Wednesday, December 18, 2013 THE NEW MEXICAN
OPINIONS
The West’s oldest newspaper, founded 1849 Robin M. Martin Owner
COMMENTARY: MIKE THOMPSON
After Newtown: Still waiting for a vote
O
n Dec. 14, 2012, I was duck hunting in California when my phone buzzed with a breaking news alert. There had been a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. As the hours unfolded, more details surfaced. Twenty children — all of them 6 or 7 years old — and six adults had been gunned down in a senseless act of violence. In the days and weeks that followed the shooting, we pledged to never forget. We said this time would be different. We said that something must be done. It has now been a year. In that year more than 10,000 people have been killed by someone using a gun. And in the U.S. House of Representatives, the majority party hasn’t allowed a single vote to prevent further acts of gun violence. It’s not because there hasn’t been a bill on which to vote. I have written and introduced bipartisan legislation expanding comprehensive and enforceable criminal background checks to cover commercial firearm sales such as those at gun shows and over the Internet. It is the same legislation that was authored by A-rated NRA Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and supported by a bipartisan majority in the Senate. Sixteen states, including California, already require criminal background checks at gun shows and for Internet sales. However, the 34 other states only require checks for purchases made through a licensed gun dealer. That means criminals in California can drive across the state line, load up with guns at a gun show, then drive back into our state. If my bill was passed, criminals, terrorists, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other prohibited purchasers wouldn’t be able to bypass a background check by simply going online or to a gun show. People on all sides of the gun violence prevention issue have said their goal is to keep
A-7
Robert M. McKinney Owner, 1949-2001 Inez Russell Gomez Editorial Page Editor
Ray Rivera Editor
OUR VIEW
Strengthen city’s finance law
S guns out of dangerous hands. But you cannot achieve this goal without background checks. Background checks are the only way of knowing if a person buying a gun is a criminal, a terrorist or dangerously mentally ill. The evidence shows background checks work when they are used. Nationally last year, background checks identified and denied 88,000 sales to prohibited purchasers at licensed dealers. However, there is no way of knowing if those 88,000 prohibited purchasers, after being denied at a licensed dealer, then bought a gun at a gun show or over the Internet with no questions asked. This is a huge loophole that costs lives. You don’t have to look any further than the sister of my State of the Union guest Elvin Daniel to see this is true. Elvin’s sister Zina had a restraining order against her husband that prevented him from passing a background check. Nevertheless, Zina’s husband was able to go online and buy a .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun with which he killed Zina and two others in Wisconsin. The House majority has refused to allow a vote on my legislation to close this loop-
hole. While they know 90 percent of the American public supports background checks, they fear a vote in favor of my legislation would upset their extreme-right base and cause political backlash from the beltway National Rifle Association. This political calculus has trumped voting on legislation that will help save lives. Critics of my legislation have used multiple arguments to justify their inaction. They have argued that it’s unnecessary because criminals never will submit to a background check. Under my bill, if a criminal is trying to buy a gun online or at a gun show and are unwilling or unable to pass a background check, then they will not get a gun. This drastically reduces the number of places criminals can easily access guns. Critics have also called my bill anti-Second Amendment. It is not. I am a gun owner and support the rights of lawful Americans to own firearms. In reality, my bill is pro-Second Amendment. It provides reasonable exceptions so people won’t have to get a background check if they inherit a family rifle, borrow a shotgun for a hunting trip, or purchase a gun from a friend, a hunting buddy or neighbor. It bans the creation of a federal registry. It allows active duty military
to buy firearms in their home states and the state in which they are stationed. And it authorizes the use of a recent state concealed carry permit in lieu of a background check. There are 187 members of Congress who have co-sponsored my background checks bill. More have said they would vote for the bill. Why hasn’t it been put up for a vote? Why isn’t every member of Congress a co-sponsor of an anti-criminal, pro-Second Amendment bill that strengthens gun rights and saves lives? Those are questions every constituent should ask their representative in Congress. Shortly after hearing of the tragic news out of Newtown, we learned about the heroism of a teacher named Victoria Soto. After hearing gunshots, she hid her students in a closet and put her body in between them and the gunman. Victoria was shot and killed, but she saved the lives of all the kids in her classroom. At 27, she was brave enough to give her life. The House majority should be brave enough to give her a vote. Democratic U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson represents California’s 5th Congressional District. He wrote this for The Sacramento Bee.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Don’t forget humans in being humane
P
erhaps the $559,000 the city has spent on “humane relocation” of prairie dogs (“Too much to be gentle?,” Dec. 16) in the last decade might better have been used for humane support of needy humans in Santa Fe. With many hundreds, if not several thousands, of homeless, hungry people in our city, sadly including children and teenagers, a contribution to Youth Shelters & Family Services, to the Interfaith Community Shelter Group, to St. Elizabeth Shelter or to the Food Depot, to name just four local organizations, seems infinitely more humane than spending $87 to move one prairie dog to a different location. That $87 would provide a dinner to more than a dozen people who are down on their luck. Are our priorities out of whack? Yes. Should we make some changes? Yes. Can we? Yes. Will we? George Simon
Santa Fe
Making a difference I was touched and impressed by the work of Mara Taub in the 10 Who Made a Difference series (“Fighting for the ‘invisible,’ ” Dec. 6) in The New Mexican. Perhaps there are other readers besides
myself who would like to make a contribution to her calling — serving those who are “invisible” to the rest of us. If any readers would like to join me in a contribution, here is the necessary information: Donations are tax-deductible, and checks can be made out to “Prison Project of Santa Fe.” If desired, the donor can earmark the donation for either Los Amigos del Parque or Coalition for Prisoners’ Rights. Checks can be mailed to: Coalition for Prisoners’ Rights, P.O. Box 1911, Santa Fe, N.M., 87504. Molly Hocking
Santa Fe
A bad play The city ethics board got it wrong! As one member stated, (Patti Bushee’s actions don’t) “pass the smell test.” Patti Bushee continues to call the complaints against her “political theater.” The fact is, she wrote the script! But for the ethics complaints, we never would have known how she secretly engaged in seeking private funds for her campaign (including $1,750 of her own funds) in violation of the public financing ordinance. Her claims of support for public financing
MALLARD FILLMORE
Section editor: Inez Russell Gomez, 986-3053, igomez@sfnewmexican.com, Twitter @inezrussell
The past 100 years Dec. 18, 1963: Nearly 8,000 New Mexico boys and girls took part in 4-H projects in 1963. Bernalillo County had the largest 4-H enrollment. San Juan County was second. Other counties in the order of their enrollments were San Miguel, Valencia, Santa Fe, Lea and Chavez. Each of New Mexico’s 32 counties has youngsters in the 4-H Club program. More than 800 Indian youngsters were enrolled in 4-H projects as well.
of campaigns are hollow indeed. The ethics board is not merely umpires calling balls and strikes. It has to give meaning to the laws it is enforcing. As Bushee has said, “If one of the candidates or any of the candidates don’t agree to playing by the rules and run a clean campaign, I hope the voters take notice.” Patti, they will! Edward T. Stein
anta Fe’s campaign finance law needs work. Its purpose — to keep special-interest money out of city elections — remains worthwhile, even noble. But we are troubled over the decision earlier this week by the city Ethics and Campaign Review Board that it lacks jurisdiction over what happens before a candidate decides to use public financing. The facts are clear. Earlier this year, longtime City Councilor Patti Bushee was thinking about running for mayor. She did not know whether she would seek public financing. In fact, she was ready to go private and fundraise. To that end, she hired a political consultant. That consultant, Tarin Nix, was paid $1,750 for services in June. She was let go by the Bushee campaign two days later. Eventually, Bushee decided to run a publicly financed campaign. In November, someone from Bushee’s campaign called Nix and asked her essentially to “swap checks,” handing back $1,750 so she could then be repaid from the seed money that candidates are allowed to spend under city statute. (Candidates can spend up to $6,000 in that period before they get public financing, although those dollars can only come from $100 contributions.) The ethics board decided it has no jurisdiction over the period before a candidate becomes public because of the way the statute is written. As several members rightly said, the finance law has a hole that needs to be plugged. After all, if someone is just “thinking” about a race and spends money, how will the public later be able to track their expenses? How will the public be able to identify donors? Should the previously private candidate be able to switch to public financing? These are questions that need answers so candidates can stay within the law’s requirements. Bushee, in a Facebook post to supporters, said, “the City’s Ethics and Campaign Review Board ruled this afternoon that the complaint was without merit and could not be heard or investigated.” That’s a generous spin on the actual decision — which is that the board decided it had little jurisdiction in the matter. That decision doesn’t mean the obviously conflicted board members weren’t concerned about what had happened. Board member Kristina Martinez had this to say: “I do agree that there appears to be a hole in the code. But I do have big concerns with sort of allowing someone to get by on a technicality, for lack of a better term. What went on in this case, for me, doesn’t pass the smell test.” Part of the failure to pass the “smell test,” as Martinez put it, comes from the oath that candidates take concerning how their money has been spent. Bushee signed a piece of paper saying all of her expenses were paid out of her seed money account. That might have been the after-the-fact intention, but it is not factual. Bushee paid Nix’s expenses initially, and in an amount exceeding the $100 limit in the law. Without allowing candidates to go hog-wild and spend thousands before changing their minds and dipping into the public till, the city statute needs to be amended to deal with the period before financing kicks in. A candidate sincerely can change her mind. We believe Bushee when she says she started out thinking she would run a privately financed race, switched gears and then tried to make it right. However, we also wish that she had been clearer when signing the oath about how her campaign was spending money — a fuller explanation at the beginning would have cut the complaint off at the pass. None of this is to say that Santa Fe should abandon public financing. Any new law — especially one this ambitious — needs reworking to become fully effective. Whoever is elected mayor come March should make it a priority to make this law stronger and more comprehensive. In New York City, where public financing of city elections works, the Campaign Finance Board holds hearings — required by law — after each election cycle and issues a report suggesting improvements. City officials and public interest groups also can suggest changes. Such self-examination is necessary to improve Santa Fe’s law. Otherwise, we will be left with gray areas and a board that — rightly, in this case — must wring its hands and give candidates a pass.
Send your letters of no more than 150 words to letters@sfnewmexican.com. Include your name, address and phone number for verification and questions.
Santa Fe
DOONESBURY
BREAKING NEWS AT WWW.SANTAFENEWMEXICAN.COM