Las Cruces visit is crucial to guv's fundraising goal

Posted 6/29/2007 02:41:00 PM

With the second-quarter fundraising deadline a little more than 24 hours away, Gov. Bill Richardson is in Las Cruces and El Paso this afternoon and evening attending several fundraisers.

As of the time of this posting, the governor has raised just under $1.3 million toward his goal of raising $2 million in the week before tomorrow’s midnight deadline. Las Cruces and El Paso will be crucial to Richardson meeting that goal.

But the campaign is also relying on a great deal of support through the Internet in the next day.

“Governor Richardson’s poll numbers are skyrocketing,” Richardson Deputy Campaign Manager Amanda Cooper wrote today in an e-mail to supporters. “Now is the time to capitalize on this momentum with a fundraising haul that will really make the media sit up and pay attention.”

Many are waiting to see whether Richardson can catch John Edwards in fundraising this quarter. Edwards, who had a goal of raising about $2.3 million this week, has raised $1.8 million so far, and his total for the quarter, according to his Web site, is now $8.5 million.

But a new poll reveals that, even if he passes Edwards in fundraising, the road ahead will be difficult for Richardson. According to a Gallup/USA Today poll released Thursday, 59 percent of Hispanic voters across the nation say they have never heard of Richardson, who is three-fourths Mexican.

Of the Hispanic voters surveyed, 59 percent said they support Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama had 13 percent of support, and Richardson was third with 11 percent. Edwards was at 7 percent in the poll, which surveyed 502 Hispanic adults this month. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percent.

But the news isn’t all bad for Richardson on the minority front. Coming off Thursday night’s Democratic presidential candidate forum focusing on black America, the American Indian group Prez on the Rez, which is hosting the first-ever presidential forum on American Indian issues later this year, criticized Democratic candidates for failing to acknowledge American Indians while repeatedly mentioning blacks and Hispanics during Thursday’s debate.

Other than Richardson and Mike Gravel, the group has had difficulty getting candidates to commit to attend, and Clinton has already rejected the invitation.

“The only candidate willing to show leadership when it comes to Indian country is Bill Richardson,” Kalyn Free, president of the group hosting the debate, said in a news release. “Indian voters are watching closely to see if any other candidate will rise to the occasion in offering proven leadership for Indian country.”

The release notes that Richardson “was the first candidate to commit to (the Prez on the Rez debate), and has made Indians a priority in his campaign. Most notably, the governor proposes establishing a cabinet-level Department of Indian Affairs and appoint as its secretary an American Indian.”

Richardson has busy campaign schedule ahead

Richardson is working on his name recognition among Hispanics. He plans to attend the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Democratic Presidential Candidate Forum in Orlando on Saturday.

“As I continue my run to be the first Latino president of the United States, I am excited to have the opportunity to attend this forum and to discuss issues of concern to the Latino community with my fellow candidates,” Richardson said in a news release.

Richardson’s schedule stays busy after that. Following two days with no announced campaign activity, Richardson will be in Philadelphia for a candidate forum hosted by the National Education Association on Tuesday.

He then heads to New Hampshire, where he’ll spend the Fourth of July, actually beginning at 10 p.m. Tuesday, celebrating at a number of events. He’ll also attend a number of campaign events in that state on Thursday and Friday before spending Friday evening fundraising in South Carolina.

Richardson currently has no public campaign events scheduled for next weekend. The following Monday, he plans to attend fundraisers in New Mexico. On Tuesday and Wednesday, he will campaign in Iowa before heading to Ohio and Michigan for fundraisers on Wednesday evening. He will spend next Thursday fundraising in Michigan, and will also attend a candidate forum sponsored by the NAACP.

Heinrich, McCamley are hot on fundraising Web site

Posted 6/29/2007 11:52:00 AM

Martin Heinrich and Bill McCamley are two of the top 20 fundraisers, at least in contributions given through the liberal Web site ActBlue, among Democratic House candidates across the nation.

It’s another sign that they’re two Democratic candidates to keep your eyes on.

The national liberal blog Swing State Project compiled and published the list Thursday. Heinrich, the only announced challenger to U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., was 15th among Democratic House candidates in ActBlue fundraising, having collected $23,044 through the site as of Wednesday evening.

McCamley, one of two announced Democrats vying for the right to take on U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., next year, was 19th on the list, having raised $11,580 as of Wednesday.

The top four on the list, who had each raked in $70,000 or more through the site, are all seeking open seats that they’re expected to win easily, according to Swing State Project. The others on the list all have tough roads ahead.

It will be interesting to see how fundraising through the widely-used Web site compares to final numbers reported in mid-July for the reporting period that ends Saturday.

Candidates are all making last-minute pushes to raise money before the deadline. Since the posting on Swing State Project, Heinrich’s contributions through the site have increased to $29,784, and McCamley’s have increased to $12,680. Count on Heinrich to report contributions of more than $150,000 this quarter. Count on McCamley to report well over $100,000 in contributions.

Al Kissling, the other Democrat battling for the right to take on Pearce, has raised $585 through the site. His fundraising report will be a big indicator of whether he can keep up with McCamley.

Though Heinrich and McCamley are both raising a lot of money, you can also count on the incumbents they’re challenging to raise more than them this quarter.

Don Wiviott, the Santa Fe developer who wants to take on U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., next year, jumped into the race a week ago and has raised $1,695 though ActBlue. Jim Hannan, another Democratic challenger to Domenici, has a page on ActBlue but hasn’t raised any money through the site. And Leland Lehrman, the other Democrat who wants to take on Domenici, doesn’t have a page on ActBlue.

Udall shows public his project-funding requests

Posted 6/29/2007 11:03:00 AM

Earlier this month, I wrote about Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives failing to meet one of the new requirements regarding disclosure of earmarks they approved when they took office in January.

They approved a rule requiring that requests by lawmakers for project funding – an important source of cash for many communities but also a pork barrel for some lawmakers – be included in spending bills in time to be debated on their merits.

Earlier this month, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis. and chair of the powerful appropriations committee, announced that the earmarks won’t be added to the spending bills until the fall, when it’s too late to thoroughly debate them. He said that was because committee members and staffers haven’t had time to fully review the 36,000 requests that have come in.

In the spirit of openness, Rep. Tom Udall, the only Democrat in the House from New Mexico and a member of the appropriations committee, has published a list of all his requests on his Web site. You can view his requests by clicking here.

In addition, he has on the site an explanation of the new rules that further explains what they require, which you can read by clicking here.

Good for Udall. Let the public scrutiny begin. Let’s see if others follow the example he and a few others have set.

Richardson survives another presidential debate

Posted 6/29/2007 08:26:00 AM

Gov. Bill Richardson’s first debate performance was a nightmare. His second was better, but he was still dogged by a penchant for sticking to talking points even when that meant not answering questions, which was just awkward.

He improved again in Thursday’s PBS debate on issues affecting black America at Howard University, which you can watch by clicking here. Richardson still, however, failed to rise to the top of the pack. And other candidates, most notably Barack Obama, have shown more rapid improvement than Richardson.

Richardson did end the debate on a high note. His best line came on the last question, when candidates were asked about how to deal with genocide in Darfur. Richardson pointed out that, following the last debate, he was criticized for saying the United States should pressure China to get involved with a threat to boycott its Olympic Games if it doesn’t.

Richardson defended that stance Thursday night.

“I believe that fighting genocide is more important than sports,” he said.

His worst answer of the night was the reason Politico.com analyst Roger Simon said Richardson finished seventh out of eight in the debate, with only the marginalized Mike Gravel doing worse.

Asked about how to deal with HIV and AIDS among youth in America, Richardson gave a bumbling answer that instead focused on Africa. In addition, as Simon pointed out, Richardson said “We have to use needles” and “finding a way to increase needles.”

Needles? For what? He didn’t say.

“I am going to assume this was Richardson’s endorsement of a national needle-exchange program, in which addicts turn in used needles for clean ones,” Simon wrote. “Such a program would be very expensive and very controversial, since some view a government needle exchange program as abetting illegal drug use. But it is an issue that needs serious discussion. Richardson really didn’t help with that.”

A non-scientific poll of readers of the liberal blog Daily Kos had Richardson finishing fifth with 4 percent of the vote.

Richardson did a better job of answering the questions that were asked than he did during the last debate, but at times his answers (needles) still didn’t make sense. The problems that plagued him during the first debate – wild hand gestures, lots of sweat and funny facial expressions – were absent from Thursday’s debate.

Some of his answers elicited moderate applause from those in attendances, but some left people silent.

Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich shone once again. Kucinich? Let’s face it – he’s not going to win the race, but he’s a strong debater. He has the ability to come up with spontaneous, intelligent and witty answers that Richardson lacks.

Obama was very strong, as were John Edwards and Joe Biden. Richardson did better than Chris Dodd and Gravel.

As I’ve said before, debates aren’t Richardson’s strength, and they aren’t going to be his path to winning the presidency. If he can hold his own, as he’s barely managed to do in the last two debates, his campaign should probably be happy.

This era's field of glory will be tax reform

Posted 6/29/2007 07:31:00 AM

© 2007 by Michael Swickard, Ph.D.

As a young man, Lincoln worried that the “field of glory” had been harvested by the founding fathers, that nothing had been left for his generation but modest ambitions. – Doris Kearns Goodwin

Abraham Lincoln was wrong. Slavery and the resultant Civil War was his field of glory. In the years leading up to Lincoln’s time, no politician had been able to unite this county in the notion that slavery was fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of the United States of America. The slavery issue festered throughout most of our county’s first century.

Lincoln had to deal with slavery because our founding fathers were unable to reach an agreement on ending it, so they left it unresolved. Ultimately, Lincoln’s actions were as important to the preservation of our country as those of the founding fathers.

What “field of glory” is available today? Some feel nothing of lasting importance is left. I disagree. There is more to do now than in 1776. Further, the political turmoil in 1776 is similar to 2007. We were then and are now a nation divided about liberty.

The founding fathers established both the theoretical and practical concept of liberty. They were born without liberty and could only dream of it. Some ancient societies had no word for the concept of liberty. In 2007, we cannot imagine a world without liberty even though at least half of our world still lives in bondage. And we are losing our liberty without much notice.

Liberty is not what we can do, but what others cannot compel us to do. The colonists formed a new nation to stop the king from taking so much of their property. In 2007, the tax load on some people is more than 50 percent. The government takes half of every dollar earned.

Then and now, to have liberty, we first must have private property rights, which includes our work, words, likeness and ideas. When someone or some government lays claim to any of these properties, then our liberty is eroded.

Yes, we must have taxes to run government. The devil is in the details. As we are taxed we lose liberty since taxes represent a government claim to our private property. As taxes increase we own less and less of ourselves. A functional definition of slavery is working the entire year when someone else gets the fruit of our labor.

Today’s tax and spend policies use the property of one citizen to buy the vote of another. Charles Ponzi created the Ponzi Scheme, by which you take the money of some people and give it to others to keep them happy. Eventually the pyramid collapses with most people losing their money.

Politicians convince us to vote for them because they are going to give us more from government than we pay into it. It just does not work that way.

The government has no money of its own. To give one dollar to a citizen it must confiscate a dollar from another citizen. Actually, it requires more than a dollar since there are large handling charges. Each dollar confiscated reduces the liberty of the person who was forced to give the money. It works because people think this is a way to get something for nothing. And they do not notice that all of us lose our liberty while government gains.

2008 needs to be about a return to liberty

It is no surprise that we have lost so much liberty. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

Over the last 231 years, since the first 4th of July celebration, there have been many small steps away from liberty. Mostly it has been about taxes, but there are many other reasons to reduce citizen liberty in favor of government gain.

The 2008 election needs to be about returning liberty to the people. Our tax policy is muddled for the same reason the slavery issue in 1776 was not resolved. Today’s politicians are equally unable to reach an agreement on taxes, or, for that matter, health care, immigration and the war in Iraq. They have left all important issues in our country unresolved.

So who will step up and really provide leadership? The time is ripe for someone to lead us back to our liberty if we can embrace that leadership.

The field of glory is waiting for a politician who proposes a tax plan that at the core does not take money from one citizen and give it to other citizens to whom it does not belong. Slavery was very hard to change in Lincoln’s day. Tackling the effect of tax policy on liberty will likewise not be easy today.

Is there someone who can do so for the ultimate good of our nation? That person will get my vote.

Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.

Speaker to make statement on Rep. Vigil situation

Posted 6/28/2007 05:12:00 PM

Speaker of the House Ben Lujan plans to make a statement soon on the situation involving Rep. Richard Vigil, D-Ribera, and indictments that were recently issued against his wife and three others in Las Vegas.

Vigil’s wife Roberta and three others are facing felony charges related, in part, to allegations that they misspent public money secured with the help of Richard Vigil on an annual, invitation-only party that was billed as training for employees of the West Las Vegas School District’s bilingual education program that his wife used to run.

Vigil is currently vice chair of the House Education Committee, and some have questioned whether he should continue serving in that capacity while the attorney general continues to investigate the situation. Whether Vigil is a target of the investigation is unknown.

I asked the speaker whether he believes the situation hampers Vigil’s ability to be an effective representative or a leader on the education committee, and he told me he is preparing a news release on that topic that will be issued soon.

I asked the same question of House Minority Leader Tom Taylor. He said it’s a complicated issue because “ethics is based on moral values, and those vary from person to person.”

Vigil requested additional capital outlay money for the bilingual education program this year, even after the situation with the party was made public, Taylor said, adding that he would never request an appropriation for someone with whom he had a close tie.

“I mean, you avoid the appearance of impropriety,” Taylor said. “That’s not his banner, obviously.”

It was one of the few appropriations the governor vetoed.

“(This year’s request) came after all of the public criticism and everything else that went on with the money, so obviously Richard doesn’t think there was anything wrong,” Taylor said. “It just indicates to me that, basically, Richard has a different set of values.”

But, Taylor said, he doesn’t know “that Richard necessarily did anything wrong.” He said the House “should wait awhile and see what comes out of” the attorney general investigation.

“I think in the process of that, if Richard was involved… then certainly, I think his peers will have some questions for him,” Taylor said.

Any move should come from the speaker or the House Democratic caucus, so it’s not political, Taylor said.

The state Republican Party agrees that the best course of action is to wait and see what happens.

“In this case, we are currently waiting for all of the facts and any remaining indictments to be handed down, but in the event that Rep. Vigil is deemed to be an integral part in the corruption scandal – whether directly or indirectly involved – we will certainly call for him to step down from his position on the education committee,” said GOP spokesman Scott Darnell.

Vigil referred questions to his attorney, who I was unable to reach for comment.

Update, 5:20 p.m.

Matt Farrauto, executive director of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, had this to say:

“First, I think there is a legitimate question about whether it’s fair or appropriate for the alleged conduct of a lawmaker’s spouse to prompt a lawmaker’s removal from a House committee,” he said. “Second, the speaker of the House is the appropriate person to make a decision as to whether a state representative should be removed from a House committee.”

“That being said, for government to succeed at improving our quality of life, as it is capable of doing, the public needs to have confidence in our elected leaders,” he said. “That is why the Democratic Party of New Mexico has consistently urged lawmakers to avoid even the perception of public corruption and to abide by the highest ethical standards, and why we have condemned officials who have, by their own action or behavior, brought disrepute on state government.”

Census confirms Las Cruces' rapid growth

Posted 6/28/2007 04:32:00 PM

Las Cruces’ rate of growth increased between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006, according to the Census estimate released today.

The city’s population on July 1, 2006, was 86,268, according to the new estimate. That represented growth of 12,001 people, or 16.2 percent, since the 2000 Census.

The city grew by about 3,600 residents during that one-year span. The prior year, it grew by 2,600 residents. The newest estimate is already a year old, and the city now believes the population is well above 90,000.

By comparison, Albuquerque, a city more than five times the size of Las Cruces, added 10,472 residents during the same one-year period to increase to a population of 504,949, according to the Census estimate. Rio Rancho, the state’s fastest-growing city, increased its population by more than 5,000 residents to 71,607, and has grown by almost 20,000 residents since 2000.

But Rio Rancho didn’t overtake Santa Fe to become the state’s third-largest city in the newest estimate. Santa Fe grew by more than 1,100 residents to a population of 72,056 as of July 1, 2006.

Thanks for Capitol Report New Mexico for bringing this to my attention.

Here's how Conservation Voters scores lawmakers

Posted 6/28/2007 03:44:00 PM

Since writing Tuesday about the Conversation Voters of New Mexico’s Legislative 2007 Scorecard, I’ve been asked by several people how the group arrives at its scores.

First off: It’s somewhat subjective, which is, of course, the prerogative of any lobbyist group. This year, the group picked a number of bills in which it had an interest and scored lawmakers based on whether they voted the way the group wanted.

But not all bills are equal. Some counted twice in the scoring, while others counted once.

If they were excused, missing votes didn’t count against lawmakers, either. In fact, it had the potential to work in their favor. For example, Rep. Antonio Lujan, D-Las Cruces, was one of a handful of lawmakers to receive a perfect score of 100 percent from the group.

Meanwhile, Rep. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, received a score of 73 percent.

The group’s scoring of House members included 16 bills, but not each bill counted for or against every member of the House, because some died in committees and were only voted on by a handful of representatives.

Lujan missed, but was excused for, six votes that he could have taken on bills the group used in its scoring. Cervantes, by comparison, didn’t miss any votes he could have taken, but the three negative votes the group counted against his score were votes Lujan missed.

I asked Cervantes why he voted against one of them – Senate Bill 693, which would have required that all proposed subdivisions have a permit from the state engineer before they could be approved by local governments.

“This would have given Santa Fe the ultimate authority over all subdivisions in the state,” said Cervantes, who added that the state engineer is appointed by the governor and isn’t directly accountable to voters.

The bill passed the Senate but, with 14 members absent, was easily killed in the House. If Lujan had been present, would he still have a perfect score?

Now you know how the rankings work. I’m not saying it’s good or bad – just explaining how it works. Conservation Voters is an effective organization, so it’s doing something right.

Richardson claims top-tier status as deadline looms

Posted 6/28/2007 02:35:00 PM

Days before the second-quarter fundraising deadline, Gov. Bill Richardson is arguing that he’s become a top-tier candidate.

In a news release that was headlined “Governor Bill Richardson officially breaks into top tier,” Richardson’s campaign pointed out late Wednesday that Pollster.com added him to the list of the top Democratic presidential candidates.

Pollster.com explained the change by stating that Richardson is the only Democratic candidate making a substantial gain, and even though it’s concentrated for now in Iowa and New Hampshire, those are early, important primary states.

“… his is the only trajectory that is clearly moving up,” the site states.

Also Thursday, WHDH-TV in Boston and Suffolk University released a poll showing that Richardson and John Edwards are tied at 9 percent in New Hampshire.

The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, had Hillary Clinton in first at 37 percent and Barack Obama in second at 19 percent, with 16 percent undecided.

“We’re not just feeling the momentum anymore, we’re seeing the evidence,” Richardson Campaign Manager Dave Contarino wrote today in an e-mail to supporters.

It does appear that Edwards’ decline and Richardson’s rise are about to intersect in the same spot. Which brings us to the money game – specifically, the Saturday deadline for second-quarter fundraising.

According to Richardson’s Web site, he has raised almost $963,000 this week, just under half of his goal of $2 million. Edwards, meanwhile, has raised about $1.4 million toward his goal of about $2.3 million.

Edwards is at $8.1 million for the quarter. Richardson won’t release his total until the quarter ends, but there’s a real chance his fundraising will keep pace with or surpass that of Edwards this quarter.

Coulter attack gives Edwards a boost

Edwards’ last-minute push for additional cash is being boosted by this week’s public spat with Ann Coulter. Edwards’ wife got into an argument with the ultra-conservative politico this week on television, and the Edwards’ campaign has sent out numerous e-mails asking for money to support Edwards in the face of Coulter’s statement that she wished Edwards would be “killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

Her words, according to the Associated Press, are motivating Democrats to give to Edwards.

Regardless, Richardson is on track to pull in $2 million this week, and the campaign, which knows full well the health of his bank account, is making increasingly confident statements about Richardson being a top-tier candidate.

The statements appear to be building to something big. Why would the campaign make such confident statements a week or two before Richardson’s fundraising total becomes public if the number is going to disappoint?

I don’t think the fundraising total is going to disappoint Richardson supporters.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has an alternative theory. Noting that Richardson and Clinton gave similar speeches on Iran at the same time on Wednesday, he speculates that Richardson is angling to be Clinton’s running mate.

It isn’t the first time such speculation has reared its head. But Milbank doesn’t back up the assertion that well, writing that Richardson is “a distant fifth for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

Who’s fourth? Al Gore? He isn’t even in the race.

Richardson is in fourth place. He still has a way to go to even come close to reaching third place, but he is the only candidate gaining significant ground other than Clinton. His poll numbers are rising across the nation, even if the gain is only slight outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, and I’m guessing we’re about to learn that his fundraising base has increased significantly.

Debate tonight; Las Cruces visit on Friday

Richardson has another chance to prove he can hold his own in a room with the big dogs tonight at the PBS Democratic presidential candidate debate, which is from 7-8:30 p.m. Mountain Standard Time. You can watch it on PBS or by clicking here.

Because of his tireless grassroots campaigning, Richardson can keep rising in the polls despite mediocre showings at these debates, but to actually beat Clinton, Obama and Edwards in the primary, he’s going to have to start performing better. Will we see improvement tonight?

Tonight’s forum will address domestic issues, so Richardson won’t be able to rely on his foreign policy experience. We’re likely to hear him say the words “as governor” a lot as he pulls out canned responses to questions.

He’ll follow up the debate with one fundraiser in El Paso and three in Las Cruces on Friday, the day before the fundraising deadline. One of the Las Cruces events is hosted in part by state Reps. Mary Helen Garcia and Joseph Cervantes and their spouses; another is hosted in part by Rep. Joni Gutierrez and lobbyists David Kimble and Domonic Silva.

Senate blocks immigration overhaul proposal

Posted 6/28/2007 10:44:00 AM

The Senate today killed a proposal to reform the nation’s immigration system, which will likely delay any chance of an overhaul until after the 2008 election.

Only 46 senators voted today to limit debate and schedule a final vote on the bill. They needed 60 votes for that to happen.

Fifty-three senators, including Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, voted against the motion to schedule a final vote. The resulting stalemate likely kills the bill. The issue is so divisive that, according to the Associated Press, a number of senators said they won’t take up the issue again until at least 2009.

Domenici was one of the original architects of the proposal, but switched sides later when he became convinced that necessary amendments had no chance of approval.

“The bill before us is neither workable nor realistic,” Domenici said today in his statement for the congressional record. “Additionally, many senators do not even know what is in the latest version of the bill.”

Domenici also said that the present version of the bill and “anything similar” to it “is dead on arrival in the House of Representatives.”

“I question the rationale of passing a bill that has so many flaws when several members of the House have said this bill will not even be considered by the House,” Domenici said. “Would it not be better for all of us to have a more open and fair debate on border security and immigration that is not subjected to unnecessary deadlines and closed-door decision making?”

Opposition was led by conservatives who said the proposal amounted to amnesty. An intentional lobbying effort organized through blogs and talk radio led to members of Congress being flooded with phone calls, faxes and e-mails. The surge was so powerful it overwhelmed the congressional phone system.

Republican senators like Domenici, who is struggling in popularity polls and faces re-election next year, were under immense pressure.

A push by a number of influential moderates from both parties and President Bush wasn’t enough to save the bill.

Bingaman’s office indicated it would release a statement shortly. I’ll have an update when that happens.

Update, 1:45 p.m.

Bingaman said he tried to improve to the bill, and was successful on two amendments, but, in the end, decided the bill was not “good policy,” according to a news release.

Bingaman said the bill, as written, “created an unnecessarily complicated guest worker program that would have depressed American wages and encouraged immigrants to overstay their visas, while making dramatic changes – but not necessarily for the better – to the process individuals would use to legally immigrate to our country.”

“Whatever legislation we pass is likely to be in place for many years to come, and I am deeply concerned that the immigration bill, as it was drafted, wasn’t going to accomplish many of its stated goals,” Bingaman said. “Replacing our broken immigration system with the dysfunctional one outlined in this bill does not make sense.”

Update, 4:15 p.m.

Gov. Bill Richardson issued the following statement:

“I am deeply disappointed. You can’t solve a problem by ignoring it. We have got to find a way to bridge the divide and bring people together to address the critical problems facing our nation – immigration, energy, healthcare, education,” he said. “This is the price America pays for divisive leadership. Congress should continue to work on passing immigration reform.”

A prior version of this posting incorrectly stated that Domenici’s statement was made on the Senate floor.

Ethics task force agrees to some recommendations

Posted 6/28/2007 07:48:00 AM

During its meeting on Wednesday, the state ethics task force agreed on some proposals to recommend to the governor.

The group agreed to recommend the creation of a state ethics commission with subpoena power, campaign contribution limits based on the federal standard, public financing for races for statewide offices, legislative salaries and other compensation, and greater limitations on the use of campaign funds.

The task force ran out of time to discuss other proposals, including the creation of a state elections commission and the opening of legislative conference committees, and will discuss them at the next meeting.

Some task force members groaned at the idea of holding a meeting in the second largest city in the state, Las Cruces, so members agreed to meet halfway and hold their next meeting in Socorro on July 23, beginning at 9:30 a.m. It will probably be held on the campus of New Mexico Tech.

In fundraising, Guv keeping up with Edwards this week

Posted 6/27/2007 05:02:00 PM

As the second quarter of 2007 nears an end, presidential candidates are scrambling to raise a lot of cash, and, as I’ve reported, there’s speculation that Gov. Bill Richardson will surpass John Edwards in fundraising.

Richardson’s campaign doesn’t release overall fundraising totals except when it files reports with the Federal Election Commission, which will happen for the second quarter sometime between July 1 and 15. But the Washington Post has reported that Richardson is telling other Democrats he expects to beat Edwards.

That would be a huge boost to Richardson’s campaign – one that would vault him, in the eyes of many, into the top tier of candidates.

Today, Richardson’ campaign put a feature on his Web site indicating that he has a goal of raising $2 million this week, before Saturday’s fundraising deadline.

Last quarter, Richardson’s campaign announced a goal of $500,000 for the last week, and exceeded the goal slightly.

The fact that the campaign believes it has a reasonable shot at raising four times that amount this week is significant. It indicates that his support has grown and he has an expanding base of supporters who are passionate enough that they’re willing to give and help raise money.

So far this week, according to the Web site, the Richardson campaign has raised more than $787,000 – at least $200,000 more than it did in the entire last week of the first quarter of the year.

Edwards, by comparison, has raised about $1 million this week. He had a goal of raising about $2.3 million this week and reaching $9 million for the quarter. Right now, he’s at $7.7 million.

Richardson is keeping pace with Edwards this week. From what I’m hearing, it’s likely that he has at least kept pace with him this quarter.

Meanwhile, Richardson gave a major policy speech on Iran today that earned him some national headlines, but he had to share attention with Hillary Clinton, who also gave a speech. Read about both from the Associated Press by clicking here. Read the text of Richardson’s speech here.

And if you’re interested, the Des Moines Register ran a very interesting profile of Richardson on Tuesday that you can read by clicking here.

Police account of arrest differs from Foley's

Posted 6/27/2007 04:02:00 PM

The police account of House Minority Whip Dan Foley’s arrest differs sharply from what the GOP representative says happened.

Regardless of who’s telling the truth, police reports and Foley’s booking mug are sure to come back to haunt him in future elections.

Foley pleaded not guilty Tuesday in Roswell to petty misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct, obstructing an officer and resisting arrest.

According to police, Foley was arrested while rushing the court and shouting profanities after a fight broke out at his son’s Gus Macker basketball tournament game. He also spit chewing tobacco at an officer before he was arrested, according to the report. He faces a maximum of 20 days in jail and a $784 fine, according to the Roswell Daily Record.

Foley is scheduled to go to trial on Aug. 2.

The reports of several police officers all present the same basic story of what happened on Sunday: A fight broke out on the court. Foley charged the court while yelling that someone had “hit my (expletive deleted) kid,” and one officer tried to stop him. Foley pushed his way past that officer, and two others grabbed him and forced him to the ground on his back, where he continued to resist. Foley was then turned onto his stomach and handcuffed, according to the officers’ accounts.

The officer Foley pushed past wrote in his report that the representative “overpowered me,” and that “Mr. Foley’s chewing tobacco had been spit on my white duty polo shirt. Mr. Foley also possessed chewing tobacco on the front of his shirt.”

Foley appears in his booking mug with a brown stain on his shirt. He admitted it was a tobacco stain but said he “couldn’t tell you” how it got there, and said he doesn’t chew tobacco.

“I get violently sick when I smell tobacco,” he said, adding that many members of the House can vouch for the fact that he tells them to quit chewing.

Foley asserts that he was “calm” but attempting to step in after the coach of the opposing team shoved his son to the ground.

“I would do that again for any kid,” Foley said.

The coach of Foley’s team told police that the other coach “put his arm out” to stop Foley’s son from getting into the fight, and that Foley’s son “stumbled back, and it may have looked to Mr. Foley that (the coach) did that on purpose.”

Several people watching the game cheered when Foley was arrested, according to police reports, and told police he was a lawmaker and had been yelling at players and officials during other games over the weekend.

Another interesting point – the Roswell newspaper’s original article, published Monday, quoted a mall security officer who witnessed the incident and shared a version of events similar to that relayed by Foley. Foley said he doesn’t know the man, but added that other witnesses will back up his version of events.

What does it mean for Foley’s career?

Regardless, the photo of Foley in handcuffs and with a tobacco stain on his white T-shirt is likely to show up in every race from now until the end of his career. Police reports detailing his use of profanity and accusing him of resisting officers will likely haunt him as well.

A conviction would further damage his reputation.

Many say the 37-year-old Foley has a temper, and it’s no secret that his speech often includes profanity. At the same time, he’s a skilled debater and organizer who has helped make House Republicans more effective than their Senate counterparts and the state GOP organization.

Foley said he isn’t prone to uncontrolled outbursts of anger, noting that he had never been arrested before Sunday.

“Why have I never been in a fistfight? Why I have never strangled anyone?” Foley asked. “Why have I never gone after a lobbyist?”