New Mexico’s Gabe Vasquez helped the company secure up to $50,000 in taxpayer funds while disclosing the options
When Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D., N.M.) served as a Las Cruces city councilor, he backed a measure to send up to $50,000 in COVID relief money to his former employer while filing financial disclosures stating he held stock options in the company, records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show. Vasquez now says they “had no value.”
On Feb. 16, 2021, Vasquez voted for a $977,000 COVID relief package that redirected up to $50,000 from hotel lodging for first responders to a program providing remote monitoring equipment for patients recovering from COVID-19 after leaving a hospital. That equipment was supplied by Electronic Caregiver, which has also been known as LifeSupport Medical and SameDay Security. Vasquez worked as the company’s executive vice president of public relations, according to his LinkedIn profile. Vasquez was also repeatedly named as a representative of the company between 2011 and 2013.
Vasquez disclosed holding stock options in Electronic Caregiver at the same time he approved the company’s COVID relief funds. His annual financial disclosure listed the company under a section asking councilors to name “all businesses in which you have any financial interest, including stock or any other equity interest” every year between 2017 and 2021.
Vasquez and the company now say he didn’t actually hold the stock options. In a letter from its chief operations officer, Electronic Caregiver said Vasquez “was granted 50,000 employee stock options in 2012,” but the “options were subject to a minimum four years of tenure requirement for vesting.” Vasquez left the company after two years and did not “directly purchase” the shares, meaning “the options did not vest and were forfeited in accordance with the plan’s guidelines.” A spokeswoman for Vasquez said the options “had no value for at least six years at the time of the city council vote in question.”
The spokeswoman suggested that Vasquez knew he no longer held the options and disclosed them anyway “in the spirit of maximum transparency.” The disclosures, however, ask councilors like Vasquez to list businesses in which they hold active financial interest, and none of Vasquez’s disclosures noted that the options had expired or held no value. After the Free Beacon reached out for comment, Vasquez updated his disclosure forms, which campaign spokeswoman Patricia Socarras Santiago said was “to make it abundantly clear he had no financial stake in any business while holding office.” She did not provide evidence that Vasquez was aware the options had expired.
City policy stipulates that councilors cannot “use their positions for personal gain or to give unwarranted benefit or treatment to any person” and requires them to “inform their supervisors in writing of reasonably foreseen potential conflicts.” Given that Vasquez appears to have believed he held the stock options and therefore stood to gain from the grant awarded to Electronic Caregiver, he could have chosen to recuse himself from the proceedings. Las Cruces city council minutes show others recusing themselves over conflicts of interest, though Vasquez did not.
The revelation of Vasquez’s disclosures comes as the second-term congressman seeks to defend his seat against Republican challenger and Marine veteran Greg Cunningham in a district President Donald Trump won by 2 points in 2024. It is not the first time Vasquez’s employment history has landed him in hot water.
In 2004, for example, a former colleague of Vasquez’s at a Las Cruces call center accused Vasquez of calling the center, asking for “Chris,” and, when asked to elaborate, responding, “Chris, the n—er,” using a racial slur, the Free Beacon reported. A police report detailing the incident redacts the caller’s name, but a city records custodian told the Free Beacon in 2024 that the suspect identified in the report is Vasquez.
Vasquez has had other run-ins with the law. During his 2024 campaign, police in El Paso, Texas, executed an arrest warrant against him over his failure to appear in court in 2002 after being charged with driving without a license, driving without insurance, and disregarding an “official traffic control device,” the Free Beacon reported at the time. In 2007, an argument between Vasquez and his then-girlfriend led police to visit his home “in reference to a possible domestic,” according to a police report.
Read the full article here
