1) Loss of local control: Article X, also known as the "anti-donation clause," prohibited the state government from giving or loaning public funds to private entities. When it was stricken out, it may have raised concerns among New Mexicans about potential abuses of public funds and loss of local control over the allocation of resources.
2) Corruption and favoritism: Removing Article X might have raised concerns about the government's ability to allocate public funds unfairly or through corrupt practices. Without the anti-donation clause, there could have been fears that public money could be funneled towards private interests or used to benefit certain individuals or groups, instead of being used for the broader benefit of the state.
3) Wasteful spending: The removal of Article X could have been seen as a potential green light for wasteful spending practices. Concerns might have been raised that without the restriction against giving or loaning public funds to private entities, there could be a lack of accountability and oversight, leading to inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.
4) Unequal distribution of resources: Striking out Article X might have raised concerns about a potential unequal distribution of resources. There could have been fears that public funds would be disproportionately allocated to wealthier regions or companies, neglecting the needs of more disadvantaged communities or groups.
5) Political influence and special interests: The removal of Article X might have heightened concerns about the influence of special interest groups or political connections in the allocation of public funds. New Mexicans might have worried that without the anti-donation clause's restrictions, political favoritism could play a larger role in determining who receives public funding, potentially disadvantaging those without influential connections.
Why do you think a concern for New Mexicans might have been when Article X was stricken out?(5 points)
1 answer
1 answer