EDITORIAL: Senator's pot firm shows Legislature high on self-interest

Jun. 19—"Now that we have the cards and mugs, it's official! I am happy to announce that John Osborn and I have formed a new, full-service cannabis law firm! We are thrilled to be helping folks get into this new industry, and can't wait to see what lies ahead." — N.M. Sen. Katy Duhigg, Twitter, June 3

As the saying goes, there is a lot more to this story.

Twitter is limited on word count, so the senator can be forgiven for failing to mention she was the primary Senate sponsor of sweeping legislation to legalize the growth, possession and sale of recreational cannabis in New Mexico. Supporters often argued that marijuana could become a major industry and pillar of economic development, and Duhigg clearly is on board with the notion there is money to be made here.

Only she never mentioned that during heated legislative debates or at the signing ceremony for the legislation, set to take effect July 1. She says that's because the idea of a law firm focused on the state's new weed industry emerged only after this year's legislative sessions.

"Certainly, had I been planning this when the bill went through, I would have disclosed it," she said after announcing her new business enterprise — one brought about directly by her legislative efforts.

For those New Mexicans already cynical about perceived conflicts of interest in its citizen legislature, this is one toke over the line.

But Duhigg makes a fair point when she says this sort of thing is, in fact, inherent in a citizen legislature in which lawmakers receive only per diem and a pension.

Sen. Cliff Pirtle, a Roswell Republican, pushed a competing cannabis bill that would have treated cannabis more as an agricultural product. He's a farmer. Sen. Jacob Candelaria of Albuquerque and House Speaker Brian Egolf of Santa Fe, both Democrats and lawyers, have represented clients on cannabis issues. Egolf's law firm also does civil rights plaintiff cases and likely will benefit immensely from the state's new Civil Rights Act, which he championed in this year's session. The public knew they had skin in the game.

So, yes, Duhigg is correct when she says the Legislature is full of lawmakers who debate legislation that deals with their livelihoods, including teachers voting on annual budgets that largely set their pay levels. (A partial list of 2021 legislator occupations shows 15 lawyers and six currently employed in education.)

And she is correct that the best "fix" is to pay lawmakers for their work. It's an idea that has gained traction and one that is prime time for serious consideration — provided that, along with a livable salary, there is a limit on outside business and employment that leads to the "inherent" conflicts Duhigg describes.

A handful of states, including Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania, have full-time, well-paid legislators with a large staff to work on legislation and constituent services. The vast majority are hybrids where legislators receive some salary. Then, there are a few states, such as New Mexico, mostly rural with low populations, that fall into the citizen legislature category.

There was a time when it was enough to have lawmakers travel from around the state to Santa Fe for 30- and 60-day sessions depending on the year. Short sessions meant people could get back home to work quicker. In 2021, we are not only beset by legislative conflicts, but also the business of the state and the jobs legislators are asked to do have evolved beyond the "old days."

The business of governing is complex. The budget this year is about $7.4 billion. New Mexicans need to know we have a system where the people debating and passing the laws are doing so for the greater good and not to advance economic self-interest.

The time has come to move the New Mexico Legislature out of the "citizen" status and into one that compensates lawmakers, while limiting their outside business interests.

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.