You are here: Home / 2010 / January / Archives for 14th

Hugh Hewitt for David Schweikert!

January 14, 2010 By 21 Comments

OK, I admit, I’ve been waiting a long time for this partnership to take place…

Tom & Madena Stewart
cordially invite you to their home for a reception with
Hugh Hewitt

HewittHugh

in support of
David Schweikert

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Paradise Valley, AZ

$500 – Private Reception at 5:00pm
$250 – General Reception at 5:30pm

RSVP Now

Professor Hugh Hewitt is a broadcast journalist and law professor whose nationally syndicated radio show is heard in more than 120 cities, and by more than 2 million listeners, across the United States every weekday afternoon. In Phoenix, you can find him on 960 KKNT from 4-7 pm.

He is a frequent guest on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, and has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times. He has received three Emmys, is the author of eight books, and has been called “the most influential conservative you have never heard of.”

David Schweikert – Hugh Hewitt Radio Ad

Filed Under: Advertising, Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections, Culture, Endorsements, Talk Radio

Arizona Clean Elections Matching Funds Unconstitutional

January 14, 2010 By 6 Comments

Yellow Sheets is reporting that a US Judge will rule Arizona’s Clean Elections matching funds provision unconstitutional in tomorrow’s decision. What is yet to be determined is how the ruling will affect the 2010 election cycle.

As a co-plaintiff on this suit, this has been a long fought battle to eliminate this hybridized form of taxpayer-funded campaigns. But I will also admit that I have mixed feelings over eliminating a law that has been effectively used by conservatives to strengthen our numbers in the legislature. In fact, many political consultants rely on clean elections money as an almost guaranteed revenue stream.

In the old days, a Republican candidate would have to go begging amongst the business community and chamber of commerce crowd to raise money. Socially conservative candidates were often viewed as “too controversial” to support by the business community who just wanted a candidate to talk fiscal issues and avoid controversy.

Clean Elections allowed conservative, grassroots, populist candidates to do an end-run around these business folks and avoid having to “kiss the ring” of these donors.

If the matching funds provision goes away with in the ruling tomorrow, many campaigns will have to re-think their strategy to win in August and November. Gaming the system will be more difficult but at the same time, organizations like mine (Arizona Taxpayer’s Action Committee) won’t have to compete against the State of Arizona using taxpayer monies when we voice our opinion.

Times are a changin’

Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Freedom of Speech

John Shadegg Retiring

January 14, 2010 By 29 Comments

NobleThinking is reporting that Republican Congressman John Shadegg has decided NOT to seek re-election. His office issued the following press release:

Congressman Shadegg Announces He Will Not Seek Re-election

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman John Shadegg (AZ-03) issued the following statement regarding his plans to represent Arizona’s Third Congressional District beyond 2010:

“I am today announcing that, while I will serve out my current term in the U.S. House of Representatives, I will not be a candidate for re-election to Congress. Representing the people of Arizona in the House has been one of the greatest privileges of my life. And, while it would be difficult to leave this position at any time, it is particularly hard to do so now with the challenges we face as a nation, but it is necessary for me to do so.

“While representing the people of Arizona in the House was one of my goals in life, it is not the only one. After 16 years it is time for me to take my life in a new direction and to pursue my commitment to fight for freedom in a different venue.

“In doing so, I particularly want to thank the people who have supported and voted for me throughout the years. I couldn’t have won this seat or engaged in this fight without their steadfast friendship and support. I will remain forever in their debt. I also especially want to thank my wife, Shirley, and my children, Courtney and Stephen, for their sacrifice, patience, and encouragement. They have been there through the highs and lows, and I sincerely appreciate all they have done to make my career in Congress possible.

“I also want to thank the men and women that I have been blessed to have on my staff, working alongside me as we fought the good fight. My staff is Shirley’s and my extended family, and their creativity, wit, and hard work stands unparalleled. Most importantly, together we share a passion for freedom.

“Two years ago I considered retiring and briefly announced my intention to do so. I was talked out of that decision by my constituents and colleagues. For those who encouraged me to run then and particularly those who stepped up and helped financially in that race, I want to reiterate my sincere appreciation. 2008 was a disastrous year for Republicans. Yet, with their help we proved that this is a solidly Republican seat, defeating my Democrat challenger by double digits notwithstanding the millions of dollars poured into this race by National Democrats. This time, however, my decision is irreversible.

“As the Obama Administration and Speaker Pelosi grow further and further out of touch with average Americans, evidence continues to build that 2010 will be a record year for Republicans running for Congress. And, I am extremely confident that the people of the Third District of Arizona will elect a solid conservative.

“In the last year, I have been able to fight the massive government takeover of our nation’s health care system advanced by President Obama and Speaker Pelosi. I will continue to do so with every ounce of energy I can summon. This takeover is deeply flawed and overwhelmingly opposed by my constituents.

“I have worked on health care reform my entire Congressional career. One of my proudest moments came when my legislation to encourage states to cover those with pre-existing conditions was passed by Congress and signed into law.

“I have introduced legislation every year since 1996 to give Americans greater choice in selecting their health care and greater control over their health care decisions. Time and again, I have proposed innovative ideas. Early on, I introduced legislation giving individuals the ability to purchase coverage on the same tax-favored basis businesses now enjoy. I was the first to propose allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, an idea that continues to gain momentum. These are real reforms that would force America’s health insurance companies to compete with each other for our business, and drive costs down and quality up.

“I have repeatedly introduced legislation that would give every American, rich and poor, health coverage and cover those with pre-existing conditions while preserving choice, creating real competition, and cost savings.

“The biggest problems in health care in America today are the result of misguided government policies. It is the government that puts your employer and the health plan your employer selected between you and your doctors. It is the government that allows employers to buy health care coverage tax-free but makes individuals use after-tax dollars to buy coverage. And, it is the government, including a specific provision in the current House and Senate bills that gives health insurance companies immunity from damages if their decision injures or kills someone. Yet, National Democrats are about to bail out the health insurance industry, compel every American to buy their product whether we want to or not, dramatically expanding the roll of government in health care. This is a tragic mistake which we will come to regret.

“To this day, I get goose bumps when I walk back to my office in the Cannon Building after a late night vote and look up at the Capitol Dome shining through the darkness. I will deeply miss doing so. Our Nation’s Capitol is the greatest symbol of freedom in the world. And, I will be forever indebted to the people of Arizona who bestowed on me the privilege of representing them in the fight for freedom.

“While the rules of the House do not allow me to pursue future employment while I am still in office, rest assured, I will continue to remain in the fight for freedom and defend American exceptionalism.”

This leaves a major vacancy that the GOP congressional delegation needs to fill quickly. Expect a major scramble of candidates to announce within the next 48 hours. Names to watch out for include Pamela Gorman, Jim Waring, Len Munsil, Tom Jenney, John Allen, Jeff Hatch-Miller. This could be another crowded primary folks!

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Press Release

Greg Patterson’s predictions are sometimes way off the mark

January 14, 2010 By 7 Comments

By WithAnOpinion

Greg Patterson of The Espresso Pundit is one of Arizona’s most talented bloggers. His posts are fun to read and his analysis is usually insightful. He likes to make big predictions, and sometimes his predictions are correct, a fact he doesn’t hesitate to remind his readers of.

However, sometimes Patterson’s predictions are dramatically wrong. In fact, sometimes Patterson’s predictions end up being so far off the mark that readers might conclude Patterson drank a little to much espresso before sitting down to write.

One Patterson prediction gone bad regarded box office returns for the blockbuster film Avatar. Patterson offered a political analysis of why audiences would shun the movie because of its liberal, anti-American undertones.

Patterson posted on his blog: “Sure, the buzz and novelty will bring Avatar $200 million but since the movie cost $500 million to produce and market it’s going to have to actually have an enjoyable plot to move into the black…Maybe I’m wrong and Avatar will make $2 billion, but I don’t think so…”

So how far off the mark was Patterson’s Avatar prediction? In just 27 days since its opening, the movie has brought in a mind-boggling $1.4 billion dollars.

Not only that, it crossed the $1 billion mark more quickly than any film in history. It’s currently the fifth highest-grossing film of all time domestically, and still rising.

Patterson’s prediction may well turn out to be wrong by a factor of ten or twenty. Oops.

Patterson deserves credit for making bold predictions, and his blog remains a must-read for Arizona political junkies. Readers just need to keep in mind that Greg Patterson’s predictions are sometimes way off the mark.

Filed Under: Guest Opinion

County Supervisors’ Manager David Smith hires criminal defense attorney in federal Grand Jury probe

January 14, 2010 By 13 Comments

Sonoran Alliance has just learned that County Manager David Smith has hired criminal defense attorney Michael Black, best-known for his representation of baby-faced killer Chris Andrews. Smith has insisted publicly that he is just a “witness” in the feds investigation of the county, but if he is just a “witness,” why is he the only official we know of who has hired a high-profile criminal defense attorney to represent him? The Phoenix New Times has a picture of Smith next to his criminal attorney as they are leaving the federal investigation proceedings: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/01/joe_arpaio_grand_jury_probe_be.php

Filed Under: County Government, Crime and Punishment

Private companies can manage state parks

January 14, 2010 By 3 Comments

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute

Arizona state parks continue to make news and be used as a pawn in the budget chess game. Budget reductions approved by the legislature in December will likely result in some park closures. Parks that make money like Kartchner Caverns, Slide Rock, and Lake Havasu will stay open, while money losers will close. Many legislators continue to decry budget reductions to the Parks department, but also refuse to look at realistic alternatives.

I recently received a letter from Warren Meyer, the president of Recreation Resource Management, a Phoenix-based company that manages parks for a wide array of government agencies. His letter says that the parks slated for closure “could easily be kept open” under the management of a company like his. Not only would the parks be kept open, the companies would pay the state for the opportunity to manage them. The parks would actually make money for the state. Not a bad deal considering we’re $4 billion in the red.

Mr. Meyer writes that he’s been encouraging the Parks Department to consider this option for years to no avail. That means there has been a money saving option on the table for years that the legislature and career bureaucrats at the Parks Department have refused to consider.

There are a multitude of options for preserving our parks that don’t require taxpayer funding. For example, instead of keeping Jerome’s Davis Mansion closed, do a long-term lease and preserve it by letting it be operated as a bed and breakfast. Some parks and museums could go the way of the Museum of the Horse Soldier in Tucson, where you can see a life-size horse mannequin wearing a WWI horse gas mask, artifacts from Arizona forts, uniforms, weapons, and saddles back to the civil war. Admission is $2.00 and it’s privately owned and operated. The owner doubtlessly loses money on his priceless collection, yet there it is, and taxpayers aren’t required to spend a dime.

The Morrison Institute has suggested raising license plate fees by $15 to fund the parks, but that is unnecessary. Legislators need to consider all of the options before them and choose those that reduce government spending obligations so that we can begin to climb out of our fiscal hole.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

Filed Under: Spending, State Budget, State Economy, State Government, Taxation

Will Haiti be Obama’s Katrina … or is Jan Brewer using a Straw Man?

January 14, 2010 By 19 Comments
Jan Brewers Straw Man?

Jan Brewer's Straw Man?

This is gonna be short and sweet – AND ITS ONLY SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.   Is “Buz” Mills Jan Brewer’s straw man in this election cycle?

Consider she qualified for Clean Elections funding (in spite of having a record to run on and being an established political brand in Arizona politics).

Consider how hard the Goldwater Institute (who generally dislikes Governor Brewer’s affinity for taxes) is struggling to close down the CCEC matching funds provision of the voter approved Clean Elections program.

Think about it.  Brewer obtains three-quarters of a million dollars in public financing and because of the dog-pile of money dumped into the race by a competing candidate (Buz Mills), Governor Brewer will be matched with little effort on her part.

How hard will it be collecting the necessary funds to mount a successful campaign to retain the governor’s seat?  How many good candidates are already in the race?  And don’t forget the 800 pound gorilla in the Big Tent running for his political career in the U.S. Senate.  Times are tough.   Could one of Jan’s advisers have come up with a quick and easy way for her to short-cut the system?

Slick isn’t it (if its true)?  Someone could be really gaming the system and should be shut down.  Shame on those veteran incumbents who couldn’t be re-elected without CCEC.

Veritas for the record supports Clean Elections funding of entry level candidates into the political process as a means of equalizing the playing field and as a mitigation measure against deep pocketed special interests from buying elections.  I am deeply disappointed in the Goldwater Institute that given all the abuses of Constitutional law, they are choosing this narrow niche in which to sally forth into courtroom battle.

A misconception should be clarified.  Clean Election funding is NOT involuntary and does NOT involve taxes.  When you err in your driving (and for some criminal actions) you have made a voluntary decision to contribute to Arizona’s Clean Election fund.  And lets not forget those voters who include a $5 contribution along with their Arizona income tax filing as well as the thousands of voters who give the candidate of their choice $5 during this time of year.

Lastly, is CCEC truly a violation of “campaign speech”?  What about the candidate who’s told by the big corporate special interest “… these are our issues.  Now did you want to talk about a contribution from our members?”  Isn’t that stifling the “free speech” of the candidate who truly wishes to represent their voters?

Two final parting thoughts:  The CCEC should be reformed, perhaps by amending it to only be available for the first election and first re-election bid of a candidate.   Lastly, should there be a cap on election spending by all interests in Arizona elections?  Why should someone be willing to spend millions of dollars for a job that pays peanuts?

Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections, Conspiracy Theories, Freedom of Speech