Right now Albuquerque mayoral candidates seem to be arguing over a whole host of issues, and no doubt many of them are in fact important, with serious public policy implications.
But what voters are not hearing about, and what no one in the media is taking seriously is the candidate specific, special privilege being afforded one campaign: the privilege of completely redefining our common language.
WORDS MEAN THINGS
Twelve years ago, Albuquerque voters went to the polls to approve public financing for their municipal elections. People can argue back and forth all they want about the wisdom of public financing of campaigns, but that debate is for another time and place.
What is at stake right now is the integrity of the law itself — and the integrity of the very foundation, the very building blocks of laws and ordinances: the language itself.
Albuquerque voters decided that they themselves, and they alone, would fund candidates who wanted to avoid what a majority of Burqueans decided were the pitfalls of private donations — the tainted money of special interests. (Again, whether this is a "valid" concept is not in debate right now.)
But here is the key: to receive the taxpayers' personal funds, a candidate had to give up the "tainted" funds — the special interest money.
At that time, no one — not the people who wrote the ordinance, and not the people who voted to pass it — NO ONE believed that the term "in-kind" (as in "in-kind contributions") meant "same as cash."
HOW DO WE KNOW THIS? HOW DO WE KNOW NO ONE BELIEVED THAT?
If anyone had believed that there was absolutely no difference between in-kind contributions and individual cash or check contributions, there would have been no need at all for a "public financing" ordinance. The entire stated purpose of the proposed system, noble as it was, would be defeated by its very own language.
That's precisely why the ordinance simply does NOT say, as Tim Keller and his campaign say, in effect, that "in-kind contributions are no different from cash on the barrelhead."
If anyone on the city council in 2005 had believed that a candidate would be able to receive nearly $400,000 from the taxpayers and turn around and still go out and solicit private funds over and above the 400 grand, no one would have seen the point of the ordinance.
This is where Albuquerque sits. Right now. And no one cares. No one is thinking about the fact that the city is about to allow the gross manipulation of its own laws, and worse, the plain understanding — the plain textual meaning — of the English language.
HERE IS WHAT IS GOING ON
Mr. Keller took his $383,000 from the taxpayers, then said to certain donors: “ If you still want to support Tim Keller with an 'in-kind' contribution, like we discussed, you can make the check out to Rio Strategies. Just please add "Keller in-kind on the memo." (Rio Strategies is the company run by Mr. Keller’s campaign manager Alan Packman.)
In the Packman/Keller world, writing "in-kind" beside a cash or check donation of actual money transforms the contribution into an “in-kind” donation. But it simply cannot do that. The City Charter defines in-kind donations as “a good or service other than money”.
New Mexico law uniformly excludes money or cash from the concept of "in-kind."
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING KELLER TO DIP INTO BOTH SOURCES OF FUNDS
Many people, including some in media, now argue that it "isn't fair" that publicly financed candidates get outspent by some privately financed candidates. Or they say it "isn't a level playing field."
But, like all candidates everywhere, when Albuquerque municipal candidates decide to run they have some big decisions to make. One of them is whether to choose public financing or private fundraising. This year, some mayoral candidates chose private fundraising, some city council candidates chose public financing, some went private..png)
Mr. Keller, alone, opted for BOTH.
But "both" wasn't on the menu.
Mr. Keller and his campaign decided they would dip their hands in the taxpayers' barrel of money AND tap the wallets of private donors at the same time.
Mr. Keller and his operatives clearly view the Albuquerque City Ordinances as "suggestions" that may or may not be taken seriously. But the reality is that he voluntarily entered into a contract with the people of Albuquerque. In that contract, the people offered him nearly $400,000 from their tax dollars — on the singular condition that he not solicit private funds.
He took the money from the taxpayers. But he violated the condition.
By taking the actions he has, Keller is essentially ridiculing the city council candidates who are keeping their end of the bargain with the taxpayers. He's effectively labeling them as either "suckers" who aren't as smart as he is. Or he is derisively calling them "boy scouts" for their earnestness, because they're following the law and he isn't.
That is particularly sad. We all want our elected officials to follow the law. And it should be normal and expected. They shouldn't be seen as "boy scouts" for merely doing what is right. And they certainly shouldn't be viewed as "suckers."
WHAT "IN-KIND" CONTRIBUTIONS REALLY LOOK LIKE
In the Keller campaign's TV interviews, they insisted that the 'in-kind" payments were used for things like "water" or "office space."
That is the crux of the problem right there: "In-kind" contributions are whatever they physically and actually ARE. That is to say, candidates don't "use payments" to purchase something that is in-kind. If something is truly in-kind, it already exists, physically, at the moment it is received.
If a candidate receives 10 cases of water, then he or she is really receiving 240 bottles of water — it doesn't mean that the candidate takes $200 in cash and goes to a store to buy water. If a candidate does that, he is admitting he has received nothing more than a cash or check contribution.
Likewise, if a candidate receives "office space" in-kind, it means that space has been made available free of charge by some real estate owner. It does not mean that some donor has forked over several thousand dollars in cash so that that cash could be used to pay a landlord.
Keller is turning the English language definition of in-kind on its head. He is destroying the concept. And no one cares.
Pocketing cash and labeling it "in-kind" does not transform that cash or check into a true in-kind contribution. Instead it is merely a means of taking money a candidate is not entitled to, and it is a means of exceeding the limits the law has applied to publicly-financed candidates.
THE MESSAGE IT SENDS ABOUT GOOD GOVERNMENT
The deafening silence from the Albuquerque media, and from the voters (many of whom may be in the dark) has extremely negative ramifications for the future. The actions of the Keller campaign invite ridicule. But it is wrong — morally wrong — to merely make fun of this charade and let everyone have a big laugh.
Public financing was, and is, an idealistic "good government" concept. It can be argued that it helps reduce the sordid influences of special interests. And of course opponents can argue that it also has many flaws. But the fact is it is in law, and Keller's actions make it a joke.
If Keller's actions in this campaign had been seen as lawful by the 2005 city council or by the voters, here is what they would have said:
“Then why are we passing this ordinance? What’s the point?"
"If public financing means public + private financing, what’s the point of this ordinance?"
"If 'in-kind' merely means cash on the barrel head, then what’s the point of limiting public financing?"
No one — NO ONE — on the city council would have sent the ordinance to the voters if it had been seen as self-defeating. That would be ridiculous. They would just have left the law where it was.
MAKING CHOICES, SENDING A MESSAGE, BREEDING CYNICISM: YOUNG VOTERS ARE WATCHING
The future is at stake.
Even if it is not necessarily clear to a majority of voters right now, all of what is happening can be seen and eventually will be seen and understood for what it is. Young voters, perhaps idealistic, and soon-to-be voters can and do grasp what is happening. Some may support public financing and some may not, but all can watch and read and understand what is taking place.
What kind of cynicism, what kind of raw, naked, cynicism will we be breeding? What will we be encouraging?
No board, no reporter, no media executive, no voter, no young soon-to-be voter will truly “struggle” to understand what Albuquerqueans have placed in the law. And no one struggles to understand how that is being violated.
The media and the voters will all together be making a conscious choice:
1) to enforce the law, and therefore punish its violators; or
2) to ignore what is going on, and reap the consequences down the road
Again, words mean things. The ordinance means something. Or it did when it passed.
Albuquerque, depending on whether its media remain silent or speak up, and depending on whether the voters inform themselves or remain ill-informed, will end up sending a clear message — that their laws are important or that their laws have no meaning.
Ignoring the law is a choice, and it must be remembered that making that choice invites the rawest, ugliest cynicism that can be imagined, and has nothing but the most debilitating effect on the public attitude and the public respect for representative democracy.
Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.