(3 Updates) Ethics: Aren't You Sick of the Unnamed Alligators?

"Birdies" told me so.

UPDATE 3: See my later post that follows up on this one and reports on the "campaign limits contest" proposed by some alligator.

UPDATE 2: Be sure to read this post at Clearly New Mexico for more detail on the handling of ethics and campaign finance reform bills at the NM Legislature this year. It tells it like it is. Quote:

The fact of the matter is that Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, AARP and numerous other organizations have been actively pushing Clean Elections, Contribution Limits and an independent Ethics Commission for three years.

... the real question we all should ask and keep asking: Why are some legislative leaders putting the deep freeze on ethics reform - and right before a big election no less?

UPDATE 1: If you want more commentary on the corrupting influence of money, insider cronies and powerful lobbyists at the Roundhouse, be sure to read this piece over at Duke City Fix, this post over at m-pyre and at NM FBIHOP. They're all cookin' with gas.
**********
Too cowardly to speak their piece in public, too many of the most status quo/reactionary legislators, hangers on and lobbyists for elite special interests are content to leak unsourced material by taking on the personnae of the much cited Alligators over at Joe Monahan's place. It's a convenient ploy that can be used to try and gain political advanatage -- whether or not such Alligators really exist in terms of a specific issue. Who's to say where the gossip and spin are really coming from and why? After all, I could put all kinds of statements onto DFNM and claim "birdies" told me so. Who's to argue? There's no proof one way or the other.

The lastest of these stealth attacks clearly aims to convince folks that ethics and campaign finance reforms don''t have a chance in the Legislature AGAIN this year. Even more egregious is the lame excuse being pushed that the ethics package won't pass -- and maybe even shouldn't pass -- because the reformers want too much reform. Ain't that a hoot? Yes, after all the horrendous corruption scandals here and just about everywhere else in the nation due to unrestrained corporate money flowing into the system and everyone looking the other way, we have some nerve demanding that a handful of reforms -- that are supported by the public by a 70-85% margin -- be enacted. If only we'd be more patient. Quote:

Back at the Roundhouse, as our Alligators predicted, major ethics legislation appears dead. Are the ethics lobbyists asking for too much at once? That's a complaint we're hearing. Critics say after years of failure, ethics advocates should push for one big ethics bill a year, not big ethics packages. They argue if you get one piece of the pie each year, after a couple of years you would have a whole pie. Perhaps the donors to Common Cause will think about that in light of yet another unsuccessful session.

No, actually I know that donors to Common Cause and others who have long been fighting to get recalcitrant politicos to face the music and play by some rules will hold LEGISLATORS responsible if this year's ethics package doesn't pass. I know, those who reap the benefits of unfettered campaign "contributions" and don't want anyone looking into ethics allegations with a law with teeth don't want anything passed at all. And if the citizenry gets too loud, they may surrender some tiny piece of turf but never all the pieces that would create a real wall against corruption. "Alligators" are like that.

Another Example of Insider Crapola
If you want more evidence that much of what Monahan and his "Alligators" say is mostly a bunch of hooie, coming directly from the perches of the elite, dig these paragraphs offering a cure for the kinds of caucus/primary problems that are being experienced all over the nation this year:

What the party really needs--to be crass about it--is rich people to serve as chair. Why? Because current Chair Brian Colon says the lack of money was the big reason why the party did not have more voting sites and materials for the election. The party held back spending on those items as well as consultants because he did not have the cash to pay for them.

The chief job of a party chairman is to raise money. Rich people are good at raising money from their rich friends. It's a formula that has been followed for years in both parties.

Yeah, Joe, that's why the nation and the planet are facing the kinds of emergencies on every level that are caused by arrogant hubris and unrestrained power in the hands of "rich people." Of course what Joe leaves out is the fact that much of the money in the state this year went to fund a Quixotic presidential campaign through New Hampshire. You know which one. And, in fact, I don't recall Colon saying anything to that effect anyway. Mostly, he's been taking all the blame for whatever problems happened because he evidently believes that when problems arise, the most important thing is to fix them, not look for scapegoats or seek ways to cover your own behind.

What credibility Monahan has in anything he might say about "what the Party needs" is beyond me, anyway. If you aren't active in the Party, Joe, we really don't care what you have to say about what we need. Frankly -- to be crass about it -- there's no chance in hell that your motives are pure and that you're just dying to give the Party the advice it needs to make it even stronger than it is now. Nobody is naive enough to believe that. And as to this gem:

Paying for a full-time chairman is unlikely to improve fund-raising performance. It is a fact that having a well-established politico with personal money will.

Maybe Joe should do some research before making sweeping generalizations like this. As a matter of fact, modernized, efficient and ethically-run political parties around the country do indeed have paid chairs and even paid fundraisers and other staff. Why? Because the corrosive influence of "rich families" has a tendency to be blunted when professionals take over from good 'ol boys (and sometimes even girls).

A parting thought. According to almost every single rank and file Dem in the Party I've ever talked to -- and contrary to your assertions -- John Wertheim was the one of the worst Party Chairs we've ever had, "wealthy family" or not. (If you're wondering why I'm bringing up Wertheim's name here, go read Monahan's post all the way to the end.)

Wertheim was a chair who wouldn't produce an adequate and transparent financial statement for the Party, refused to consider having the Party's books audited regularly and handed significant money over to at least one "consultant" without even bothering to produce a contract or scope of work to cover the transaction. He antagonized almost every segment of the Party except, of course, the one that appears to be represented in most of the holding forth in Monahan's post today -- monied interests with monied priorities who want to conduct business in secret and the public be damned.