Lyons is latest to prove need for contribution limits

New Mexico Land Commissioner Pat Lyons is the latest politician to unwittingly make the case for placing limits on campaign contributions.

Las Cruces developer Philip Philippou gave $20,500 to Blue & Red PAC last year. The PAC gave $17,642.50 of it to Lyons’ re-election campaign. Though everyone involved claims Philippou didn’t direct that the money be given to Lyons, the PAC gave it to the land commissioner on the same two days Philippou gave it to the PAC. Fair or not, there’s an appearance that Philippou used the PAC to funnel money to Lyons.

The PAC is run by Republican lobbyist David Kimble and Democratic lobbyist Domonic Silva. Kimble is a lobbyist for Philippou, furthering the appearance of an inside deal.

That’s because, only a few weeks after the money changed hands, Lyons signed two contracts giving Philippou the right to develop thousands of acres of state trust land on the east and north sides of Las Cruces.

Lyons, who doesn’t have to seek bids before awarding such contracts, chose to seek bids for the state land; then, a little more than a month before proposals were due, he signed the contracts with Philippou and circumvented his own bidding process.

He did it right after Christmas, upping the suspicion level even more. No one was watching that week.

Lyons has said he did it because Philippou’s project was excellent, and that may be true. But it’s one of many possible ways to interpret this chain of events.

That’s why Philippou should not have been allowed to give so much money to the PAC, and the PAC should not have been allowed to give so much money to Lyons. If contribution limits had been in place, we’d be talking about a meager $2,300.

Limits would greatly reduce the appearance of impropriety in this situation.

Anyone who takes large contributions is suspect

This year, the House approved limits on contributions to individual candidates. A number of senators argued that, to be fair, the limits should also apply to contributions to political action committees. The Lyons situation proves that they were right.

The Senate approved limits on contributions to individuals and PACs. The House, whose speaker uses the well-funded Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee to hold on to his power, refused to concur, and the bill died. If the House had approved the Senate amendment, the DLCC would have lost much of its influence.

The Republican Lyons isn’t the first to prove the need for limits. Massive contributions from individuals and PACs have earned Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson a lot of criticism.

The problem touches politicians in both parties. It doesn’t matter who you are. If you’ve ever taken a sizable contribution from any person or group, you’re suspect. It’s a consequence of the current system.

That includes a number of Democratic House members – including Andy Nuñez, Jeff Steinborn and Nate Cote – who each took tens of thousands of dollars last year from the DLCC. It includes Republican Reps. Candy Spence Ezzell, who took $5,000 from Yates Petroleum, and Shirley Tyler, who took $8,400 from the state Republican Party.

It includes Lyons, who also took $35,000 from Forest City Covington, another developer building a massive project in Albuquerque. Most important, it includes Richardson, who had dozens of contributions last year of $25,000 or more and creates more of a pay-to-play appearance than all other New Mexico politicians combined.

The problem is systemic

I’m not trying to single anyone out. In fact, I think most of the politicians I just named are ethical. But, though most politicians place the interests of New Mexico’s citizens above all else, there have been too many examples of public officials making decisions that just happened to benefit their biggest contributors. The entire system is a massive mess that allows the rich and powerful influence over New Mexico’s leaders that most New Mexicans could never have.

The few who have abused the system are making everyone look bad.

Still, it’s hard to blame any politician for taking a lot of money, as long as it’s legal. If they don’t, they might not have the funds to compete, because their opponent probably will.

Of course Lyons took the money. He was in a tough re-election fight last year against Democrat Jim Baca. Of course Richardson took all the money he could get his hands on. He was out to prove he could raise enough money to be competitive in a presidential run, and, though it shouldn’t be, taking a contribution of $100,000 is currently legal.

The problem is far greater than any individual politician. It’s systemic, and it will likely take additional pressure from citizens to change the system. House Democrats easily approved limits on contributions to individuals this year, but their refusal to place similar limits on gifts to PACs indicates that their approval was disingenuous.

The Senate, which was generally resistant of ethics reform in the last session, was right on this one: Campaign contributions to individuals and PACs must be limited. We have a bipartisan group of examples that prove the need to change the law.