 Broad Support Leaves Campaign with Nearly $400,000 Cash on Hand |
|
(Scottsdale, AZ) With broad support across both the district and the state, the Schweikert for Congress campaign finished the first quarter of 2010 with the highest amount of cash on hand of any candidate in the Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District. Building on an already strong fundraising base, the Schweikert campaign added over 500 new small donors to the campaign. Unlike other candidates in the race, Schweikert’s total does not include substantial general election donations that cannot be used in the primary election. “We are pleased with the broad-based support we had this quarter from donors all across the state,” said David Schweikert. One of our key goals this quarter was to broaden our fundraising base and tap into voter energy to bring new donors into our campaign. With over 500 new donors, we accomplished that.” The Schweikert campaign was also placed “on the radar” in the National Republican Congressional Committee’s Young Guns program today. “I am pleased to see that the NRCC recognizes the vulnerability of Harry Mitchell this fall,” continued Schweikert. “We look forward to working with them in the fall to retake AZ-05.” With substantial advantages in organization, key conservative endorsements like Arizona Right to Life and Concerned Women for America, along with a significant lead in early polling, the Schweikert for Congress campaign is well-positioned to win the August Republican primary and take on liberal Harry Mitchell in this fall’s General Election. |
Schweikert Finishes Quarter With Highest Cash on Hand
Goldwater Institute Investigative Reporter Honored with First Amendment Award
PHOENIX – The Valley of the Sun chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists has presented one of its most prestigious honors, the First Amendment Award, to Goldwater Institute Investigative Reporter Mark Flatten.
Mr. Flatten received the award Saturday for his 2009 special investigation, “High Fliers: How Political Insiders Gained an Edge in Sky Harbor Concessions.” The report documented how a federal program intended to recruit minority business concession owners to Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport has been used to enrich a handful of people with strong political connections.
This is the first known time that Valley of the Sun SPJ has offered the First Amendment Award to a journalist whose work was undertaken on behalf of a non-traditional media outlet.
“I am grateful to SPJ for recognizing that good journalism is not only found in newspapers, television and radio, but also in organizations such as the Goldwater Institute, where we take seriously the responsibility of being an aggressive watchdog on government,” Mr. Flatten said. “Part of the Institute’s mission is to hold public officials accountable for how they wield power and spend taxpayers’ money. To me, that’s not only the most important part of what a journalist does, but also the most fun.”
The First Amendment Award honors outstanding journalism that relies on public records laws to gather information and to tell a compelling story. To complete the investigation for “High Fliers,” Mr. Flatten had to depend almost exclusively on government emails, contracts and other documents collected through public records requests after a directive from the Phoenix City Manager’s Office forbid any city or airport employee from speaking to him about the issue.
“Mark Flatten’s knowledge of Arizona’s public records law is extensive, and he has a proven history of using those records to expose government fraud and abuse,” said Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute. “His reporting illustrates the critical importance of government transparency so voters can scrutinize the actions of public agencies and elected officials. We are proud to have Mark leading our investigative journalism effort.”
Mark Flatten joined the Goldwater Institute in June 2009 to continue his 29-year career as a journalist and as one of Arizona’s most honored investigative reporters. SPJ has previously called attention to Mr. Flatten’s work with a national Sigma Delta Chi award.
The Valley of the Sun SPJ chapter also gave a First Amendment Award to Dennis Wagner, a reporter with The Arizona Republic.
The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.
Legislative Council and County Attorney agree: Not true that Sanctuary City bill SB1070 would open door to National ID
The Final passage of Senate Bill 1070 will be heard today. SB1070 is the most comprehensive enforcement bill in the nation, it will remove all “illegal” sanctuary policies that limit or prevent law enforcement from performing their duties, and it will allow law enforcement the discretion to enforce our immigration laws as intended. Other states are anxious to follow our lead.
Some concerned members of the community believe this legislation with result in a form of national ID. NO ONE fights any harder for freedom and limited government than Senator Russell Pearce. To ensure this would not be an unattended consequence of the legislation, Senator Pearce asked Legislative Council and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to provide their interpretation.
Both indicated the legislation does not allow for any kind of National ID nor does it expand ID requirements. A letter is attached from the MCAO answering many of the questions and concerns expressed. The official legal opinion from the Arizona Legislative Council is also included.
PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATOR AND THE GOVERNOR TO ASK FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF SB1070
Governor Brewer – 602 542 4331
State Senators – http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=S
ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
(Legal opinion); Second one in attachment.
A.R.S. section 11-1051, subsections B through E essentially empowers state agencies and employees with law enforcement authority to determine the status of illegal aliens, transfer aliens already determined to exist in the United States illegally to federal custody and arrest anyone believed to have engaged in an offense warranting legal removal from the United States. The bill section does not grant authority, either explicitly or implicitly, to detain a person indefinitely.
A.R.S. section 11-1051 states well established legal concept in the context of immigration enforcement; however, there are a few points worth noting. Subsection B allows a law enforcement entity, where reasonable suspicion exists, to presumably detain a suspected illegal alien for the purpose of determining immigration status. This is simply a restatement of the federal law already in place. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979); see also Ramirez v. Webb, 719 F.Supp. 610, 616 (W.D. Mich. 1989) (holding that law enforcement authorities “may detain an individual for a brief period of interrogation here the circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in illegal activity. In this case, the relevant illegal activity is that the individual is illegally present in this country.”). There is nothing in this subsection that would permit a law enforcement entity to go beyond this allowance and indefinitely detain someone.
Subsection E provides that a law enforcement officer “may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” Again, as with subsection B, this is simply a restatement of the established constitutional protections and does not go so far as to permit indefinite detention. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001) (holding that “[i]f an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.”).
Subsection C requires the immediate transfer of an illegal alien to federal custody once state sanctions expire. Subsection D allows a law enforcement agency to transport an illegal alien in the agency’s custody to a federal facility at other points in the process.
Neither subsection authorizes indefinite detention.
The other issue presented in this memorandum focuses on whether A.R.S. section 11-1051 functionally implements the REAL ID Act of 2005 (“RIDA”). The bill would not implement RIDA. RIDA states that “a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section.” Further, RIDA states that the Secretary of Homeland Security “may make grants to a State to assist the State in conforming to the minimum standards set forth in this title.” Other than allowing the Secretary to make grants to assist states in conforming to the minimum standards, it is an all or nothing policy: a state either conforms or it is in violation of the Act.
The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA in Arizona. Arizona, If a law enforcement entity did detain a person indefinitely, it would violate federal and constitutional law. There is nothing in A.R.S. section 11-1051 that attempts to override these federally mandated procedural protections.
Pursuant to federal and state law currently in place, could easy exchange information with any federal entity and maintain its “sovereignty” with regard to RIDA.
Finally, A.R.S. section 11-1051 narrowly restricts when a public agent can access status related information. Subsection F states four limiting “official purposes.” If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person’s information pursuant to subsections F’s official purposes, that agent would not find asylum in section 11-1051. This subsection is apparently causing some people confusion, because they are reading the paragraphs as a new requirement for governmental entities to seek information. SB 1070 does not create new mandates to seek information. These paragraphs must be read with the whole subsection. They limit the purposes for which immigration status information may be exchanged.
CONCLUSIONS
A.R.S. section 11-1051 does not allow for the indefinite detention of an individual. A.R.S. section 11-1051 is not a de facto implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005. A.R.S. section 11-1051 limits access to information to four narrowly constructed official purposes.
