Is Quelland the Man to Represent You in LD 20?


by Anonymous Because I Could Lose My Job

Usually, rank-and-file voters make up their minds last minute.  Additionally, they only really bother to vote in the races at the top of the ticket:  President, U.S. Senate, Congress, and Governor.  State offices tend to fall by the wayside.  If voters aren’t going to bother to be informed, it’s not such a bad thing because no one in their right mind would advocate for the uninformed casting votes.  But if you live in the new LD 20, if you are going to bother to vote down-ticket from the Presidential race, the U.S. Senate race, and Congressional races, much less vote at all, it’s high time you know the truth about the LD 20 Arizona Senate candidate named Doug Quelland.  Elections have consequences.  If you vote for him, just know the kind of person you’ll be voting for.

Voters should know Quelland has been removed from office before because he violated a number of campaign finance laws.  In fact, Quelland is continuing to skirt the law even today by putting up “Q” signs without the required “paid by” disclosure (more on this later).  Once you learn about Quelland’s assertions about his campaign finance as opposed to the evidence to the contrary, couple that with his claims about his political beliefs as opposed to his record, and see his actions today, you’ll understand that the man has a continuing track record of fundamental dishonesty.

The only thing worse than a politician that lies is a lying politician that stands for nothing.  Doug Quelland is that politician.  In the past, Quelland has campaigned as a conservative, but his voting record shows him as anything but.  His scores from Goldwater Institute, Americans for Prosperity, and Pachyderm Coalition show that his votes have been all over the map:  some years, he scored as high as the most conservative members; other years, he was the most liberal Republican in the House.

Is this really who you want to vote for?

QUELLAND’S DISHONESTY re PAYING A POLITICAL CONSULTANT WITH BUSINESS FUNDS IN 2008

During the 2008 campaign season, Quelland, mid-stream, decided to become a “participating” candidate.  Quelland failed to disclose a consulting contract with Larry Davis of Intermedia PR that he was required to disclose when he became a Clean Elections candidate.  Quelland asserts that he aborted the contract 2 days after he made it and before he became a participating candidate, never paid the consultant at all and wasn’t required to report it.  However, the CCEC produced a number of checks from Quelland’s Q-Land Enterprises, Inc. business account to the consultant during the course of the campaign.  Not only were payments made, but the corporate payments to the consultant were made on the exact same time schedule agreed to in the contract that Quelland claimed he terminated.  Clean Elections candidates can’t accept corporate donations, but Quelland financed his “clean elections” campaign not only with public money, but with his business’ money too.  One could argue that Quelland sought to circumvent campaign finance laws by trying to pay a consultant through his business so the corporate donations would be off the campaign books and undetectable.  Additional information tends to prove that Quelland didn’t terminate the contract at all:  the consultant did campaign work for Quelland, got a campaign debit card to make expenditures, worked with vendors for Quelland’s campaign, collected signatures for him and held two fundraisers for him.  What’s worse is that Quelland testified that the consultant collected no signatures for his campaign, but signed petitions show that the consultant did collect signatures.  In simple terms, Quelland lied to the CCEC about hiring the consultant, illegally paid the consultant through his business account, and lied about the consultant collecting signatures for him.  Granted, Quelland asserts that he hired Intermedia to do work for his businesses and that Davis did volunteer work for his campaign, but if that’s true, why wasn’t there a separate contract for business services and only the contract for campaign services that Quelland claims he terminated and why did the corporate payments to Intermedia match the schedule in the political consulting contract?

QUELLAND VIOLATED SPENDING CAPS

If one runs as a participating candidate, they agree, up front, to spending limits.  Quelland’s corporate payments to Intermedia not only were illegal because they were business donations, but the amount spent put Quelland well over the spending limits he agreed to.  Do you want to vote for someone who violates agreements?  Is it honest?  Is it the level of honesty that you expect from a politician?

QUELLAND VIOLATED CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES WITH HIS WEBSITE

In addition to violating the CCEC campaign funding rules by failing to disclose the political consulting contract when he chose to become a participating candidate and paying for the political consulting services with his corporate accounts, he re-used a campaign website he used from 2006 and failed to report its use to the CCEC.  According to CCEC rules, Quelland was required to report the use of the website and count the fair market value of the site’s use as a campaign expense.  Quelland failed to make any report of the site.

QUELLAND’S VOTING RECORD

As mentioned before, Quelland made representations to those who signed his petitions that he was a conservative.  True conservatives believe in, and endeavor not to waver from, a set of principles:  less taxation, less spending, smaller government, the law meaning what it says (that is the rule of law as opposed to judicial activism).  A hallmark of true conservatism is a consistent voting record.  In 2003 and 2006, the Goldwater Institute gave Quelland scores that put him in the middle of the Republican pack.  In 2004 and 2005, according to Goldwater, Quelland earned scores that put him in the company of top conservatives.

In 2009, Goldwater scored him as one of the most liberal Republicans in the legislature.  The Pachyderm Coalition gave him the lowest score of any Republican in the legislature that year for the regular session, but their special session report marks him as a middle-of-the-road Republican.

In 2010, according to Goldwater, Quelland returned to voting with the middle of the Republican pack.  Americans for Prosperity’s 2010 score card that includes cumulative scoring gives Quelland a rating that equates him with liberal Republicans.  Pachyderm’s ratings that year again gave Quelland the lowest marks in the legislature.

As is illustrated by these scores, Quelland oscillates politically like a garden sprinkler.  He’s all over the map from year to year.  The fact that the man is absolutely inconsistent in his voting record shows that no voter can trust what the man says he believes in because he may vote the opposite way the very next year.

DOUG QUELLAND’S CONTINUING, CONSISTENT PATTERN OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY

If you live in LD 20 or the immediate area, you’ve likely seen red “Q” signs that are similar to campaign signs.  While, Quelland has claimed the signs are promoting his business, the “business signs” are the size of campaign signs, they’re put up in the exact same areas as other political signs, are erected during campaign season, and are shuttled to their spots in a truck covered in Quelland for Senate signs.  Most importantly, Quelland asks supporters to put a Q sign in their yards on his political website.  If the Q signs are not political signs, why does he ask supporters to put them up in their yards like they are campaign signs?  Additionally, the signs on the truck have no “paid by” disclosure either.  But this isn’t all when it comes to Quelland’s consistently dishonest behavior!

This election cycle, Quelland has paid for letters distributed to homes in the district inviting the residents to visit his campaign website and learn about his policy positions.  Quelland claimed that he put “paid by” stickers on the letters and the stickers must have fallen off, but when the Secretary of State’s office tried to remove one of the stickers Quelland claims he applied, the letter was damaged.  Considering the letter was damaged when the sticker was removed, do YOU believe the stickers “just fell off”?

Even after the complaint about Quelland’s letters arose, one local news outlet noticed that Quelland’s campaign website also lacked the requisite funding disclosures.  Since the news outlet pointed out the lack of campaign disclosures on Quelland’s website, the disclosure has been added.  So, taken in the aggregate, one can see that Quelland has serious difficulties with campaign finance requirements and an inability to tell the truth about it.  One might think that if a candidate had encountered difficulties with campaign finance disclosures, they might become paranoid about them and disclose who things are paid by more often than is necessary, but Quelland seems to take the opposite lesson.

Quelland has an outstanding CCEC judgment against him for $31,000 from 2009 and he has yet to pay it.  Apparently, he has an agreement to pay the judgment, but he has not adhered to the agreement.  According to one source, he has a, “wink and a nod agreement with the Attorney General.”  In other words, Quelland and the AG put up a written agreement to make it appear that there’s enforcement, but Quelland has no intention of paying back the $31,000 and the AG will do nothing to truly see that the fine is paid.

Between his website and linked Twitter account, Quelland  states that he will personally visit every household in LD 20.  Numerous individuals questioned about visits by Quelland said that they were never paid a visit by him.  Insignificant?  Sure, but it shows a consistent, continuing pattern of dishonesty by Quelland.

CURRENT THOUGHT ABOUT QUELLAND’S CAMPAIGN

In a recent Capitol Times article, consultants noted that Quelland hasn’t raised very much money for his campaign and has contributed personal funds to keep the campaign going.  The consultants interviewed were dismissive of his campaign.  That’s dangerous.  Any candidate should always take their opponents seriously lest they be upset.  One of the consultants stated that if Quelland wanted to win, he needed to stroke a big personal check, but if he stroked a personal check it suggests he could pay the fine he’s been willfully ignoring.

CONCLUSION

The only thing consistent about Quelland is inconsistency.  There’s inconsistency in the fabricated excuses he tried to sell the CCEC, inconsistency in his voting record, and inconsistency between his current behavior and the law.  Voters expect candidates to fulfil their promises:  promises to pay fines, promises to abide by campaign finance laws, promises to be transparent in their campaign funding, and promises to adhere to either party platforms or stated positions.  Quelland can’t be counted on to fulfill any promises.

If one speculates that Quelland may actually believe the lies he’s told, one might discern a pattern of insanity in the man.  Quelland’s actions actually conform when viewed through the lens of insanity as an explanation for his actions:  believing his own lies; megalomania, believing he’s above the law, expressed in his consistent flaunting of disclosure laws and refusal to pay the judgment against him; the strange moustache; outrageous assertions that he’s visited every home in the district…it all fits.  Granted, this is all pure speculative musings from someone with no expertise in the mental health field.

Elections have consequences.  If you’re going to vote, learn what you can about the candidates and vote as wisely as possible.  The questions remains, LD 20 voters, considering everything above, is this the man you want representing you?  Is he reflective of your views?  Is this the man you want standing in your stead casting votes in your name?


Comments

  1. RetiretheLibtards says:

    Quelland is the worst type of politician, the one who chooses to serve himself above all others. I had the bad fortune to do business with him at his rental store and received poor quality rental furniture that when I complained about them was told my concerns would be met. Doug himself called me and promised that he guaranteed my satisfaction. Of course he never did put things to right. Now I see he is running on our dime AGAIN. Can’t we get this crook arrested? I think he looks like a carnie reject, and like the snake oil salesmen he should be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

  2. Nordine Crub says:

    Was Q one of CQ’s babies? Sounds like a candidate CQ would have unloads on the Republican Party.

Speak Your Mind

*