NM Pop Politics

To read the full text of PRC candidate Jerome Block Jr’s letter of explanation to the Secretary of State’s office, see this post or download the pdf here.

UPDATED: Opponent Rick Lass’ response after the jump.

Bottom line: Block hasn’t even begun to dig himself out of the hole. In fact, he might have dug himself deeper. He essentially admitted that he tried to use primary election funds to pay for his general election campaign. But the letter itself isn’t very credible or verifiable, and Block has proven himself capable of spinning yarns–One has to wonder if he picked this new story because it was the least of several possible offenses.

Quick background: Public Regulation Commission candidate Jerome Block Jr. is running for office with $101,000 worth of public money, yours and mine. Block paid $2,800 of our money to an elections official, San Miguel County Clerk Paul Maez, reporting it as $300 for “campaign coordination” and $2,500 for a rally performance by Maez’ Wild Country rock band. Block claimed to the press the money was for legitimate campaign work and a May 3 event. The press has since proven that Block lied: no event happened.  Block returned the money, but now he stands accused of violating campaign finance law which has some serious, serious consequences.

Block’s explanation: Blocks claims that he’d hired the band to play a May 3 event. When that event didn’t happen, he says he pushed it back to later in the month, but before the primary election on June 3.

When that didn’t happen, Block says he agreed to pay Maez for another possible future event, that would eventually be scheduled for September 27. But because of the kerfuffle in the news media regarding the payment to the band, he canceled the event and Maez returned the money.

SFR analysis:

1) Block never says when he paid Maez.

The whole point of public campaign finance system is to level the playing field. The candidates are each given the same amount of money to play around with.

So, in primary races, the candidates are given one chunl of money and then after the primary, those candidates have to return whatever they have left over. The winner can’t just carry his savings over to the general election race, because then he’d have more than his general election opponent.  Instead, all the general election candidates are given new, equal chunks of money.

Block tells the Secretary of State he made an agreement with Maez for the band to play in May. Then there was a scheduling conflict and  Block says they planned another performance for before the primary. When that raincheck performance was cancelled, Block says he “decided to set aside those funds” for a possible future one.

Set aside doesn’t mean pay. The next time Block tells us about the money trail, Maez is returning it to Block on an unspecified date more than two months later.

The campaign paperwork however says they paid Maez on June 9–after the primary.

A few possibilities:

• If Block paid Maez on June 9, like the report says, then by his own statement he is guilty of knowingly paying for for a general election expense with primary election money. Or, to put it more bluntly, he stole money from his primary campaign to spend illegally in the general election.
• If Block paid Maez in May when he hired the band, then he’s also guilty of falsifying campaign finance reports by lying about his campaign balance - the payment was not reported on the May 29 filing which would have included those dates.
• If Block never made the payment to Maez, then he made it disappear from the books and had no intention of returning it to the public. This is usually known as embezzlement.
• If Block did make the payment to Maez, then one has to ask what he was doing holding on to the money– especially since he was paid for “campaign coordination.” (San Miguel was the only county that Jerome Block carried in the primary; according to Block, Maez’ work was primarily out of the county - both equally questionable when there’s $2,500 in cash lying around.)

2) Even his claim of negligence is a fib.

Block states in his letter:

At some point, I erroneously stated to Mr. David Giuliani of the Las Vegas Optic that the Wyld Country Band had in fact played at an event. I negligently made this statement. My negligence was due to the pressure and details of the campaign. At the time of the statement I did not have a clear recollection of the exact details. My intent was not to mislead confuse or disguise any expenditure on the part of my campaign.

Here’s more you should know. In mid-August SFR asked the Block campaign about the payments to Maez and Maez’ country band. His campaign manager, Jonathan Valdez, responded via e-mail on August 18 with a very clear and solid explanation of the payment (bolding is mine):

Our campaign has followed all campaign finance laws, and will continue to do so. Jerome’s campaign follows all rules set forth by the “Voter Action Act”, and adheres to all rules and laws set forth by Federal and State Statutes. Paul Maez is well known and respected within his community. The vast majority of Paul Maez’s help was outside of San Miguel County. Paul has always maintained and upheld the highest ethical standards and integrity in his personal life and in his professional capacity. In northern New Mexico Politics, get out the vote rallies; barbecues, and house parties are long time traditions. Wyld Country was part of a large get out the vote rally we had in San Miguel County, just prior to the primary election. Wyld Country is a well-known band and was paid for services rendered. In comparison to other bands from the around the region we paid fair market value for those services.

Wyld Country was paid “market value” for “services rendered.” That sounds like a pretty clear recollection to me.

3) Now he’s lying about a second Wyld Country non-gig?

Block’s explanation of why he returned the money to the Secretary of State was bullshit.

On September 24th, 2008 I explained to Mr. Giuliani via email that the band had not played, but was planning playing at a later event. Because of the attention given to this discrepancy, and to avoid the appearance of any impropriety, I cancelled a campaign rally scheduled for September 27th, 2008 in Las Vegas at which the band was scheduled to play. Upon cancelling this event Mr. Maez returned the $2,500 to my campaign. Because this money was unspent and unencumbered by any future debts it was returned to the Public Election Fun on Septembet 26, 2008 in accordance with the New Mexico Election Code, 1-19A-7(D) N.M. Stat. Ann. (1978).

But here’s the thing he’s left out: By the time Block sent that e-mail to Giuliani, Giuliani had already published testimonials from a band member and Paul Maez himself proved that the event never happened and that Block had lied.

In fact, Block had cancelled that event well before he was proven a liar. Several days earlier, when Block was still sticking to his story that there’d been a May 3 gig, he told the Journal (Sept 20) he’d already cancelled the bands *second* performance:

The Block campaign also paid $2,500 to Maez’ band - Wyld Country - to perform at a campaign rally that Block said was held at a supporter’s ranch. Block said he had planned to have the band perform again, but the plan was scrapped following the media scrutiny of the payment.

Steve Terrell’s piece in the New Mexican and the questions he raises about the very same issue.

One question raised by Block’s response is exactly when or why Block canceled his Sept. 27 rally.

In a Sept. 18 interview with The New Mexican — which took place when Block was sticking with his story that Wyld Country had played the May rally, Block said he was canceling the Sept. 27 event because of the possible perception of “impropriety” because Maez of Maez’s role as San Miguel County clerk.

Block’s response to the Secretary of State appears to claim he canceled that rally because of the attention given to the “discrepancy” of the May rally never actually taking place. The response seems to indicate he canceled the Sept. 27 rally on or after Sept. 24.

So, Block had already canceled the event by Sept 18. Yet he didn’t feel it necessary to return the public’s money until after the press proved him a liar and accused him of a fourth-degree felony.

Is it possible that Block made up the second performance? Absolutely. Block or his associates never said a word about the performance until it was cancelled. And it’s not like he’s above making up campaign events to save his ass.

But if there was a Sept 27 event planned, it still would’ve been illegally paid for with primary election money.

Updated: Block’s general election opponent, Rick Lass of the Green Party, e-mailed us this written response:

First, it is clearly illegal to use primary funds for the general election under the campaign financing law. For Jerome to make a payment to the band using primary funds for a gig to be played in September is against the law, and he acknowledges in yesterday’s letter that that is what he did. His campaign finance report of July 3 shows he made the payment June 9, after the primary election was held.

He says that he lied to Giuliani because of the pressure of media calls. If he can’t handle the pressure of accounting for his actions to his constituents, how will he stand up to the pressure of industry lobbyists and
the media spotlight if he is a PRC Commissioner?

I worked hard along with other activists to enact public campaign financing, and one of the objections we heard was that candidates would use public funds improperly. We said that that would not happen because there would be strong enforcements written into the law. I call on the Secretary of State and Attorney General to act swiftly and decisively in this matter to uphold the integrity of the public financing system.

Jerome’s most recent letter merely adds to his history of missteps and misstatements, and proves that he is unfit to hold the critical job of representing New Mexicans on the Public Regulation Commission.