Clearly New Mexico

Over the past decade, job transitions have become increasingly common in the United States. Perhaps the technology boom of the late 1990's perpetuated the change, or perhaps it is because of the move toward corporate consolidation of most major economic sectors.

Whatever the reason, there's no denying it; the era of working an entire career for one company is over.

As Americans become more mobile in their professional lives, they need something more than the stagnant, employer-based health coverage system we currently have in this country.

Accordingly, insurance companies really need to get their act together and figure out how their increasingly unpopular product is going to best serve a mobile workforce.

Sure, the insurance industry will tout the benefits of COBRA as a good plan for job transitions. But, all COBRA really does is give a worker the same coverage they had at their previous job, at double or triple the cost.

Good for insurance companies, bad for you.

Imagine this. You just graduated from college. You're excited because you scored a great job with a good entry-level salary. Unfortunately, the start date for your job is not until three months after graduation.   Read More »

Many Americans feel that offshore drilling is going to solve the horrible issue of gas prices. While there is a need for something to change this problem, offshore drilling is not the answer. Even though offshore drilling will reduce the price of gas, it is in a manner that is ridiculous and unreasonable. The cons just out-weigh the pros.

1) It will be at LEAST 10 years from the start of drilling to make a difference. When drilling finally does make a change the actual difference will be a mere 1% or so which will lead to a wonderful 4 cents or so!

2) Negligence and/or severe weather (like hurricanes for example?) could cause major spills that take YEARS to clean up. These spills unfortunately can not be entirely cleaned therefore wash up onto shore. Spills lead to the contamination of wildlife including fish. In turn these "bad" fish can not be eaten and so deplete the coastal economy and cause food prices to rise.

3) Massive natural damage is caused not only to the wildlife but also to the ecosystems. Many may not know it but coral reefs that get affected by oil spills affect our health and air supply. Coral reefs supply not only life for a plethora of sea creatures but also medicinal resources, and help support the organisms that give off most of the oxygen in our atmosphere. Not to mention an abundance of other problems.

4) Even if there are NO spills other contaminates from the drilling process it's self are going to be released, including barium, chromium and arsenic. Over time these contaminates are going to really change otherwise pristine waters. [Revisit points 2 and 3 if you will.]

Even though these are only a few of the cons they are some of the most important. As Dianne Feinstein (the senior US Senator from California) said, "We need to promote conservation and develop clean technologies and clean fuels - like cellulosic ethanol. We need to continue to raise fuel economy standards for vehicles and improve the energy efficiency of our buildings by 50 percent."

And those are only a few of the things Americans can work towards.

All of these have the better chance of providing long term, safer jobs, and a cleaner Earth, all the while reducing our appalling dependence on oil. It's time that we start living up to our banner of Independence and reach the potential in leading everyone to a cleaner world.

The "not a drop" chorus is getting louder with each passing day.

Atrisco Oil and Gas CEO Peter Sanchez, along with New Mexico Oil and Gas Association President Bob Gallagher sing the tune here.

Former United States Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux sing it here.
Finally, United States Senator Kit Bond sings it here.
Boy, I wonder who wrote that tune.

I've just returned from this weekend's inspiring Netroots Nation conference in Austin, TX, where 3,000 of the nation's most progressive political bloggers met not only to network with each other but to sit down with some of the country's most exciting established and emerging progressive leaders.

You may have heard by now that Nobel Prize Laureate Al Gore was a surprise Saturday morning guest at Netroots Nation.

But unless you read blogs, you probably didn't know that Netroots Nations also drew such high-powered guests as former national security officer Richard Clarke; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, author and radio personality Jim Hightower and Democratic Leadership Council chairman Harold Ford Jr.

They and other speakers came to talk freely about issues like the Iraq War and the coming elections, but also to acknowledge the growing power of progressive blogs to influence the issue environment.

And for every big-name speaker like Pelosi or Gore, there were dozens of bloggers, activists, legislators and others at Netroots Nation who described how they used progressive blogs to defeat entrenched politicians, mobilize support for progressive candidates, publicize egregious healthcare nightmares, spark ethics investigations and otherwise inspire readers to political and social action.

I took away a sense of great hope about the efficacy of the netroots to not just inform, but to act as an organizing tool and government watchdog. The potential - and need - for the expansion of those roles is especially huge now, in light of the decline of the influence and focus of the traditional print and broadcast media.

I say traditional media, not mainstream media, because I agree with political blogger extraordinaire Markos "Kos" Moulitsas- Zuniga, who founded The Daily Kos blog and organized Netroots Nation, the third annual gathering of its kind.

In a lunchtime speech Friday in which he addressed the growing influence of the netroots movement, Kos told us bloggers that it's time to stop calling newspapers, magazines, television and radio the "mainstream media" and refer to them as "traditional media" instead.

That's because, said Kos, it is the bloggers, who fight for the rights of ordinary people to maintain rights like freedom of speech and clean elections and affordable healthcare, who represent America's mainstream now.

Coco had a devastating post last Friday on just how much those oil and gas companies really do care about ordinary Americans (Production Trumps Public Health.

Coco quotes the Durango Herald:

Cathy Behr is back at work and recovering after she fell ill from helping a man who showed up at the hospital soaked in unknown chemicals. The worker's company wouldn't share information about the chemicals that could have helped Behr's doctor diagnose and treat her injury, she said.

And then she summarizes:

There you have it: secret formula chemicals sicken people and destroy groundwater quality but are critical to the bottom line. So it's OK then. How do these guys sleep at night?

Wow, this behavior in Coco's post is markedly different from the public relations makeover from oil and gas that I'm seeing on TV every night. I guess they don't care about us after all.

Few commonly used things are more toxic than jet fuel. So that's a big part of why the news that a huge jet-fuel leak under Kirtland Air Force Base on the southern edge of Albuquerque is so disturbing. The bare facts of the case are cause for concern: The leak has been happening since the 1970s, was finally discovered in 1999 and then was re-discovered last February to be much, much worse than ever thought.

The public is concerned, and rightly so, about the risk of contamination to nearby groundwater in residential neighborhoods located nearby. Jet fuel, if ingested by human, can cause cancer.

But a story this week in the Albuquerque Journal skimmed lightly over the possibility that the leaking jet fuel is dangerous now or could be dangerous in the future.

"This is not an immediate cause for panic," Col. Robert E. Suminsby, Kirtland's base commander, told the Journal.

Should the people of Albuquerque simply accept this reassurance from the Air Force, who apparently failed to prevent, discover and/ or manage the leak for at least 30 years? I don't think so.

And how and why did Kirtland withhold the news of the expanded leak from the public from February of 2007, when it was discovered, until now? Where were the follow-up questions about that?

Then there's the question of challenging the response from the state and local agencies directly responsible for monitoring groundwater contamination, maintaining the safety of the water supply and keeping the public informed about a possible health risk.

The Air Force inexplicably waited until November of 2007 to report the expanded leak to the state Environment Department, who apparently did not make the news public on its own.

According to the story, a spokesman for the state Environment Department said policies usually call for (The Environment Department? The discoverer of the leak?) the enactment of a plan to clean up contamination before it is reported to the public, unless the public health is at risk.

Isn't the possibility of causing cancer a public health risk? What exactly is the state's policy on reporting contamination and does it contain a loophole that should be closed? What about the City-County Water Authority, who also knew about the leak back in February?

Suminsby told the Journal that the Air Force didn't report the contamination earlier because it "didn't have enough answers" to determine its scope. That's a very bad reason to keep information like that from the public.

I think the problem is not that there weren't enough answers - there weren't enough questions.

I call upon the media and environmental watchdog groups like the Southwest Information Research Center, which monitors groundwater contamination, to continue asking the questions that will get all of us the answers we need to live safely; questions about the scope of the contamination and the possibility of harm.

I want them to keep asking those questions in addition to these: How did the leak happen? Why did the leak happen? How was it finally discovered? Who finally made it public? Why did the Air Force wait from February of 2007 to November of 2007 to report it to the state? And what happened to cause the information to be kept secret for several months after that?

Summer mysteries may be fun to read, but this real one is just plain scary.

I recently went and visited my family in Hobbs, NM for the Fourth of July. We barbecued, reminisced about old times, and later we went out that night to view the fireworks show. My brother-in-law had a "spot" that we went to via some oil field roads, and it took us to a great view of the glittery pyrotechnics. What I had not anticipated was parking off of one of these dirt roads only to land ourselves into a huge cloud of natural gas. I looked over to see pipes pumping up gas, yet it definitely seemed like some gas was leaking from the smell of things.

My youngest sister expressed how the strong smell was bothering her and was worried that all this leaking gas was dangerous to be around. As we were going back to our cars to look for a less gaseous location, my nephew tripped on two big pipes that ran in and out of the ground. My brother-in-law then told us that there are tons of these lines that run throughout the area and they transport oil and gas. We all commented on how much safer we'd feel if these lines were better taken care of and not above the ground where they could easily be run over and fractured.

I've seen these types of don't ask, don't tell situations in Hobbs growing up. I've found many unremediated drilling sites there throughout my childhood wanderings, and there have been many accounts of groundwater contamination that has affected the health of some my friends and their family.

There are large instances of drilling waters and muds being disposed of in on-site pits or they are just buried at the drill site. These drilling muds and produced waters are known to contain volatile organic compounds and heavy metals, and thus create yet another probable situation of land and water contamination in the region. This is possible because according to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, "drilling fluids, produced water, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, and production of crude oil and gas. . ." are not subject to federal hazardous waste laws.

These are just a few examples of the loopholes and exemptions oil companies are allowed, not just in Hobbs, nor New Mexico, but throughout our country. This allows companies to pollute and not be held accountable for it, while also putting nearby citizens' health at risk through soil and water pollution.

With all these calls for opening up of pristine wildernesses and more of our offshore areas for drilling; I say we need to first update drilling laws to hold oil companies more accountable for their lack of oversight and the pollution at all of their drilling sites. We cannot allow for oil companies to get access to more land to drill on, especially areas of pristine wilderness and ones near ocean ecosystems, when they can't clean up after themselves on past and current drilling sites and take advantage of many loopholes that allow them to do so.

With less than one percent of New Mexico's energy production coming from renewable sources, concentrated solar power (CSP) and other solar technologies present us with an opportunity to produce clean and renewable energy from a very abundant state source, the sun.

On July 2nd a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing was held at Sandia Labs to discuss the future of, and some of the impediments to, developing renewable sources of energy, primarily CSP, in the U.S., Southwest, and New Mexico. Senator Jeff Bingaman and Senator Pete Domenici, Chairman and Ranking Member respectively of the committee, headed the hearing. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who claims the title Solar Power Senator on his homepage, joined the New Mexico Senators to speak and ask questions. Testifying at the hearing were representatives from PNM, Sandia National Labs, Mesa del Sol, Abengoa Solar, Schott Solar, and Pacific Gas & Electric.

CSP is a type of solar thermal energy, the process of using solar radiation to heat a source.

This technology is different from photovoltaics, which generate electricity directly when photons from the sun knock electrons loose in solar cells. CSP systems use mirrors that track the sun to concentrate solar radiation on a focal point (thermal receiver). The heat produced is then used to generate electricity through conventional methods such as a steam turbine.

There are a number of CSP systems but only three are widely used today; the parabolic trough, parabolic dish and solar power tower.

   Read More »

The average cost of health insurance premiums has nearly doubled since 2000. While corporations and large businesses have been best equipped to weather the insurance premium storm, small businesses have been abandoned, left to fend for themselves on an increasingly slanted playing field.

Small business is the backbone of our economy, providing jobs and fulfilling the American dream for so many entrepreneurs. But, our health care policies force small business to bear the brunt of health care costs, effectively killing the American dream for so many.

Perhaps that's why I get so disillusioned when I hear public officials talk about the importance of small business, only to turn around and hurt said American Economic Backbone by supporting the status quo.

Firms in Taiwan, or Germany, or Denmark have an incredible advantage over small businesses in the United States. In fact, a person starting a small business, today, in one of the aforementioned countries does not even have to consider health care as a major line item in their budget.

Can you imagine how much more competitive American small businesses would be if they were not forced to agonize over health care costs?

This is not to say we must retrofit American health coverage with a system from another country. No, we have a uniquely American problem with our system-a problem that requires an evidence-based, American solution.

At least one solution appears to be gaining traction in a few states, and in Congress. That solution is based on the old adage of power in numbers.

The basic concept is to allow small businesses, perhaps even across state lines, to form purchasing pools. The larger pools would help mitigate risk and thus lower costs.

Predictably, insurance companies are against the idea, blocking it in state capitals across the country. You can bet that when federal legislation on small business purchasing pools is introduced next year, the insurance lobby will be out in full force.

As small businesses in United States continue to bear the brunt of rising insurance premiums, they must look past the rhetoric and discover who's ready to fight on behalf of their interests.

Three NARAL Pro-Choice New Mexico members were ejected from Arizona senator John McCain's town hall meeting Tuesday at the Hotel Albuquerque.

They had tickets, just like the 500 or so people who were let in and given a chance to pose a question. But they apparently made the fatal mistake of wearing NARAL T-shirts to the event.

At least that's what the group's executive director is left to believe.

The security people who ejected the NARAL ticket holders didn't give them a reason for having to leave, NARAL director Heather Brewer told me Tuesday. They were simply told that they were trespassing and threatened with arrest.

The NARAL members weren't arrested - they left quietly.

But their ejection certainly raises a lot of questions about whether free speech was tolerated at a town hall event designed to take questions from New Mexicans - all New Mexicans, not just those who tow a particular party line. Organizers had billed the event as public and open to anyone holding a ticket, space permitting.

Read what local blogger NMFBIHOP, who was inside the event, had to say about the ejection here.

It's almost funny, Brewer told me later on Tuesday. The NARAL members had wanted to ask McCain a question about a recent misstep by McCain campaign "Victory Chair" Carly Fiorina. In the widely-reported incident, Fiorina stepped on the McCain party line by expressing dismay that many insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control pills.

According to NARAL, McCain's 25year voting record as a U.S. senator includes 22 votes against birth control, including consistent votes to block low-income women's access to birth control, to deny teens accurate information about birth control and condoms, to stop measures that would require insurance companies to cover birth control, and to block funds to an organization that provides family-planning services - not abortion - for the world's poorest women.

McCain has yet to adequately address his votes in the wake of of Fiorina's statement. Read what local blogger Marjorie says about that here.

I think the NARAL members had as much of a right as anyone to enter the town hall for their chance to ask McCain a question about his long and public record of voting on reproductive rights.

What do you think?

Last week, the tabloids were abuzz with new Lobos Basketball coach veering away from sports and into the US Congressional race with his scheduled appearance for a Darren White fundraiser.

Then the New Mexico Independent posts a hilariously weird, and somewhat disturbing, music video starring Darren White, sporting a 1980's hairstyle that seemed to have been inspired by the '80s band, "A Flock of Seagulls".

Word has it that the White campaign's strategy was indeed inspired by the title of the group's sole MTV hit, "I Ran So Far Away... (from Bush)."

Here's some predictions for future switch-hitting New Mexican celebrities:

Lobo Football Coach Rocky Long becomes campaign manager for Brian Urlacher, who leaves Chicago to come home and run for Secretary of State. Urlacher agrees to donate part of his football salary to finally get electronic campaign report filing up and running. Campaign slogan: "You break election laws, I break you."

UNM changes plans to build housing near the UNM golf course in favor of a new, 10,000 square foot pub and grill. President David J. Schmidly moonlights as head bartender. "It's easier to meet legislators that way," he says.

Lt. Governor Diane Denish, bored waiting for the 2010 campaign season, starts calling for a legislative special session on cockfighting, domestic partnerships and tilapia farming. "Watching the Senate is much more fun than raising money," she offers.

Marty Chavez tries desperately to reinvent himself as an ethics and environmental champion (oh wait, that one's actually happening).

Stop me if you've heard this one before.

It´s about leaving your home and having access to goods and services without having to rely on a car.

It´s about density. And community. And connectivity. Diversity. Public spaces.

It´s about challenging the dominant paradigm fed to you by the auto and real estate industries.

Some folks got together a great Google Maps mash-up. Enter your address and find out how you score in terms of walkability.

 

   Read More »

We all know that gas prices are skyrocketing into oblivion right? But not many people realize how much these prices are affecting them on a broader scale and how much prices are tied into the cost of oil. Places like grocery stores and chain companies, not to mention the consumer, are forced to deal with higher prices on necessities, like food and supplies, and especially on luxurious items. Oil prices are affecting everyone in some way, (not including travel costs) if not directly.

The ones most affected by soaring gas prices are small business owners, who are the treasure of their local communities, as well as the backbone of the economy.
As oil prices continue to rise so does the cost of transportation, shipping, supplies, and employee compensation. As a result these small businesses see a decreased profit and are forced to raise the prices of their products. Therefore, costumers are less willing to travel to a location and even more unwilling to pay the increased prices. Because of this small business owners are going to see a further decrease of profit and might be forced to cut employees or struggle to stay afloat.

Ed Silva, of Albuquerque's Duke City Graphics, said that gas prices are, "most definitely" affecting how he does business and that he has seen a 10-15% decrease in sales. Ed has owned his screen printing business for 25 years and although it is usually a fairly low cost system since gas prices have gone up, "quite a bit of people are reluctant to pay" for something like custom t-shirts for which Ed has to pay an extra .25-.45 cents each shirt. Ed says that he first noticed the effect of gas prices in February of 2008. Because of the nature of his business Ed travels around town throughout the day making various pick-ups and drop-offs of supplies and merchandise. Now, because of gas prices he needs to plan ahead for errands and pick-up everything in one run. This takes time out of his other tasks and if something is forgotten the extra trip will cost him extra time and money.

   Read More »

In light of the recent no-bid oil contracts that were given to five major United States oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, Total, Shell, BP, Chevron and other small western oil companies it's hard not to question whether oil has been the major cause of the Iraq war all along. Since the beginning, this administration has offered multiple excuses for this war, which have left the public wondering.

Wait, weren't Osama Bin Laden and other members responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan?

Wait, Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction?

Wait, now our mission is to fight terrorism and spread democracy?

It can all be very confusing, but when one reaches to the heart of the controversy the answer becomes clear. Iraq has one of the richest oil supplies in the world and one that western companies have been shut off from for decades. As news breaks that private and expedient deals are being made between western oil companies and an unstable Iraqi government, an already hostile world is starting to speculate on American intentions. Also, the fact that the US State Department, which is also advising the Iraqi government and oil ministry, not only supports the contracts but helped draw them up makes us here at home question our government's motives as well.

At this point, Iraq's oil law is still pending in parliament and everyone, including other nations, who have been waiting in line for years are being pushed aside. With skyrocketing oil prices, it all seems too convenient that these U.S. oil companies that are already achieving record profits would be given the first foot in the door to Iraq's oil supply before the country has established any sort of comprehensive guidelines on how to distribute the resources. But, as Bush prepares to leave office it seems like he may be trying to do what he can to secure Iraq oil for his oil buddies and allies, all I can say to that is surprise, surprise.

It was revealed yesterday that in October 2007, representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency were sent to explain to Congress how climate change would negatively impact public health. That was until the Vice President's office got hold of the prepared testimony and slashed an entire section. (link)

Lovely.

Consider the irony in this. On the same day we're being presented with more evidence of the Vice President's campaign against reality, here in New Mexico we have a lame duck state representative lamely bloviating about so-called "left-wing" media bias. Reality bites.

Two numbers have been seared into the minds of millions of Americans: $4/per gallon of gas and $145/per barrel of crude oil. Explanations abound for how we arrived at this seemingly inconceivable position. Increased demand from China and India, as well as price speculation appear to be the front-runners.

However, what is less clear is how we as a country begin to find solutions to skyrocketing costs. One idea that appears to be gaining favor among the general public is to step up exploration for domestic sources of oil.

But, will increasing supply through domestic exploration really help the average consumer?

I posed this question in a previous post, offering contradictory evidence to the claim that more drilling will solve our problem of run away pump prices. The basic message from the NPR story linked in the post was that even if we open up all available areas of ANWAR and the outer continental shelf, the possibility of increasing supply would not come about for at least ten years. Furthermore, the market for ANWAR and outer continental shelf oil would not be restricted to the United States. No, folks, it would be for sale to the highest bidder on the planet (think of those pesky Chinese and Indians).

In the intervening weeks, I have yet to see a credible study, a credible report, or a credible economic forecast regarding the utility (for today's consumer of fossil fuel) of increased drilling. I did find plenty of evidence regarding the daunting scientific challenges of global climate change, which is irrefutably linked to increased fossil fuel use. But, I've yet to uncover anything compelling on the broad economic advantages of ANWAR/outer continental shelf drilling.

So, I turn to you, reader of the Clearly New Mexico blog. Do you have credible evidence of how the American public stands to gain from more domestic exploration? If so, please post something in the comments section. Or, email me at mattbrix@gmail.com.

Really, I am interested in knowing if the evidence exists.

ExxonMobil reported first-quarter earnings of $10.9 billion

(See ExxonMobil/Fortune500)

Just to help wrap your brain around that, ExxonMobil's profits for just the first 90 days of 2008 are enough to provide every man, woman and child in New Mexico - that's 2 million people - with a full tank of gas EVERY single day for that same time period.

A Pew Charitable Trust survey, conducted in late June, shows surprising new support for increased oil exploration, in the face of $4 per gallon gas prices.

"This shows the real impact of higher gas prices on the public," said Carroll Doherty, associate director for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which commissioned the telephone survey of 2,004 adults from June 18 to Sunday.

With many experts confirming that only about a quarter of lands currently leased for drilling are actually being utilized, it sounds like the call for new exploration is a bait-and-switch move to lock up new lands and paint the oil industry as the savior, rather than a key source of the problem.

Why are big oil and gas companies a source of the problem? Because they are absolutely ripping off American consumers and taxpayers. ExxonMobil - just one of the big five oil companies - will likely make a $40 billion profit this year. Shouldn't they shoulder the blame for rising gas prices when part of the $4 I pay per gallon is going straight into their pockets?

And before the free-market wingnuts start griping, it's also worth noting that these very same oil and gas companies are getting billions of dollars in tax breaks from you and me. Earlier this year, there was an effort to stop tax breaks of $18 billion to benefit just the top five oil and gas companies. This measure was strenuously opposed by Republicans and President Bush.

Someone's winning this game, and it isn't us. The oil and gas companies don't need new terrain to drill. They need a conscience.

Gerald King can't wait for the day when green jobs become plentiful all over Albuquerque. The New York native says he's tired of working dirty, low-paying jobs that don't benefit the environment.

King says he feels like he's worked every one of those jobs, but confesses that his "bottom rung" was his stint at a fast-food restaurant, serving up "unhealthy, jacked-up food."

Indeed, fast food restaurants, which serve heavily-processed starches, sugars and meat from far-flung sources, pay the lowest and have the highest carbon footprint of any food sources around.

King, who is 32, said he learned about green jobs recently while attending classes at the Central New Mexico Community College, or CNM. Specifically, he read about the green jobs initiative spearheaded by New Mexico Youth Organized, a piece of proposed city legislation that would provide training for those seeking green jobs and incentives to businesses who offer them.

King volunteered with NMYO to get the word out about green jobs and says he hopes to be one of the many people who will benefit if the City Council passes the initiative. Four city councilors introduced the measure to the entire body in May, and it will be taken up again in August.

Right now King works part-time at various jobs, including sometimes working as an extra on movies shot in New Mexico.

But King says he would love to take a permanent, full-time position in recycling work or possibly bike repair - a clean job that benefits and enhances the environment, without harming it. He says he would welcome the opportunity to get training for his new job.

"I mean, you're not necessarily just learning a trade, you're learning a conscious trade," he says. "If a green job were available for me, I would be one of the first people in line."

King's also been pretty busy spreading the word about green jobs. Many of his friends had no idea what they are, so he had to spend a lot of time educating them.

"They're like, `Man, what's a green job?' so then I tell them, 'It's a job like recycling or landscaping.' In my circle of friends, my peoples know now."

With the holiday fast approaching, please take a moment to check out the thoughtful column by Tracy Dingmann over at the New Mexico Independent... Dissent is Patriotic

State Representative Debbie Rodella is in the news again, testing New Mexico's shaky ethics laws. This time it revolves around the Rio Arriba County Democrat's practice of using her campaign funds to give small gifts to voters for things like phone cards, Christmas parties and funeral expenses.

In a letter to the state Attorney General requesting an advisory opinion as to the legality of this practice, Rodella wrote that her intent was to "garner good will from these men and women and their family and friends." She further described the gifts as "random acts of kindness." (For more see Abq. Journal - "Rodella To AG: Define A Bribe")

On Tuesday, the Santa Fe New Mexican got to the heart of the problem with Rodella's campaign practices:

"Random acts of kindness" is how the representative coyly characterizes her largesse.

She's performed such acts often enough to raise eyebrows, and questions of impropriety -- mainly because it isn't her own money she's giving away; it's her campaign fund, replenished from time to time by big interests who'd like her to think kindly of them when key legislation comes up.

(Santa Fe New Mexican)

That's it in a nutshell. There is a logic to all this. Consider how it works:

* Debbie gives small gifts to win the gratitude - and the votes -- of families in her district -- "targeted" acts of kindness, if you will.

* Of course, this isn't cash out of Debbie's pocket. It's money from her campaign account - money she got in the form of campaign contributions.

* And who gives Rodella those campaign contributions in the first place? The SF New Mexican calls them "big interests." That's exactly right. Since 2004, Rodella has collected almost $74,000 from big special interests. Here's a detailed analysis by industry sector of her campaign finance reports (source: Ethics Division, NM Secretary of State):

29% - healthcare, insurance and pharmaceuticals
15% - banking and payday lending
13% - liquor and tobacco
11% - land development
10% - corporate lobbyists
10% - gas, oil and energy
7% - gambling
4% - telecommunications
1% -waste management

* Here's the kicker. So why, you ask, does big industry give Rodella so much? It's pretty obvious. She chairs the very powerful House Business and Industry Committee. That's the committee where insurance reform, environmental health and predatory lending bills go to die - or at least be amended beyond recognition. And it's where corporate-friendly bills pass through like the proverbial crap through a goose.

So when Debbie so generously peels off a crisp hundred to "help out" a voter's family with the cost of a funeral, what the recipient doesn't realize is that what they're getting is truly chump change compared to the tens of thousands Debbie has received due to the original "kindness" of her corporate clients at the legislature. Trickle down bribery.

At the end of the day, it's Rodella's constituents who are getting screwed when she promotes the corporate agenda at the expense of her district's interests on an issue like healthcare.

More backstory: Debbie's other act of kindness

This isn't the first time that Rodella provoked controversy over her use of campaign funds. There was the occasion in 2006 when she spent $7,500 from her campaign account on mailers and other materials for the campaign of her husband, Tommy Rodella, in his magistrate judge race in Democratic Primary. He narrowly won that election over five other opponents. Other than his wife's expenditures, Tommy raised a grand total of just $50 from two other donors. (see Albuq. Journal, August 8, 2007, "N.M. Candidates Can Be Two-for-One Deals")

Alas, Debbie's efforts to advance her husband's career came crashing down in May of this year, when the state Supreme Court voted unanimously to remove Judge Rodella from office for judicial misconduct. (SF New Mexican)

A bribe is a bribe is a bribe...

There you have it. Chalk all of this up as just one more case study on why we need campaign contribution limits and Clean Elections public financing reforms in New Mexico.

(Postscript: Heaven help you if you try to use the NM Secretary of State's website to access campaign finance reports. It's hit and miss at best. More on that train wreck in a later post.)