I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
A bill requiring most groups to reveal who paid for political ads has passed the U.S. House Thursday on a near-party line 219-206 vote. All three members of the House of Representatives from New Mexico voted in the majority.
The bill would require most groups disclose the top five donors who contributed to political ads and to disclose who was airing the ad, much as PACs and political candidates are required to do already. The bill comes in response to a Supreme Court ruling that ended a decades-long ban on corporations and other groups becoming directly involved in political campaigns.
The bill has its fair share of controversy. It started with a carve-out for groups that have been in existence for at least 10 years, have at least 1 million members and members in each of 50 states — which turned out to pretty much mean the National Rifle Association. After a lot of criticism from the liberal wing of the party, Democrats expanded the carve-out to include some other large groups like the Sierra Club and the AARP, that did not seek exemptions.
New Mexico politicians quickly sent releases either heralding the new law or decrying it.
Rep. Harry Teague, D-N.M., said the bill would stop companies from funneling foreign money into campaign advertising.
“This bill shines a light on special interests and fly-by-night groups looking to manipulate and influence American elections. Without the DISCLOSE act, there is nothing stopping big corporations and limitless corporate money from anonymously drowning out the voices of American citizens,” said Teague, who also co-sponsored the bill. “This is a common sense bill that requires corporations to stand by their ads. Anyone who thinks it’s okay to allow big corporations and foreign entities to secretly spend millions to influence American elections is out of touch with 89% of Americans and cares more about politics than protecting the basic principles of our democracy.”
Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., said the DISCLOSE Act “closes some of the biggest election loopholes created by the Citizens United case.”
“This DISCLOSE Act is not perfect, but it will increase the integrity of our political process by providing the toughest-ever disclosure laws for big money interest campaign spending; doing so is fundamental to the future of our nation’s Democracy,” Heinrich said.
“Special interest groups seeking to influence elections must be accountable to the American people,” Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., said in his statement. “This legislation increases transparency, improves accountability, and makes sure that elections are not subject to the influence of foreign entities.”
Two Republican challengers opposed the law.
Steve Pearce, R-N.M., will face Teague in the general election in November and said that the Democrats, including Teague, voted “to stifle political debate in an effort to protect themselves in the upcoming election.”
“This is yet another sign that Harry Teague has given up on New Mexico and is more concerned about his own self-preservation,” Pearce said. “Like his support of the Employee Free Choice Act, he has proven to worry more about Washington special interests and less about the citizens of New Mexico.”
Tom Mullins, R-N.M., will face Luján in the general election and wrote on his campaign blog, “Rep. Lujan votes to take away your Constitutional rights to become a grassroots activist.”
“We need transparency and ethical honest leadership from our Representative,” Mullins wrote. “I agree with many who have characterized this law as the ‘Incumbent Protection Act’.”
