Commentary: I have an update on the allegations of campaign finance violations made before the primary election for Public Regulation Commission in District 5 … sort of.
In mid-May, weeks before the primary, three candidates for the PRC – incumbent Sandy Jones, Steve Fischmann and Ben Hall – all filed complaints alleging that their opponents had accepted illegal campaign donations. The primary came and went without a resolution. We are now in mid-October, weeks away from the general election, and there is still no resolution.
None of the candidates denied accepting the donations in question. In fact, they reported them in their official filings. The only question is whether they were acceptable under campaign laws governing the PRC.
Jones alleged that Fischmann had illegally accepted donations from people referred to as intervenors – those who take an active role for or against an issue before the PRC. Fischmann and Hall both alleged that Jones had illegally taken donations from lobbyists working for regulated utilities, and in one case from a company that was itself regulated by the PRC.
In August, I called the Secretary of State’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office for an update. A spokesman for the secretary of state said they turned the issue over to the AG.
The AG’s Office sent a first email saying that they were working on the case. Then a second email told me that they had no comment. I was told in a phone call that they never received anything from the secretary of state, and they asked if I had any of the complaints. I sent them Fischmann’s.
Then I was told in a third email that they could have an answer on at least one of the complaints by early the next week. That was in August.
Here’s the update. Attorney General Hector Balderas spoke to us recently for the attorney general’s race. He said they had done preliminary work on the case, but did not have the staff to assign a team at the front end of the process as he would have liked.
I bring this all up now as voters are going to the polls to consider a constitutional amendment that would create a state ethics commission that would be able to look into these types of complaints.
In a column on the facing page, we’re told that we don’t need an ethics commission because state agencies are already doing the job. The PRC complaints are one of a myriad of examples where that is not the case.
It took years of failed attempts to get an ethics commission through the Legislature, because lawmakers were convinced that they are perfectly capable of policing themselves, despite the string of criminal scandals (Manny Aragon, Michael Montoya, Robert Vigil, Dianna Duran, Phil Griego …) suggesting otherwise.
I understand the argument that ethics commissions can become instruments for political smears if done improperly. But a commission that is structurally designed to ensure participation from both parties will be less biased than what we have now – elected officials loyal to one specific party making all the decisions as to whom they will investigate.
I don’t understand the argument that state agencies have proven themselves capable of doing the job. They quite obviously have not.
Walter Rubel is editorial page editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.