Democracy for New Mexico

(Updated) Bingaman Votes for Cloture on FISA

UPDATE: Also see my later post on this that includes a response from Sen. Bingaman's staff.
*************
Given Sen. Jeff Bingaman's recent cave-in on offshore drilling, I'm not surprised he's again taking what he apparently believes is the politically easy way out on the surveillance state. Even so, I'm still disappointed that Bingaman voted yesterday evening for cloture on the so-called FISA "compromise" bill that was passed previously by the U.S. House.

The cloture measure passed with 80 Senators voting yes, 15 voting no and 5 abstaining or absent. A total of 31 Democratic Senators and 48 Republican Senators and Joseph Lieberman voted for cloture on the Motion to Proceed with the FISA bill. The list of Dems with spines and a genuine respect for the U.S. Constitution, its Amendments and accountabilty for lawbreaking is short indeed:

NAYs ---15
Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT)	Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ)	Leahy (D-VT) Menendez (D-NJ) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Wyden (D-OR)

Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain didn't believe the vote was important enough to show up and take a stand:

Not Voting - 5
Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY)	Kennedy (D-MA) McCain (R-AZ)	Obama (D-IL)

What Comes Next
I imagine that a significant number of Dem Senators who voted for cloture will eventually vote against the bill itself, thus attempting to have their cake and eat it too. We all know by now how this works, having seen the same thing happen in any number or previous Dem collapses in the Senate. The best time to defeat a bill like this, given the current makeup of the Senate, is at the cloture stage -- by making sure the bill doesn't get the 60 votes needed to go forward. Once it gets to the Senate floor, we've pretty much lost the power to significantly change or defeat it. Even so, Senators Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold are still threatening a filibuster if the telecom immunity is left intact.

It seems obvious to me that too many Dems just want to get this controversial issue off the table so they can concentrate on election season rhetoric without the "distraction" of issues like illegal domestic surveillance and a "unitary presidency" power grab by Bush et al. As you may recall, they took a similar stance on the vote on the invasion of Iraq. Their position then and now: Get it out of the way so we don't have to answer the eternal whining from the right about being "soft on security" and we can move on to discuss economic issues. They don't seem to get that the eternal nature of the GOP whining means it will go on regardless of whether there's an issue on the table or how Dems vote. That they still haven't gotten this lesson is almost beyond comprehension at this point.

See this post by mcjoan on Daily Kos for a rundown on newspaper editorial board coverage of the Dems' cave-in. It isn't pretty.

A Counter View: Bait and Switch
For a view that's counter to what I've just written, see A Pragmatist's View on FISA by a former criminal defense appellate attorney on Kos. Her main point is that our Fourth Amendment rights are already entirely compromised by provisions in the Patriot Act that keep FISA court documents secret. Thus the current FISA bill is essentially meaningless and it would be a mistake for Obama and other Dems to draw a line in the sand about it at this time. Quote:

In terms of constitutional safeguards, the current FISA bill is a non-issue.  Yes, it allows telecoms to raise "color of law" immunity as an affirmative, threshhold defense.  And yes, that means the telecoms very likely will never be held to account for violations of FISA.  But the secrecy of FISA warrants themselves voids the Fourth Amendment, if information gained from those warrants can be used in a criminal trial.

I'm convinced that Barack Obama recognizes this.  I'm sure he recognizes that this bill is a classic political bait-and-switch, wrapping telecom immunity in the mantle of "safeguarding our constitutional rights," when in fact those rights are already voided by use of secret, non-reviewable FISA warrants to gather information for criminal cases.  I'm sure Barack Obama realizes that this petty knoll is not "the hill to die on."

"The hill to die on" is the USAPA's breaking down the wall of separation between intelligence-gathering and criminal investigation.  And that is not even at issue yet.  We'll need a Democratic president, and at least 60 Democratic senators, to fight that battle.

So please, folks, let's keep this bill in context.  If you're counting on FISA to safeguard your Fourth Amendment rights ... they're already gone.

Maybe she's right. What do you think? To get even more confused, read Sen. Russ Feingold's floor statement from yesterday's session. I don't see a statement about Bingaman's FISA vote on his Senate website.

Technorati Tags:

Unacceptable: Call Obama on FISA and Telecom Immunity

That didn't take long. Our presumptive nominee is already apparently reneging on a promise he made to the electorate. Back in October 2007, Bill Burton of Obama's campaign TPM Election Central that Obama would filibuster any FISA bill with retroactive immunity for telecoms. The exact words:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

Fast-forward to last Friday and Obama's statement about the so-called "compromise" FISA bill passed by the House. He's says he's still against immunity:

[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

BUT, he also says he'll back the bill if retroactive immunity is still included:

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.

Call the Obama Campaign
Don't like what he's saying? If this is the kind of double talk we're going to get from a President Obama, heaven help us. Let him know what you think by calling the Obama campaign and communicating in no uncertain terms why his position on this bill is unacceptable. MoveOn .

Demand That Obama Live Up to His Promises
Many other parts of the "compromise" FISA bill are bad enough, but the inclusion of retroactive immunity is incredibly craven and unprincipled. It's just one more example of the willingness of too many Dems to cave to corporate pressure and cower in fear that Repubs might call them "soft on terror." I guess they don't care if we call them unwilling to uphold their oaths of office that require them to preserve and protect the U.S. Constitution -- including the Fourth Amendment.

It's hard enough to stomach the DINOs who consistently vote with Repubs on issues like this. Now we're expected to work passionately for a presidential nominee who's already backsliding into Repub-lite territory and falling into line with the same old same old -- give up your civil liberties because it's too dangerous to preserve our constitution while there are terrorists out there. Hint: There've always been terrorists out there and there always will be.

You really should read Glenn Greenwald's careful and persuasive analysis of the "compromise" bill and why Obama should be strongly taken to task for his wobbly, too cute by half statement on it. His links lead you to must-reads too. Excerpt:

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

... This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism -- "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" -- and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.

I'm a big Obama fan and I think he has unique and much-needed talents that are head and shoulders above most of our recent presidential candidates. But I know we can't let him get away with this spineless position on dangerous, unconstitutional and unnecessary provisions we've all been fighting to stop since at least last summer. I think we have to stand strong now and let him know we won't stand for more hypocritical business as usual -- especially from a candidate who's running on turning the page on fearmongering and fakery.

Tom Udall, our Senate candidate, voted against the House "compromise" FISA bill. Should Obama be allowed to get away with refusing to do what's right? He's our presidential nominee -- he should be leading the fight against the FISA sellout, not capitulating to it.

Technorati Tags:

The Myriad Horrors of Too Much Money in Too Few Hands

Go ahead, read what Barbara Ehrenreich has to say and consider what the uber-rich are doing to the West and many other places of beauty and character. Meanwhile, the middle class deteriorates and people can't afford to go to the dentist, buy decent groceries or keep up with their rent or mortgages. Bravo corporatism, tax-free investment gains and the unrestrained "free market." Excerpt:

About ten years ago, for example, a friend and I rented a snug, inexpensive one-bedroom house in Driggs, Idaho, just over the Teton Range from wealthy Jackson Hole, Wyoming. At that time, Driggs was where the workers lived, driving over the Teton Pass every day to wait tables and make beds on the stylish side of the mountains. The point is, we low-rent folks got to wake up to the same scenery the rich people enjoyed and hike along the same pine-shadowed trails.

But the money was already starting to pour into Driggs -- Paul Allen of Microsoft, August Busch III of Anheuser-Busch, Harrison Ford -- transforming family potato farms into vast dynastic estates. I haven't been back, but I understand Driggs has become another unaffordable Jackson Hole. Where the wait staff and bed-makers live today I do not know.

.. Of all the crimes of the rich, the aesthetic deprivation of the rest of us may seem to be the merest misdemeanor. Many of them owe their wealth to the usual tricks: squeezing their employees, overcharging their customers and polluting any land they're not going to need for their third or fourth homes. Once they've made (or inherited) their fortunes, the rich can bid up the price of goods that ordinary people also need -- housing, for example. Gentrification is dispersing the urban poor into overcrowded suburban ranch houses, while billionaires' horse farms displace rural Americans into trailer homes. Similarly, the rich can easily fork over annual tuitions of $50,000 and up, which has helped make college education a privilege of the upper classes.

... When I was a child, I sang "America the Beautiful" and meant it. I was born in the Rocky Mountains and raised, at various times, on the coasts. The Big Sky, the rolling surf, the jagged, snowcapped mountains -- all this seemed to be my birthright. But now I flinch when I hear Woody Guthrie's line "This land was made for you and me." Somehow, I don't think it was meant to be sung by a chorus of hedge-fund operators.

Having bought up most of the beautiful locales in the nation, sent prices skyrocketing, screwed up the housing and finance industries, jacked up the stock exchange with bubbles, sunk the dollar to record lows and arranged to have poisonous food and other commodities imported into America, the uber-rich "investor class" is now searching about for places to put their huge sums of excess cash. Enter outrageous speculation, often beyond the reach of the law. Wonder why commodity, food and energy prices are exploding? Check out the games being played by the wealth elites to get even more bang for their capital. The crony capitalists are still hungry for more.

Technorati Tags:

SD 14: What is James Taylor Hiding? Fails to Submit Campaign Donation Report

James G. Taylor (right), the incumbent Dem State Senator in District 14, has failed to submit his latest financial report on contributions to his campaign, which was due yesterday. He'll be charged with an ethics violation and fined, a price Taylor is apparently ready to pay in order to keep his last-minute donors secret until after Tuesday's primary election. He is in violation of the Campaign Reporting Act Statue 1-19-35, page 14, "Reports and Statements; late filing penalty; failure to file." The penalty for late filing of the report due the Thursday before an election is $500 plus $50 per day for each additional working day the report is late.

This isn't the first time Taylor has failed to meet a reporting deadline. He was nine days late filing his last required contribution report, originally due on May 12th. The Secretary of State extended the deadline until the 13th, and Taylor finally turned it in on May 22. For some reason, he's having a hard time following the rules.

Taylor is facing a strong primary challenge from former Albuquerque City Councilor Eric Griego. Griego is known for his support of well-planned and integrated "smart growth" -- development done in a manner that follows common sense guidelines, favors infill and doesn't produce harmful, overbuilt sprawl. In contrast, Taylor is clearly on the side of those who believe in giving big developers taxpayer-funded "tax increment financing" to build what they were already going to build -- and doing so without asking much in return in meeting standards for planning, design, timing, job development or anything else.

So what is James Taylor trying to hide by failing to file his latest financial report on time?

Connections with SunCal, Atrisco Oil and Gas
Could it that he doesn't want to call attention to generous campaign contributions from donors associated with Sun-Cal, Atrisco Oil and Gas and others pushing for taxpayer subsidies and against meaningful regulation of their massive projects proposed for the West Side?

As reported in an article in today's Albuquerque Journal, Atrisco Oil and Gas is going so far as to host a special picnic and rally tomorrow in support of certain incumbent candidates, including Taylor, who can be expected to back their business interests without restraint. Officials from SunCal will also address the crowd:

The Atrisco heirs organization, Atrisco Oil and Gas, is holding a picnic rally Sunday for legislators they endorse in coming elections. Along with letting three legislators with primary elections Tuesday speak, the company has invited three other legislators and West Side development company SunCal Cos. to address the crowd, Atrisco President Peter Sanchez said.

The rally is being questioned on ethical grounds:

Some community groups think the event, which is allowable under state law, is too big of a mix of corporate interest and state government.

"I don't think the question is whether it's legal, it's whether it's ethical," said Gabriel Nims, executive director of 1,000 Friends of New Mexico.

Steve Allen, Common Cause New Mexico executive director, said a large corporation spending money just before an election skews the playing field in politics. "It becomes dangerously close to the influence peddling the ordinary voter is skeptical of," he said.

[Nimms added] "What's so alarming ... is that it's so blatant in working to preserve the business interests of (Atrisco and SunCal).

... SunCal recently bought 57,000 acres from the shareholders of Westland, the corporate successor to the Atrisco Land Grant, for $250 million and has plans to develop it. Atrisco contracted with a company last year to begin searching for natural gas inside the property, as well.

A story by Barbara Armijo in today's New Mexico Independent also discusses tomorrow's rally for Taylor and two other incumbents:

The intra-party battle between the incumbents and their challengers appears, in part, to revolve around how to pay for development of West Side, specifically the idea of earmarking future tax revenue to pay for roads and water and sewer lines that will help SunCal develop its planned community. That is what is called for in creating a tax increment development district whereby future gross receipts taxes are used by SunCal to help pay for roads, water and sewer lines.

That means those tax dollars won't be available to the state in the future to help fund state programs, said Eric Griego, a former Albuquerque City Councilor and deputy state economic development secretary under Gov. Bill Richardson who is running against Taylor.

"I don't believe we should be giving tax dollars away to corporations that will be building there any way," Griego said. "It's unfair to the average taxpayer. Why are taxpayers paying for new infrastructure" where most of them won't live. Griego would prefer impact fees, he said.

... Shares of Westland were sold to SunCal in 2006, but as part of the agreement for the sale, former shareholders retained certain oil and mineral rights, which Atrisco Oil and Gas oversees. Atrisco has leases for three wells from Tecton Energy Corp., a Houston-based company, for natural gas and other mineral exploration on some of the 55,000 acres it sold to SunCal.

Support the Clean Government Candidate
If you'd like to support Eric Griego's campaign challenging James Taylor, he can use all the help he can get from now through Tuesday's primary. Click here to volunteer or make a donation. Griego's not getting big dollar donations from corporate concerns seeking favors, like Taylor apparently is. Griego can definitely win this race, but he needs our support to do it. To help change the business-as-usual politics we've seen way too much of, we need to actively support honest, ethical legislastive candidates with the gumption to challenge those entrenched in special interest politics. Do it now.

Technorati Tags:

(Updated) Tonight at ABQ City Council: Important Votes on TIDDs et al.

UPDATE: The measure to preclude TIDDs from being used to support sprawl development on Albuquerque's edges was defeated 5-4. All the Repubs voted against the change and only one Dem voted for it. Surprise, it was Marty Chavez's point guy, Ken Sanchez. See Coco for more on the story.
****************
I posted about this last week, but I wanted to give you another reminder: The Albuquerque City Council will be taking up a number of important items related to the environment and development at its meeting tonight at 5:00 PM at the Vincent Griego Chambers, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Government Building, 1 Civic Plaza. We need to turn out in force to demonstrate our support for a number of important matters.

Besides bills related to toxic mining on public lands and conserving our limited water supply, tonight's agenda includes a critical item on those infamous TIDDs -- Tax Increment Development Districts. The measure to be discussed seeks to limit the use of such financing so that it does not subsidize sprawl growth at the city's edges. TIDDs were originally designed to encourage infill development in the city, not vast subdivisions far from our urban center.

You can learn more about TIDDs in an article by Marjorie Childress at the new online newspaper, The New Mexico Independent. (By the way, I expect that The Independent will quickly become a daily must-visit site for readers seeking aggressive -- but fair -- news coverge about everything from politics to the environment to poverty issues. Go see for yourself.)

Also, today's Albuquerque Journal features an op-ed about tonight's TIDD ordinance by ABQ City Councilors Isaac Benton, Michael Cadigan and Rey Garduño entitled, "Subsidizing Growth on Fringes of City Wrong Policy." Excerpts:

... Rapid development has increasingly occurred on the city's edges, contributing to New Mexico's rank as sixth in the nation for vehicle miles traveled per driver— about 18,500 miles per driver per year. Between 1980 and 2005, New Mexico's population grew by 48 percent, but our vehicle miles traveled grew by 112 percent. As a result, vehicle emissions are the fastest growing and second largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the state.

Sprawling growth trends in Albuquerque also mean that the open space and working landscapes that we value in New Mexico are disappearing. Nationally, according to the American Farmland Trust, the United States loses 3,000 acres of farmland to sprawl every day.

Many other cities around the country have made decisions to increase affordable residential options in their urban centers and guide development toward vacant land within the city's core, where residents who need it most can access public transit to and from work.

... The city of Albuquerque, however, with the help of the state's Tax Increment Development District (TIDD) policy, has done the opposite by subsidizing sprawling "greenfield" development on the city's fringe.

Tonight, the Albuquerque City Council will consider an ordinance that would get us moving in the right direction by limiting the city's use of TIDDs.

Although originally used to incentivize urban infill development where revitalization efforts would not occur otherwise, TIDDs could fuel development on the outskirts, providing up to 75 percent of the district's incremental gross receipts and property tax revenues for up to 25 years.

By subsidizing the growth of development on the city's edges, state economists estimate that even more homebuyers and businesses will be lured out of the existing community and into the fringe developments, cannibalizing our urban core and increasing hazardous automobile emissions throughout our city.

... If we're going to reduce pollution and protect what we love about our community, we need to end incentives that drive development to our edges and instead promote smart, infill development and redevelopment. This ordinance will bring forward-thinking leadership to protecting Albuquerque's environment and quality of life.

Lauren Ketcham, director of Environment New Mexico, and Javier Benavidez of Conservation Voters New Mexico also contributed to this commentary.

Technorati Tags:TIDD, Tax Increment Development District, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Albuquerque City Council, The New Mexico Independent

Action Alert: Environmental Issues at Monday's ABQ City Council Meeting

From Environment New Mexico:
Fewer words spoken about politics are more important to remember than that quote from Tip O'Neill, longtime Speaker of the House in the U.S. Congress: "All politics is local." There's a great opportunity for progress on key environmental issues coming up at the local level next week -- right here in Albuquerque.

This coming Monday, April 21, the Albuquerque City Council* will be considering measures dealing with:

• developer subsidies for sprawling subdivisions
• toxic mining on our public lands**
• conserving New Mexico's limited water supply

That's a lot to cover in one meeting, and we need your help! By attending next week's City Council meeting you'll be letting your Councilor know that you support the important environmental protections being considering and improve their chance of passage.

Please RSVP today for next week's City Council meeting and let me know you'll be joining me in standing up for New Mexico's environment by clicking here. Here are the details for the meeting:

• WHAT: Albuquerque City Council meeting
• WHEN: 5 PM, Monday April 21, 2008
• WHERE: Vincent Griego Chambers, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Government Building, 1 Civic Plaza, Albuquerque, NM, 87101 (map)
• WHO: You and your friends and family that care about New Mexico's environment

We expect the meeting to last several hours and you'll be able to provide public comment on each bill by signing up in the back of the room. You'll also be able to meet up with other local Environment New Mexico members. Look forward to seeing you there!

Sincerely,
Lauren Ketcham
Environment New Mexico Advocate
LaurenK@environmentnewmexico.org
www.environmentnewmexico.org

P.S. Please feel free to share this message with your family and friends.

BACKGROUND
* For the agenda of the City Council meeting visit: here
** For more information on our work to protect public lands from harmful mining practices visit: here

Technorati Tags:Albuquerque, New Mexico, Albuquerque City Council, Environment New Mexico, mining, water

Quote of the Day: They're Attacking Us

We say, "There’s something wrong with the economy," rather than, "I’m getting screwed by the oil companies, the banks, and my employer." Things get mystified and depersonalized. We say there’s a "recession," as if were some sort of bad weather, rather than pointing our fingers at the people who brought it down on us and who are, for the most part, profiting still. Maybe, instead of talking about "the economy" and "the recession" we should be talking about the ongoing looting and concerted attack on our standard of living --which will likely end only when there’s nothing left to squeeze out of us.

This isn’t just semantics. If there’s something wrong with "the economy," we call in the economists, we think about intervention by the Fed, and things on that level. But if someone is actually attacking us, we’re more likely to focus on how we can start working for change right now, with whatever tools are at hand.

-- , TPM Cafe

Technorati Tags:Barbara Ehrenreich, TPM Cafe, working class, economy, recession

McCain's Lobbyist Campaign Manager Wows the Crowd at Tamaya

UPDATE: Also see Ali's post at Clearly New Mexico for her take on the meeting and a video clip.
****************

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis at GOP meeting
in Bernalillo, New Mexico today

Not really, but he probably thinks he did. Republican lobbyists like Rick Davis who have ties to both the telecom industry and Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs are like that. They're used to getting attention and they're used to getting their way. Surprised that alleged "ethical reformer" and "maverick" John McCain has a lobbyist running his campaign? You shouldn't be. His campaign staff is loaded with them.

Words and actions are apparently two different things in McCain's world. Tell the people what they want to hear and then do what your corporate masters dictate to maximize profits. It's the oldest game in the book, and it's used unsparingly by our oldest presidential candidate.

Liberals!
Davis spoke today at the confab of GOP state party chairs and RNC bigwigs that's underway at the pricey Hyatt Regency Tamaya out at Santa Ana Pueblo near Bernalillo. Besides predicting victories and trying to convince his fellow Repubs that all is well in right-wing electionland this year, Lobbyist Davis pulled out this chart to try and impress the troops:

No, your eyes aren't fooling you -- there's a dirty word in plain sight on that humongous chart. LIBERAL! Davis must have thought he was very clever, showing how the percentage of Americans who identify Obama and Clinton as LIBERAL has been climbing. As if that's a bad thing or, as the chart claims, that our Dem prez candidates are "well to the left of the American electorate."

I guess it all depends on how you define LIBERAL and LEFT. Davis might be surprised to learn that polling continually shows that the majority of Americans agree with the core values held by LIBERALS. They're strongly for ending the quagmire in Iraq. They're demanding universal health care in no uncertain terms, and schools that turn out well-rounded, articulate human beings rather than test automatons. They want greedy, bottom-line obsessed financial institutions and corporations reined in to serve humans instead of the other way around. They want to be paid a living wage. They want to switch to renewable energy and clean up the environment. They want unrigged justice and a level playing field for all. And they want to keep the lobbyists like Davis as far from the political process as possible.

Mr. Lobbyist
Just who is McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis and what does he do for a living? Christy Hardin Smith of Firedoglake and Huffington Post offers some tasty tidbits:

-- Rick Davis arranged a cocktail meet and greet with McCain and a Russian businessman, Oleg Deripaska, so controversial that the US has revoked his visa -- at an economic conference in Switzerland. Davis' lobbying firm was trying to secure business with the Russian at the time, while the firm was already representing a competing political interest in Ukraine.

-- Mr. Davis, while working with the McCain 2008 campaign, also managed to procure a fat internet services contract from the campaign and kept lobbying for clients whose interests were opposed to McCain's own policy pronouncements.

--It seems that Davis has quite a few money-scandal skeletons in his closet:

Davis is a particularly easy target, having several money-related scandals in his background. A veteran of the Reagan administration, Davis ran McCain's presidential bid six years ago. He also founded a lobbying firm -- Davis, Manafort Inc. -- which has made at least $2.8 million lobbying Congress since 1998.

Over the past eight years, Davis' two roles often overlapped. In 1999, while he was McCain's campaign manager, his firm represented SBC Communications Inc. and Comsat Corp. At that time, both communications companies had controversial mergers pending at the Federal Communications Commission. The Senate Commerce Committee has legislative authority over the FCC, and McCain was chairman of that committee. Both mergers were eventually approved....

There's lots more on Davis, and other lobbyists who work for McCain, but you get the idea. Mr. Straight Talk's campaign is run by a prominent Crooked Talker.

McCain Attempts Mea Culpa
And where was McCain today -- on the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.? Trying to make amends for his history of colluding with the equality-impraired -- and battling against the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday -- by speaking at the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. Where he got booed, rained on and hassled. He also dissembled to the press about his dismal civil rights record, and became irritated when pressed. But at least he's not LIBERAL.

Americans for Democratic Action to Launch Working Families Win Project in NM

From Americans for Democratic Action (ADA):
ADA is America's most experienced independent liberal lobbying organization. In the spirit of the New Deal and ADA founders Eleanor Roosevelt, renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and former Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey we lobby through coalition partnerships, through direct advocacy, and through the media.

Our Working Families Win (WFW) project is non-profit and non-partisan and will work to change the economy in favor of working families, provide education about economic decisions made in Washington and the impacts within our local communities, and engage individuals through neighbor to neighbor communication to hold our elected officials accountable.

In 2007, our WFW project kept the fires burning around the country. WFW organizers worked in dozens of communities educating the public and elected officials about our core platform: guaranteed health care for all, fair enforceable trade agreements, and economic policies that create good jobs at living wages. WFW will stride into 2008, ready to seize the moment for working families.

In addition to our ongoing work in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, we will be expanding. If you're interested in supporting our organization in New Mexico or volunteering  please contact Deema Tabbara at (805) 907-6681 or adanewmexico@gmail.com.

Visit www.workingfamilieswin.org for more information on the project and visit www.adaction.org to make a contribution to our work. Also visit our blog at https://adanewmexico.blogspot.com/.

More Crocodile Tears Over "Failures" of Ethics Advocates

As background to this post, see Joe Monahan's latest piece about ethics and campaign reform, where he announces a silly contest. Next, check out what Marjorie at m-pyre has to say about it.

The cowardly Alligators-Afraid-To-Reveal-Their-Names are crying crocodile tears again over the alleged mismanagement of ethics and campaign finance reform by -- get this -- the reformers themselves. The reptilian view is that reform efforts have hit a brick wall because those pushing for change haven't been clear and focused about what they want. This alleged lack of clarity has confused the public so they don't know what to get behind. And it's just plain snookered the poor legislators who have been trying in vain to decipher the priorities of the reformers. Shame on the nonprofit public advocacy organizations that have been using ineffectual tactics and asking for too much at once -- according to the unnamed sources at Monahan.

Let's Have a Contest!
The solution -- who'd a thunk it -- is lurking out there in the mind of some college student in the form of a hip new plan to achieve campaign donation limits. All Joe and his Alligators have to do is bring the ideal plan to the surface by dangling a prize for the winning idea, open their jaws and snap it up.

Too bad Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, AARP and many other organizations that have long been working for change didn't think of that. Why talk to legislators, organize citizen lobbying efforts, urge constituents to contact their reps and vigorously promote the findings of two years of highly respected and publicized work by the Governor's Ethics Task Force -- when they could have just offered up $500 in prize money to entice a college student to come up with a winning advocacy plan!

I think we should try this masterful approach with other legislative efforts that are wildly popular with voters but meet stubborn resistance from the Lobbied Ones. It's not that the Lobbied Ones are bought off by vested special interests or dominated by overly developed greed glands. It's that they're standing by waiting for a clever appeal -- a magic advocacy plan -- to inspire them to do their duty to the people they represent. All this time, powerful legislators have been pining to pass ethics reform legislation -- they've just been waiting to be approached with sufficient pizzazz.

Shaming the Status Quo
Well, there is one problem with the Alligators' blame-the-public-advocate campaign. It has absolutely no credibility in the real world. We can clearly see the forces working the puppet strings at the New Mexico Legislature. We've also noticed how happy the dancing puppets have become with things the way they are. We've seen the light because we've been paying more attention than ever before -- and the light is helping us to follow the money.

The public knows why ethics reforms have had trouble passing. Unquestionably, it's because the foxes (and alligators) guarding the henhouse don't want to change the status quo. They LOVE getting large donations from those with business before the Legislature. They LOVE to use that money to keep competitors from running against them so they can keep on voting against the will of the people. They LOVE having no limits on "campaign contributions" so they can string out an election win into decades of incumbency without merit. They LOVE operating in a state that lacks an ethics commission with the clout needed to root out and punish corruption. They've come to truly LOVE all the cash cows.

Nothing will make certain powerhouses in the Legislature -- and especially in the Senate -- change their minds on ethics reform unless they are absolutely SHAMED into it. They need to be called to account again and again for their refusal to clean up the present system. What we have now is essentially a Legislature where insider networks -- dependent on whats amounts to widespread graft -- operate with impunity to thwart the will of the people. It's a system designed to preserve the perks of incumbency and eliminate any risk of serious challengers emerging with the means to run against anti-reform legislators. The special interests love it. The patronage networks love it. Ordinary people suffer.

Obviously, Monahan and his nameless Alligators have concocted their silly contest to keep the pressure and attention off themselves and put it on those who've been working tirelessly for reform in the face of legislative arrogance. Unable to argue their case with convincing logic, they resort to mockery and farce.

This prime-the-pump system they're defending has worked like a charm for years -- but the people are now wising up and getting active. We've learned too much about how the game works to allow us to sit helpless any longer. We've witnessed the damage first hand when monied special interests call the shots. The destruction is displayed all around us. The crooked games must end.

What Can We Do?
Some of us are lucky enough to have ethical challengers to the status quo running in Dem primaries or the general election against business-as-usual legislators. Even if we don't live in the districts of the challengers, we can lend our time, make small campaign donations and spread the word.

If, like most voters in New Mexico, we live in State House and Senate districts with uncontested races, we can keep contacting our legislators day after day, week after week, month after month about reform. We can make it clear that anyone who keeps fighting ethics and campaign finance reform will be outed repeatedly for their shameful refusals to clean up the cesspool. And we can generously support advocacy organizations like Common Cause that lobby in a non-partisan way on behalf of the citizenry.

As with many issues, only strong public pressure is likely to result in success. We do know what to do. We just have to keep on doing it until we win some victories for the people.

Also see my previous post about the alligator swamp and complaints about ethics reform advocates.