Richardson administration but is now in the news for her administration’s awarding of a lucrative contract to a big donor.

From a public perception standpoint, the integrity of the process the Martinez administration put in place matters little. The possibility that the campaign contributions didn’t influence the process in this specific instance matters little.

Time after time, campaign contributions have mattered at every level of government. The public has every reason to suspect, in every instance in which a donor gets a contract, that the contribution affected that decision.

The public wants reform

I believe most people want to see a ban on contributions from lobbyists, large government contractors, and bidders on large contracts. They want to see a law prohibiting people from becoming lobbyists immediately after they give up their jobs as legislators. They are uncomfortable with the close ties between politicians and wealthy corporate interests whose primary goal is making money.

They want to believe their government is putting their interests first, but they don’t see reason to believe. In New Mexico, that’s partly thanks to Bill Richardson, whose administration was in the news time after time after time because a campaign donor won a lucrative contract.

It’s also because, in spite of the public’s hunger for reform, the Legislature has thus far refused to OK a proposal to ban contributions from large government contractors, bidders and lobbyists. And we still have lawmakers quitting their elected positions to become lobbyists.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case also makes it difficult for states and the federal governments to implement new limitations on election spending or enforce existing limitations.

Fine. The court has spoken. But the likelihood that massive campaign contributions will continue to be the norm only increases the need for other structural reforms.

Martinez wins some points, but needs to do more

The public wants structural reforms to separate government from special interests whose primary concern is their own bottom line.

Martinez wins points for taking action to increase transparency during her first year in office. She issued an executive order limiting her administration’s use of executive privilege. She ordered webcasting of State Investment Council and Board of Finance meetings.

And she took a step toward the “bold change” she promised by voluntarily implementing the bidding process for the land at the state fair grounds.

But it isn’t enough. People want an entire redesign of the system intended to ensure that their government is putting the interests of citizens first.

Bold change would include pushing such reform, but it would also include doing more than pledging support. For example, Martinez says she supports a ban on legislators becoming lobbyists for at least two years after leaving office, but when Kent Cravens announced he was resigning from the Senate to become a lobbyist for the N.M. Oil and Gas Association, Martinez said Cravens had “served the people of New Mexico with incredible class and distinction.”

Though that may be true, conspicuously absent from Martinez’s statement was the “but” – “but I don’t support legislators resigning to become lobbyists, so the Oil and Gas Association will have to send someone else to deal with me and my administration.”

Why? Is it because Cravens, like Martinez, is a Republican? Is it because oil and gas gave so much money to Martinez’s campaign? Martinez would probably say such contributions and political connections were factors during the Richardson years.

Until the Legislature approves a ban on its members becoming lobbyists immediately after leaving office, Martinez could – and should – refuse to deal with such lawmakers-turned-lobbyists.

Until government is redesigned…

Until Martinez and other officials reject situations like that involving Cravens, until the proposal to prohibit legislators from immediately becoming lobbyists becomes law, until other reforms are enacted – in other words, until government is redesigned to truly separate it from profiteering special interests – people will view any deal involving campaign contributors and party insiders with suspicion.

As they should.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed