The Arizona Association of Realtors is really putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to their endorsement of Doug Ducey for Governor.
Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers, Activists, Consultants and Government Insiders.
The Arizona Association of Realtors is really putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to their endorsement of Doug Ducey for Governor.
After Preventing Competition in Primary Election, AZ Democrats Suddenly Interested in Voters?
PHOENIX – Today Arizona Republican Party Chairman Robert Graham reminded Arizona voters that state Democrat leaders unilaterally chose their nominees, deliberately avoiding providing meaningful choices for voters in the August primary election. Graham said no amount of participation from national Democrat leaders now can overcome the resulting weakened state of the Democrat candidates in Arizona.
“Bringing in a figure as controversial as Debbie Wasserman Schultz only serves to show how tone-deaf Arizona Democrats are about the role of voters in their own elections,” said Robert Graham, Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party. “You’d think lobbyist Fred DuVal, who is trying to reposition himself and shed his well-deserved liberal image — that he would join his fellow party insiders and stay away from her hyperpartisanship as leader of the Democratic National Committee.”
While the nation today is celebrating National Voter Registration Day, Democrats still face an uphill battle. In Maricopa County, which contains more than 60% of the state’s voters, Republican voters outnumber Democrat voters by 12 percent. And low registration numbers are only part of the Democrats’ problems: Republican turnout in the last month’s primary election was also 12 percent higher than that of the Democrats.
“It’s no surprise that Fred DuVal would campaign with Debbie Wasserman Schultz considering she is a fellow Washington, DC liberal who supports increasing taxes, more regulations on employers and amnesty for illegal immigrants,” said Jordan Rose, founder and president of Rose Law Group, Arizona’s largest female-owned law firm. “Wasserman Schultz’s record of advocating for policies that hurt hardworking families is a perfect fit for DuVal, a lobbyist, who intends to run up the debt, explode the size of government and pass the bill on to taxpayers.”
POLITICO recently reported that many of Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s fellow Democrats “have lost confidence in her as both a unifying leader and reliable party spokesperson at a time when they need her most.” But Fred DuVal and other Arizona Democrats apparently can’t wait to rally with her in Phoenix.
Arizona voters have the chance to hear from the DNC Chair who:
Arizona Congressional Candidate Advances in the Young Guns Program
WASHINGTON – The National Republican Congressional Committee announced today that Wendy Rogers has reached ‘Young Gun’ status, the top tier of the Committee’s recruitment program. She has reached the ‘Young Gun’ level by establishing a clear path to victory through her ability to build a formidable campaign structure and achieve important goals and benchmarks. Originally founded in the 2007-2008 election cycle by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Young Guns program supports and mentors challenger and open-seat candidates in races across the country. Rogers is running in Arizona’s 9th Congressional District.
“Our job as a committee is to help elect Republicans to office that will serve as a check and balance on the Obama administration,” said NRCC Chairman Greg Walden. “Wendy has outlined conservative principles that will grow jobs, stop the harmful effects of ObamaCare, and get Washington’s spending under control. Wendy has met a series of rigorous goals that will put her in a position to win on Election Day.”
Wendy Rogers is a 5th generation military officer, spending 20 years in the Air Force and rising to the rank of Lt. Colonel. She was also one of the first 100 female pilots in the Air Force. She is a noted small business owner, running a property inspection company since 1997.
Wendy and her husband, Hal, have been married for 35 years. She has two children and two grandchildren.
One would think that the highest law enforcement official in the State of Arizona would be well versed in the law. And given the number of complaints related to elections and campaigning against Tom Horne, one would think he would be paranoid about breaking the law – again.
Last Friday, former State Treasurer Dean Martin filed an election complaint against Attorney General Tom Horne over clear violations of the law regarding Horne’s campaign website and the use of taxpayer resources and the State Seal.
The complaint was filed with both the Secretary of State and Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
It is now one day before the Primary Election and the AG’s race is very close.
Given yet another apparent violation of the law by Tom Horne, I ask the readers of this blog to get out the vote for Mark Brnovich tomorrow.
A little historical perspective. In 1998, Tom McGovern and John Kaites battled it out in the Primary Election for the nomination for Arizona Attorney General. McGovern won but it cost him all his resources heading into the General Election. Who was his General Election opponent? Some little known US District Court Judge named Janet Napolitano. She didn’t have to spend any money going into her Primary Election and she beat Tom McGovern in the General Election by 50.4% to 47.5%. The rest is history because as we all know, she became Arizona’s Governor and ultimately, Obama’s DHS Cabinet Secretary.
Don’t let that happen again. Don’t be that voter. Don’t waste your vote on Tom Horne.
The election for Arizona Attorney General is critical.
Vote for Mark Brnovich tomorrow.
Here’s the official complaint:
Here’s a link to the PDF file.
In case you missed it, friend and conservative champion Sean Noble went head-to-head with Brahm Resnik in a Sunday Square Off exclusive.
Brahm continued to push the issue of “dark money” and Sean pushed back defending charitable donations as anonymous free speech protected by the First Amendment.
I would further the argument by noting that the media doesn’t go after the NAACP over donations made to that organization.
The bottom line is that there are patriots who want to engage in issue advocacy by donating to organizations who can message on an economy of scale basis while having that form of speech protected.
Here’s the interview:
Friday afternoon, Mesa resident and city hall activist Gene Dufoe filed a complaint with the Arizona Secretary of State arguing that former Mesa Mayor Scott Smith failed to disclose travel and event gifts, a requirement candidates must follow when seeking public office.
The complaint provides a detailed list of travel expense gifts that Smith did not claim on his personal financial disclosure form when he submitted the forms on May 21, 2014.
Exhibits in the complaint detail expense reports filed with the City of Mesa in the year leading up to his announcement for Governor. Those same gifts are also required to be disclosed with the Secretary of State when becoming a candidate.
Smith’s failure to disclose the gifts draws into question whether he may have any conflicts of interest issues related to seeking the office of governor.
Dufoe’s complaint states:
Whether Mr. Smith was justified in accepting these gifts is not the issue here; the only issue is that he failed to report them. Arizona has several important reasons to require candidates to disclose gifts. One reason is so that voters may assess whether a candidate is beholden to special interests. The disclosure may reveal the leanings of the candidate on policy issues. It also reduces the possibility of corruption, or the appearance of corruption. Here, the United States Conference of Mayors is a policy-driven organization, and voters have a right to know that they have flown Mr. Smith all around the globe, put him up in nice hotels, and fed him at nice restaurants.
With Wednesday’s controversy over the use of government resources during a campaign trip to Yuma now drawn into question, this latest complaint may reveal a pattern of shielding important financial information from the general public.
In 2011, several Arizona lawmakers were caught up in a controversy surrounding unreported gifts received to travel and attend sporting events. That investigation led to the conviction of the Fiesta Bowl CEO, John Junker. (Arizona Republic article)
Due to conflict of interest issues, the Secretary of State’s office will forward the complaint to the Attorney General’s Office for an investigation.
To read the complaint letter, click here.
There’s a rumor going around that Wednesday’s trip by Governor Brewer and three statewide candidates who she has endorsed was piggybacked on to official business – paid for by Arizona taxpayers.
What has given this rumor legs is modern technology.
According to two sources, Michele Reagan, one of the three candidates sent out a tweet including a photo of her on a plane with an official state seal in the background. Once the photo was tweeted it was quickly deleted.
Brewer’s trip to Yuma was covered by local Yuma media.
Holly Sweet of the Yuma CBS affiliate, KSWT reported that Brewer had official business with Yuma city hall before heading to a political rally at the Kress Ultra Lunge with Scott Smith, Randy Pullen and Michele Reagan – all candidates who she has endorsed.
Christy Wilcox also reported on the visit:
The Yuma Daily Sun also covered the event which included a number of photos.
The Governor’s official website also posted nothing about an official visit to Yuma on her public calendar.
All this begs the following questions:
If media reported Governor Brewer making the trip as a meeting with Yuma City Hall, why would that visit not be listed on the official calendar?
Did Governor Brewer, Scott Smith, Michele Reagan all travel together to Yuma?
Did all three candidates travel with Governor Brewer together aboard an official government or chartered plane to Yuma?
If all three candidates traveled to Yuma with the Governor on an official state plane or chartered plane, will their campaigns reimburse the taxpayers of Arizona?
Is Governor Brewer lending the weight of her office to assist those candidates she has endorsed?
Finally, were there any members of the media who traveled with the Governor or the three candidates to and/or from Yuma?
We hope each of the campaigns and the Governor will clear up these questions.
Great catch by Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio on the article in the Arizona Republic about gubernatorial candidate Scott Smith. I’ll let Sal’s Facebook post explain:
The article fails to mention Smith’s PR person is hired by the unions and is chairman of the dark money group “Independent Voices Arizona” which is attacking other Republicans. First time in AZ history a Gov candidate has on staff a dark money person and the media ignores that fact. He is paid by the same union that brought financial chaos to Phoenix, that spent $1.1 million attacking me and my family and is fighting against financial accountability.
I will have more to say about David Leibowtz later…
By Daniel Stefanski
“Dark money” is the phrase of the current political cycle, and most who hear it have a dislike for its menacing sound because of those who have made it a millstone for select candidates to bear.
The truth about “dark money” is this:
– “Dark money” has been intertwined into campaigns because of a desire by (mostly) liberals to silence the speech of those on the right who seek to fight to influence their side of the debate. If Person A gives to Candidate B or Cause C, everyone knows who Person A is. Depending on how charged that particular campaign is, Person A could face serious repercussions/persecution for doing his part to promote our Democracy. So, rather than have Person A sitting on the sidelines, unwilling to give to candidates or causes out of fear of subsequent persecution, Group D is started so that Person A can give to it anonymously, still participate in our Democracy, and not face the insatiable wrath of the left. Some times group D is on your side, and some times it’s not, but as long as the transactions are being handled legally, all is fair in political war – especially to protect the voices and livelihoods of those who have so much to lose.
– While the right gathers all of its “dark money” without a hint of coercion, the left has its own form of “dark money” completely saturated by force and coercion. Ever heard of union dues? The left will fight with the unions on the side of their liberal candidates, and turn around to decry the right’s use of “dark money” to combat the outside spending. Hypocrites. Think of it this way…. unions often outspend conservative “dark money” groups by a significant margin. The story should be reversed, if only we had a fair and balanced media.
– No Republican should ever take up a liberal talking point to take advantage of a politically charged issue, but in this case, some Republicans have done just that. Many Republicans who bemoan “dark money” are doing so because they would like the playing field to be leveled. Wouldn’t we all? “Dark money” groups involved in Arizona political races aren’t hindering other groups from also becoming involved in the process, nor are the groups that make the news most often breaking any laws, nor are they forcing money from any of their donors.
Truth is, the most talked-about “dark money” groups are just winning the war of ideas and policy in this day and age, and the left and those Republican candidates affected by the spending can’t stand what is happening. Keep that in mind next time you hear the gnashing of teeth which accompanies the phrase “dark money.”
There’s a story in the Arizona Republic today about [queue eerie music]… “dark money.”
It is basically a hit piece on conservative Sean Noble and gubernatorial candidate Doug Ducey. The underlying theme is that those “evil” Koch Brothers are trying to buy the election here in Arizona because organizations that they have supported are spending money on political ads.
Because I worked for one of these organizations – which are 501(c)3 and (c)4 organizations – I am very familiar with why donors who give to these are protected and not subject to campaign finance laws. There is a good reason for that and you can ask other organizations like NAACP or AIDs research non-profits why.
What the article doesn’t tell you is that the term “dark money” was coined by a non-profit organization called the Sunshine Foundation. The biggest donor to the Sunshine Foundation is another progressive organization called the Knight Foundation. That organization receives and gives to progressive causes. They also give to journalism work like the Cronkite School at ASU and have members of the Morrison Public Policy Institute at ASU sitting on its advisory board.
I imagine if I dug a little deeper I would probably discover that they have also supported work associated with the Arizona Republic. The lesson in all this is that there are two sides. You just have to decide which side you’re on.