A Cool Million

Well, according to an article by Colleen Heild, it looks like part of Eli Lee's quietly built empire for progressive change is going to see some sunshine (subscription):

An Albuquerque nonprofit that distributed mailers portraying Sen. Shannon Robinson and other lawmakers as being in the pocket of big business must register as a political committee, according to Secretary of State Mary Herrera.

In a letter Herrera sent Monday after consultation with the state Attorney General's Office, she said, "It appears that New Mexico Youth Organized is operating as a political committee for purposes of the (state) Campaign Reporting Act."

The group, an arm of the Center for Civic Policy, has 10 working days to "correct this matter and provide a written explanation of the apparent violation," the secretary of state said.

Eli Lee, executive director of the Center for Civic Policy, said in a statement late Monday that his group strongly disagrees with the directive and will "pursue all legal remedies at our disposal."

Which raises the question, why is Mr. Lee so hell bent on keeping his donors a secret until after the election in November? Who is he protecting? As a former not for profit executive director, I can assure you that timely disclosure of his donors would be a rather simple task - if he was so inclined. But, of course, he is not.

Mr. Lee wants nothing (not even public outcry) to get in the way of his plan to influence the election in November. There is too much at stake:

The center received nearly $600,000 in contributions last year and expects to spend more than $1 million this fiscal year.

Let's put that $1 million dollar number in perspective. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, in 2004 (the last time all State House and Senate seats were up for re-election) the total amount spent by 201 candidates was just shy of $5.3 million dollars for an average expenditure per campaign of about $26,000. Mr. Lee is targeting nine races, and expecting to spend more than a million dollars for an average expenditure in excess of a $100,000 - over 4 times the amount spent in 2004!

He's buying the election, and he is doing it by skirting the exact same campaign finance laws, he insists he wants in New Mexico. My only request, keep Mr. Lee's actions in mind the next time some legislator or political activist gets on a soap box and proclaims the need for campaign finance reform. Remember how they quietly supported Mr. Lee and his agenda with no concern to limiting his expenditure or seeking disclosure of his sources.

Political Mutual Funds

Due to a lawsuit filed by three ousted Democratic legislators, there has been a lot of attention given recently to the political activity of certain not-for-profits (subscription):

Officials for the Center for Civic Policy said in May they had sent out literature for the Legislative Accountability Project in conjunction with several other nonprofits, including the SouthWest Organizing Project.

They said they sent the materials out as mailers starting after the end of the last legislative session as educational materials for voters based on the legislators' voting records, not as campaign materials intended to unseat lawmakers.

The mailers, which criticized the losing officials for their voting records and campaign contributors, were stopped more than a month before the primary to avoid the appearance of any partisanship, they said.

"Our organizations have a long and proud history of working for ethics reform, good government, health care and a clean environment," [Center for Civic Policy Director Eli Il Yong] Lee said in an e-mail Saturday. "As nonpartisan, not-for-profit organizations, it is our responsibility to educate the public about the votes and contributions of our elected officials."

Okay, let's start with the obvious. Eli Lee has been involved in politics for quite some time now as the CEO and President of Soltari, a political consulting firm, with an impressive list of clients who went on to win their elections. Mr. Lee knows what he is doing when it comes to running winning political campaigns.

The problem here is that Mr. Lee is now supposedly running a "nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization," the Center for Civic Policy, but his actions and his alliances indicate otherwise. First, consider the Center for Civic Policy's ties to the New Progressive Coalition (NPC). What does the NPC do?

NPC acts as a political giving advisor by providing you with products and services to target your political and charitable time and money more effectively.

Think Charles Schwab for politics.

In other words, NPC raises money to be distributed and used in political campaigns. They try to make "political giving easy and strategic," and they funnel money to organizations like Center for Civic Policy and Act Blue. Now, the latter, unlike the former, does not try and skirt campaign finance laws. Act Blue is organized as a Federal PAC and like all PACs the contributions to and from the PAC are governed by campaign finance laws and are not tax deductible.

As a former not-for-proift executive, it's that last part that really irks me. Mr. Lee is conducting political activity, and he is doing it to benefit a certain wing of the Democratic Party - a strictly partisan endeavor. Yet, his donors are able to write off their political contributions as charitable deductions and remain hidden from exposure during the election cycle.

The irony in all this is that Matt Brix, the former Executive Director of Common Cause and champion for campaign reform in New Mexico, is the Executive Director of the Center for Civic Policy. Matt and I have often had dialogue regarding campaign limits. Matt has consistently lobbyied for campaign contribution limits, and my position has always been that they are unneccessary and full and timely discolusre is prefereable.

Not-for profits have no contribution limits nor do they have to disclose donors in a timely manner. If this were a Star Wars movie, I believe Matt would now officially be a member of "the Dark Side." And, I'm sure someone conviced him it is all in the name of a greater good.

Donating to Charity

I'm all for supporting charities, but this practice of politicians announcing in the press that they are turning tainted money over to their favorite charity (subscription) just doesn't sit right with me.

Richardson on Monday vowed to donate to charity all of the campaign money his camp received from people or companies implicated in the courthouse scandal.

Lt. Gov. Diane Denish and state Attorney General Gary King followed suit on Tuesday. And the state chairman of a group that battled— mostly unsuccessfully— for sweeping ethics reform in the just-concluded state legislative session said every politician who took money from Schultz should do likewise.

The purpose of campaign contributions is to buy awareness and influence voters, and by publicly acknowledging that you're donating it to a cause, that money is working precisely the way it was supposed to work. Wasn't Eric Serna being investigated for soliciting contributions to his favorite charity? I'm not sure this is too different.

Is it really necessary for politicians to issue press releases to announce who the recipients of the donation will be? Doesn't this seem a bit unwarranted:

Denish in a news release Tuesday said she is giving $1,000 in contributions from those implicated in the scandal to the New Mexico Cancer Center Foundation.

A very worthy cause, but did the Lt. Governor really need to release who would be the beneficiary of the donation. It seems to me that the money should just be returned to the donor. It may not be the most productive use of the dollars, but the alternative, at least with the fanfare it is being given, just doesn't seem right.

Looks Like a Duck, Smells Like a Duck

It's getting worse. First, in clear disregard of state law, Governor Bill Richardson sent out an email blast to 300,000 people asking for their financial support. This may be legal - the Attorney General recently weighed in - but it is doubtful whether it can be considered ethical. Worse, it seems to make a mockery of the proposed ethics legislation currently being considered.

Now, we have this (subscription):

The Washington Post in a political blog entry reported that the Dozoretzes hosted a "fundraising event" for Richardson on Friday and noted the couple has been chummy with the Clintons in the past.

The blog didn't point out that Ron Dozoretz has major business interests in New Mexico.

He runs the parent company of ValueOptions, which last fiscal year oversaw $300 million in mental health and substance abuse services under contract with New Mexico state government.

Richardson presidential campaign spokesman Pahl Shipley said the event was a "meet-and-greet" and not a fundraiser, adding he didn't know if anyone wrote checks to the Richardson camp.

Which raises the question... which is more unethical:

1. The fact that Bill Richardson is unquestionably raising money from those with business before the legislature during a legislation session.
   
   OR
   
   
2. A campaign spokesman who says, "he didn't know if anyone wrote a check."

I'm thinking #1 is unethical, and #2 is just plain insulting.

In Case You Missed It

Governor Richardson's questionable fundraising activity got quite a bit of ink last week in the Albuquerque Journal (subscription). It was first discussed by the Wednesday Morning QB here, with my two cents added here. Then, I had a chance to discuss it when I was on the Insight New Mexico program. If you missed that show, you can download the podcast here.

Ethics Reform - NM Style

Governor Bill Richardson made a point in his State of the State to address the need for Ethics reform:

Holding the highest ethical standards is not a privilege, but our responsibility as public servants. It’s also the best, and only way, we can protect the public’s faith in their democracy.

Some of you here served in the Ethics Reform Task Force and provided valuable recommendations. Thank you for your efforts. Those recommendations are the basis for my ethics package.

I’m proposing—an independent ethics commission, better campaign reporting, public financing for judicial candidates, and limits on gifts and campaign contributions. These recommendations are now before the legislature and represent a tough reform package that will help restore the public faith in our Government.

So, what's Governor Richardson's first step in restoring the public faith in our Government:

The Bill Richardson for President Exploratory Committee was officially less than five hours old Monday when it fired off more than 300,000 e-mails seeking campaign contributions to potential supporters across the country.

But here’s the problem…

It looks like it is illegal for the Governor of NM to raise any money for political purposes during the New Mexico legislative session.

From state statute:

1-19-34.1. Legislative session fundraising prohibition. (1995)

B. It is unlawful during the prohibited period for the governor, or any agent on his behalf, to knowingly solicit a contribution for a political purpose. For purposes of this subsection, "prohibited period" means that period beginning January 1 prior to any regular session of the legislature or, in the case of a special session, after the proclamation has been issued, and ending on the twentieth day following the adjournment of the regular or special session.

Thanks to the Wednesday Morning QB for pointing this out. Now I wonder if our new Democratic Attorney General, Gary King, is going to launch an investigation? Yeah, that'll happen... about the same time that there is real ethics reform in New Mexico.

Make sure to tune in this Saturday to Insight New Mexico at 3:00 p.m. on 1350 AM Progressive Radio (what can I say I like a challenge) to catch yours truly telling like it is.