Last week, New Mexico Senator Tom Udall and six of his fellow Democratic colleagues proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate the campaign finance system.

Today, Rep. Martin Heinrich, another longtime advocate of campaign finance reform, co-sponsored his own House version, in a bill that calls for the “power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents” in both Federal and state elections.

The legislation calls for overseeing: “the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’

Alarmed just as much by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision as Udall and his colleagues were, Heinrich and his House colleagues drafted a proposal that would repeal the Court’s ruling. “The Supreme Court made an enormous mistake when they said in their Buckley v. Valeo ruling that money and free speech are the same thing,” said Heinrich moments before presenting his bill. “Then the Citizens United decision took that to a whole new level. We’re all put at risk by decisions like that. They’re very scary.”

In order for the bill to become law, it has to pass with a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and then be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. “I have yet to find somebody who thinks this is a bad idea,” said Heinrich. “Unfortunately, if you look at the other people who are behind this bill, it’s largely Democrats. Still, I think even the most ardent Tea Party activists are concerned that corporations have been given this status of being more important than individuals, and that Republicans are going to wake up to that. It’s a mistake that the Republicans don’t already see this. But I do think they’ll have to respond to the growing sentiment that’s out there.”

Heinrich also expressed concern over James Bopp Jr.’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of New Mexico’s campaign-contribution limits. “The piles of money that flowed into the state in the last election are of huge concern,” he said. “What we’re seeing with these campaigns of unlimited spending is that it’s undermining the democratic process.

“In New Mexico in particular, we have inexpensive media markets and they’re very vulnerable to this money that floods in from out of state,” he added. “This bill stems from the same logic as the bill that passed into law in New Mexico in 2010: it’s the logic of not serving corporations but serving the voters.”

Which is why Heinrich decided to co-sponsor this bill. “It’s indicative of how deep this issue is and it’s not coming from some special interest group,” he said of its origins. “It’s coming from the people. It’s an issue that has a life of its own and it should. How it does and whether or not it passes will depend on the intensity of the support that’s out there.”

While amending the Constitution is no small task, Heinrich sees the impetus behind the bill as part of a larger battle. “It really is the choice between serving Americans and serving the interests of a corporation,” he said.

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.”

New Mexico’s two U.S. senators want to expand the zone within New Mexico in which Mexican nationals who hold Border Crossing Cards, or “laser cards,” can travel inside. The current limit is 25 miles from the border, and Democratic Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall want to expand that to 75 miles so that urban areas not immediately on the border can take advantage of Mexican consumers.

“Currently, Border Crossing Card holders can travel to cities like El Paso, but not nearby Las Cruces, Deming or Lordsburg,” said Udall in a statement. “This legislation makes a simple modification to boost commerce in important New Mexico communities with respect to our border security.”

Border Crossing Cards  are biometric cards which Mexican nationals can receive after passing a security and background check. They allow travel within the border zone for up to 30 days, although prior to August 2004 it was only 72 hours. Millions of the cards have been issued since the program first began in the late 1980s.

The Pew Hispanic Center (PDF) estimated in 2006 that the card was, at the time, a common method of entry for unauthorized immigrants, who would overstay the 30 day limit or work a job when the card does not authorize them to do so. However, many New Mexican border residents depend on temporary legal traffic from Mexico for their business.

The increase could be done either through an act of Congress or by a Department of Homeland Security rule change. In 1999, Arizona was allowed to increase the zone to 75 miles in order to benefit Tucson. Bingaman and Udall want the same change for New Mexico.

While some consumer groups are shaking their heads at yesterday’s Federal Communications Commission decision to encourage but not force wireless companies to be more forthright with extra usage fees, the senator who tried to reign in the industry isn’t crying defeat.

An e-mail from Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-N.M.) staff sent to the New Mexico Independent read, “The big picture here is that this never would have happened without Sen. Udall’s advocacy on behalf on consumers on this issue.

“And an agreement between the FCC and the wireless companies is extremely encouraging news.”

The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), the main trade group representing wireless and data companies, collaborated with the FCC ahead of yesterday’s announcement. CTIA sent a memo to its members yesterday on how to comply.

The e-mail from Sen. Udall’s staff followed an article NMI wrote on the ruling yesterday. More news coverage of the decision from others news outlets came out today

Wireless service companies are being asked by the FCC to warn customers when they will begin incurring extra costs for going over their allotments for data and phone minutes.

The request is voluntary and stops short of legislation proposed last year by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would have made data and wireless phone companies legally responsible for warning customers of incoming fees.

A recent FCC report noted 30 million Americans suffer “bill shock” — defined by the federal body as a “sudden and unexpected increase in a mobile wireless user’s monthly bill that is not caused by a change in service plans.”

At a Brookings Institution event yesterday FCC chairperson Julius Genachowski said he encountered consumers who endured $34,000 and $18,000 in single monthly bills without prior warning from their cell phone companies.

In some cases, the bills are much higher, but data companies are willing to compromise.

Daniel Watson, a spokesperson for the senator, said given the intransigence of Congress, representative government is still possible through other avenues. “A lot of people have been impacted by bill shock, and Sen. Udall’s bill helped bring that to national attention with a straightforward solution for wireless companies.”

Asked by NMI whether Sen. Udall’s bill would reach the president’s desk, Watson said, “It would take a crystal ball to determine which bills will make it to the President in the current congressional climate.”

The FCC has five members who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms. The current chairperson, Genachowski, was appointed by President Obama after a career in the tech space. He also clerked for liberal Supreme Court justices Justice David Souter and Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

The FCC currently has four sitting members, with two appointed by the previous Republican administration.

Wireless service companies are being asked by the Federal Communications Commission to warn customers when they will begin incurring extra costs for going over their allotments for data and phone minutes.

The request is voluntary, and stops short of legislation proposed last year by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would have made data and wireless phone companies legally responsible to warn customers of incoming fees.

A recent FCC report noted 30 million Americans suffer “bill shock” — defined by the federal body as a “sudden and unexpected increase in a mobile wireless user’s monthly bill that is not caused by a change in service plans.”

At a Brookings Institution event today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said he encountered consumers who endured $34,000 and $18,000 in single monthly bills without prior warning from their cell phone companies.

Sen. Tom Udall’s bill is pending in the Senate. If passed, it would obligate cell phone and wireless providers warn customers when they reach 80 percent of allowed usage for the month.

Rep. Ben Luján (D-N.M.) and other Democratic members of the New Mexico congressional delegation are asking the Obama administration to open a regional United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in central New Mexico. Unlike his fellow Democrats, Luján voted against the America Invents Act, the patent reform law that establishes the new USPTO branches that he wants to bring to the state. The law was backed by the House Republican leadership, but opposed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), as well as other progressive Democrats. They were joined with some conservative or “Tea Party Caucus” Republicans like Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Rep. Steve King (Iowa).

Last week, Luján joined Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) in sending a letter that cited low property costs, a skilled population, and the potential for job creation as reasons to locate a new USPTO branch in central New Mexico.

Currently the only other regional patent office is located in Detroit, Mich. The Act preserves this office and requires that two more offices be created in order to reduce the massive backlog of patent applications.

Luján proposed an amendment to the bill while it was being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives that requires officials to take into consideration the economic impact of the new patent offices, as well as the need for local skilled personnel, when determining its location. Here’s Luján defending his amendment:

The U.S. Senate approved Tuesday the debt deal, the Budget Control Act of 2011, by a vote of 74-26, with 45 Democrats and 28 Republicans voting yes, including New Mexico Democratic Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall.

The House passed the bill Monday and President Obama signed it into law later Tuesday afternoon. Nineteen Senate Republicans, six Democrats and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont voted no.

With the passage of the bill, the U.S. Treasury Department has an immediate $400 billion more in borrowing authority. Another $500 billion is all but guaranteed to be approved unless Congress overrides a presidential veto by a two-thirds vote. Future debt ceiling increases between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion can be requested by President Obama depending on whether a balanced budget amendment is approved.

The plan includes $2.1 trillion in budget cuts over ten years.

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., released a video Tuesday announcing that he will support legislation that would effectively repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The legislation, called the Respect for Marriage Act, is sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and progressive groups have been pressuring their senators to cosponsor the legislation.

Udall made his announcement on a video first featured on the Democratic blog Democracy for New Mexico.

In the video, Udall says he believes that the decision on same-sex marriage should come from the states.

“If a state allows same-sex marriage, then the federal government must also recognize those marriages as valid,” Udall said in the video. “To do otherwise would be unconstitutional.”

The Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, passed in 1996, during the Bill Clinton administration. Udall noted in his video that, in the past 15 years, “same-sex marriages have become legal in five states and the District of Columbia.”

Same-sex marriage is not legal in the state of New Mexico. Pushes to legalize civil unions have failed in the state Legislature in recent years, and current Gov. Susana Martinez is opposed to the civil unions.

In New Mexico, Democracy for New Mexico joined with the Courage Campaign to ask Udall and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., to become cosponsors of the legislation.

President Barack Obama called for immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, in a speech in El Paso, Texas, on Tuesday. It was Obama’s first trip to the border as president.

Obama said the lack of progress on immigration reform occurred despite work from people on both sides of the aisle.

“We’ve seen leaders of both parties who try to work on this issue, but then their efforts fell prey to the usual Washington games,” Obama said. “And all the while, we’ve seen the mounting consequences of decades of inaction.”

Obama said that Republicans have been looking to “move the goal posts” on securing the border.

“They wanted a fence,” Obama said. “Well the fence is now basically complete.”

“We’re here at the border because we also recognize that being a nation of laws goes hand in hand with being a nation of immigrants,” Obama said in his address at Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso.

Rep. Steve Pearce, the lone Republican in the New Mexico delegation, said before Obama’s speech that the president should have met with constituents in border communities in New Mexico.

“We cannot possibly address immigration without first facing our border security problems,” Pearce said in a statement. “It is unfortunate that the President missed an opportunity to hear from my constituents about the need for serious measures.”

Sen. Tom Udall, a Democrat, said that he supported former President George W. Bush’s call for immigration reform and praised Obama for bringing it up again.

“Comprehensive immigration legislation is necessary to fix our broken borders and advance the educational and economic progress of the country,” Udall said in a statement. “I hope that the president’s speech is just the beginning of a bipartisan effort to pass real reform.”

Sen. Jeff Bingaman also called for immigration reform.

“Obviously, we must make security a centerpiece of comprehensive immigration reform,” Bingaman said. “But I do believe Congress needs to finally find a way to create a more thoughtful immigration system that works for our economy.”

After being “encouraged” by Obama’s speech, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights called for Obama to change its focus “on a costly, enforcement-only model.”

“Our national security, while critical, should never come at the expense of civil and human rights,” said Vicki Gaubeca, director of the ACLU-NM Regional Center for Border Rights. “At the very least, we need more transparency, accountability and oversight to prevent the border region from becoming a Constitution-free zone.”

Any sort of immigration reform seems unlikely over the next two years. The House of Representatives is controlled by a Republican majority, while the Senate has a Democratic majority. The two chambers have been unable to agree on a number of high-profile issues.

Watch the speech:

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., announced today they are leading efforts to expand compensation for those exposed to radiation.

The two introduced the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) in their respective chambers of Congress. The amendment to existing RECA legislation would widen the qualification needed for compensation to radiation exposure.

The two introduced RECA legislation last year. Among other things, the legislation would qualify post-1971 uranium workers for compensation, equalize compensation for all claimants to $150,000, expand the downwind exposure area to include New Mexico, Colorado, Idaho and Montana and any county in Arizona, Nevada or Utah that has been proven to be impacted by downwind contamination, and fund an epidemiological study of the health impacts on uranium workers, their families and uranium development communities.

“As the U.S. government built up its Cold War nuclear arsenal during the mid-20th century, many Americans paid the price with their health – and all the while, the government was slow to implement federal protections,” Udall said. “With this legislation, we honor a generation of hardworking Americans who sacrificed their lives and health by working or living near the uranium mines.”

Udall said the legislation is cosponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Mark Udall, D-Colo., James Rishc, R-Idaho and Michael Bennett, D-Colo.

“This legislation recognizes the sacrifices of the workers and miners whose efforts contributed to our victory during the Cold War, and the downwinders who have been forgotten for too long,” Luján said in a statement. “These patriotic Americans have waited long enough for the compensation they deserve.”