Last week, New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, along with six of his fellow Democratic colleagues, proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate the campaign finance system. Long an advocate of campaign finance reform, Udall seeks to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Citizens United decision, in which the high court ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the money spent during elections by corporations and unions. In that decision, the Court essentially based its ruling on an earlier Supreme Court decision of 1976, Buckley v. Valeo, which ruled that spending money in elections is a form of speech.

“I strongly disagree with the premise in Buckley and the Supreme Court’s recent reversal of precedent in Citizens United versus the FEC [Federal Elections Commission],” said Udall at the press conference introducing the bill. “The court had previously allowed Congress to pass laws preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption. But the latest reinterpretation of the Constitution has left our political system vulnerable like never before.”

For the bill to become law, it must pass with a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, then be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. While acknowledging the difficulty of amending the Constitution, Udall seems to want to capitalize on the growing mood of disaffection with big money overall as evidenced by the Tea Partiers and the Occupiers. In comments to the online site, Politico Influence, days after his proposal, Udall said, “I believe there is a significant grass-roots movement out there to take the money out of politics.”

He said that the momentum on Capitol Hill has already picked up since introducing the bill, claiming 10 of his fellow senators have agreed to co-sponsor the amending (in addition to the six who signed on with him and Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, including Richard Durbin of Illinois, Charles Schumer of New York, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Tom Harkin of Iowa). “It’s pretty dramatic how the campaign landscape has changed.”

Although Udall had no response when asked about the recent kerfuffle over both Republican Governor Susana Martinez’s campaign-contribution issues or those of the state’s Democratic Attorney General Gary King, nor did he have anything to say about James Bopp Jr.’s lawsuit challenging the state’s constitutionality of those very same campaign-contribution limits, his bill cosponsor, Durbin, said at the press conference, “If you want to take our political campaigns out of the hands of special interest groups and Super PACs and groups we’ve never heard of, this is the way to do it.

“I do not begrudge corporations or lobbyists a seat at the table when it comes to making decisions in Washington,” continued Durbin. “But they aren’t entitled to own the table. The table really belongs to the American people.”

Schumer put it even more emphatically, referring to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and Buckley decisions, stating, “These are awful decisions that need to be overturned.”

Former Gov. Gary Johnson filed the paperwork for his candidacy in the New Hampshire presidential primary — mere hours before the filing deadline in the crucial early primary state. After a campaign mix-up, Johnson was forced to take a red-eye from Arizona to file his paperwork in person.

The New Hampshire primary is particularly important for Johnson’s long-shot candidacy. He is pro-abortion rights, supports marriage equality and marijuana legalization, positions that make him anathema to Iowa’s social conservative caucus voters. His campaign has counted on performing well in New Hampshire, which is known for its libertarian bent.

In his most recent debate performance, Johnson gained brief national attention for joking that his neighbor’s dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than President Obama. He also repeatedly touted his proposal for a balanced budget amendment, no doubt in the hope that Republican voters would respond more to his fiscal conservatism than to his social liberalism.

According to Democracy in Action, Johnson has spent more time in New Hampshire than any other GOP presidential candidate, a total of 18 visits and 70 days total. His presence in the state has eclipsed even fellow former Gov. Jon Huntsman (Utah), another candidate distrusted by social conservatives who has spent a total of 42 days in New Hampshire.

The New York Times’ Michael Shear notes that had the early winter storm predicted for the East Coast this weekend “swept in 24 hours earlier, Mr. Johnson might have found himself out of luck.”

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will be allowed to participate in Thursday’s Fox News debate in Orlando, Fla., among Republican presidential candidates, The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz reports:

The former New Mexico governor won the right to participate, according to Fox sources, by cracking 1 percent in the latest five national polls in which he was included—Fox News, CNN, McClatchy-Marist, ABC, and Quinnipiac—which was the criterion the network had set for inclusion.

Talking Points Memo reports Johnson has yet to receive final notification that he will participate in the debate, though he told TPM, “It would be good news if we get it.”

Johnson is a self-identified libertarian who differentiates himself from Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the more popular of the libertarian GOP candidates, with his support for abortion rights and his opposition to the construction of a border fence. He has attended one other GOP debate, where he was asked about his support for drug legalization and discussed his initial opposition to the war in Iraq.

According to Politico, Johnson’s inclusion in the debate came over the objection of the Florida Republican Party, which has excluded him from Saturday’s Florida straw poll.

If he does indeed receive a debate invitation, Johnson will have temporarily left the ranks of presidential candidates who have too little support to gain the valuable national airtime of a debate. These candidates include former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer (R), Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) and California Republican Fred Karger.

Republicans in the New Mexico Senate have coalesced around a redistricting plan that forces no two incumbents to run against each other, reports Deborah Baker:

For GOP purposes, that was resolved by the impending departure of Sen. Kent Cravens, a Republican from northeast Albuquerque.

Cravens confirmed to the Journal in a recent interview that he plans to resign after the dust from redistricting has settled, to take a governmental affairs job with the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association.

In the GOP plan introduced Wednesday, Cravens’ existing district would be carved up to bolster neighboring Republican senators’ districts — William Payne and Mark Boitano, for example, each have districts that are currently 14 percent below the ideal number — and Cravens’ district number, 21, would re-emerge in the Rio Rancho area as a new, Republican-leaning district.

Democrats, who hold a majority in the Senate, may introduce their own plan as soon as Thursday. The last redistricting process took 17 days and ended up in state courts.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN: … I think that the American way is not to give taxpayer subsidized benefits to people who have broken our laws or who are here in the United States illegally. That is not the American way. Because the immigration system in the United States worked very, very well up until the mid-1960s when liberal members of Congress changed the immigration laws.

What works is to have people come into the United States with a little bit of money in their pocket legally with sponsors so that if anything happens to them, they don’t fall back on the taxpayers to take care of them. And then they also have to agree to learn the speak the English language, learn American history and our constitution. That’s the American way.

In her criticism of liberal immigration reform, Bachmann was presumably referring to the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, or Hart-Celler Act, which ended the de facto national origins quotas that had governed U.S. immigration policy since 1924. As ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser writes:

In 1924, Congress passed a package of immigration laws — including the National Origins Act and the Asian Exclusion Act — establishing a quota system giving preferential treatment to European immigrants. Under these laws, the number of immigrants who could be admitted from a given country was capped at a percentage of the number of people from that nation who were living in the United States in 1890. Because Americans were overwhelming of European descent in 1890, the practical effect of these laws was an enormous thumb on the scale encouraging white immigration.

Although explicit racial restrictions were abolished in 1952, national origins-based restrictions remained, using the 1920 Census as the foundation for the quotas, meaning that only a token quantity of non-European immigrants were allowed into the United States. Bachmann’s own Norwegian ancestors arrived in the Midwestern United States in the mid-1850s, well before any serious restrictions had been placed on U.S. immigration.

Passed by the same Democratic Congress that produced Medicare, Medicaid and the Voting Rights Act, Hart-Celler substantially increased the total number and proportion of Asian, Arab and African immigrants permitted within the United States. For example, in 1960 there were 99,735 Chinese-born people living in the United States, according to the Census. By 1970, that number had grown to 172,132 and in 1980 it was 286,120.  Meanwhile, the number of U.S. residents born in Norway shrank from 152,698 in 1960 to 97,243 in 1970 and 63,316 in 1980, with all other Northern and Western European nationalities experiencing similar drops in representation in the U.S. foreign-born population.

Bachmann appears to be touting her stance on immigration to demonstrate her superior conservative credentials over Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas), whose endorsement of in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants prompted Bachmann’s condemnation of liberal ’60s reforms. Whether Bachmann will continue to praise the pre-1965 immigration system of national origins restrictions, even as her supporters take care to highlight her position on immigration, remains to be seen.

Bachmann called out Perry’s financial ties to Merck & Co., the manufacturer of the vaccine, Gardasil — a group, she said, that stood to gain from the order. Bachmann insinuated the governor’s decision may have been swayed by the company’s donations to his campaign.

“We cannot forget that in the midst of this executive order, there was a big drug company that made millions of dollars because of this mandate. We can’t deny that,” said Bachmann.

“What are you suggesting?” pressed moderator Wolf Blizter.

“What I’m saying is that it’s wrong for a drug company, because the governor’s former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company. The drug company gave thousands of dollars in political donations to the governor, and this is just flat-out wrong. The question is, is it about life, or was it about millions of dollars and potentially billions for a drug company?”

The Minnesota Congresswoman was referring to Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff, who served as one of Merck’s three lobbyists in Texas. Bachmann did not point out other efforts to push Gardasil in Texas and those connections to Perry.

For instance, at the time Merck doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and gave more cash through the group Women in Government, a national group of female state legislators. The mother-in-law of Perry’s chief of staff (at the time) served as the state director for the advocacy organization, the Associated Press reported. Additionally, a high ranking official from the company’s vaccine division sat on the group’s business council.

Today, Toomey heads a pro-Perry super PAC called Make Us Great Again.

Perry responded to Bachmann’s by saying he received $5,000 in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical company — a figure that couldn’t have influenced his decision-making, in when he raised $30 million for his campaign.

“If you’re saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I’m offended,” said Perry. Bachmann replied, “Well, I’m offended for all the little girls and the parents that didn’t have a choice. That’s what I’m offended for.”

But that $5,000 figure isn’t the whole picture. While Perry was indeed the recipient of that amount during his 2006 gubernatorial reelection bid, on the same day Perry’s staff met for a briefing on the vaccine, Merck PAC has donated nearly $30,000 to the Perry campaign since 2000, according to Texas Ethics Commission reports. The largest sum from Merck came in October 2004, when the major pharmaceutical group donated $10,000 to Perry’s coffers. The company has given $7,500 to the governor’s campaign since Perry’s ill-fated executive order.

The HPV vaccine order has drawn considerable attention and criticism from social conservative and Tea Party circles, where it’s railed against as an infringement on individual rights by the government, and even an encouragement for young girls to have promiscuous sex.

Perry maintains the order, eventually overturned by the Legislature, was not a mandate and had an opt-out portion for parents. Since announcing his presidency, Perry has called the order a “mistake,” and said he should have consulted with the Texas Legislature instead.

If he wins the Republican nomination for president, you can count on evolution, climate change, The Texas Miracle and a host of other issues becoming interesting to voters when they think about Rick Perry. For now — chasing only Republican votes — his positions on those issues seem pretty safe. Immigration, though, is dogging him everywhere he goes.

In New Hampshire over the weekend, it was immigration people wanted to talk about. In Florida, on Friday, it was immigration that Mitt Romney wanted to talk about, pointing out to a group of Hispanic Republicans just how much tougher he is than Perry.

From The Washington Post:

He may have been 2,000 miles from the border, but Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s immigration record in Texas quickly became the focus in New Hampshire Saturday afternoon.

Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border.

“No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”

Instead, Perry said he supported “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.

From Hotair.com:

That Perry is more lax than Romney on border security is perplexing, considering the illegal immigrant population in Texas is ten times that of Massachusetts. In other words, Perry has seen the problem up close and personally — and presumably would want to address it head-on. But, then, his firsthand witness no doubt has informed his views of what solutions are realistic and achievable. Hence his assessment of a fence to secure the border — often dismissed as an impracticable solution – as “ridiculous”? But what of his support for the Texas version of DREAM and his hints at the advisability of binational health insurance?

Obviously, Perry will have to answer questions about his stances on immigration and any other issue on which Romney can zing him — because Romney won’t let up anytime soon. One poll shows Perry ahead of Romney even in Nevada — the one state that is supposed to be an absolute given for Romney.

Of course, after all is said and done, hitting Perry on immigration may be a lot like hitting McCain on patriotism. Some on the right are already calling Romney’s attack a swing and a miss.

From Van Guard, the Vangaurd of Freedom columnist:

But if the immigration issue is Romney’s choice as Rick Perry’s Achilles Heel, then Rick Perry has got him beat already at this early date, and as long as Rick Perry does not flounder or gaffe his way into oblivion, then Rick Perry will remain the GOP front-runner.

The reason for this should be obvious. Rick Perry’s record on immigration, however it may be spun with regard to the Dream Act, the Border Fence, or the Arizona Immigration Law, positively or negatively, has to be seen in the context of Texas politics. For one thing, Governor Perry has been elected to office how many times?

One can hardly call Texas Republicans “moderate.” I mean, really? I just read a quip by a Perry critic quoting the Governor saying he was in favor of seceding from the Union. It was taken out of context, but the point is, on the one hand they position him as a right wing extremist, and on the other as a “moderate” on immigration.

The question that should be asked is this: ”Which would the Obama campaign prefer as an opponent? Romney or Perry?

New Mexico’s First Congressional District — which encompasses Albuquerque, its suburbs and a sparsely populated rural area to the east — swung with the political winds in the past two elections. Rep. Martin Heinrich saw a 12-point victory in 2008 to become the first Democrat to represent the seat, but in 2010 he came within four points of losing. Now, he’s vacating the seat to run for the seat of retiring U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

Of New Mexico’s three districts, the First is unusual: It’s compact. (According to Lt. Gov Diane Denish, defeated Rep. Harry Teague used to envy the First as he was driving all around southern New Mexico after flying into El Paso or Midland.) It covers the city of Albuquerque and some — but not its fastest growing — suburbs. However, Albuquerque proper grew by nearly 22 percent from 2000 to 2010.

The Cook Political Report rates the district as +5 Democrat, and a “Lean Democrat” for 2012. But Republicans held the seat since its creation in 1969 all the way until 2009. Rep. Heather Wilson — a self-described “independent” Republican who’s also now running for Senate — represented the district beginning in 1998, winning by safe margins in all years but 2006 when she won by just 875 votes. She opted to run for Senate against Tom Udall in 2008.

With Cook rating this as New Mexico’s only competitive House race for 2012 — Reps. Steve Pearce and Ben Ray Luján are considered safe — multiple candidates have lined up for the seat. Former Lt. Gov. Diane Denish already decided against running for the seat.

State Sen. Eric Griego, who represents Albuquerque, announced his run for the seat in early May. “The conservative Republicans running the U.S. Congress have declared war on working families,” Griego said in his announcement.

He earned the Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s first endorsement of the 2012 cycle in late June. Though no other Democratic candidates had announced at the time, the PCCC urged its supporters to donate to improve his fundraising numbers because “several conservative Blue Dogs” were thinking of running. He netted $119,000 in fundraising during an abbreviated second quarter.

An old rival of Griego’s, former Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez, announced his run in late June. Griego had run against Chavez from the left in his 2005 mayoral re-election, only to have Chavez outspend him 4–1 and beat him by more than 20 points.

Chavez was Mayor of Albuquerque for a total of three terms. He was mayor from 1993 to 1997 and decided not to run for a second term to challenge Gov. Gary Johnson, a race he ended up losing by 10 points. He then ran for mayor successfully in 2001 and 2005. He succeeded in repealing the term limits law and ran again in 2009. However, he drew a Democratic challenger and lost to Republican Richard Barry in a three-way race.  He faced accusations of favoring city contractors and was part of a wave of incumbent fatigue during the recession.

A New Mexico Democrat told Politico that Chavez was a better fit for the “very moderate” district.” He added, “Chavez has a nice story to tell, and I think it’s helpful for Obama to have a Hispanic in that district.”

Indeed, in his announcement, Chavez said that he wanted to balance the budget and called the federal government “one of the most dysfunctional places I’ve ever seen.”

Chavez and Griego have already had spats. Over e-mail.

Chavez sent out a message to supporters assailing potential Social Security and Medicare cuts for the debt deal. “Right-wing Republicans in Washington are desperately trying to pass massive cuts to these vital programs while protecting huge tax breaks for the wealthiest few,” he wrote.

Griego contacted his supporters: “My conservative Democratic opponent in this race for Congress, Marty Chavez, sent out an e-mail on Monday calling for ‘bold progressive leadership’ — and I thought he was endorsing my campaign. But it was a campaign e-mail for himself!”

While a Chavez/Griego primary could be bruising, others have entered the race. Bernalillo County commissioner Michelle Lujan Grisham announced her run this month. She came in third in the Democratic primary in 2008.

Republicans also think that they have a decent shot at the seat. One-term Albuquerque City Councilor Dan Lewis entered the race in early April, the day after Rep. Martin Heinrich announced he was running for Senate. He described his priorities, “to help small businesses, so they can create badly needed jobs, and to protect our nation and our people from those who wish us harm.” He raised over $101,000 in the second quarter after he announced his candidacy.

Former State Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones has also announced an exploratory committee for the seat. She gave up her seat to run for governor in 2010 but came in fourth place in the Republican primary with just three percent of the vote.

The outcome of the race also depends on whether President Obama can turn out supporters like he did in 2008. If the president wins the district by 20 points like he did in 2008, it becomes very difficult for a Republican to win. On the other hand, Wilson carried the district during 2004 and 2000 with a small majority of voters going for John Kerry and Al Gore.

Many analysts are pointing out the possibility that Democrats could retake the House but lose the Senate. If that’s the case, then they’d need to hold a district like the First. For Republicans, taking it would mean a good year for them.

This report is part of collaboration with WNYC’s “It’s a Free Country” to cover the 25 most captivating congressional races from around the country.

To be successful as the governor of Texas, it doesn’t hurt to be a friend to the Latino community. To become the Republican presidential nominee, however, it may hurt a great deal.

So it is that newly minted candidate Rick Perry finds himself under attack from both sides on the immigration debate.

Perry’s problem with immigration offers an object lesson on how not to run an election, says Colorado College professor Bob Loevy. He says the current system gives too much power to fringe activists in small states and that the country would get better candidates if it went to a national primary.

Until then, though, Perry is sure to be dogged daily about immigration.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Immigration advocates in Texas were heartened last year when the Republican governor, Rick Perry, flatly stated that Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants “would not be the right direction for Texas.”

But in June, Perry convened a special session of the Legislature, hoping to pass a measure outlawing sanctuary cities — places where police are not allowed to ask people they detain about immigration status.

The law, which had already failed during the Legislature’s regular session, was defeated a second time thanks to an opposition coalition that included immigration activists as well as law enforcement officials, evangelical pastors and Republican business owners, among them one of Perry’s biggest fundraisers.

Why did the governor push the ban in a state where no official sanctuary cities even exist? Many in Texas, including Perry supporters, thought they knew the answer: He was considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination.

“I suspect it came from his advisers,” said Houston insurance broker Norman Adams, a Republican and Perry supporter who fought hard against the bill, which he considered anti-business. “You know, ‘You need to look tough on immigration, so we want a sanctuary bill.’ “

And, from The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza:

On immigration, Perry is far to the left of most Republicans (as is Texas as a whole given its large population of Latinos). Vocal anti-immigration advocate Tom Tancredo wrote an op-ed for Politico last weekend attacking Perry on the issue. The headline: “Perry: Not a true conservative.”

Loevy has seen it all before. He says the biggest threat to the Republican Party today is the party itself.

“Each candidate tries to get further to the right to get the support of the party activists whose support they need to get the nomination. But then you end up with a nominee that is so far to the right that they can’t get elected,” said Loevy, who chairs the political science department at CC and has written numerous books on politics and the nominating process, which he views as deeply flawed.

Loevy said that in general, Democrats have the same problem of playing to the far left base during the nominating process before having to move toward the middle for the general election.

He said Perry’s problems with immigration remind him of the problems Mitt Romney had in 2008. “Romney had a somewhat liberal reputation as the governor of a very liberal state (Massachusetts). Then, as he began running for president he began taking hard right positions that people had a hard time believing.”

Loevy advocates for a national primary, with all states voting on the same day and with the top two vote getters from each party facing a run-off.

By doing that, Loevy said small states that hold early primaries would lose their ability to swing the nomination to a candidate that can’t play to the middle. Both parties would become more centrist. “You wouldn’t have all this power concentrated in small states that don’t represent the general public,” he said.

Michelle Lujan Grisham

Bernalillo County Commissioner Michelle Lujan Graham announced Tuesday she is running for the Democratic nomination in the 1st Congressional District.

“I’m running for Congress because we are under attack in this country,” Grisham said in remarks released to the media. “A band of right-wing radicals in Congress has hijacked our country and put the interests of their corporate masters ahead of the middle class, seniors and the most vulnerable among us.”

Grisham won a seat on the Board of County Commissioners in 2010. She came in third in the Democratic primary for the congressional seat in 2008, losing to Martin Heinrich, who is vacating the position to run for an open U.S. Senate seat. Former Gov. Bill Richardson appointed Grisham in 2004 as Health Secretary for New Mexico, a post she served until 2007. Prior to that, she was director of the New Mexico State Agency on Aging from 1991 to 2005. She is the niece of former Republican Rep. and Secretary of Interior under George H.W. Bush Manuel Lujan, Jr., and the granddaughter of former New Mexico Supreme Court Chief Justice Eugene Lujan.

Former Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chávez and State Sen. Eric Griego are also running for the Democratic nomation for the seat.

On the Republican side, former Albuquerque City Councilor Dan Lewis and former State Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones are running.