The tsunami of cash is part of a growing trend nationally in which outside groups swoop in to hot congressional race to run what are usually attack ads, pay for mass mailings or conduct surveys. And it has election and campaign finance reformers concerned.

“It should trouble people to see this amount of money spent on political campaigns,” said Steven Robert Allen, executive director of New Mexico Common Cause. “People and entities spend money for reasons. It could be that they love the candidate. The more troubling aspect in some cases is that entities or individuals want something in exchange for that money. And that’s where the whole situation becomes troubling. Is that access? Is that influence? In some cases it certainly is.”

All told, organizations as varied as the Democratic and Republican congressional committees to advocates of all political stripes, have spent as little as $4 to as much as $459,000 in hundreds of transactions in recent months, according to the Federal Election Commission.

The amount of money flowing into New Mexico is enough that it appears to have kept pace with candidate spending in the 2^nd Congressional District through the last reporting period, at around $2 million, according to Opensecrets.org, a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics.

In the 1^st Congressional District the rate of spending by outside groups is smaller, but not by much. Candidates have spent $2 million, compared to $1.9 million from outside groups, records show.

Steve Pearce has a big bulls-eye on his back

Former Republican Congressman Steve Pearce is one of the biggest targets in this war of deep-pocketed interests, records show.

More than $1.25 million in money spent by outside groups has flowed into New Mexico to oppose Pearce’s attempt to knock off freshman Democratic Congressman Harry Teague in what has been billed as one of the most hotly contested House races across the country, records show.

The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund plunked down $459,000 for a TV ad buy targeting Pearce earlier this month, the largest single transaction in the New Mexico congressional races, Federal Election Commission records show.

The Defenders of Wildlife, a left-leaning organization advocating a pro-conservation agenda, opposed Pearce’s 2008 run for U.S. Senate. This year the organization appears to be the biggest spender among the outside groups that have parachuted in to square off over New Mexico’s congressional races, spending more than $700,000, records show.

The outside money isn’t confined to Democrats or their allies.

The 1^st Congressional District’s freshman Democratic Congressman Martin Heinrich has seen his re-election effort attract nearly $1.4 million from outside groups opposed to his re-election, according to Opensecrets. That includes $316,306 spent on Aug. 27 by the American Future Fund for TV ad production, according to the Federal Elections Commission records. Heinrich faces Republican challenger Jon Barela.

The American Future Fund is a conservative organization advocating free-market ideals.

As troubling as the eye-popping numbers are to campaign finance reform advocates, 2010’s figures pale next to the sums spent during the 2008 election cycle by outside groups.

The Democratic and Republican congressional campaign committees alone spent $3.7 million in the 2^nd Congressional District race in 2008, according to Opensecrets. Similarly, the two party committees spent more than $4 million in the 1^st Congressional District race that year, records show.

But this year’s totals for outside spending could eclipse 2008’s totals, given that the last two weeks of an election season are when groups spend the most money, said University of New Mexico political science professor Lonna Atkeson.

“Both (races) can reach” the 2008 totals, but “CD 2 is very likely,” Atkeson said, citing the battle between Pearce, a former three-term congressman, and Teague, who won the seat in 2008 when  Pearce ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2008.

Unlike the 1st and 2nd districts, the 3^rd Congressional District race has largely been ignored by outside interests, barely registering any influx of money, records show.

Big spending by outside groups nationally

This year has seen an influx of outside-spending in congressional races across the country; $225 million so far, according to Opensecrets.org. And many observers attribute that infusion to a controversial Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, United Citizens v. Federal Elections Commission.

That ruling struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications

Some had predicted that the ruling would unleash a flood of corporate and union money into a political system already awash in money.

While  acknowledging the ruling is a factor, Allen, the Common Cause New Mexico executive director, said it doesn’t explain everything.

“To an extent, Citizens United has allowed for some new creative avenues for wealthier interests that want to get involved in influencing the electoral interests,” Allen said. “But with or without Citizens United this has been a long time trend. It’s almost an arms race.”

The amount of money flowing into New Mexico’s congressional races from outside groups has grown year after year, Allen said — a sentiment that Atkeson shares.

A rundown of help for candidates

Each of the four candidates in the two congressional races has been aided by outside spending, which allows organizations to support or oppose a candidate, records show.

While Heinrich has drawn a lot of opposition, he’s also come in for some major help – nearly $149,000, including $75,000 from Defenders of Wildlife, records show.

Jon Barela, Heinrich’s Republican opponent, has received nearly $65,000 in support from business groups and the National Right to Life PAC, FEC records show. Meanwhile, he’s attracted the attention of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has spent more than $350,000 opposing his candidacy, according to OpenSecrets.

The DCCC, as it is known, also has put a bulls-eye on Pearce, spending nearly $500,000 to oppose his candidacy, including a $234,000 media buy purchased earlier this month, FEC records show.

Pearce has received less than $30,000 from outside groups supporting his candidacy..

Teague meanwhile has attracted the notice of the National Republican Congressional Committee. The NRCC has spent $378,000 of the $700,000 of the outside groups opposing Teague’s re-election bid, according to Opensecrets.

Meanwhile Teague has received around $15,000 in aid from outside groups supporting his re-election, OpenSecrets shows.

Photo by Theresa Thompson/Flickr

Legislation that would allow a person to register to vote then immediately cast a ballot at early voting sites is scheduled in final committees in both the House and Senate this week. Proponents say it would increase access to elections at the same time it improves the accuracy, transparency, and efficiency of how voter registration files are maintained. Detractors voice concern that without an official government issued photo ID, the possibility of voter fraud will increase.

In order to both register and vote at early voting sites, the bills would require a person to present a physical ID, which could be either a government issued ID or a current copy of common documents that prove residency, such as utility bills, bank statements, or other forms of government documents.

The bills also require that the registration be entered into the state online voter database on the spot so that county clerks can verify the person isn’t registered and voting elsewhere in the same election. If the online database isn’t operational, the voter would be given a provisional ballot instead of a regular ballot. The bill would also allow currently registered voters to update their registration information. Neither bill allows same day voter registration on Election Day itself.

The legislation has been endorsed by New Mexico Secretary of State Mary Herrera, who voiced support for the Senate version when it was heard in the Senate Rules committee earlier this week, as well as the New Mexico County Clerks Affiliate, which represents all county clerks in the state.

Allowing same-day registration and voting during the early voting period would increase the accuracy of the statewide voter file and save the state “an enormous amount of money” by reducing the waste of sending election related mail to the wrong address, said Lea County Clerk Pat Chappelle and  Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Toulouse Oliver in a late January Albuquerque Journal opinion piece. Plus, the duo said, it would provide a good alternative to third-party registration drives that often produce inaccurate information.

“This bill allows voters to register directly with a representative of a county clerk, making for a simpler, more transparent registration process, and we believe it will lessen the desire for third-party groups to register voters themselves,” the two stated in the piece. “As county clerks, we are committed to uncomplicated, accessible voter registration and election processes.”

The two clerks explicitly identified themselves as a bi-partisan pair.

“This is not a partisan issue. One of us is an elected Republican, the other is an elected Democrat,” they said.

The bill would also eliminate a barrier often experienced by would be first time voters, said Steve Allen, Executive Director of the good government group Common Cause, in an email to The Independent.

“Right now in New Mexico, you have to register at least 28 days before an election if you want to vote,” Allen told The Independent. “Many people dipping into politics for the first time don’t start getting excited about an election until a couple weeks before Election Day, when the media starts really covering races. This is especially true of state and local races.”

“So young people and others often end up finding out they won’t be able to vote because of this unreasonable deadline. Early voting registration strengthens our democracy by opening up the process to more qualified citizens,” Allen said.

Some have expressed concern, however, that not requiring a government issued ID that includes a photograph will lead to voter fraud. During the Senate Rules committee on Monday, Sen. Dianna Duran, R-Tularosa, introduced an amendment to the bill that would have required a government-issued photo ID, arguing that it would help prevent voter fraud. Her amendment ultimately failed.

Duran’s comments were countered by representatives of the All Indian Pueblo Council and the Native American Voters Alliance, who argued that many Native Americans don’t have government issued photo ID’s. Many tribal governments don’t issue photo ID’s, they said. Nor do all Native Americans have state issued driver’s licenses.

The bill would also help greatly in reducing barriers that exist among tribal populations currently for increasing the voting population, they continued. Those barriers include lack of transportation in rural areas and work obligations that make taking a day off to vote a difficult undertaking for many.

On the Senate side, Sen. John Sapien’s SB 161 is on the agenda for the Senate Judiciary committee Wednesday afternoon. Rep. Jim Trujillo’s HB 123 has been passed on to the House Voter’s and Election committee Thursday morning.

During a panel discussion hosted by the New Mexico Independent Wednesday night, New Mexico State Sen. John Sapien signaled a willingness to compromise on a proposed 25 percent excise tax on medical marijuana. Also during the discussion, Sapien, Rep. Dennis Kintigh and Common Cause executive director Steven Allen discussed campaign finance reform and Kintigh’s failed attempt at eliminating the state’s film incentives.

Sapien has introduced a bill that would put a 25 percent excise tax on the sale of medical marijuana and subject medical marijuana to New Mexico’s gross receipts tax. Sapien said he was willing for the percentatge of the excise tax to be negotiated, then went further, saying, “It is up for killing.”

Sapien said, “There was no malicious intent in putting forth these bills,” referring to two bills that would tax medical marijuana.

Kintigh, a former FBI special agent, said he was opposed to the medical marijuana bill and jokingly referred to himself as “a narc.”

The three panelists also discussed campaign reform laws that were passed in the Legislature last year.

“Most legislators, most public officials are trying to do the right thing. We’re working on systemic change,” Allen said.

Sapien supported the campaign finance reform bill last year that restricted the amount of money an individual could donate to a campaign. “You have to be careful who you take contributions from” and said that he has returned some contributions in the past, Kintigh said.

Campaign material of Richard "R.J." Berry sent to voters during the 2009 mayoral race, highlighting two of his primary messages against a trolley car system and what he framed as "sanctuary city" policies.

A number of factors contributed to Richard “R.J.” Berry’s victory in Albuquerque’s October mayoral election, including an energized Republican base, low turnout among Democrats, and perhaps a national anti-incumbent sentiment that included Mayor Martin Chavez.

But one interesting factor that makes Albuquerque perhaps unique in this fall’s elections is the city’s new public financing system. While there are some kinks that still need to be worked out, advocates say, the mayor’s race showed the system does what it is intended to do–reduce the influence of special interest money on elections.

The difference in the amount of money involved in the campaigns is clear. In 2005, Martin Chavez raised about $1.2 million for his re-election, but in 2009 he opted to use the city’s public financing system. Along with his two opponents, Chavez received $328,000 in public funds to run his campaign in return for not raising private cash donations. Had Chavez decided to use privately-raised money, and gone above the $328,000 given to other candidates, the city would have distributed matching funds to his opponents.

In the end, campaign finance reports show that all three of the mayoral candidates (and their respective measure finance committees) spent under what they were allowed before matching funds would have been distributed to their opponents. With less money in the race, and similar amounts spent by all, no candidate was able to swamp his opponents with radio, television or mail advertisements.

“The system worked as intended,” says Steve Allen, executive director of Common Cause, a government watchdog group. “It cut corrupting special interest money out of the mayoral campaign so that the eventual winner would not have to feel beholden to large private donors rather than the citizens of Albuquerque.”

Common Cause worked with the City Council to develop the public financing system.

The city’s mayoral trial run with public financing did identify several areas for improvement.

The system can be improved

Early in 2009, two high-profile city councilors found themselves unable to gather enough $5 contributions from Albuquerque voters to qualify for public financing in the mayoral race. At the time, Councilors Michael Cadigan and Debbie O’Malley said it was just too hard to gather enough signatures. Neither of them had the institutional support or the city-wide reach of the three candidates who ended up qualifying: State Rep. Richard Berry, Mayor Martin Chavez, and former State Senate President Richard Romero.

“It’s worth looking at whether we should make it easier to gather enough [qualifying contributions], given that two high profile candidates couldn’t qualify,” Allen says, while cautioning that the bar should still be set high enough to ensure public funds are only given out to serious candidates.

City Clerk Randy Autio said he’s concerned about how to ensure that campaign finance reports come in quickly enough to allow the city to disburse matching funds to other candidates–when the money could still make a difference.

Republican party mail that mimics the campaign messages of Richard Berry--no quarter cent tax, trolley car, or sanctuary city policies.

Measure finance committees (MFCs), Albuquerque’s version of political action committees (PACs), are required to report activities in support or opposition to, or coordination with, candidates for office.

The Independent reviewed the files of the candidates and measure finance committees active during the mayoral campaign. Contrary to predictions earlier in the election cycle, there were not droves of MFC’s working for or against a candidate. Berry and Romero had a handful, and Chavez appeared to have none.

But it can be hard to determine exactly which groups are spending money and how. That’s one area in which Autio would like to see improvement.

A number of the MFC files examined by the Independent didn’t include any documentation of the group’s activities. Contributions and expenditures are reported online, but in addition, physical copies of the materials are supposed to be filed with the city clerk. Without that documentation, there’s no way of verifying if the group’s activities are in support of or opposition to a candidate.

City law says the materials have to be given to the City Clerk “promptly,” which has generally been interpreted to indicate a five-day period, according to Autio. The word “promptly” could be officially defined as within 24 hours, which would be an improvement, he says.

“Unless someone reports to us, we don’t know what they’re doing,” Autio explains. “It was created as a complaint-driven system, and we don’t have internal resources to dig into the reporting and actively seek out information to see if there are activities we don’t know about. One improvement would be funding for active compliance investigators in the City Clerk’s office.”

The online reporting system could also require measure finance committees to indicate whether or not they’re working for, against or with a candidate, he says.

“No system is perfect”

The process of determining which activities a group or a measure finance committee can undertake without triggering matching funds will most likely be an active one in years to come.

In 2009, candidates questioned whether the National Rifle Association should have been required to register as an MFC, given that it endorsed Chavez and sent mailers to its members urging them to vote for him. But case law says such member-to-member activities can’t be regulated.

Perhaps a little more tricky is the issue of whether a measure finance committee can clearly mimic the campaign platforms of a particular candidate, while not officially coordinating with the candidate—and potentially triggering matching funds.

For example, the Republican party formed an MFC with the stated purpose of defeating the quarter-cent transportation tax, but in the week before the election, it sent out mailers that included Berry’s primary campaign messages. The mailer was followed by an automated call from former U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson urging people to look for the mailer and be sure to vote.

In order for the mailer to have triggered matching funds, the city clerk says, one of the other campaigns would have had to complain to his office that it was coordinated activity. Then, a hearing would have been held to determine if matching funds were warranted. Because no such complaint was filed, it’s a moot point under the current system.

But the mailer may not have been an issue anyway, Allen says, because the public financing system can only go so far before it infringes on First Amendment protected speech.

“No system is perfect. The public financing system is a vast improvement over what we had before,” he says. “Politics is always going to be a blood and guts fight—and that won’t go away because of public financing. What’s important is that we no longer have a privately funded system where special interests rule.”

A motion to table the bill by Senate Minority Leader Stuart Ingle, R-Portales, ended with a tie vote between the six senators who heard the bill. Sen. Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, left the committee meeting right before the discussion of the bill began, so was not there to break the tie vote. And Sen. Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, wasn’t present for the committee meeting.

Griego explained that the bill takes a systemic approach to addressing ethics and campaign contribution issues. “It gets at the heart of what the problem is,” he said, “[which is] the undue influence of money in politics.”

Modeled on Albuquerque’s clean elections system, Griego explained, the bill would create a voluntary system to provide public grants to those who choose to forgo “dialing for dollars,” and only solicit private contributions up to $100 per person.

Joining Griego to promote the bill, Steve Allen of Common Cause New Mexico said the bill gets at the core of ethics reform and is probably the “single most important” bill among the various ethics reform measures proposed this year.

“But it’s not a silver bullet,” Allen told to the Independent after the meeting. “For it to work correctly we would also need campaign contribution limits because otherwise we’d have the danger of a privately financed candidate wiping out the other candidates.”

Nonetheless, it’s “game-changing legislation,” Allen continued, because it takes most private money out of elections and it also expands free speech.

“The Supreme Court has said over and over that these kinds of public financing systems expand political dialogue around elections,” Allen said. “But the single most important reason to pass it is the need to eliminate actual or perceived corruption. Most public officials are honest, hard-working people who are trying to do the best they can, but the public’s perception of government is just as important for the health of our democracy.”

Others who gave testimony in support of the bill were Cathy Campbell of the League of Women Voters, Terri Cole of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber Commerce, Matt Brix of the Center for Civic Policy, and representatives of the attorney general and the secretary of state.

Every person who spoke in favor of the bill, including Griego, expressed trepidation about the current economic crunch faced by the state.

But, he explained, Albuquerque’s experience with implementing a similar public financing system showed that developing such a system requires a significant amount of lead time. For this reason the legislature should adopt the measure now so that it’s ready to go in 2012, which is the first year it would be used. By then, he said, everyone hopes the economic climate will be much improved.

As it stands, the bill’s not dead, it’s just in limbo.

Flickr/Richard Soderberg

ALBUQUERQUE — “Pay-to-Play.”

It’s a catch-all phrase, much in the news these days, to describe the kind of corruption in which payment of some sort is made to a power-broker to make something happen.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s tape-recorded musings about how contributions to his campaign might be rewarded with an appointment to the U.S. Senate was a classic example from a city known for political graft.

Federal investigators are probing whether a similar deal was afoot here in New Mexico when a California company, CDR Financial Products, Inc., was awarded a state contract from the New Mexico Finance Authority in 2004 after two large contributions — totaling $100,000 — were made to Gov. Bill Richardson’s political action committees in 2003 and 2004. Last week, the investigation derailed Richardson’s nomination to be commerce secretary in the Obama administration.

Whatever the consequences for Richardson personally, his withdrawal from the commerce secretary post raises serious questions about how business is done in New Mexico. It’s not the first time that the shadow of corruption has hung over the state, but this story has the potential to be the most damaging because it could involve not just him, but people who worked for Richardson as well.

For years, I’ve heard people whisper about pay-to-play as a way of doing business with Richardson’s administration. Most of these people, though, have some kind of relationship with the state government and won’t kill the prospects of getting state contracts by complaining out loud about the political arm-twisters seeking large campaign contributions.

But University of New Mexico political science professor Lonna Atkeson told the Independent the perception that pay-to-play is rampant in New Mexico results from the way our government itself is set up, at all levels — local, state and federal.

“There’s a lot of pressure that stems from the design of our government itself for people to give. Even if the politician doesn’t demand it, maybe people think its expected that they’ll contribute. What they receive may not be what they want. So are they actually buying access or something else? It can create the appearance of corruption even when it doesn’t exist.”

Steve Allen, executive director of the good-government group Common Cause New Mexico, said, “The way it works is very subtle and, frankly, not illegal.”

“A politician notices who gives — and the contributors gain access,” he explained. “Politicians are more likely to return phone calls to their big contributors. Then, through the development of relationships with the politician and his staff, the contributor might be the beneficiary of favors.”

“Most politicians aren’t on the take,” he continued, “but when you have a state that has no contribution limits whatsoever, and you have companies able to fork out tens and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars, it invites conflict of interest that is not good for the politicians themselves, much less the public.”

Change we can believe in?

Flickr/Eyeliam

There are two ways to correct these systemic problems, Allen said: contribution limits and public financing mechanisms — which together would go a long way toward taking the money out of politics.

Currently, New Mexico is one of only five states that place no limits on contributions to political candidates or political action committees, so denying that favors are being traded for large contributions is made a lot easier than it otherwise would be.

The other four states without campaign contribution limits are Illinois, Oregon, Utah and Virginia.

Public financing laws, however, have made some headway in the past five years. Atkeson thinks this shows that many in New Mexico recognize the need to create safeguards against pay-to-play schemes.

In 2003, the Public Regulations Commission was placed under a publicly financed elections system. The state’s appellate judgeships were given public financing in 2007. Allen said the reasons for both of these changes were very clear cut — it was unseemly to have elected officials accept campaign contributions from those who also had direct business with them, or were regulated by them.

Additionally, Albuquerque has public financing for municipal elections, and Santa Fe will have such a system in place soon — the voters approved it last March.

Allen said while he doesn’t know who will be sponsoring it yet, a public financing bill will most likely be introduced during the 2009 legislative session for the big money races of New Mexico’s executive branch: the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general and state land commissioner.

In addition, Rep. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, told the Independent that New Mexico doesn’t have enough “clear statutory direction” regarding elected officials and the awarding of state contracts.

“The line between what is acceptable and unacceptable is blurred to some people,” he said in an interview. “One of my objectives through legislation is to demarcate that line as clearly as possible.”

In 2007, Cervantes passed a bill that amended the Governmental Conduct Act to place more stringent restrictions on state employees when it came to the awarding of state contracts. That bill was signed into law by Richardson. He also gained approval of a “whistleblower” bill to protect and potentially reward people who come forward to expose corruption.

This year Cervantes will re-introduce bills to open conference committees to the public, and to create an ethics commission. He is also introducing a package of bills in collaboration with New Mexico Attorney General Gary King geared toward giving the public greater access to information about how government operates and to make government more transparent.

When it comes to the federal investigation underway, Richardson has strongly denied any wrongdoing by his administration, and said he fully expects the investigators to conclude the same in the end.

CDR Financial Inc. President David Rubin also vigorously denied that the contributions to Richardson were designed to gain the state contract. In a statement on the firm’s Web site, he said:

For the record, CDR has never practiced pay-for-play, on any playing field where we do business. With respect to the work we did for the New Mexico Finance Authority, we underwent a rigorous vetting process that involved multiple steps to ensure that CDR was, in fact, qualified for the job of assisting the state in managing its interest rate swap transactions…

It is true that I have made contributions to political causes and candidates in New Mexico — including contributions directly to Bill Richardson’s gubernatorial campaign and to organizations supporting voter registration drives and other aspects of the electoral process. That support was given with full compliance of state and federal laws…

Anyone who knows me knows that I have been an unabashed supporter of Democratic causes and public figures, especially those like Gov. Richardson, who support a liberal, inclusive agenda.

And an editorial in the Seattle Times sums up the “anger and frustration” of Richardson supporters, as well as the puzzlement that such a skilled politician could be “anywhere near a cheesy scandal that forced him to withdraw his name to be President-elect Obama’s commerce secretary.”

Well, in the end, maybe its simply due to the fact that he’s the governor of a state that is in serious need of ethics reform.