Politics

Western senator vows to block Deb Haaland’s nomination to DOI over her ‘radical views’

Over the weekend, Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) announced that he was “deeply concerned” with Joe Biden’s cabinet nominee for the Department of the Interior, Rep. Deb Haaland (D-NM). He vowed to block Haaland’s nomination if his needs were not addressed.

Daines’ statement following his conversation with Haaland reads as follows: 

“After our conversation, I’m deeply concerned with the Congresswoman’s support on several radical issues that will hurt Montana, our way of life, our jobs and rural America, including her support for the Green New Deal and President Biden’s oil and gas moratorium, as well as her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. I am also concerned by the responses I received about the role of the Department and lack of appreciation for issues that impact Montana such as wildlife management and hunting and sportsman access. I’m not convinced the Congresswoman can divorce her radical views and represent what’s best for Montana and all stakeholders in the West. Unless my concerns are addressed, I will block her confirmation.”

Sen. Daines’ objection to Haaland’s radical policies, as reported on for years in New Mexico, will not necessarily doom the New Mexico congresswoman’s chances of nomination, but it will complicate them, which according to the Daily Montanan, “Instead of moving Haaland’s nomination hearing, which still has yet to be scheduled as of Monday afternoon, the Senate would have to forward her through the cloture process, a more cumbersome path.” 

Daines’ concerns come after shouts against Haaland from New Mexico, the state she claims to represent, and around the nation opposing her nomination. Pro-energy group Power the Future wrote in a statement, “It’s no surprise to the Senator and others raise serious concerns about the extreme positions of Congresswoman Haaland. Leaders in her home state of New Mexico may turn a blind eye to her radical ideas, but those who fight for our nation’s energy workers know there is too much at stake for our nation. There is no doubt Deb Haaland would be the most radical Interior Secretary in the history of our country” 

Aside from her radical views on just about every issue imaginable, she does not have the qualifications to lead the Department of the Interior (a factor Biden has not cared much about through his other nominees, such as Pete Buttigieg for Department of Transportation). 

The Piñon Post reported back in November: 

But in reality, Haaland has no qualifications to speak of. Not a single piece of legislation she has sponsored in her short two-year tenure in the House has become law, and she has a record of straight-up lying to the American people. Not to mention the fact that despite her multiple attempts at passing the bar to become a lawyer, she has failed. 

During a candidate debate in October, Haaland misled on multiple issues. She claimed she worked in “a bipartisan way” while in Congress, despite voting with socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 95% of the time, she called a leftist Black Lives Matter/Antifa mob committing arson and vandalism in Lafayette Square near the White House “peaceful,” she claimed she did not support Antifa, despite calling them “peaceful protestors,” saying she has never “missed a vote,” despite missing several, and falsely claiming President Trump called COVID-19 a “Democrat hoax,” which liberal fact-checkers have even admitted is incorrect. 

Aside from her failed record in Congress and desperate attempts to woo members of the socialist AOC “squad,” she has proven no qualifications for the job she currently holds, much less that of a cabinet position in a presidential administration.

The move by western Sen. Daines to stymie Haaland’s confirmation gives even more credibility to the assertion that Haaland is not qualified for the role and holds extraordinarily fringe political views.

NM House Dems kill GOP bill to lower seniors’ tax burden by exempting Social Security income

On Monday, Democrats in the New Mexico House Taxation and Revenue Committee voted to block a bill, H.B. 49 that would lower New Mexico senior citizens’ tax burden by exempting their Social Security income (SSI). The anti-senior citizen vote will continue New Mexico’s policy of forcing senior citizens to shell out a chunk of their Social Security checks to the NM State government.

Two of H.B. 49’s five sponsors, Reps. Cathrynn Brown (R-Eddy) and Rebecca Dow (R-Grant, Hidalgo & Sierra) said of their bill, “New Mexico cannot afford another year of being uncompetitive with our neighboring states. It’s time to level the playing field. Studies show that many senior citizens would consider moving to New Mexico if we did not tax Social Security income, and quite a few retirees would decide to stay. If legislators are serious about attracting retirees to New Mexico, this is a meaningful way to show it. In the long run, not only will New Mexico seniors get the tax relief they deserve, but the state will benefit culturally and economically from the new influx of retirees.” 

The bill previously passed the Labor, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee on February 2nd, with a “do pass” recommendation from the committee and rare bipartisan support. During its first committee, Reps. Eliseo Alcon (D-Cibola & McKinley), Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo), and Angelica Rubio (D-Doña Ana) opposed the bill.

However, the seemingly commonsense bill met its fate in the House Taxation and Revenue Committee, chaired by far-left Rep. Javier Martinez (D-Bernalillo). 

After the disappointing vote, the New Mexico House Republicans tweeted, “Social Security tax exemption (HB49) was blocked by @NMHouseDems. What a year for our senior citizens… first being kicked out of senior homes bc state offered more $ for COVID beds, basically endless lines for vax and food, and now a double down on taxing SSI.” 

This is a developing story. The final vote tally and the names of the representatives who voted against New Mexico seniors will be added once the final vote tally is available.

NM Dems’ paid sick leave bill is the most extreme and ‘punitive’ to employers in the nation, says DWS

In January, state Reps. Angelica Rubio (D-Doña Ana), G. Andrés Romero (D-Bernalillo), Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo), and Linda Serrato (D-Santa Fe) filed H.B. 37, which is an extreme bill pertaining to “paid sick leave,” which has the potential of killing countless small businesses in New Mexico, as reported on earlier.

The bill would force every single employer in the state (160,000 out of 340,000 being small businesses) to provide up to fifty-six hours of paid sick leave to employees, regardless of how many hours the employee works per week or if they are an independent contractor. “Employees shall accrue a minimum of one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked,” says the bill. The Department of Workforce Solutions (DWS) notes that “Employers could not avoid liability for sick leave by misclassifying the employee as an independent contractor.”

Putting employers on the hook for thousands in paid sick leave, as well as all the administrative costs involved in tracking and reporting compliance to DWS, would put many small “mom and pop” shops out of business, with few protections for the employer if an employee were to complain and take the business to court. 

Not only are the employers forced to delve out thousands of dollars in paid sick leave, but the leave can be used for an array of different things, including the following: 

1) An employee’s mental or physical illness, injury or health condition; medical diagnosis, care or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury or health condition; or preventive medical care; 

(2) an employee to care for a family member with a mental or physical illness, injury or health condition; to care for a family member who needs medical diagnosis, care or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury or health condition; or to care for a family member who needs preventive medical care; or 

(3) an absence necessary due to domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking suffered by the employee or employee’s family member; provided that the leave is for the employee to obtain medical or psychological treatment or other counseling, relocate, prepare for or participate in legal proceedings or obtain services or to assist the employee’s family member with any of those activities.

The bill also forces the employer to be on the hook for up to 80 hours of “supplemental leave” during a pandemic, which the employee could use not only to take care of their children (as state employees are currently allowed to do) but any “family member when that family member’s care provider is unavailable due to the public health emergency.”

When using the paid sick leave, the employee must make a “good faith” effort to alert the employer ahead of time, while not being required to “find a replacement worker as a condition of using paid sick leave.” If the employee claims they must use paid sick leave for “an emergency, unexpected illness, domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking,” then no notice to the employer is required.

According to DWS, “Employees alleging employers violating the act but also advocacy groups lacking usual standing in court could seek relief.” That means social justice groups could swoop in and allege a complaint, opening an expensive inquiry into the employer. The bill would force an investigation by DWS within 30-days, which the department notes “is inconsistent with other investigations that the Labor Relations Division (LRD) is tasked with.” 

“HB37 imposes new notice and recordkeeping obligations on employers and subjects them to monetary penalties for violating the proposed law, allowing courts to impose liquidated damages ranging from $500 to $1,000 per violation plus actual damages, back pay and benefits, reinstatement, rescission of disciplinary action, litigation costs and attorney fees,” writes DWS.

The Department of Workforce Solutions, headed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham-appointed Secretary Bill McCamley, gave a startling rebuke of the legislation, writing that the bill is the most aggressive and “punitive” to employers in the entire nation.

A cursory review of similar PSL legislation across the United States reveals that no single state law has as aggressive an array of requirements and employer penalties as HB37… Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have PSL statutes, none of which are as comprehensive and punitive as HB37,” wrote the Department. 

DWS also notes that the claims required by the bill would force the Department to “establish an entire new class of cases” that it must investigate and litigate, requiring “considerable additional funding in order to support the personnel and structural enhancements required to execute these mandates,” despite no appropriation being tied to the bill.

The Department has problems already with juggling unemployment claims during the COVID-19 pandemic due to Gov. Lujan Grisham’s harsh lockdowns. And while New Mexicans are still waiting in line for their unemployment checks, 24,872 citizens are on the hook to pay back DWS’s “overpayments,” which haunts the department.

H.B. 37 is related to two other paid sick leave bills, H.B. 20 and H.B. 38, which outline longer-term medical and family benefits. However, this bill is by far the most aggressive, and as DWS notes, the most “punitive” to businesses, although it takes issue with portions of the other bills. 

The bill has been referred to the House Labor, Veterans’ and Military Affairs Committee (HLVMC) for initial consideration. Members of the Committee can be reached here

Report: GOP rep. who voted for abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill switches parties

The Piñon Post learned Friday that Republican Rep. Phelps Anderson (Chaves, Lea & Roosevelt) who voted for an abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill in a Health and Human Services Committee hearing last week, changed his party affiliation to “Declined to State” after getting blowback.

Republican Leader Jim Townsend said, “I received a letter from him, and I have had a conversation with him, and he has left the Republican Party.”

The Santa Fe New Mexican reported that a text message from Anderson read, “Sorry,” adding, “Not today as I have done enough.”

During the committee hearing, Rep. Anderson claimed he understood concerns health care providers had about the bill regarding conscience rights, however, he voted to advance the measure anyway. 

After the vote, the Piñon Post send a letter asking the Republican Party leadership in the House of Representatives to hold a censure vote on Anderson by this Friday. However, that vote would no longer be necessary, now that Anderson has relinquished his affiliation with the Republican Party–a pro-life party. 

The renunciation by Rep. Anderson leaves his memberships on the Health and Appropriations & Finance committees in jeopardy, as the House Republicans will want Republicans on committees, especially influential committees like Appropriations and Finance.  

Rep. Anderson previously refused to comment on his vote, telling the Santa Fe New Mexican, “I think It’s best that I just leave that one alone now.”

The anti-life bill, H.B. 7, advanced from the Health and Human Services Committee on a vote of 8-3 and subsequently passed the House Judiciary Committee. It is unclear how Rep. Anderson will vote on the bill when it reaches the House floor. 

GOP bill seeks to require health and safety protocols at abortion facilities during pandemic

One bill that has not gotten much attention in the media is H.B. 160, a commonsense measure aimed at protecting New Mexico women during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The proposal, sponsored by state Reps. Rebecca Dow (R-Grant, Hidalgo & Sierra), Rod Montoya (R-San Juan), James Strickler (R-San Juan), and Rep. Luis Terrazas (R-Doña Ana, Grant & Sierra) would require the New Mexico Department of Health to “establish and require specific health and safety protocols to be used at facilities at which abortions are performed to prevent the spread” of COVID-19 by July 1, 2021. 

The bill states, “The requirements shall include requirements for the use of personal protective equipment, capacity restrictions, enhanced screening procedures and self-isolation and self-quarantine for persons traveling into New Mexico from high-risk areas and low-risk areas.” 

“The requirements shall remain in effect as long as any public health order is in effect pursuant to the Public Health Act for the purpose of controlling or abating the coronavirus disease 2019.” 

The bill appears to be an attempt to protect women while the COVID-19 pandemic continues. As leftist teachers unions and school districts have been complaining about going back to school over health concerns and Democrats have been vigorously working to ram through an abortion up-to-birth bill that would strip protections for multiple groups, this bill looks to set up protections for patients during the pandemic.

On Thursday, Rep. Dow shared her pro-life story on Twitter after another pro-life Representative, T. Ryan Lane (R-San Juan) shared his.

“I’m state Representative Rebecca Dow and choose life. I was nineteen years old–my sophomore year of college–when I learned that I was pregnant. I had about twenty dollars in the bank, and I was attending college on a scholarship. Choosing life was the most challenging and the most rewarding thing I’ve ever done. It changed the trajectory of my life, made me learn a lot faster than I would have had to. Today. My daughter is 27 years old. She has a degree in social work, and her emphasis is working with families and babies who have been going through hard times. I’m so glad I chose life.”

H.B. 160 has been referred to the House Health and Human Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee.

Dems’ latest assault on oil and gas: adding ‘environmental rights’ to NM Constitution

Far-left members of the New Mexico House of Representatives and Senate have proposed a bill, S.J.R. 3, that would change Article Two of the state’s constitution to add “environmental rights.” The bill sponsors include Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Bernalillo), Sen. William Soules (D-Doña Ana), Rep. Joanne Ferrary (D-Doña Ana), and Sen. Harold Pope, Jr. (D-Bernalillo). 

The measure, which would require would effectively make it illegal for any kind of energy production, proposes “The people of the state, including future generations, have the right to a clean and healthy environment, including pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems and a stable climate, and to the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic and healthful qualities of the environment.” 

“The state, including each branch, agency and political subdivision, shall serve as trustee of the natural resources of the state, among them its waters, air, flora, fauna, climate and public lands. The state shall conserve, protect and maintain these resources for the benefit of all the people, including generations yet to come.” 

“The rights stated in this section are inherent, inalienable and indefeasible, are among those rights reserved to all the people and are on par with other protected inalienable rights. The provisions of this section are self-executing.” 

It is unclear how much the far-out proposal will cost to the state, but the fiscal impact report on the bill notes, “Agencies suggested the repeal of Section 21 of Article 20 removing Legislative powers associated with the regulation of pollution in New Mexico, may call into question environmental statutes previously passed by the Legislature. Additionally, the amendment to Article 2 creates a trustee obligation in each branch, agency, and political subdivisions of the state that could cause confusion regarding how such trusteeships fit with the state’s existing environmental laws and regulations.”

As well as causing confusion regarding the implementation of the proposal, its vagueness will likely make it “unconstitutional” in New Mexico to produce any energy that could potentially emit any kind of “pollutant,” which may be whatever state agencies deem fit.

This would mean agencies such as the state Land Office, run by rabidly anti-energy Secretary Stephanie Garcia Richard, would have 100% dominion over state land and water rights. Also, the conflicting science put forth by many left-wing conspiracy theorists regarding “climate change” could dictate what the constitutional amendment’s definition of “a stable climate” is. 

The constitutional amendment, if implemented, could be the final nail in the coffin for the oil and gas industry in New Mexico, which produces one-third of all revenue to the general fund each year. Public schools and state agencies rely on the industry for survival. 

The bill has been referred to the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Newly sworn-in NM rep. stands up for life in the womb

New Mexico Rep. T. Ryan Lane (R-San Juan) is brand new to the New Mexico Legislature, but he’s already ruffling some feathers on the left by standing by his convictions and boldly supporting human life in the womb.

In a video message tweeted out by the New Mexico House Republicans, Rep. Lane told New Mexico why he stands for life.

Here’s what he said: 

“I represent and stand for life because I care about the future of our state. I care about our future citizens who will be teachers, doctors, engineers, farmers, small business owners, and so many other things. And that future will never become a reality because they are not given an opportunity for life. Life is precious and I love all of it. That’s why I stand for life.”

Watch Rep. Lane’s message below and follow him here

The Farmington lawmaker wrote on his Facebook in a caption to the video, “Who knew that standing for life could be so controversial? Welcome to the Brave New World.”

Rep. Lane’s message comes as radical Democrats in the Legislature are working hard to ram through an abortion up-to-birth and infanticide bill that would strip away protections for babies in the womb, mothers, and health care providers. The Senate version of the bill passed through its last committee on Wednesday by a vote of 6-3 and it heads over to the Senate floor next.

Democrats claim they have the votes to pass the extreme bill after they mounted multiple primary challenges to pro-life Senate Democrats and other pro-life members mysteriously died or faced scandals, leading to their defeats.

Dems’ bill removing mandatory sentences for child rapists likely to be heard in committee Thursday

A far-left bill that has grabbed the attention of many in New Mexico is H.B. 140, sponsored by state Reps. Karen Bash (D-Bernalillo) and Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe). The bill would eliminate minimum sentences for multiple offenders, including child rapists, poachers, violent felons, violent sexual felons, restraining order violators, and habitual offenders.

Democrat Speaker of the House Brian Egold argued that the bill, which would strip away protections for heinous crimes such as child rape, would merely “restore discretion to judges.”

The fiscal impact report on H.B. 140 paints a different picture, with the report clearly stating that the bill “eliminates the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of three years for second-degree felony criminal sexual contact of a minor” and “eliminates the mandatory term of imprisonment of three years for the second degree felony of criminal sexual penetration where the victim is between the ages of 13 and 18.” 

With the gaping holes in the bills that could allow child rapists and violent sexual predators back on the streets, many in the public are speaking out about the contents of the bill.

The Republican Party of New Mexico posted on their Facebook page, “It’s immoral, unthinkable that a legislator would want pedophiles to walk our streets after raping our innocent children. This is despicable and Bash is not worthy of serving the public.”

“Remember Victoria Martens? Her own mother allowed men to sexually abuse her and Victoria was later raped, murdered and dismembered. Now Rep. Bash wants to side with these sex monsters.” 

The bill, which would reward sexual criminals and pedophiles, while ignoring the victims is just the latest move by Democrats to loosen laws in New Mexico protecting vulnerable communities in the name of “social justice.”

H.B. 140 was scheduled to be heard on Tuesday in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee, however, it has been rolled back to Thursday, after around 100 people on the Tuesday “virtual” committee hearing waited through a three-hour-long meeting, which did not consider the bill. 

Please reach out to the below legislators in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee to ask them to vote against the bill, which would put victims in danger and reward child rapists and pedophiles. Please also reach out to the bill’s sponsors, Reps. Andrea Romero and tell them to withdraw the bill:

Chairwoman Rep. Liz Thomson (D-Bernalillo): liz.thomson@nmlegis.gov | (505) 986-4415

Vice-Chair/ H.B. 140 SPONSOR Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe): andrea@andrearomero.com | (505) 986-4243

Rep. Brittney Barreras (D-Bernalillo): BRITTNEYFORNEWMEXICO@GMAIL.COM | (505) 986-4248

Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval & Santa Fe): stefani.lord@nmlegis.gov | (505) 986-4453

Rep. Randall T. Pettigrew (R-Lea): randall.pettigrew@nmlegis.gov | (505) 986-4467

H.B. 140 SPONSOR: Rep. Karen Bash (D-Bernalillo) karen.bash@nmlegis.gov | (505) 986-4236

NM Democrat’s anti-gun bill would make it a crime to teach your child how to shoot

On Monday, S.B. 224 was introduced in the New Mexico Senate, sponsored by far-left state Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Bernalillo), which tries to not only force New Mexicans to follow guidelines on how they can store guns in their own home, it makes it a crime to teach one’s children how to shoot. 

The bill text reads, “It is an offense for a firearm owner or authorized user to store or keep a firearm in any premises unless the firearm is secured in a locked container or secured by a gun lock or other means so as to render the firearm inaccessible or unusable to any person other than the owner or other authorized user.” 

The “storage mandate” in the bill “would make it a crime for a child to handle your firearm unless the child was 12 or older and had previously completed a firearms safety class. You would become a criminal for taking your child to go shooting if they had not previously taken some kind of formal class,” says the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association (NMSSA). 

“The bill is an uneducated attempt to demonize firearms,” says the organization, adding that  “It is already a crime to place a child in a situation that endangers their life, this law does nothing to add to a child’s safety.”

The bill text reads, “If a firearm owner or authorized user knows or reasonably should have known that a minor, an at-risk person or a prohibited person could gain access to a firearm belonging to or under the control of that owner or authorized person, and if a minor, an at-risk person or a prohibited person obtained access to that firearm, it is an offense if the firearm owner or authorized user failed to secure the firearm in a locked container or by a lock or other means so as to render such firearm inaccessible or unusable to any person other than the firearm owner or other authorized user.” 

NMSSA also notes that, “The law is completely unenforceable unless they plan on going door-to-door inspecting firearm storage in your home. But this bill again goes beyond what they have attempted in the past. If a prohibited possessor gains access to your firearm you are liable as well.” 

“Albuquerque is the property crime capital of America; if your home or vehicle was broken into and a convicted felon stole your firearm, you could be charged with a crime under the bill. Instead of taking on the issue of the crime wave that has engulfed Albuquerque and other parts of the state, Sedillo Lopez wants to blame you, someone just seeking to defend yourself, if your firearm is stolen.” 

The bill will be heard in the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee, where it will be considered in the coming days. Below are the names of members of the Committee to contact them regarding this legislation: 

Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino – (D)  (505) 397-8839 jortizyp@msn.com

Sen. Bill Tallman – (D) (505) 397-8854 bill.tallman@nmlegis.gov

Sen. Gregg Schmedes – (R) (505) 986-4395gregg.schmedes@nmlegis.gov

Sen. David M. Gallegos – (R) (505) 986-4278 david.rsi@hotmail.com

Sen. Stuart Ingle – (R)  (505) 986-4702 stuart.ingle@nmlegis.gov

Sen. Brenda G. McKenna – (D)  (505) 397-8834 brenda.mckenna@nmlegis.gov

Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez – (D) (505) 397-8847 a.sedillolopez@nmlegis.gov

Sen. Elizabeth “Liz” Stefanics – (D) (505) 397-8851 lstefanics@msn.com 

Sen. Sedillo Lopez is a first-term New Mexico senator appointed to her position after an unsuccessful run for Congress against Deb Haaland in 2018. Now, Sedillo Lopez is vying for the First Congressional District seat once again, and this legislation is likely something she is trying to use to court anti-gun donors and support groups, such as Mike Bloomberg’s “Everytown.” Everytown endorsed Haaland in her runs for Congress, along with multiple other rabid anti-gun groups.

Sedillo Lopez’s bill is just the latest in a slew of anti-gun proposals, such as one to criminalize multiple firearms and components and another that seeks to harshen New Mexico’s already stringent “red flag” law.

Deep-pocketed marijuana lobby banking on Legislature’s proposals to legalize weed

On Monday, state Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-Bernalillo) introduced a proposal, S.B. 13, to legalize marijuana for recreational use in adults. 

He said, “The reason I decided to do it this time is I got frustrated with the fact that I think people want us to do this in pretty high numbers,” and he wanted to propose a bill that “would pass,” as Democrats’ previous attempts to legalize the drug have been met with large opposition on both sides of the aisle. His bill would tax the substance an extreme 21%, which may, in fact, promote the illegal sale of the drug on the street due to the unaffordable price with taxes.

Ivey Soto received $1,000 from PurLife, a marijuana dispensary headed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham “maxed out” donor Darren White, in his 2020 bid for re-election. 

Other members of the Legislature have also proposed marijuana legalization bills, including Sen. Cliff Pirtle (R-Chaves, Eddy, and Otero), whose bill, S.B. 288, wants to legalize marijuana and leave private companies such as PurLife with the distribution. Pirtle proposes a 2% excise tax on top of local gross receipts tax on the drug. He received $2,500.00 from PurLife and $1,000 from another marijuana company, Natural RX, in his 2020 bid for re-election.

In an interview months before the 2018 election, which Gov. Lujan Grisham won, PurLife’s Darren White said “Our company got behind Michelle pretty early and we maxed out [its allowable contributions] quickly.” Now, the governor is trying to make it a top-priority to ram through her marijuana bill to fulfill her 2018 campaign promise made to both the voters and to marijuana dispensaries like PurLife. She failed to do so in 2019 and 2020, however, due to more moderate Democrats leaving the chamber due to the Governor running primary challenges against them in the 2020 election, she has a better shot at legalizing weed in the state.

Another legislator who is sponsoring a bill for legalized pot is Rep. Javier Martinez (D-Bernalillo), who said of his bill that “It makes for the perfect conditions if you will. I don’t think the opportunity has ever been better than it is now to pass a legalization bill.” He says New Mexico needs the bill to cover for gaps in the budget. 

Martinez received $5,000 from Darren White’s PurLife for his 2020 re-election bid to the state House. 

UPDATE: The New Mexico Legislature will meet on March 30 for Gov. Lujan Grisham’s special session to force through recreational marijuana since the Governor and her allies failed to pass it in the regular 60-day session.

Other members of the Legislature who received campaign donations from PurLife in the 2020 election cycle: 

Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino (D-Santa Fe): $1,000

Rep. Kelly Fajardo (R-Valencia) $1,000

Rep. Deborah Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) $1,000

Rep. Rod Montoya (R-Farmington) $1,000

Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) $1,000

New Mexico Senate Democrats $5,000

Rep. Harry Garcia (D-Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, Socorro, San Juan & Valencia) $1,000

Sen. Stuart Ingle (R-Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Lea and Roosevelt) $1,000

Rep. Candie Sweetser (D-Grant, Hidalgo & Luna) $1,000

Sen. Craig Brandt (R-Sandoval) $2,500

Rep. Antonio  “Moe” Maestas (D-Bernalillo) $2,500, Moe’s “Moe PAC” $5,500

Fmr. Sen. John Arthur Smith (D-Dona Ana, Hidalgo, Luna & Sierra) $2,500

Brian Egolf Speaker Fund (D-Santa Fe) $2,500

Sen. Mark Moores (R-Bernalillo) $2,500

Sen. Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe) $2,500

Fmr. Sen. Sander Rue (R-Bernalillo) $2,500

Fmr. Sen. Mary Kay Papen (D-Doña Ana) $2,500

Rep. Sheryl Williams Stapleton (D-Bernalillo) $1,000

Fmr. Sen. Candace Gould (R-Bernalillo & Sandoval) $2,500

Rep. Micaela Cadena (D-Doña Ana) $1,000

Sen. Nancy Rodriguez (D-Santa Fe) $2,500

Rep. Jason Harper (R-Sandoval) $1,000

Rep. Doreen Gallegos (D-Doña Ana) $1,000

Sen. Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo) $1,000

Rep. Dayan Hochman-Vigil (D-Bernalillo) $1,000

Rep. Gail Chasey (D-Bernalillo) $1,000

Rep. Eliseo Alcon (D-Cibola & McKinley) $1,000

Sen. George Muñoz (D-Cibola, McKinley and San Juan) $2,500

Sen. Steve Neville (R-San Juan) $2,500 

Other members who received campaign contributions from Nature RX: 

Brian Egolf Speaker Fund (D-Santa Fe) $2,500

Sen. Jacob Candelaria (D-Bernalillo) $500

Rep. Joy Garratt (D-Bernalillo) $250

Sheryl Williams Stapleton (D-Bernalillo) $1,000

Fmr. Sen. Mary Kay Papen (D-Doña Ana) $500

Sen. Pete Campos (D-Colfax, Guadalupe, Harding, Mora, Quay, San Miguel and Taos) $500

Sen. Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe) $1,000

Marijuana Company Reynold Greenleaf & Associates, LLC

$5,000 to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham

Donations by “associate” members of the “New Mexico Cannabis Chamber of Commerce.”

Sen. Pete Campos (D-Colfax, Guadalupe, Harding, Mora, Quay, San Miguel and Taos): $5,000 from Affordable Solar on 12/16/2019

Scroll to Top