Politics

New TV ad goes for the jugular on lawmakers’ nearly $70K pay proposal

7 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A new television ad is targeting Constitutional Amendment 4, the November ballot measure sponsored by Democrats and opposed by most Republicans that would allow New Mexico legislators to receive annual salaries tied to the state’s median household income.

Our Values PAC announced Thursday that it is opposing the amendment and launching a television ad portraying the proposal as a costly “Politician Pay Package” that would place salaries approaching $70,000 on top of benefits lawmakers already receive.

The ad wastes little time setting the tone.

“Politicians caught red-handed, but instead of accountability, they’re asking you for a huge pay raise to almost $70,000 a year,” the narrator says, with news headlines spotlighting Democrat former floor leader Sheryl Williams Stapleton, who was convicted on federal corruption charges after she resigned in disgrace, and Democrat state Rep. Andrea Romero of Santa Fe, who was forced to resign from an illegal six-figure job with the District Attorney’s office after the state’s attorney general ruled it to be against the law.

It continues by pointing to legislative pensions and New Mexico’s education struggles before declaring, “Don’t let corruption win. Vote no on Amendment 4, the Politician Pay Package.”

The nearly $70,000 figure comes directly from the official fiscal analysis of the proposal.

What exactly would Amendment 4 do?

New Mexico is currently the only state where legislators receive no annual base salary. Lawmakers instead receive per diem and mileage reimbursement for legislative sessions and qualifying interim work.

Amendment 4 would change Article IV, Section 10 of the state Constitution to permit legislative compensation equal to New Mexico’s annual median household income. Compensation would decrease if the household-income figure falls and could increase when it rises. The existing provisions allowing per diem and mileage would remain in place.

Using a median household income of approximately $67,800, the Legislative Finance Committee estimated that paying all 112 lawmakers would cost the General Fund roughly $7.6 million every year. If voters approve the amendment, salaries would begin with members seated in the 59th Legislature in 2029. 

“Our Values PAC opposes Amendment 4 because we believe voters should look at the entire compensation package legislators already receive before authorizing salaries approaching $70,000 a year,” spokeswoman Anissa Tinnin said.

She pointed to lawmakers’ existing per diem, mileage reimbursement, pension eligibility, and ability to continue earning outside income while holding office.

Nearly $68K for a Legislature with 30- and 60-day regular sessions

New Mexico’s regular legislative sessions run for 60 days in odd-numbered years and 30 days in even-numbered years, although legislators also participate in interim committees, constituent work, special sessions, and other official duties outside the regular session.

Our Values PAC is emphasizing how the proposed salary would compare with other states.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reported that the average annual base salary for state lawmakers was $46,279 in 2025. Arizona legislators received $24,000, Colorado lawmakers received roughly $44,000 to $47,500 depending on the beginning of their terms, Texas lawmakers received $7,200, and New Mexico lawmakers received no base salary. 

That would put a $67,800 New Mexico salary well above the national average and above the base salaries paid in several neighboring states.

PAC takes aim at household-income formula

Another major target of Amendment 4 critics is the decision to use median household income, rather than an individual-income measure, to determine what each individual legislator would earn.

The Legislature’s own analysis noted that median household income includes the income of all members of a household and specifically raised the question of whether lawmakers intended for the income of a single legislator to match an entire household’s median income. 

Our Values PAC argues that distinction matters when the proposed salary is being sold as compensation representative of what ordinary New Mexicans earn.

Ad ties the salary fight to education and government performance

The television spot broadens the criticism beyond the mechanics of legislative compensation.

“New Mexico schools ranked 50th. Instead of investing in our kids, they’re investing in themselves,” the narrator says.

The argument attempts to turn Amendment 4 into a larger question about whether lawmakers have earned significantly more compensation based on the state government’s performance.

Tinnin similarly argued that voters should consider New Mexico’s continuing challenges in education, along with past corruption cases in state government, before authorizing a new recurring expense for legislative salaries.

What about term limits and conflicts of interest?

The salary debate is also reviving a separate question: If New Mexico moves toward a salaried Legislature, should that compensation come with term limits, pension changes, and stronger rules governing potential conflicts of interest?

Those reforms are not included in Amendment 4.

Paul Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation, made that distinction central to his organization’s opposition in a recent Albuquerque Journal opinion piece.

“To be clear, the Rio Grande Foundation isn’t completely opposed to paying the Legislature,” Gessing wrote, arguing instead that Amendment 4 is the wrong approach. 

Gessing argued that lawmakers should not simply receive a new salary on top of the existing compensation structure. His organization favors eliminating legislative pensions and per diem if substantial salaries are created, along with additional changes aimed at preventing public office from becoming increasingly attractive as a long-term career. 

One of those proposed reforms is term limits.

The Rio Grande Foundation argues that paying legislators close to the state’s median household income could encourage more lawmakers to remain in safe seats for lengthy careers, particularly when combined with pension benefits. Gessing proposed limiting service to eight years in each chamber. 

He also raised the issue of conflicts involving lawmakers who are simultaneously employed by government entities whose funding is determined through the legislative process.

RGF argues that public employees whose paychecks ultimately depend on legislative appropriations should not simultaneously have the ability to participate in decisions affecting those employers. Gessing contended that salaries should therefore be accompanied by stronger conflict-of-interest restrictions. 

Those concerns extend beyond one conservative policy organization. A recent Think New Mexico-commissioned poll found 64% of respondents supported paying legislators only if mandatory ethics reforms accompanied the salaries, while 81% supported holding lawmakers to a higher ethical standard generally. Think New Mexico is separately advocating stronger conflict-of-interest rules and increased lobbyist disclosure. 

In other words, Amendment 4 asks voters to decide the salary question without simultaneously settling questions about term limits, pensions, outside employment, or tougher conflict-of-interest rules.

That is becoming an important part of the opposition argument: Critics are not necessarily saying lawmakers should never receive compensation, but that a major change in compensation should come alongside broader accountability reforms.

A bigger question than simply ‘pay or no pay’

That leaves voters with more than a simple debate over whether lawmakers deserve compensation.

Some supporters see salaries as a way to make legislative service accessible to a broader range of New Mexicans and strengthen the legislative branch.

Our Values PAC and other critics are asking voters to focus on the roughly $67,800 annual salary, approximately $7.6 million yearly cost, existing benefits, outside employment, and the absence of term limits or new conflict-of-interest restrictions in Amendment 4 itself.

And the new television ad is betting that one number will stick with voters when they reach the constitutional amendment on their ballots:

Nearly $70,000.

New TV ad goes for the jugular on lawmakers’ nearly $70K pay proposal Read More »

NM’s 7-day gun wait takes another major court hit — but it isn’t dead yet

13 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico’s controversial seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases has suffered another major legal defeat, and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Raúl Torrez are now appealing — extending a constitutional fight that has followed the law almost from the day it took effect.

The important wrinkle: despite the federal court ruling against the law, most New Mexicans are still subject to the seven-day waiting period for now.

Here’s what happened, where the case stands, and why the latest appeal matters.

What does the law actually do?

The Legislature passed House Bill 129 in 2024, and Lujan Grisham signed it that March. It took effect May 15, 2024.

Under the law, most firearm buyers must wait seven calendar days before taking possession of a purchased gun. The time spent completing a federal background check counts toward those seven days, but if the check has not been completed after the waiting period expires, the seller generally must continue waiting for the check. State guidance says a seller may transfer the firearm if that federal check still has not been completed after 20 days. 

The law includes several exemptions, including for concealed-carry permit holders, certain law-enforcement transactions, federally licensed firearm dealers, and immediate-family transfers. 

Lujan Grisham has defended the measure as a way to prevent impulsive shootings and suicides. After an early court victory in 2024, she called the waiting period a “critical buffer against impulsive firearms purchases” and argued that it also gives authorities more time to finish background checks.

Gun-rights advocates saw the law very differently.

The lawsuit started the day the law took effect

New Mexico residents Samuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott sued Lujan Grisham and Torrez on May 15, 2024 — the same day the waiting-period law became effective.

Both had quickly passed federal background checks but were still required to wait before receiving their firearms. Their lawsuit, backed by the National Rifle Association, Mountain States Legal Foundation, and other gun-rights groups, argued that delaying an otherwise lawful firearm purchase violates the Second Amendment.

Initially, U.S. District Judge James O. Browning refused to block the law while the litigation continued.

Then the case reached the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit — and the state’s fortunes changed dramatically.

Appeals court: Waiting period likely violates Second Amendment

In August 2025, a Tenth Circuit panel reversed Browning’s preliminary ruling.

The appeals court concluded that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily encompasses the ability to lawfully acquire them and found no sufficiently comparable historical tradition supporting New Mexico’s mandatory cooling-off period.

“Cooling-off periods infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms,” the court wrote.

The judges concluded that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act was “likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.”

The case was sent back to Browning.

The Tenth Circuit subsequently denied the state’s request for rehearing before the full appeals court in December 2025.

The state loses again — this time at final judgment

Following the appeals-court ruling, Browning issued a preliminary injunction in February 2026 protecting Ortega and Scott from enforcement of the waiting period.

Then came the more consequential ruling.

On Aug. 27, Browning granted judgment to the challengers and entered a final order against the state. Although Browning had previously concluded the waiting-period law was constitutional, reporting on the final decision notes that he determined he was bound by the Tenth Circuit’s earlier ruling. 

That gave the gun-rights challengers a final judgment they could point to as a major constitutional victory.

But there is an important catch.

Does this mean New Mexicans can skip the seven-day wait?

No — not generally.

The New Mexico Department of Public Safety currently says the Aug. 27 final order prevents enforcement of the waiting period against Ortega and Scott only.

“The waiting period remains in effect for all other firearm purchasers until further notice,” DPS says. 

That limitation has produced an unusual legal situation: the Tenth Circuit has already said the challengers are likely to prevail because the waiting period burdens Second Amendment rights, and a district court has now entered final judgment against the state — but the injunction itself remains limited to the two people who sued.

Even Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represents the challengers, complained that the ruling left the law largely operative despite the constitutional victory. 

Now Lujan Grisham and Torrez are appealing

KRQE reported this week that Lujan Grisham and Torrez have now filed an appeal of Browning’s final judgment.

That sends the dispute back into the federal appellate process and means New Mexico’s waiting-period fight is not finished.

The state has consistently argued that the law is a public-safety measure aimed at reducing impulsive firearm violence and suicide. The challengers maintain that the government cannot force an eligible buyer who has passed a background check to wait another week before exercising a constitutionally protected right.

And the state is heading back toward the same federal appellate court that delivered its most serious setback in the case so far.

The bottom line

For New Mexico gun buyers, the immediate practical takeaway is straightforward:

The seven-day waiting period is still being enforced against most purchasers.

For the state, however, the law is on increasingly difficult constitutional ground. The Tenth Circuit has already found it likely unconstitutional, the full court declined to rehear that ruling, and the district judge has now entered final judgment for the two challengers.

Lujan Grisham and Torrez are appealing that latest loss.

So, nearly two-and-a-half years after New Mexico imposed its mandatory waiting period, the state is still defending it in federal court — and the ultimate fate of the law remains unsettled.

NM’s 7-day gun wait takes another major court hit — but it isn’t dead yet Read More »

‘Evacuate immediately’: Flood disaster grips southern New Mexico

6 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico was being hammered Tuesday by a sprawling flood emergency that triggered mandatory evacuations, a threatened dam failure, submerged highways, school closures, National Guard rescues, and warnings of potentially catastrophic flooding from Doña Ana County to Santa Fe and Ruidoso.

Some of the most alarming scenes unfolded in the Hatch Valley, where authorities escalated from flood warnings to evacuation orders as torrents of water overwhelmed roads and arroyos.

By Tuesday afternoon, the National Weather Service had issued a Flash Flood Emergency for Doña Ana County after dam operators and county officials reported that McLeod Dam was at risk of imminent failure.

The warning was stark: a breach could unleash life-threatening flooding between Garfield and Salem, prompting authorities to tell residents to get out. KOAT reported the National Weather Service called the unfolding event a “particularly dangerous situation.”

The situation deteriorated rapidly.

Residents in Garfield, Rincon, Hatch, and surrounding areas were ordered to evacuate as floodwater spread through the valley. Doña Ana County emergency officials told people in Hatch to “Evacuate immediately” and head toward the Doña Ana or Radium Springs community centers, warning that roads could become blocked or congested.

Earlier, Garfield residents received the same urgent command. Rincon was also placed under evacuation orders, while authorities reported that the Rincon Arroyo had breached levees near the community’s water treatment plant, threatening nearby structures. 

Roads disappear under floodwater

The transportation situation became increasingly treacherous as water and debris swallowed stretches of roadway.

NM 185 north and south of Hatch was shut down, while NM 187 near Salem and Garfield was described as impassable, with water running across dips and debris scattered over the roadway. 

The National Weather Service had warned earlier that thunderstorms capable of producing rainfall rates of up to 3 inches per hour were moving into the Hatch and Rincon Valley, threatening serious flash flooding in arroyos, low-water crossings, streets, and poor-drainage areas. 

Another NWS warning described rainfall rates between 2 and 4 inches per hour over the upper Hatch Valley and cautioned that arroyos and streams could turn into violent currents with little notice.

The familiar warning became especially urgent Tuesday:

“Turn around, don’t drown.”

National Guard called into action

The New Mexico National Guard, which had rescue teams staged around the state earlier in the day, was soon putting them to use.

At least one person trapped by floodwaters near Hatch was rescued by Guard personnel as conditions worsened.

Hatch Valley Public Schools later announced classes would be canceled the following day because many families were dealing with flooded or impassable roads and limited transportation. 

Ruidoso, Santa Fe also hit

The chaos was hardly confined to southern New Mexico.

In Ruidoso, flooding shut down roads near Ponderosa Drive and Brady Canyon Road. Earlier in the day, residents in Upper Canyon behind Main and Fox Road were placed under a voluntary evacuation because of landslide concerns.

The National Weather Service warned that saturated ground could make the flooding especially dangerous, with additional heavy rainfall capable of producing rapid runoff. 

Santa Fe County was also dealing with multiple flooded roadways. San Ysidro Crossing, Ojo de la Vaca Road, and Cañada Village Road were all closed because of floodwater, while overflowing water in the Arroyo Hondo reportedly cut off access to 20 to 30 homes. 

A flood warning remained in effect for central Santa Fe County, where the National Weather Service warned that creeks, streams, low-water crossings, and other flood-prone areas were already inundated or continuing to rise.

Severe storms hammer Otero County

Otero County was not spared.

Multiple severe thunderstorm warnings were issued Tuesday afternoon, including for Alamogordo, Timberon, Mayhill, and Oliver Lee State Park.

Forecasters warned of winds reaching 60 mph, hail, and the possibility of an isolated tornado.

The broader weather setup was ominous. The National Weather Service said a surge of monsoonal moisture was creating a heightened statewide flash-flood threat through Wednesday, with river flooding also possible through Friday. 

A flood watch covered virtually all of New Mexico Tuesday as the remnants and moisture associated with Hurricane Polo tracked toward the state.

A state under water

From flooded streets in Bernalillo and Belen to warnings in Socorro, Catron, Grant, Luna, Sierra, Lincoln, Santa Fe, Otero, and Doña Ana counties, Tuesday’s storm became a statewide siege of water.

Roads closed. Schools emptied early. Evacuation centers opened. A boulder tumbled onto State Road 68. Chaco Canyon shut down after a county road collapsed. And in the Hatch Valley, families were told to leave immediately as emergency crews watched rising water and a potentially failing dam.

Officials continued urging residents to avoid flooded roads, obey evacuation orders, and treat moving water as potentially deadly.

With additional rainfall still possible, the danger was far from over.

‘Evacuate immediately’: Flood disaster grips southern New Mexico Read More »

Project Jupiter hits Wall Street — Oracle stock takes a beating

8 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Project Jupiter’s troubles are no longer confined to permitting fights and political battles in New Mexico. They are now showing up on Wall Street.

Oracle shares have continued sliding after the technology giant invoked a force majeure provision tied to Project Jupiter, the enormous artificial intelligence data-center complex under construction in Santa Teresa, raising new questions about delays, financing risk, and whether one of the country’s biggest AI infrastructure bets can meet its ambitious timetable.

Oracle closed Monday at $132.60, down 3.28% for the day, marking its fourth consecutive trading-day decline. The stock closed at $144.56 immediately before news of the force majeure became public, meaning shares have fallen roughly 8.3% since then. Oracle is now trading nearly 59% below its 52-week high. 

Project Jupiter is not necessarily responsible for every dollar of that decline. Monday was broadly negative for stocks as rising oil prices and Treasury yields weighed on markets. But the Wall Street Journal specifically cited continuing concerns surrounding Oracle’s enormous, debt-financed New Mexico data-center project while reporting the company’s 3.3% Monday drop. 

The market reaction began almost immediately after the Project Jupiter news broke Thursday.

Oracle shares dropped 3.5% on Sept. 24, the day reports emerged that the company had issued a force majeure notice to Blue Owl Capital, whose STACK Infrastructure subsidiary is developing the project. Bloom Energy, which is expected to provide fuel cells for the massive facility, also fell that day. 

What does ‘force majeure’ mean for Jupiter?

A force majeure provision is designed to protect parties to a contract when circumstances outside their control interfere with their ability to perform their obligations.

Reuters reported that Oracle issued the notice because of potential delays securing the enormous amount of power Project Jupiter requires. Oracle is not attempting to cancel its lease. Instead, the notice could protect it from having to begin making higher payments if the facility fails to become operational on schedule in 2028. 

Oracle has insisted the move should not be interpreted as confirmation that Jupiter will be delayed.

“Project Jupiter remains on our planned schedule,” Oracle said, adding that it remains “fully committed to New Mexico and confident in our path forward.”

STACK similarly said the notice does not change the parties’ financial commitments to the multiyear development. 

Yet simply invoking the contractual protection appears to have been enough to make some investors uneasy.

Simply Wall St noted Monday that Project Jupiter is an important physical component of Oracle’s plan to transform its enormous AI contract backlog into actual cloud revenue. A delay does not destroy Oracle’s AI strategy, the analysis noted, but it potentially interferes with the company’s ability to bring computing capacity online when customers need it. 

Wall Street already worried about Jupiter’s debt

The force majeure disclosure comes at a sensitive time.

Roughly $18 billion in loans tied to Project Jupiter have recently been quoted at only 89 to 91 cents on the dollar, according to reporting based on Financial Times and Reuters information — signaling that investors are demanding a discount to take on that debt.

Those concerns are colliding with Oracle’s already aggressive AI spending.

Oracle had roughly $129.5 billion in debt, according to Reuters reporting cited in the supplied financial analysis, while the company posted negative free cash flow of $5.4 billion in its latest quarter despite beating Wall Street’s expectations.

The company spent approximately $28.5 billion on capital expenditures in just the first quarter of fiscal 2027 as it rushed to build the infrastructure necessary to accommodate surging AI demand.

That makes execution especially important. Investors may tolerate enormous upfront spending if Oracle can rapidly bring facilities online, fill them with customers, and turn contracted AI demand into revenue. Delays make that equation more complicated.

The other side: Oracle’s AI business is booming

The picture is far from entirely bleak.

Oracle reported more than $30 billion in new AI cloud contracts during its latest quarter, sending its total remaining performance obligations — essentially contracted future business — to a staggering $664 billion. Cloud infrastructure revenue surged 121% year-over-year to $7.4 billion.

That enormous backlog is one reason some analysts continue to see significant long-term value in Oracle despite its battered share price.

But Project Jupiter illustrates the risk buried underneath the AI boom: Oracle can sign hundreds of billions of dollars worth of contracts, but it still needs enormous data centers, power plants, pipelines, GPUs, financing, and regulatory approvals before all that promised computing capacity can generate revenue.

A New Mexico permitting fight becomes a Wall Street problem

Jupiter’s power system has faced repeated complications.

The sprawling campus is expected to require roughly 2.45 gigawatts of electricity, much of it supplied by Bloom Energy fuel cells fueled with natural gas. A pipeline needed to deliver that gas has faced permitting delays, while a separate air-quality permit for the fuel-cell operation remains part of the regulatory process. 

Those New Mexico disputes are now being watched by investors far beyond the state.

Reuters reported that the Jupiter situation is rippling through the broader AI infrastructure financing market, where investors are increasingly scrutinizing whether enormous, highly leveraged data-center developments can be completed quickly enough to justify their costs. Oracle and Blue Owl shares both dropped following disclosure of the force majeure. 

For months, Project Jupiter’s controversies centered largely on water, electricity, permitting, government incentives, and opposition from nearby residents.

Now there is another constituency watching closely: Oracle shareholders and bondholders.

And judging by the stock and debt markets since the force majeure became public, Wall Street is paying attention.

Haaland’s former campaign boss now lobbying for Project Jupiter firm

Project Jupiter hits Wall Street — Oracle stock takes a beating Read More »

Haaland’s former campaign boss now lobbying for Project Jupiter firm

10 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A longtime political operative who managed Deb Haaland’s gubernatorial campaign at its launch is now listed as a lobbyist for a company powering Project Jupiter — adding another connection between the Democrat gubernatorial nominee’s political orbit and the massive artificial intelligence data-center industry she has recently vowed to rein in.

Scott Forrester, a veteran New Mexico political consultant and former executive director of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, is listed as a lobbyist for Bloom Energy, which is slated to provide the fuel-cell system powering Project Jupiter in Santa Teresa, according to a list of project lobbyists obtained and first reported by The New Mexican and Searchlight New Mexico. 

Forrester’s connection to Haaland is extensive.

When Haaland formally launched her 2026 gubernatorial bid in February 2025, the Albuquerque Journal identified Forrester as her campaign manager and noted he had also managed her successful first congressional campaign in 2018. Haaland’s campaign is now managed by Dylan McArthur. 

Forrester also previously served as a Haaland congressional campaign manager and worked in her congressional office.

Now, his name has surfaced on the other side of one of the biggest political fights in New Mexico: the sprawling $165 billion Project Jupiter data-center campus, designed to support artificial intelligence infrastructure for companies including Oracle and OpenAI. 

Haaland’s Project Jupiter connections keep growing

Forrester’s lobbying role lands as Haaland is already facing questions over significant campaign contributions connected to the data-center industry.

Searchlight previously reported that Oracle America contributed $12,400 directly to Haaland’s campaign, while individuals whose identifying information matched leaders at Oracle and Project Jupiter contractor Clayco contributed another $74,800. 

Piñon Post subsequently reviewed Haaland’s Sept. 14 campaign-finance filing and identified additional contributions.

That review found $7,500 apiece from Matthew VanderZanden, Mike Casey, and Kevin Hughes, whose names and listed titles match senior executives at STACK Infrastructure, one of Project Jupiter’s developers.

It also found another $2,500 apiece from Kenneth Glueck, Josh Pitcock, and Julia Robin, whose identifying information matches Oracle officials.

Combined with the Oracle and Clayco contributions previously reported by Searchlight, Piñon Post identified at least $117,200 from Oracle America and individuals whose identifying information matches senior figures at Oracle, Clayco, and STACK. 

There is no evidence that those contributions or Forrester’s lobbying work altered Haaland’s policy positions. But the overlapping campaign, lobbying, and industry relationships add another layer to the scrutiny surrounding Haaland’s increasingly combative public posture toward large data centers.

During the Democrat primary, Haaland said, “I just believe very strongly that data centers don’t have the best interests of our community at heart.”

She has since promised a day-one moratorium on new large-scale data-center projects until the state adopts new requirements governing water, electricity, transparency, environmental impacts, and community involvement.

When asked about the industry-linked campaign contributions, Haaland defended keeping the money.

“I believe I can walk and chew gum at the same time,” she said.

Her proposed moratorium, notably, would apply to new large-scale projects. Project Jupiter is already under construction, meaning the project at the center of the controversy would not simply be halted by that proposal. Piñon Post previously reported Haaland’s acknowledgment that she does not have the power to stop the existing project.

Project Jupiter assembles a roster of political insiders

Forrester is hardly the only familiar New Mexico political name working for interests connected to Jupiter.

Searchlight reported that Albuquerque lobbyist Vanessa Alarid, who is married to state Sen. Antonio “Moe” Maestas, is registered with Yucca Growth Infrastructure, the applicant seeking an air-quality permit for the project. Attorney Jennifer Bradfute is also working with Yucca on the permit fight. 

Gonzales is registered for STACK Infrastructure, while longtime Santa Fe lobbyist and attorney Brent Moore is also working for Bloom Energy.

Rich Guay is lobbying for Oracle, and Jessie Lane Hunt is working for OpenAI.

The collection prompted even a Democrat lawmaker from southern New Mexico to raise eyebrows.

“These names are a who’s-who of power brokers in New Mexico,” Rep. Micaela Lara Cadena, D-Mesilla, told The New Mexican, arguing that the public should know who is being paid to promote Project Jupiter’s interests.

Forrester himself has previously attracted scrutiny in New Mexico politics. In 2025, an Albuquerque City Council candidate accused him of offering to help retire her campaign debt if she stopped pursuing a ballot challenge. The city’s ethics board ultimately dismissed the complaint; the board’s decision recorded that the conversation occurred but did not find an actionable violation under its jurisdiction.

Big money surrounds Jupiter on multiple fronts

The campaign donations are only one piece of the money surrounding Project Jupiter.

Oracle disclosed this month that it spent more than $3.4 million promoting the development as it sought support for an air-quality permit — an expenditure Searchlight described as potentially among the largest lobbying-advertising pushes of its kind in New Mexico. 

Meanwhile, construction has continued moving quickly. Oracle told Doña Ana County commissioners earlier this month that the site was already about 26% complete. 

That leaves Haaland in an increasingly unusual position.

She is campaigning as a critic of the data-center industry and proposing a temporary halt on new large-scale projects. At the same time, her campaign has received at least $117,200 in contributions tied to companies and executives in that industry, and the man who helped launch her gubernatorial campaign is now lobbying for a company directly involved in powering Project Jupiter.

None of those facts, standing alone, establishes improper coordination or a quid pro quo.

But as Project Jupiter pours billions into New Mexico, hires a roster of seasoned political insiders, and emerges as a major campaign issue, the web connecting the project to the state’s political establishment is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Haaland’s former campaign boss now lobbying for Project Jupiter firm Read More »

NM attorney scores major legal win in groundbreaking abortion lawsuit

19 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico attorney Mike Seibel has secured a $200,000 settlement in a closely watched wrongful-death case involving the estate of a 26-week unborn child — a case Seibel says marks an unprecedented legal development in litigation against abortionists.

The lawsuit, Wabbington v. Boyd, was brought against longtime late-term abortionist Curtis Boyd, his former Southwestern Women’s Options practice, Emily Cohen, and the late Carmen Landau. The case was settled and dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 14, 2026.

Seibel, working with co-counsel Justin Hall, represented the interests involved in the case through their abortion-injury legal work. According to Live Action News, the settlement is believed to be the first in which the estate of a child who died during an abortion recovered money through a wrongful-death action against abortionists.

“This is the first time that an abortionist has ever been sued for the wrongful death of a baby,” Seibel told Live Action News. “There have been numerous cases for injuries to the mother, but in this case both the mother and the baby’s estate sued.”

The legal significance goes beyond the dollar amount.

A final court order appointing a personal representative for the estate stated that Baby Wabbington was a “26 week old viable fetus” and, under New Mexico precedent, qualified as a “person as defined under the Wrongful Death Act.” The order further stated that the child was entitled to equal protection under New Mexico and federal law.

Seibel has seized on that language as an important step in developing legal recognition for unborn children.

“This case recognized the baby to have an estate, and receive compensation for wrongful death, as a ‘person’ under New Mexico law,” he said.

Case centered on informed consent

The lawsuit did not rest solely on broader arguments about abortion. At its core were serious allegations involving informed consent.

According to the complaint, the child’s mother was using methamphetamine when she presented for the abortion in 2020. The lawsuit alleged that providers knew or should have known about her substance-use history and observed signs consistent with impairment, yet nevertheless proceeded with the consent process and the abortion.

The complaint alleged that the mother lacked the legal capacity to provide valid informed consent while intoxicated and that providers failed to wait until she was sober before obtaining consent.

Seibel argued that the providers also failed to discuss programs that could have helped the mother address her substance abuse while continuing the pregnancy.

“Records contain no discussion of reasonable alternatives including continuing the pregnancy with meth cessation support and referral to treatment,” Seibel said.

He pointed specifically to programs such as UNM Health’s Milagro Program, which provides prenatal care and substance-abuse treatment, as well as Lovelace Women’s Hospital’s G.R.A.C.E. Program for pregnant women dealing with addiction.

“This omission deprived the patient of material information needed to make an informed decision,” Seibel said.

Lawsuit alleged remains were never sent to funeral home

The case also included disturbing allegations about what happened after the abortion.

According to the complaint, the mother requested that the baby’s remains be released to Riverside Funeral Home for services. Instead, the lawsuit alleged that the remains were placed in a medical-waste container and destroyed.

The lawsuit accused the providers of unfair trade practices, including allegedly offering funeral services for aborted children without intending to transfer the remains to a funeral home. It also accused the defendants of attempting to limit or discourage potential malpractice and emotional-distress claims through paperwork given to patients.

Those were allegations contained in the complaint; the $200,000 settlement resolved the litigation without a trial determining each allegation.

Seibel points to major contradiction in New Mexico law

For Seibel, the case also exposes what he views as a fundamental contradiction in New Mexico law: an unborn child can be recognized as a “person” for purposes of a wrongful-death claim while abortion remains legal.

“You can collect for the death of the unborn baby as a person, but you can still murder the unborn baby under New Mexico law,” Seibel said.

He argued that every legal recognition afforded to an unborn child strengthens the broader argument for personhood.

“Every time we give the unborn baby rights we solidify personhood,” Seibel said.

Seibel was equally critical of the treatment of the child’s mother, arguing that she was particularly vulnerable because of her substance-use condition.

“The abortion industry preyed on the mother’s vulnerable condition for profit,” he said. “They not only failed to properly inform her of programs to help her substance abuse, but they failed to properly consent her before ending the life of her preborn child.”

He also noted that Medicaid was billed for the procedure.

A potentially significant legal foothold

Because the case settled rather than proceeding to a verdict, it does not amount to a judicial finding that every allegation in the complaint was proven.

But Seibel argues that the combination of the court’s recognition of the child’s estate, the wrongful-death framework, and the resulting monetary recovery could provide attorneys with a new avenue in future cases involving alleged abortion injuries and informed-consent failures.

“This settlement recasts the informed consent debate to give a powerful tool to collect damages against an abortionist,” Seibel said.

“But, most importantly, it was the first ever case where the dead aborted child, identified as a ‘person’ in the court record, was able to collect damages against the abortion industry.”

For Seibel, that is the larger significance of the case: not merely winning compensation, but establishing another legal foothold for treating an unborn child as a rights-bearing person under New Mexico law.

NM attorney scores major legal win in groundbreaking abortion lawsuit Read More »

Things get spicy fast in New Mexico’s lieutenant governor debate

10 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Republican state Sen. David Gallegos of Eunice used New Mexico’s first lieutenant governor debate Thursday to draw sharp contrasts with Democrat State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard on crime, government dependency, abortion, education, data centers, and the direction of state government.

The hourlong debate, hosted at the Albuquerque Journal and sponsored by the Journal, KOAT-TV, and News Radio KKOB, gave voters one of their first extended side-by-side looks at the two candidates who could soon preside over the state Senate and stand first in line to the governor’s office. 

Gallegos, a longtime legislator from Eunice, repeatedly emphasized rural New Mexico, public safety, permanent tax relief, and reducing government barriers to economic growth. Garcia Richard, who became the Democrat nominee after Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver withdrew and the party’s State Central Committee selected a replacement, repeatedly returned to affordability, social programs, health care, and the agenda she shares with gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland.

From the opening minutes, Gallegos framed the election as a choice over whether New Mexico needs a change in direction.

“I think this state’s been hurt for many years,” he said, adding that his focus would be “protecting New Mexicans first.” 

Gallegos rejects temporary checks, pushes permanent relief

When asked how New Mexico should use an expected revenue windfall, Garcia Richard proposed raising the minimum wage, expanding the child tax credit, and increasing the working families tax credit.

Gallegos countered that state leaders should look beyond another round of one-time rebate checks.

He praised gubernatorial nominee Gregg Hull’s approach of pursuing changes that would provide more permanent relief rather than handing residents “$500 here, $500 there.”

Gallegos also called for examining regulations and other government-imposed costs that he said make it harder for New Mexicans and businesses to prosper, while describing the state’s enormous oil-and-gas revenues as “a blessing, not a curse.”

The candidates then produced one of the debate’s liveliest exchanges over Medicaid, SNAP, and other government assistance.

Gallegos described those programs as a “hand up, not a handout,” arguing that the long-term goal should be helping New Mexicans become self-sufficient rather than perpetually dependent on Washington.

Garcia Richard responded that she had relied on Medicaid and WIC after having her first child.

“I now stand before you running for the second-highest office in our state,” she said.

Gallegos quickly turned her own example back toward his argument.

“You proved my theory,” he replied, saying her story demonstrated that assistance can help someone through a difficult period before that person moves forward independently.

Public safety becomes central dividing line

Gallegos was equally direct when an audience member asked what single issue he would address immediately.

“Public safety,” he answered.

He recounted staying at an Albuquerque hotel where an employee warned him to move his truck because it could be stolen. Gallegos argued that New Mexico needs to give police more funding, backing, and respect, and said communities such as Rio Rancho show a different approach to law enforcement.

“Albuquerque is known for ‘Breaking Bad,’ and that’s not good for our state,” he said. 

Earlier, Gallegos criticized what he described as “catch-and-release,” called for keeping dangerous repeat offenders incarcerated, and advocated cooperation with federal immigration authorities when dealing with criminal offenders.

Garcia Richard agreed that New Mexicans do not feel safe but drew a sharp line on immigration enforcement, saying local police should concentrate on violent criminals and illegal drugs rather than cooperating with ICE in schools, hospitals, and other public spaces. She accused federal immigration enforcement of “terrorizing” communities in those settings. 

KOAT likewise identified public safety as one of the debate’s major fault lines. KOAT

Taxpayer-funded abortion facilities draw stark split

The candidates were perhaps furthest apart on abortion.

Asked whether taxpayer dollars should continue funding reproductive-health facilities that perform abortions, Garcia Richard said “Absolutely.”

Gallegos responded just as emphatically.

“I’d absolutely not,” he said.

Gallegos argued that taxpayers should not be financing facilities specifically designed around abortion services and said medically necessary procedures can be handled by doctors and hospitals.

“We don’t need to be building facilities statewide to fund an industry,” he said. 

Garcia Richard later challenged Gallegos directly over his opposition to abortion, asking whether he could still govern under New Mexico’s existing laws.

Gallegos said he would be bound by state statute and acknowledged that a lieutenant governor cannot simply rewrite abortion law. He said any change would need to pass the Legislature, while advocating parental notification or consent involving minors. 

Gallegos confronts Garcia Richard on education record

Education produced another pointed exchange.

Garcia Richard, a former teacher, advocated placing literacy coaches in classrooms and defended New Mexico’s taxpayer-funded Opportunity Scholarship program.

Gallegos responded by reminding viewers that Garcia Richard previously voted against legislation aimed at addressing third-grade reading proficiency through retention of some struggling students.

Garcia Richard defended herself by arguing that the much-discussed “Mississippi Miracle” in education also included literacy coaches and additional assistance for struggling students.

Gallegos’ response was brief:

“Still voted no.”

He also explained his opposition to the original free-college proposal, saying he wanted publicly financed higher education tied to graduates remaining in New Mexico for a period afterward.

Data centers: Gallegos says harness them instead of simply stopping them

The candidates also offered sharply different approaches to the exploding data-center industry.

Garcia Richard reiterated Haaland’s promise for a day-one moratorium on new large-scale projects until state officials establish safeguards governing water and electricity, but avoided the fact that her campaign, along with others, have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from big data centers and their executives.

Gallegos argued that New Mexico should capture the jobs and investment while requiring projects to address their own resource needs.

He suggested using small modular nuclear reactors for electricity and desalinating New Mexico’s plentiful brackish water rather than drawing from existing freshwater supplies.

“I think it’s coming,” Gallegos said of the industry. “If it’s not going to be done, it’ll be done somewhere else.”

‘There’s got to be a compromise’ on gubernatorial debate

One of Gallegos’ sharpest attacks was directed not at Garcia Richard, but at her running mate.

Asked whether Haaland and Hull should debate, Gallegos said New Mexicans deserve to see the gubernatorial candidates confront one another directly.

“There’s got to be a compromise because the people of New Mexico deserve this,” he said, adding that debates reveal a candidate’s “backbone,” knowledge, and vision. 

Garcia Richard pushed back, insisting that “no one is running or hiding” and defending Haaland’s experience and statewide campaigning. 

The gubernatorial campaigns still have not agreed on a debate date, despite invitations from New Mexico media organizations. The Journal reported that Hull accepted its original invitation while Haaland had not, though the campaigns have since exchanged competing proposed dates. 

Gallegos closed the lieutenant governor debate by returning to the constituency he said is too often overlooked in Santa Fe.

“I’m rural New Mexico,” he said. “I want to stand up for the rural people in this state because they don’t feel they have a voice.”

Garcia Richard closed by promoting the Haaland-Garcia Richard ticket’s plans on doctors, housing, affordability, and government programs.

The debate ultimately put two distinctly different governing philosophies on the same stage — something New Mexicans are still waiting to see from the candidates at the top of the ticket.

Things get spicy fast in New Mexico’s lieutenant governor debate Read More »

Haaland stumbles through national-TV interview as she dodges debates

19 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland used a national NewsNation interview Wednesday to pitch herself as an experienced manager, promise a day-one pause on new large-scale data centers, and blame President Donald Trump for a host of New Mexicans’ economic problems.

But several of the interview’s most notable moments came from what Haaland did not address: her unresolved debate record, the substantial data-center-linked money flowing into her campaign, and a direct question about how she would separate herself from the Biden administration she served for four years.

Asked why she has yet to debate Republican nominee Gregg Hull, Haaland told NewsNation she was ready.

“I am happy to debate my opponent,” Haaland said, claiming her campaign had offered eight possible dates. “It’s up to him to choose a date that works for him.”

That explanation leaves out a much messier record.

‘Happy to debate’ — after declining debate invitations

KRQE reported this week that it invited both candidates to participate in an early-October debate back in July. Hull accepted. Haaland declined. KRQE said no specific date had even been discussed at that point.

KOB also announced an Oct. 8 televised debate after the campaigns had previously agreed to participate, but a dispute over the date later blew up the arrangement. Haaland has since proposed Oct. 12, 13, or 14 for a joint statewide debate, while Hull says those dates were already known to conflict with his schedule, and has continued committing to the Oct. 8 KOB date.

Haaland’s campaign told KRQE that it had previously offered additional dates during negotiations, some of which are no longer available. So both campaigns are now pointing fingers over the breakdown.

But that context makes Haaland’s NewsNation answer — that she is simply waiting for Hull to choose from her dates — far less straightforward than it sounded on national television.

Tough talk on data centers — while taking industry-linked money

The other glaring tension came when NewsNation asked Haaland why data centers have become such a major focus of her campaign.

“Yes, a moratorium on day one until we can get accountability measures in place,” Haaland said, citing concerns about water, land, clean energy, and community input.

“I think the most important is community input,” she added.

Yet the campaign-finance backdrop makes that position considerably more complicated.

Searchlight New Mexico reported that Oracle America contributed $12,400 directly to Haaland, while people whose identifying details match Oracle and Clayco executives contributed at least another $74,800. Clayco is among the firms involved in Project Jupiter, while Oracle is one of the companies tied to the massive Doña Ana County development.

Piñon Post’s additional review of Haaland’s Sept. 14 filing found still more.

The report shows a $7,500 contribution from Matthew VanderZanden, listed as a “Chief Executive Officer”; $7,500 from Mike Casey, listed as “Chief Operating Officer”; and $7,500 from Kevin Hughes, listed as “External Affairs.” Those names and titles match senior STACK Infrastructure officials.

The same filing shows $2,500 each from Kenneth Glueck, Josh Pitcock, and Julia Robin, whose names and titles match Oracle officials.

It also records $12,400 from Oracle America itself, along with $12,400 contributions from donors named Michael Sicilia and Clayton Magouyrk, whose names, locations, and titles match Oracle’s co-CEOs.

Altogether, Piñon Post has identified at least $117,200 from Oracle America and individuals whose identifying information matches senior figures at Oracle, Clayco, and STACK.

That does not establish that the money changed Haaland’s position. But it creates an obvious political tension: Haaland is campaigning on tougher controls for an industry while accepting substantial contributions connected to companies operating inside that same industry.

Searchlight also reported another important limitation to Haaland’s proposed moratorium: it applies to new large-scale data-center development. Project Jupiter is already underway, and Haaland has previously said, “I don’t have the power to stop Project Jupiter.”

Asked how she differs from Biden — Haaland largely recited her résumé

NewsNation also gave Haaland a direct opportunity to separate herself from the Biden administration.

The host noted that some voters had been unhappy with that administration, and asked: “How do you plan to set yourself apart?”

Haaland did not identify a specific Biden policy she opposed.

Instead, she discussed her history as an organizer, Democrat Party chair, member of Congress, and Interior secretary, then pointed to her work on protecting the area around Chaco Culture National Historical Park.

It was an answer about experience, not much of an answer about separation from Biden.

Trump gets the blame

Later, Haaland shifted heavily toward Trump while discussing affordability.

She said Trump’s policies are making New Mexicans “sicker, poorer and hungrier,” cited changes to Medicaid and SNAP, blamed tariffs for increased prices, and blamed the Iran conflict for higher gasoline costs.

She then said she wants to “put more money in the pockets of New Mexicans” through measures including the child tax credit, working families tax credit, and a continued clean-energy transition.

What went mostly unaddressed was New Mexico state government’s own role in affordability, regulation, and utility policy — despite Haaland running for the state’s top executive office.

A halting national-TV appearance — with conspicuous gaps

The delivery itself was also notable.

By Piñon Post’s count of the NewsNation transcript, Haaland said “um” 24 times and “uh” 14 times during the roughly seven-minute interview — 38 filler words in all.

Several answers were punctuated by repeated pauses, verbal restarts, and detours.

Asked to separate herself from Biden, she moved instead into her résumé.

Asked about debates, she portrayed herself as eager to participate without mentioning KRQE’s report that her campaign had declined its invitation.

Asked about data centers, she talked at length about accountability, water, clean energy, and community input, but never mentioned the significant industry-linked money her campaign has accepted.

That leaves voters with several unresolved contrasts.

Haaland says she is “happy to debate,” while KRQE says she declined its invitation, and the campaigns remain locked in a fight over dates.

She says large data centers need a moratorium and stricter safeguards, while her campaign has accepted substantial money from Oracle and individuals linked to companies involved in the industry.

And when explicitly asked what would separate her from the Biden administration she served in for four years, she did not identify a concrete policy disagreement.

Those are exactly the kinds of contradictions, omissions, and unanswered questions a face-to-face debate could force both candidates to address before voters cast their ballots.

Haaland stumbles through national-TV interview as she dodges debates Read More »

Vasquez ducks multiple NM debate invites, demands debate in El Paso

40 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez is accusing Republican challenger Greg Cunningham of avoiding southern New Mexico voters for not accepting a proposed Univision debate — even as Cunningham says he has already accepted three televised debate invitations and Vasquez has publicly confirmed only one of them.

The dispute has become the latest flashpoint in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District race, where Cunningham is pushing for more head-to-head appearances and arguing that voters deserve to see the candidates directly defend their records and policy positions.

Cunningham announced Sept. 11 that he had accepted debates from KRQE Channel 13, KOB 4 and KOAT 7, with the latter co-hosted by the Albuquerque Journal and KKOB radio. His campaign said Vasquez had not confirmed the KOB or KOAT forums. Vasquez and Cunningham are both confirmed for the KRQE debate scheduled for Oct. 16.

“Voters in this district deserve to hear from Gabe and myself, on the same stage, on the same night,” Cunningham said. “I’ve said yes to all three of these debates. The Congressman hasn’t.”

Cunningham went further, accusing Vasquez of repeating what happened in 2024.

“He dodged the voters in 2024, and he’s running the same play in 2026,” Cunningham said. “Kicking the can down the road until the calendar runs out isn’t a scheduling problem. It’s a strategy that demonstrates weakness.”

There is documented history behind that criticism, although the circumstances were disputed at the time. KOB reported in 2024 that after months of scheduling disagreements between Vasquez and Republican Yvette Herrell, the station selected a debate date. Vasquez’s campaign declined, Herrell accepted, and KOB instead conducted a one-on-one interview with Herrell.

Rather than announcing acceptance of the two additional New Mexico debates Cunningham has accepted, Vasquez has shifted attention to another proposed forum.

“I am calling on @cunninghamfornm to do the right thing – accept the Univision debate and stop leaving out southern New Mexicans,” Vasquez wrote Sept. 18.

His campaign says the Spanish-language event would be hosted by Univision and reach voters throughout southern New Mexico through the El Paso media market. Vasquez’s campaign has accused Cunningham of “staying silent” on the invitation. Vasquez was born in El Paso and raised in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico.

There is an important distinction regarding location.

The Univision outlet serving the market is based in El Paso, Texas, outside New Mexico and outside NM-02. But the material released by Vasquez’s campaign does not establish that the debate itself would physically take place in an El Paso studio. It describes the event as a Univision-hosted debate serving the El Paso media market.

Vasquez is pressing Cunningham to participate in a debate hosted by a Texas-based television outlet serving southern New Mexico, not that a Texas venue has yet been confirmed.

Meanwhile, Cunningham has accepted three debates involving major New Mexico news organizations.

The debate dispute comes as Cunningham increasingly focuses his campaign on Vasquez’s past statements and congressional votes, particularly on crime, policing, taxes and immigration.

Cunningham, a former Albuquerque police detective and Marine veteran, has accused Vasquez of trying to portray himself as a moderate despite earlier comments surrounding the “defund the police” movement. KOAT reported that Cunningham has made law enforcement, crime and border security central themes of his campaign.

Vasquez’s earlier record gives Cunningham material to use.

During the 2020 policing debate, Vasquez discussed reallocating law-enforcement funding and said he was willing to consider eliminating police budget positions or line items deemed unnecessary. Reporting has also documented his comments during that period supporting broader arguments about shifting resources away from policing.

Vasquez now rejects the characterization that he supports defunding police, and his congressional record includes several votes and initiatives supporting law-enforcement funding.

In January, Vasquez voted for an appropriations package containing more than $4 billion for state and local law enforcement, and in September he joined Republican Rep. David Kustoff in demanding that the Justice Department release congressionally approved funding for the Regional Information Sharing Systems program.

That evolution is exactly the type of record Cunningham argues should be tested in multiple televised debates.

Vasquez’s vote on the sweeping federal tax-and-spending package known as H.R. 1 is another issue likely to surface on a debate stage.

Vasquez voted no when the House approved the final version on July 3, 2025. The legislation passed 218-214.

Among its provisions was the federal tax deduction promoted as “No Tax on Tips.” The legislation also contained a separate overtime deduction along with numerous other tax, spending, Medicaid and federal-policy changes.

Republicans therefore accurately note that Vasquez voted against the legislation containing the tip-tax provision, although it was not a standalone vote solely on tips.

Cunningham has similarly sought to contrast himself with Vasquez on immigration and border enforcement. Vasquez advocates what he calls a “New American Immigration Plan,” emphasizing border technology and legal pathways, while Cunningham has emphasized tougher enforcement, cartel activity and support for law enforcement.

Those disagreements give the candidates substantial material for direct questioning.

For now, however, only one debate involving both men is publicly confirmed: KRQE on Oct. 16.

Cunningham says he is prepared to appear at three New Mexico debates and has challenged Vasquez to do the same.

Vasquez, rather than confirming the two remaining forums, is challenging Cunningham to add the Univision event serving the El Paso television market.

“Show up,” Cunningham said in his original statement. “New Mexico is watching.”

Whether voters ultimately get one face-to-face debate, several, or all four proposed forums now depends on which additional invitations the two campaigns agree to accept.

Vasquez ducks multiple NM debate invites, demands debate in El Paso Read More »

Haaland chokes on Project Jupiter cash question, REFUSES to return their $87K

30 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland’s attempt to appear tough on New Mexico’s increasingly controversial data center boom ran headfirst into a glaring campaign cash problem Thursday after she was pressed on donations tied to Project Jupiter — and did not commit to giving the money back.

At a press conference in Albuquerque, Haaland announced she would sign a day-one executive order imposing a temporary moratorium on new large-scale data center projects if elected governor, saying the pause would remain in place until the Legislature creates new “guardrails” for the industry. Her announcement came just days after reporting showed her campaign had accepted at least $87,200 from data-center-related sources connected to Oracle and Clayco, two major entities tied to Project Jupiter. Searchlight New Mexico reported that Oracle America gave Haaland $12,400, while individuals matching top leaders at Oracle and Clayco gave at least $74,800 more.

Project Jupiter has become one of the most politically explosive development fights in New Mexico, with residents and environmental groups raising concerns over water, power, permitting, transparency, and the sheer size of the proposed artificial intelligence data center campus in Doña Ana County. Oracle has promoted the project as a major economic opportunity, saying it has already delivered nearly $80 million in tax revenue and is expected to bring more than $4.7 billion in long-term economic impact to the state and county.

But while Haaland tried to pitch herself as the candidate who would hold data centers accountable, a KOB 4 reporter asked the question hanging over the entire event: “Some reporting came out recently tying tens of thousands of dollars of donations from Project Jupiter to your campaign. How do you assure voters that this will be a fair process in holding Project Jupiter accountable?”

Haaland did not answer by saying she would return the money. She did not pledge to reject future Project Jupiter-linked cash. Instead, she launched into a defense centered on the cost of campaigns.

“Thank you so much for the question. And of course, I’m the first person to say that elections are entirely too expensive. You know, I’m a lot older than a lot of folks in this room. I remember when presidential elections for the entire country cost 25 million dollars and now, um, it’s just over the top at how expensive everything has gotten. Uh, trust me, I wish I didn’t have to raise as much money as I do just to be able to protect New Mexicans and have a better New Mexico for everyone. Uh, but I believe that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Um, my first, if I’m elected governor, my first, uh, priority is for every single New Mexican to make sure that our communities are safe, healthy, that they can move forward, that they have, um, the investments they need. We are facing, uh, some really tough times. Uh, forty percent of our population who are on Medicaid stand to lose those benefits on January first. Uh, our, uh, SNAP benefits that people rely on, um, I am — I feel very confident that I know how to navigate the federal government. And so I am working very hard and not taking anything for granted in this election.”

KOB 4 later shared the exchange on X, writing, “Deb Haaland says she will sign a moratorium on data centers until certain protections are in place. When KOB asked about campaign donations from Project Jupiter, here was her response.” The post had drawn thousands of views within hours.

The response quickly drew criticism online, with X users accusing Haaland of dodging the question. One commenter credited KOB for asking but said the answer was “nothing more than word salad.” Another wrote that she “didn’t answer the question,” while another asked why she accepted $12,400 from Oracle “if she doesn’t like data centers.”

Others focused on Haaland’s “walk and chew gum” line. One commenter wrote that if Haaland could do both, “then she should return the money back to Project Jupiter and tell them New Mexico and our water are not for sale.” Another commenter said she was “meanwhile receiving money from Project Jupiter,” while another praised KOB for asking the question but added, “Too bad she didn’t answer it.”

The backlash also reflected the broader public frustration surrounding Project Jupiter. Oracle disclosed more than $3.4 million in spending to promote the project as it sought to influence the state Environment Department’s review of an air quality permit, according to Searchlight New Mexico. The State Ethics Commission called it “likely the largest lobbying advertising campaign ever disclosed in New Mexico.”

Haaland’s campaign is now trying to walk a narrow line: accepting data center-linked money while promising to regulate the same industry. Her proposal calls for a pause on new large-scale data centers and requirements related to transparency, tribal consultation, renewable energy, water protections, union jobs, decommissioning bonds, and clawbacks for companies that fail to meet state standards. New Mexico Political Report reported that Haaland said she “cannot be bowled over with donations to my campaign” and that Project Jupiter would have to follow state law under her proposed framework.

But the central issue remains unresolved. According to the Santa Fe New Mexican account provided from the press conference, Haaland said she had not had conversations about returning the campaign money but planned to discuss the idea with her team. In other words, after being directly asked about the Project Jupiter-linked donations, Haaland still did not commit to returning the cash.

Republican gubernatorial nominee Gregg Hull has criticized the timing of Haaland’s announcement, calling her moratorium push suspicious after revelations about the Oracle and Project Jupiter-linked donations. New Mexico Political Report reported Hull saying her press conference came two days after it was discovered that she had taken nearly $100,000 from Oracle and Project Jupiter executives.

For Haaland, the optics are difficult: stand in front of an “Agua es Vida” message, promise to protect New Mexico’s water, and then decline to clearly say she will give back money tied to the very data center interests now seeking influence and approval in the state.

Her answer to KOB’s question did not include a bright-line pledge. It did not include, “I will return the money.” It did not include, “I will stop taking Project Jupiter-linked donations.” Instead, Haaland lamented the cost of elections, insisted she could “walk and chew gum at the same time,” and pivoted to Medicaid, SNAP, and the federal government.

For New Mexicans already skeptical of Project Jupiter, Haaland’s response may only deepen concerns that her new data center crackdown is less about drawing a hard line against Big Data and more about political damage control after the money trail became public.

WATCH:

Haaland chokes on Project Jupiter cash question, REFUSES to return their $87K Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 255
Scroll to Top