This week’s SFR draws attention to an oil-industry tax break extension sponsored by oilman and US Rep. Harry Teague, D-NM, a newbie to Congress whom conventional wisdom describes as “vulnerable.”

Yesterday, Public Citizen put out a list meant to shame Congressional opponents of key reforms in the financial sector who had taken big money from…the financial sector. Teague was on that list. From Public Citizen:

Dec. 8, 2009 – Representatives sponsoring two amendments that would weaken critical consumer protections in financial reform legislation have received at least $2.3 million from the financial services sector since the beginning of 2009, according to Public Citizen’s analysis of data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org).

An amendment sponsored by Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) would block states from enforcing their own consumer protections laws. A second amendment, sponsored by Rep. Walter Minnick (D- Idaho), would set up a feckless alternative in place of the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

h/t Harper’s, who calls these lawmakers “The Bankers’ Financial Protection Agency.”

The Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics have released an extremely timely and thorough expose,
“Curious Clusters“, involving “hidden” Congressional campaign contribution bundling by health care special interests. Here’s their 1-2-3 on the investigation:

The investigation identified outside lobbyists that donated to the same members of Congress as their clients, and strongly suggests that special interest giving is enhanced by the K Street contributors they hire…

There is no indication that the extra giving by lobbyists was part of a planned effort by the healthcare firms to solidify their support among key members of Congress. But whether coordinated or not, the newly-found clusters of lobbyist giving clearly illustrate the intensity of the full-court press that the industry is currently waging on Capitol Hill.

In all, 61 members of Congress—39 in the Senate, 22 in the House, 38 Democrats and 23 Republicans—got money from 10 or more outside lobbyists whose healthcare or health insurance industry clients also contributed to their campaigns.

Sen. Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee chairman who recently voted down two public-option amendments, was the third largest recipient after Republicans Sen. John McCain and Sen. Mitch McConnell. (click the chart to enlarge). Of the 61 members, only two New Mexican names turn up: Sen. Tom Udall and Rep. Martin Heinrich, both Democrats.

According to the research, Udall accepted $2,250 from two health-related organizations—Roche Holdings and UnitedHealth—which was then “enhanced”  ten-fold by $22,700 in donations from 21 lobbyists. Heinrich accepted $2,250 from Amgen, which was then amplified by $9,850 from 11 lobbyists.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, one of the original “gang of six” assigned to hash out a health reform bill and one of the eight Senate Finance members to vote for both public option amendments, was not one of the 61 Congressmen. Nor was Rep. Ben R. Lujan or Rep. Harry Teague.

Tortilla Coast, DC’s unbuckle-your-beltway Mexican joint, is hosting a fundraiser for Rep. Ben Ray Lujan on Sept. 22. That’s a Tuesday and, according to TC’s web site, that means it’s Burrito Night! Yay! Burritos! The menu includes “The Big House” burrito, a veggie burrito, the “Inside Out” burrito, the “Big Tex” burrito, the “Sunset” burrito, and a”BBQ” burrito. Your choice for just $7.99.

Oh, wait. Make that $1,007.99.

The Sunlight Foundation’s Political Party Time site has posted information regarding Lujan’s latest fundraiser, including directions and a flyer. The event costs $1,000 for “guests,” $2,500 for “PAC sponsors” and $5,000 for “PAC Hosts.” Oh, but no nachos for federal lobbyists; your money’s no good with Lujan.

So, who, then, is shelling out the loot for a chance to chew the beans with Ben Ray? Spokesman Mark Nicastre says he’ll get back to us, via email, “We do not have final numbers or confirmed attendees for Tuesday’s event. Any contributions will be reflected on the 3rd quarter report, which will be released on October 15.”

CD-1’s Rep. Martin Heinrich is more of a breakfast man. He had one this morning at Jacob’s House and another brekkie scheduled for Tuesday at Johnnie’s Half Shell, each costing $500 per individual.

CD-2’s Rep. Harry Teague is the busiest fundraiser of all this week (and in all cases, the minimum price is $1,000):

Sept. 23rd, Breakfast @ Tortilla Coast
Sept. 22nd,  Energy Breakfast @ American Gas Association
Sept. 20th, Dallas Cowboys vs. New York Giants @ Cowboys Stadium
Sept. 17th, Labor Community Lunch @ Tortilla Coast

Lujan flyer after the jump.

Continue reading »

According to the Federal Elections Commission’s website, the New Mexico 2nd Congressional District race just got a little tighter, with Democrat John DeJoie filing to run against the freshman incumbent Rep. Harry Teague in the Democratic primary.

Oops. That’s a glitch. DeJoie, a professional firefighter, has formed an exploratory committee, but not in New Mexico. He’s actually running to replace U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, who currently serves New Hampshire, where DeJoie is a state legislator.

While the FEC database correctly lists DeJoie’s address in Concord, NH, it lists his state of candidacy as NM. The site’s candidate comparison feature also puts him side by side with Teague as well as Republican Steve Pearce, who has announced his intention to run again for the seat he gave up last year to run for the US Senate.

DeJoie tells SFR in a phone interview this is the FEC’s mistake, not his.

Dejoie says that he’s never actually been to the Land of Enchantment, though (tongue-in-cheekily) he does wonder if he can accept campaign donations from New Mexico and claim it as local fundraising.

Here’s a follow-up to our recent story on Obama’s sort-of-plan to move control of the US nuclear weapons complex from the Department of Energy to the Pentagon, and what that means.

Via US Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s Office, a letter from New Mexico’s Congressional delegation to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag opposing the move:

“For decades, Sandia and Los Alamos laboratories have strongly supported the civilian mission of maintaining our nation’s nuclear stockpile – a mission that was first envisioned with the passage of Atomic Energy Act of 1946. We believe that civilian control of our stockpile recognizes the crucial differences between nuclear weapons and conventional military munitions. Shifting to military control could be a dangerous precedent, causing other nuclear weapons states, such as Russia and China, to do the same.”

Hm…”Could” is the operative word, there.

The delegation also told Orszag that the labs’ multiple missions have helped foster a creative environment that keeps our nation’s top scientists and engineers engaged … [blah blah blah] This research has not only helped our government meet its needs, some of it has also been commercialized to create high-tech jobs in our state,” they wrote.

Finally, the delegation said that moving the laboratories from DOE to DOD would jeopardize President Obama’s desire to work toward a nuclear free world. They said they feared that under DOD control, general science funding for the laboratories likely would decline, which in turn would put at risk the labs’ ability to verify and certify the nuclear stockpile without nuclear testing. Absent that capability, the delegation is concerned that the United States would have to revert to nuclear testing, giving other nations the go-ahead to test as well, and endangering the prospects for passage of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Follow that logic?  The Pentagon would cut the labs’ science budget, therefore they’d have no choice but to start setting off nuclear weapons again, which would lead to an international incident.

The rest after the cut.

Continue reading »