Seeking a free pass in election

Seeking a free pass in election

April 8, 2012
Elections are like an all-you-can-eat buffet — the more choices, the better.

Unfortunately, the fallout from a bill passed unanimously last year by the state Legislature is threatening to limit the choices available to voters this June in the primary election and November in the general election; as well as end the careers of numerous legislative leaders.

SB 403, titled "Election Code Language Standardization," seemed simple enough when passed. According to the fiscal impact report prepared for the bill, it "updates the Election Code by clarifying definitions, fixing conflicts, updating procedures and conforms the Code to actual practice. SB 403 bill does not put forth any major new policies."

One year later, that innocuous-sounding bill that allegedly implemented no new policy has led to a series of lawsuits seeking to disqualify dozens of candidates.

The Supreme Court will try to bring some clarity to the situation Tuesday when it hears the cases of 10 lawsuits that have been filed throughout the state. The court's decision will impact not just those 10 cases, but numerous others involving the same issue.

At the heart of those cases are new requirements mandating increased specificity in the nominating petitions submitted by candidates.

For example, local District Attorney Amy Orlando has sought to have challenger Mark D'Antonio disqualified because he listed the office he was seeking as Doña Ana County district attorney and not district attorney for the Third Judicial District.

That may seem like a distinction without a difference, given that the Third Judicial District covers Doña Ana County. But Orlando insists that she really has no choice but to seek a free pass to the position she was appointed to when Susana Martinez was elected governor two years ago.

"As district attorney, I can not and will not pick and choose which laws I will follow," she proclaimed.

Did the Legislature really intend for dozens of otherwise qualified candidates to be disqualified by this new law? That seems unlikely, given that many of those who voted for the bill last year are now facing the prospect of being dropped from the ballot and removed from office without voters being able to decide.

A letter from Secretary of State Dianna Duran to the Attorney General's Office seeking clarification lists 12 candidates who could be impacted: Sens. Pete Campos, Sue Wilson Beffort and Tim Jennings; Reps. Rick Little, Dianne Hamilton, James Roger Madalena and Rudolpho Martinez; Commissioner Vince Bergman; and candidates Joshua Madalena, Louis Luna, Guadalupe Cano and Karen Montoya.

More names have been added since then, including former Legislative Finance Committee Chairman Lucky Varela.

District Judge Henry Quintero in Silver City heard the case challenging Hamilton and Cano last week, and is expected to rule Monday, ahead of the Supreme Court hearing.

In that case, challenger Terry Fortenberry alleges that not only were there errors in how the ballots were filled out, but also signatures from voters who either did not live in the district or were not registered for the political party in which they signed the petition. There's a big difference between invalid signatures and a technical mistake like listing the county instead of the district.

In sports, officials often decide whether to call a foul based on if a team or player gained an unfair advantage. The court would be wise to apply that same standard here.

Every candidate who has challenged the petitions of his or her opponent has issued a statement insisting that they were merely seeking to ensure that the letter of the law was upheld. But voters recognize opportunism when they see it, and will not appreciate efforts to restrict their choices at the ballot.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.

Getting on board with blog, tweets

April 1, 2002

 Getting on board with blog, tweets

My friend Dwight was the best reporter I've ever worked with when it came to getting the tough story — the ones where the people we needed to talk to refused to say anything to the press.

He just has a way about him that put people at ease and made them feel they could trust him. And he never violated that trust.

Sadly, Dwight is like tens of thousands of journalists these days who are doing something else for a living. But he wanted to keep his hand in the game though, so he started a blog.

Except he refused to call it a blog. "I hate that name," he would spit through clenched teeth. "I call it an Internet site on which my friends and I post stories and columns."

Well, that certainly rolls off the tongue.

I knew it had nothing to do with the name. It had to do with the changing times in our profession.
Dwight and I both consider ourselves old-school reporters. We spent four years in college learning the trade, then went to work for tiny newspapers in one-horse towns and started working our way up.

Then the Internet came along, and the blogs soon followed. All of the sudden, anyone with a computer and an Internet connection could set up shop and call themselves a journalist.

I gained a new respect for blogs on the afternoon of Dec. 18, 2006 when local political blogger Heath Haussamen scooped the entire Roundhouse press corps, myself included, and he did it from 280 miles away.

House Democrats were meeting behind closed doors to consider a challenge to Speaker Ben Lujan by his top lieutenant, Ken Martinez. There were about 12 TV, radio and newspaper reporters huddled outside. After about an hour, the doors opened, but they announced it was just a bathroom break and there was nothing to report yet.

About 20 minutes later, Santa Fe New Mexican reporter Steve Terrell got a call from his editor telling him Haussamen was reporting that Lujan would retain his seat. We didn't figure out until later that they had settled that issue first, then took a break before voting on the other leadership positions. 
Somebody inside the meeting called Heath, while the rest of us were cooling our heels outside.

All of which is a long-winded way of announcing that I've finally broken down and started my own blog. And Twitter account too.

It's called "... And Another Thing" (I know, bold, starting with an ellipses), and can be found at http://waltrubelblog.blogspot.com.

From now until November, my focus will be primarily on the election. That and the start of the baseball season this week are the two things occupying my free time.

I'm starting with the basics — who is running and what positions are they running for — stuff that has already appeared in the newspaper. In the months ahead, I'll expand that to include more news and commentary.

My primary goal is to generate an ongoing community dialogue on the election, my weekly columns and other issues. Instead of people calling SoundOff! to decry what a biased leftist I am, I'm hopeful that they'll post to the blog, where I can respond. Who knows, maybe we'll even come to some kind of understanding.

One of my guilty pleasures in the past was reading the Topix comments to Sound Off! Some of the posts were absolutely vile, and it got to the point where we had to get rid of it. But I kind of enjoyed following a good war of words between Sarcastic Bombastic and Orville Wyatt.

I hope to re-create some of that with the blog — without all the vile stuff.

That's the goal, at least. I'm new at this and figuring it out as I go. But reporting is the same, regardless of the platform. I hope you check out the blog from time to time, maybe even follow me on Twitter, and let me know what you think.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.

Small step in right direction

March 25, 2012

Small step in right direction

In January, I wrote in this space of the new level of negative campaigning since the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling.

I opened that column with a quote from President Obama. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I offer one this week from his Republican opponent of 2008, Sen. John McCain:

"The United States Supreme Court — in what I think is one of the worst decisions in history — struck down the restrictions in the so-called McCain-Feingold Law, and a lot of people don't agree with that, but I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck down that law, that there would be a flood of money into campaigns, not transparent, unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening."

Since January, a handful of billionaires have pumped millions of dollars into Republican Super PACs, with almost all of that money being used thus far to sling mud at other Republicans in the ongoing primary election.

CBS News reports that from February 2011 to February 2012, three men — Sheldon Adelson, Harold Simmons and Bob Perry — have combined to contribute $38.3 million to political Super PACs. Perry is familiar to New Mexico voters for the $450,000 contribution he made in 2010 to the campaign of Gov. Susana Martinez.

While Simmons and Perry have spread their money around, Adelson has contributed all $16.5 million to Newt Gingrich — single-handedly keeping that campaign afloat. If Gingrich were to be elected president (I know ... humor me here) is there any doubt as to what kind of influence Adelson would have?

A bill introduced last week in the Senate would not fix all of the ills created by the Citizen's United ruling. But it would help.

The DISCLOSE (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections) Act of 2012 would still allow millionaires and billionaires to pump unlimited amounts of money into the electoral process, but it would at least give voters more information about who is trying to buy which elections.

The bill would require any "covered organization" that spends $10,000 or more during an election cycle to file a report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours detailing the amount and nature of each expenditure over $1,000 and the names of all donors who gave $10,000 or more.

The bill also includes a so-called “stand-by-your-ad” disclaimer that would require the head of the organization paying for the ad to appear at the end with the standard "I approve this message," now required for ads produced by the campaigns. They would also be required to list their top funders in the ad.

As I discussed in January, without that requirement, the spending tends to get divided into good cop, bad cop ads. The official campaigns run the sunny, optimistic ads, with the candidates pronouncing their approval at the end. While the Super PACs sling the mud and do the dirty work.

Not that they're coordinating, of course.

New Mexico senators Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman are both co-sponsors of the bill.

“Republicans and Democrats have both touted disclosure in the past and the ideas in this bill have earned broad support,” Udall said. “There’s a lot we need to fix with campaign finance, but at a minimum, the American people at least deserve to know where the deluge of money financing these new shadow campaign operations is coming from.”

Unfortunately, while those from both parties may have "touted disclosure," all 34 cosponsors of this bill are Democrats. Those who cover Congress predict it may pass in the Senate, but probably won't in the House.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.

Trying to make sense of vetoes

March 11, 2012

Trying to make sense of vetoes

Funding for drainage improvements in Tortugas was approved, but a drainage system in Mesilla Valley farms was vetoed.

Technical equipment for the Gadsden Middle School Family Resource Center made the cut, but air conditioning upgrades for the Gadsden district did not.

Road projects for Airport Road in Santa Teresa, Canal Road in Hatch, Kit Carson Road in the county and Luna Azul Road in Chaparral got the green light, but improvements for 4th Street in Anthony and Carona Road in the county were given a stop sign.

If that seems arbitrary, the explanation given by Gov. Susana Martinez to explain her vetoes of nearly $23 million in capital improvement projects did little to bring clarity to her decisions.

“Let me be clear: every project in this legislation likely has merit. A line-item veto does not indicate my feelings toward the worth or value of the project,” she told The Associated Press. “My job is to ensure we are spending capital dollars in the most responsible way possible.”

If the "worth or value" of a project did not factor into the governor's veto decisions, what did? I posed that question Friday in an email to Scott Darnell, the governor's spokesman, but didn't get a response.

Doña Ana County did better than most in the capital outlay process. Funding for the East Mesa Public Safety campus, Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority and NMSU's Hershel Zohn Theater and Branson Library were all approved. But money that would have allowed the new municipality of Anthony to build its first City Hall got the ax.

The governor and Legislature have been fighting about capital outlay ever since I went to Santa Fe in 2003, and probably long before then. It doesn't seem to matter if the governor is Bill Richardson or Susana Martinez, the argument has always been the same. The governor wants to pool a larger percentage of the money to be able to tackle large-scale projects, while the legislators want to divide it into smaller chunks to be able to be able to fund more projects in their district.

“Legislators divided up the funding among themselves and doled the dollars out to various projects within their districts — regardless of whether the local community identified the project as useful or necessary, regardless of whether the project was adequately funded (or a plan existed to adequately fund it), regardless of whether the project was an appropriate use of severance tax bonds, and regardless of whether a better alternative funding mechanism existed for the project,” Martinez told The AP.

As I read that, I closed my eyes and could hear Richardson saying the exact same thing.

Legislators have taken some steps to improve the capital outlay process. A memorial passed last years calls for the Legislative Finance Committee, the Department of Finance and Administration and the Legislative Council Service to collaborate on a process to prioritize, review and monitor capital outlay projects.

But the basic tension will always be there. The governor, who is limited to two terms, will always want to make a big splash (such as Richardson did with the spaceport and Railrunner), while legislators will always want to please as many people as possible.

And the governor can always use the line-item vieto of the capital outlay bill as a weapon — though none will ever admit it.

When former Sen. John Grubesic wrote a scathing letter about Richardson published in the Santa Fe New Mexican years ago, the joke making it's way through the pressroom was not only would all of his capital outlay projects that year be vetoed, but Richardson was sending bulldozers to knock down projects approved in past years.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.

Senate won't be the same

March 4, 2012

Senate won't be the same

Regardless of what happens in November, the New Mexico Senate will be a much different body next year.

Last week, Cynthia Nava became the sixth senator, and second committee chairwoman, to announce that she would not seek re-election. Democrats Dede Feldman and Eric Griego; and Republicans Clinton Harden, Vernon Asbill and Mark Boitano had previously announced they also would not be running for another term. Together, they represent 75 years of experience in the Senate.

And, with Rod Adair and Bill Burt running against each other because of redistricting, there will be one more veteran legislator not returning. Burt is actually the newest member of the Senate, appointed to fill the seat vacated by Dianna Duran when she was elected secretary of state, but Adair has served since 1997.

Nava's announcement didn't come as a shock. She had stepped down last year as superintendent of the Gadsden Independent School District, and has recently married former Environment Secretary Ron Curry. But her loss will leave a void, especially on education issues.

For more than a decade, Nava and Rep. Rick Miera of Albuquerque have led the Legislature's education committees. I have always questioned what seemed to be a conflict of interest, with Nava taking a leading role in writing the education budget every year, while at the same time collecting her paycheck from the Gadsden school district. But, that's just how things are done with our "citizen Legislature."

And, despite my misgivings, I can't think of one incident where Nava put her personal interests ahead of what was best for the state. She was always a passionate advocate for education, and I'm certain will continue to be in the future, but never, it seemed to me, for selfish reasons.

Asbill, a teacher, coach, principal and superintendent before he retired and ran for the Senate, was just as passionate about supporting and improving New Mexico's schools. He was a strong advocate within the Republican caucus, where education budgets and proposals often met a more chilly reception.

Because Asbill was from Carlsbad — home of the Current Argus, one of the newspapers in our chain — he was one of the legislators I covered closely while I was in Santa Fe. A gregarious man with a flat-top haircut from the 1950s, a hearty laugh and a vice-like handshake, I never once felt like Asbill was giving me spin or PR.

While Nava was a leader on education issues, Feldman, who was the chairwoman of the Senate Public Affairs Committee and the interim Health and Human Services Committee, often led the charge on health-care reform. In a state that accepts change slowly, that assured more defeats than victories (she also carried the failed bill this year seeking to allow a ban on fireworks during times of high fire danger). But Feldman pushed ahead with good humor.

Last year, during the redistricting battle, our Santa Fe reporter Milan Simonich overheard Sen. John Ryan discuss the prospects of having to face Feldman in an election under the new Senate districts. "She's old," Ryan said, puffing up his chances.

When word got back to Feldman she planned her gentle revenge. Later that session she was wheeled onto the Senate floor wearing a white wig with a shawl wrapped around her shoulders.

"I have never been more humbled," Ryan said in apologizing.

Change is inevitable. New people will be elected to office in November, and they will bring with them new ideas and a fresh perspective. All of which is as it should be.

"I think people have to know when it's time to get out," Nava said.

All true. But the six senators stepping down this year have added a lot to the Senate, and they will be missed.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.

Pearce explains 'no' vote

Feb. 26, 2012

Pearce explains 'no' vote

With all of the attention focused on the state Legislature the past few weeks, the vote in Congress on Feb. 17 to extend the payroll tax cut for the rest of the year slipped in under the radar.

Our representative, Steve Pearce, was one of 132 members of the House to oppose extension of the tax cut. Had he prevailed, it would have meant an additional $20 a week in taxes for the average New Mexican.

In a press release explaining his vote, Pearce said it was "a difficult decision for a number of reasons."
“While I am always in favor of putting money back in the pockets of New Mexicans, we simply cannot continue spending money we do not have. This plan would add around $93 billion to the deficit," Pearce said.

That's a departure from December, when Pearce voted for a bill to extend the payroll tax for one year.

"Washington cannot continue down the path of destruction by overtaxing hard working Americans." he said at the time.

Why the change of heart? Perhaps Pearce knew full well that the bill he voted for would never get through the Senate.

The bill passed by Republicans in December was about much more than just payroll taxes. It would have also frozen the pay of federal workers for a year, required federal retirees to pay more for health care, raised fees on banks doing business with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, blocked clean-air regulations, imposed means testing for Medicare, slashed emergency unemployment benefits from 73 weeks to 33 weeks and imposed a deadline on a decision for the Keystone pipeline.

The bill went on to the Senate, where it met the fate everyone knew that it would. Washington watchers were preparing for the typical tug-o-war that we've come to know and loath. But with Christmas fast approaching, Republicans in the Senate appeared to weary of the fight.

They ditched all the poison pills except the provision on the Keystone pipeline, passed a two-month extension and then went home.

That put House Republicans in a box. They could accept the Senate bill, or accept the responsibility for everyone's taxes going up. But there could be no charade this time.

It's probably overly simplistic, but it seems to me the modern-day philosophy of the Republican Party can be summed up in six words: lower taxes, less government, fewer regulations. All of the sudden they found themselves on the wrong side of the tax debate.

And so, when Congress returned this year they quickly passed the extension for the rest of the year, no strings attached.

Pearce certainly has a viable argument when it comes to the deficit. It's just that he has always insisted that taxes could never be increased for the most wealthy — you know, the "job creators" — it order to cut the deficit.

"I don't believe the problem is that we're not taxing Americans enough. I don't even believe that the problem is that we're not taxing the rich enough," he said during a town hall meeting in April of last year. "The truth is that when you tax people you kill jobs."

The Bush tax cuts, which disproportionately favored the "job creators" — lowering the top income bracket from 39.6 percent to 35 percent — will expire at the end of this year, unless Congress acts. Unlike that tax cut, the payroll tax cut has a much greater impact on the working class (the job doers).

Pearce has fought tooth and nail to protect the first, while voting against the second. You can draw your own conclusions.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.

Each bill costs more than a house

Feb. 19, 2012

Each bill costs more than a house

If I was any good at math I'd probably be doing something else for a living, so you may want to check me on this, but if my division is correct, New Mexico taxpayers shelled out $261,039 per bill that was successfully passed this year in the just-concluded 30-day session.

Now, before going any further I should add two important caveats. First, the vast majority of the $20.1 million appropriated in the feed bill goes, not to the part-time legislators, but to the full-time staff, who are quite competent and should not be held responsible for the many shortcomings of the lawmakers they work for.

And second, all legislative sessions should be judged by the quality of the bills passed, not the quantity. I'm not suggesting that taxpayers would have been better served had the Legislature passed a slew of horrendous new laws adding more government intrusion into our lives.

But there were a number of pretty good bills addressing critical problems that went down in flames. And the reason many of them did not get passed was not because they were deemed insufficient following careful deliberation, but rather because one member of the House had a snit when his bill was defeated on the final day.

The New Mexico Legislature, unlike the U.S. Senate — where 60 votes are needed to allow most bills to proceed to a final vote — does not have a filibuster. Until the final morning of the session, when state law mandates that all action must be wrapped up by the time the clock strikes noon. That gives lawmakers the opportunity to talk out the clock to defeat any particular bill — and, as collateral damage, any other bill that may be stuck behind it.

As Milan Simonich reported, Democrats and a handful of Republicans blocked an attempt by Rep. Dennis Roch, R-Texico, to pass a bill allowing for the retention of students who cannot read at grade level. In retaliation, Roch held the floor for one hour and 14 minutes as the clock ticked closer to noon.

House GOP leaders convinced him to relent for long enough to get a package of constitutional amendments to reform the Public Regulation Commission in just under the wire.

Following the session, Gov. Susana Martinez and legislative leaders did their best to put a happy face on the failed meeting.

“We had a very deliberative session and we have produced a good budget for the state,” Senate Minority Leader Stuart Ingle said.

"We didn't get everything we wanted. I don't think any governor ever has gotten everything that they wanted," Martinez added.

Leave it Rod Adair, the always blunt senator from Roswell, to provide a more accurate assessment, calling the session “the biggest do-nothing year I’ve ever seen.”

It's probably not surprising that Adair, a Republican, finds the Democrats in the majority to be at fault.

“We now, habitually, especially in the years of a Republican governor ... come here and do nothing. And everybody knows the reason that is done is to try to prevent any achievements by the Republican governor. It’s the very worst of motives,” Adair told The Associated Press.

That's a bit of a stretch. The Legislature proved when Bill Richrdson was governor that it was perfectly capable of dysfunction regardless of party affiliation.

And it's hard to portray Martinez as the victim after she vetoed a whopping 98 bills last year (that's 21 more than were passed this year), including 12 that had sailed through with unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate. The governor acknowledged after this session that she needs to improve her communications with the Legislature.

There's enough blame to go around.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.

A lawyer's idea of marketing

Feb. 12, 2012

A lawyer's idea of marketing

Of all the reasons given by all the New Mexico legislators for all of their votes this session, none are as absurd as the one offered by Sen. Lisa Curtis, who claimed that her vote against a bill to offer limited liability protection for spaceport manufacturers and suppliers was actually a good thing for our spaceport.

Spaceport America will now be more attractive to people who want to take the risk of space travel, but would have shied away if suppliers and manufacturers had been granted limited liability from lawsuits, Curtis argued.

I can just see the promotional material now: "Come to Spaceport America! Your loved ones can sue for a bundle if you get killed in a horrible accident." It's a marketer's dream.

As president of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association, maybe Curtis actually thinks that way. Perhaps each summer as she is planning the family vacation the primary factor in her decision is the tort laws in each state she is considering visiting.

"I'm sorry kids, but the trip to Disneyland is off," she might explain to her disappointed brood. "If little Billy gets decapitated while on the log ride at Splash Mountain, we wouldn't be able to collect a fair and just compensation for our damages."

While a Senate committee filled with trial lawyers killed one version of the bill, a House committee paid off by trial lawyers killed another.

The New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association made donations to state legislators totaling $14,000, outspending Virgin Galactic, the anchor tenant for the spaceport, by a total of five to one, according to a story by Albuquerque Journal politics writer James Monteleone. House Businesses and Industry Chairwoman Debbie Rodella raked in $5,000, while committee members Thomas Garcia, David Chavez and Eliseo Alcon shared another $5,000. All voted against the House version of the bill.

Those lawmakers and the six senators in the Judiciary Committee who voted to block the bill — Michael Sanchez, Peter Wirth, Linda Lopez, Eric Griego, Cisco McSorley and Curtis — all have something in common. None of them live within 200 miles of the spaceport.

Their local economies won't be impacted should the failure to pass this bill put us at a competitive disadvantage and hinder efforts to attract new businesses to the spaceport. Their constituents have not agreed to a sales tax hike to support the spaceport.

One of the great frustrations of the New Mexico Legislature is that bills with widespread support among all members often get killed by a handful of legislators in committee. Two years ago, a similar bill offering liability protection to the spaceport itself was passed unanimously by both the House and Senate.

Once in a blue moon, a lawmaker will muster the votes to "blast" a bill out of committee, bringing it directly to the floor. Andy Nunez was able to do that last year with the driver's license bill. But, for the most part, lawmakers seek to protect the "sanctity" of the committe process. That often means small group with a vested interest — such as trial lawyers deciding on lawsuit restrictions — end up deciding for the whole group.

Gov. Susana Martinez has written a letter to lawmakers asking that they reconsider their vote. "Two major companies have already said they are unlikely to do business in New Mexico without this legislation," she wrote.

But at this point in the process, with the session scheduled to end Thursday, success for the bill seems unlikely.

And so, for one year at least, the fledgling spaceport in New Mexico will be operating at a competitive disadvantage to those in Virginia, Florida and Texas. I am quite certain those states do not view the liability protection they have passed as a deterrent to future customers, as Sen. Curtis would suggest.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.

Camera-shy lawmakers seek cover

Feb 5, 2012

Camera-shy lawmakers seek cover

In 2008, New Mexico taxpayers spent $30,000 to equip the Senate gallery with video equipment that would allow for floor sessions to be broadcast over the Internet.

But a week before the 2009 session started, Senate leadership decided it really didn't want that much transparency, and ordered that the cameras be removed. They worried that senators could be filmed in a less-than-flattering condition — such as catching a few winks in their chairs as Sen. Blowhard droned on late into the night. And, those clips could then be used against the sleepy lawmaker in future campaign ads.

Senators sometimes get tired and "say the wrong thing," Sen. Carlos Cisneros, D-Questa, told Santa Fe New Mexican reporters Kate Nash and Steve Terrell. "Once that's done, you're on YouTube and there's nothing you can do."

And thus started a battle that rages to this day between those who want to make the process more transparent and those who are more concerned about protecting themselves.

Former Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones, R-Albuquerque, who is now running for Congress in the First District, forced the issue that year when she brought a friend's camera and her own laptop computer to a meeting of the House Taxation and Revenue Committee and brought live streaming to the New Mexico Legislature for the first time — despite the protests of committee Chairman Ed Sandoval, D-Albuquerque.

House leadership convened a hasty meeting and decided it would be up to each committee chairman to decide when cameras would be allowed. But they had to have known the dye was cast and they were on the wrong side of the argument.

Now, you can go to the Legislature's website, www.nmlegis.gov/lcs, and click a link on the right-hand side to access webcasts — with the following disclaimer: "This stream of the New Mexico House of Representatives is being provided as a public service and is not an official record of the House of Representatives' proceedings. Any political use of this stream is prohibited."

Gov. Susana Martinez began taping selected sessions and committee meetings last year — primarily those dealing with controversial issues such as her attempts to rescind the bill that allows illegal aliens to obtain New Mexico driver's licenses.

This year Martinez has expanded that operation.

Albuquerque Journal reporter Dan Boyd wrote last week that the governor's office now has three people filming the Legislature. That has allowed them to cover both the House and Senate floor sessions, and the most important committee meetings.

If you go to the governor's website, www.governor.state.nm.us/, there is a link at the bottom titled "Webcasting the Legislature" where you can tune in to live events, or watch past sessions from a growing archive.

Senate leaders have grumbled that it's all political. Boyd reports that Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen has even had his staffer shooting video of the Martinez staffers as they are shooting video of the session. How petty.

If the governor's office was selectively editing the videos and only posting those that are the most inflammatory, there would be a valid argument against her. But it's not. Her office is shooting as much as possible, given its three-person staff, and putting it all up online.

Gov. Martinez surely understands better than the senator from Belen how difficult it is for those of us in the far reaches of the state to stay on top of what is going on in Santa Fe. This allows us to see and hear, in real time, exactly what is being said and done by those elected to represent us. And, if some of that turns out to be things we're not real pleased with, and we take that into account at the voting booth this November, so be it.

Walter Rubel has been a newsman for more than 25 years and is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com.

Get ready for a nasty campaign

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections.” — President Barack Obama during his 2010 State of the Union address.

The Republican presidential primary campaign has given us our first glimpse of the new political realities since the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizen's United case, and it ain't pretty.

The low point thus far has been a truly vile video ad released last week alleging that former Utah governor and U.S. ambassador to China Jon Huntsman is really a secret foreign operative working to bring down the U.S. government. And how do we know this? Because Huntsman and his wife Mary Kaye adopted two orphans, Gracie Mei from China and Asha Bharati from India, bringing them from a life of hopeless desperation and squalor and into a loving home.

The video has all we've come to expect from sleazy attack ads: ominous, foreign-sounding music; fuzzy, stark-colored images; suggestive titles such as "The Manchurian Candidate," and Huntsman speaking in Mandarin (or, perhaps Cantonese?). The kicker is a photo of Huntsman lovingly holding Asha Bharati, both with the traditional bindi, or red dot, on their foreheads.

The ad was put out by a group calling itself NHLibert4Paul, and it ends by urging voters to elect Ron Paul. The Paul campaign called the video "disgusting" and insisted it had nothing to do with it.
And I believe them. But Citizen's United has made it much more difficult for voters to know who is responsible for this kind of sleaze.

By law, ads produced by the candidates are required to end with the tagline, "I'm Billy Babykisser, and I approve this message." That forces a candidate to take ownership of the message, and risk blowback if the ad crosses the line. But now, each campaign has its own super PAC, with no such requirement.

The super PACs are also different from campaigns in that they are not constrained by campaign finance laws that restrict how much any individual, corporation or union can donate to any one campaign during an election cycle.

There are some rules (wink, wink, nod, nod). The organizers of the Super PACs, who are usually former campaign managers or close associates of the candidates, aren't allowed to coordinate with the campaigns. But really, not much coordination is needed. They're all operating from the same playbook.

The campaigns run happy, sunny ads with American flags waving in a clear, blue sky; amber waves of grain swaying in the breeze; and smiling, casually clad candidates pronouncing their undying love for family and country.

Meanwhile, super PACs with all-American names like Restore Our Future (Mitt Romney) or Make Us Great Again (Rick Perry) do all the mudslinging. And if an ad ever goes too far, candidate Babykisser can deny any involvement.

"Heck, I'd go to jail if I had anything to do with the super PAC," Babykisser would insist.
Restore Our Future spent more than $4 million in Iowa, most all of it on attack ads against Newt Gingrich. And for anybody who thinks negative ads don't work, all you have to do is look at where Gingrich was in the polls a month or so ago, and where he is today.

The scary part is we're barely out of the starting blocks. All we've had thus far is Republicans vs. Republicans. The conventions aren't until August and September. The election isn't until November. The super PACs will spend millions between now and then trying to convince you that the fine men vying to be leader of the free world aren't fit to pick up your garbage.

Walter Rubel has been a newsman for more than 25 years and is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com.