State Rep Paul Boyer Files Complaint with Clean Elections, SOS over Scott Smith Campaign Coordination

Randy ReddState Representative Paul Smith filed the following complaint with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office along with the Citizens Clean Election Commission regarding illegal campaign coordination between the Scott Smith campaign, Better Leaders for Arizona and Randy Redd. In the complaint, Boyer alleges that Smith’s campaign and the independent expenditure committee illegally coordinated an attack against Doug Ducey using ads. The complaint states that Smith’s committee and Better Leaders for Arizona violated Arizona Revised Statute § 16-911.

Here is the complain in entirety:

August 1, 2014

 

Ken Bennett
Arizona Secretary of State
1700 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Citizens Clean Elections Commission
1616 W. Adams St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

I submit the following campaign finance violation complaint against the following individuals and committees:

1.         Scott Smith
            Smith for Governor
            PO Box 5057
Mesa, AZ 85211

2.         Jim Simpson
            Virginia Simpson
            Better Leaders for Arizona
            6022 N. 51st Place
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253

3.         Randy Redd
            52 W. Red Fern Rd
San Tan Valley, AZ 85140

In late July, 2014, Better Leaders for Arizona, an independent expenditure committee making expenditures in the Arizona governor’s race, released on its website a video advertisement featuring Randy Redd.  Mr. Redd is a failed Cold Stone Creamery franchisee.  The advertisement included commentary from Mr. Redd complaining about his failed experience as a Cold Stone Creamery franchisee.  Mr. Redd blames his business failure on gubernatorial candidate Doug Ducey.

On August 1, 2014, the Smith for Governor Campaign issued a press release featuring Mr. Redd.  The press release tracks the same talking points that Mr. Redd used in his advertisement with Better Leaders.

The definition of independent expenditure is found at ARS § 16-911.  That statute provides that an expenditure is not “independent” if:

1. Any officer, member, employee or agent of the political committee making the expenditure is also an officer, member, employee or agent of the committee of the candidate whose election or whose opponent’s defeat is being advocated by the expenditure or an agent of the candidate whose election or whose opponent’s defeat is being advocated by the expenditure.

2. There is any arrangement, coordination or direction with respect to the expenditure between the candidate or the candidate’s agent and the person making the expenditure, including any officer, director, employee or agent of that person.

Or

4. The expenditure is based on information about the candidate’s plans, projects or needs, or those of the candidate’s campaign committee, provided to the expending person by the candidate or by the candidate’s agents or any officer, member or employee of the candidate’s campaign committee with a view toward having the expenditure made.

The facts illustrate several reasons for your agency to open an investigation to see whether the Better Leaders video and Smith press release are not “independent” of one another.  Both communications featured the same person, Mr. Redd, who complained about his failed Cold Stone franchise.  In both communications, Mr. Redd follows the same basic script.  In both communications, Mr. Redd blames Doug Ducey for his personal business failure.  Both communications were released close together in time.

Applying the facts to the law also justifies an investigation.  By providing services to both committees, Mr. Redd may be acting as a member, employee, or agent of both by supplying them with similar information about his experience.  He may be directing information on what content about his failures that each committee should include in the ad, based on the “plans, projects or needs” of Smith’s campaign.  It is reasonable to believe that the Smith campaign helped direct the Better Leaders expenditure through Mr. Redd and a pass-through, by requesting that they post the video a few weeks prior to Smith issuing his press release.  It is also reasonable to believe that the Smith campaign worked directly with Better Leaders to coordinate this “double punch,” with Better Leaders’ video followed by an aggressive press release and media campaign by Smith.

In conclusion, I ask that your agencies open an investigation into Better Leaders, Smith, and Mr. Redd based on the apparent lack of “independence” between the video and press release.

The contents of this letter are based on my personal knowledge.  I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Sincerely,
Paul Boyer

Cute IE Takes Aim at Bob Worsley

And the cutest independent expenditure mailer goes to…

IEWorsleyCute

the Arizona Free Enterprise Club for this mailer targeting Senator Bob Worsley for his vote supporting Common Core.

Christine Jones’ Record of Donations Reveals Support for Liberal Democrats

Conservatives across Arizona are catching on quickly that Christine Jones is not who she says she is and her political donations expose her as anything but an “unapologetic conservative.”

While at GoDaddy making her millions and planning a run for Arizona Governor, she served as legal counsel. That meant she saw everything that came in and out the door including political action committee donations. What is revealing is that she gave $5,700 to Democrats, including one she lobbied over GoDaddy business matters.

Then there is the $30,000 in personal wealth she gave to the GoDaddy political action committee which went to liberal Democrats and their PAC’s. What is most disturbing is that this self-proclaimed “unapologetic conservative” as legal counsel said absolutely nothing to protest a chunk of her $30K going to unapologetic liberals and their PACs. One would think that senior legal counsel would have protested. She doth not.

Republican voters need to know that they won’t get an unapologetic conservative if they vote for Christine Jones. We followed the money and we hope you will too.

Here’s the recent press release from the Ducey campaign regarding the unapoligetically-exposed Christine Jones:

An ‘Unapologetic Conservative?’

PHOENIX (July 28, 2014) – Lawyer-lobbyist Christine Jones famously calls herself an “unapologetic conservative,” but her background says otherwise.

During the 2008-2012 election cycles, Jones donated nearly $6,000 to Democrat candidates running for Congress. She also gave $30,000 to the GoDaddy PAC, which in turn donated more than $81,000 to 23 Democratic Senate and House candidates over the same time frame.

“Apparently, it’s not enough for lawyer-lobbyist Christine Jones to mislead voters on her resume and border security plan, she’s also deceiving them about her so-called ‘conservative’ credentials,” said Melissa DeLaney, spokesperson for the Ducey campaign. “Christine Jones has donated thousands of dollars to liberal Democrats and she still calls herself ‘unapologetic?’ It would be laughable if it weren’t so alarming. If she doesn’t apologize to true conservatives for her lies and deliberate attempts to mislead Arizona voters, then I guess she really is a phony.”

PHONY JONES IN HER OWN WORDS & ACTIONS

Calls herself an “unapologetic conservative”

“I’m an unapologetic conservative, and that’s the way I’ll lead”

But Jones directly donated $5,700 to three Democrats running for congress:

Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senate (North Dakota) — $2,300 net

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on prohibiting minors from crossing state lines for abortion
  • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
  • Voted NO on reducing federal overall spending by $40B
  • Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`
  • Voted NO on restricting class-action lawsuits
  • Voted NO on education savings accounts
  • Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence

Rick Boucher, U.S. House (Virginia) – $2,400

  • Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion
  • Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record
  • Voted YES on cap & trade (American Clean Energy & Security Act)
  • Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide

Mary Kim Titla, U.S. House (Arizona) — $1,000​

And gave $30,000 to the GoDaddy PAC, which in turn donated to 23 liberal Democrats, including:

Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senate (Vermont) — $6,500 (2011 and 2007-2010)

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on banning human cloning
  • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness
  • Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border.

Jay Rockefeller, U.S. Senate (West Virginia) — $2,000

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Rated 93% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record
  • Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses
  • Voted NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax
  • Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record

Chuck Schumer, U.S. Senate (New York) — $1,000

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life
  • Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”
  • Voted NO on limiting immigrant benefits & controlling borders more tightly

Bart Stupak, U.S. House (Michigan) — $6,500 (2010 and 2008)

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism
  • Voted YES on $40B for green public schools

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, U.S. House (Florida) — $2,000 (2012 and 2008)

  • Current Chair of the Democratic National Committee
  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on Keystone Pipeline
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border
  • Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance

John Dingell, U.S. House (Michigan) — $2,000

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on Keystone Pipeline
  • Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime
  • Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border

Ed Markey, U.S. House (Massachusetts) — $2,000

  • Endorsed by Planned Parenthood
  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions
  • Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border

John Conyers, U.S. House (Michigan) — $1,000

  • Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions
  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on Keystone Pipeline
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border

Hilda Solis, U.S. House (California) — $1,000

  • Recommended by EMILY’S List of pro-choice women
  • Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border

The Shocking Link Between Tom Horne and An Alleged Fast & Furious Co-Conspirator

Campaign finance reports occasionally reveal a donation or two that can place a political candidate in the awkward position of having to defend a donor. Oftentimes the candidate is unaware of the controversy until notified by a persistent pesky reporter or the opposing campaigns.

However, it’s also not often that a donor rises to the level of being at the center of what many believe is the biggest scandal of the scandal-plagued Obama administration.

Once such donation is to Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, who accepted a political contribution of $500 from Patrick Cunningham on February 13, 2014. If Cunningham’s name sounds familiar it’s because he was named as a co-conspirator in the Fast and Furious scandal.

The Chair of the House committee that investigated the Fast and Furious scandal, Congressman Darrell Issa, went as far as to say that “Mr. Cunningham may have engaged in criminal conduct with respect to Fast and Furious…” and that his refusal to testify before congress was a “…major escalation of the department’s culpability.”

Justice Department officials even claimed Cunningham misinformed them about Fast and Furious. The conservative local blog SeeingRed AZ previously covered the scandal here.

The Operation Fast & Furious “gun walking” saga placed hundreds of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. The scandal had a distinct Arizona connection. The firearms were sold and bought in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas, and ultimately one the guns was used to murder Arizona Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, the former Chief of Staff to former Governor Janet Napolitanoran the Fast and Furious operation. Burke eventually walked away from charges and resigned from his post despite his fingerprints being all over the scandal. Many considered Burke to be the sacrificial lamb for the Obama Administration.

Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa criticized the U.S. Attorney’s office including Cunningham and Burke for their obstruction in the case:

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office advised ATF that agents needed to meet unnecessarily strict evidentiary standards in order to speak with suspects, temporarily detain them, or interdict weapons,” Chairman Issa said. “ATF’s reliance on this advice from the U.S. Attorney’s Office during Fast and Furious resulted in many lost opportunities to interdict weapons.”

Advice and management from people like Dennis Burke and Patrick Cunningham.

Patrick Cunningham worked directly under Burke as the chief of the criminal division. Cunningham was called before Issa’s committee to testify, but ultimately he plead the 5th rather than incriminate himself, Burke, and members of the Obama Administration. Cunningham was allowed to resign his position and eventually he accepted a position working for HighGround Public Affairs in Phoenix. Ironically, HighGround now serves as a campaign consultant to Tom Horne’s re-election bid.

Cunningham provided the inaccurate (or false) information to Senator Grassley and the Justice Department that the ATF (which was overseeing the program with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona) never intentionally allowed the the guns to cross the border or knowingly allowed the sale of weapons to suspicious straw buyers. That was obviously later proven false and the Justice Department later took the unprecedented step of pulling the letter they sent to Congress.

While Tom Horne attacks his Republican opponent, Mark Brnovich, for a $120 donation made to a Democrat back in 2006, Tom Horne is actively soliciting donations from Democrats.

Tom Horne is running on a message of border security and fighting back against Obama this cycle, but how can you truly trust Tom Horne to secure the border and fight the overreach of the federal government when he’s receiving financial support from the very people who were engaged in the Obama Administration’s Fast and Furious cover up?

Editor’s note and correction: This post was in error regarding the political affiliation of Patrick Cunningham. A representative of High Ground clarified Cunningham has been a registered Republican since the early 70’s.

Jeff DeWit: When Your Money Is On The Line, Integrity Matters

Jeff DeWit

Phoenix – If a lifelong lawyer and career politician is willing to lie to voters in order to be elected as our State Treasurer, can we really trust him to take care of Arizona’s $13 Billion in investments?

“I am not a politician.  I have never run for public office prior to running for State Treasurer.  I have been full-time in the financial industry since 1992, becoming a fully licensed investment professional in 1993.  For over 21 years I have been a prudent custodian of the funds entrusted in my care, and am well regarded in the industry for the success I have had as a result of hard work and determination.

My opponent, Hugh Hallman, recently took material to many news outlets in the hopes that the press would publish false and misleading information right before early ballots are sent to voters, and by the time the truth would be revealed, voters would have already voted.  I appreciate the time that Capitol Times reporter Evan Wyloge spent with me to sift through the information, and I feel his and Hank Stephenson’s article fairly represents the situation.

I invite anyone with questions to read the complete article and the attached Take-Down notice my attorneys sent to the stations playing Hugh’s false and misleading advertisement. (Take-Down notice 2)

The bottom line is, never was it even alleged that insider trading ever occurred at the company I led as CEO for 14 years. Not one time.  With over 500 licensed professional exchange-member traders trading over a billion shares a month,ECHOtrade was known for being a top-tier firm of the highest ethical caliber.

Politics, however, seems to have its share of people with no ethics.  Unethical people who are willing to lie and smear the name of good people in order to move up to the next rung of their political ladder.  I have to say that I was warned about running against Hugh, and the tactics he would employ.  Many people told me that Hugh Hallman was known for doing whatever dirty tricks he could to smear his opponents, and he certainly has lived up to his reputation.  On the campaign trail I have witnessed him tell one group of people one thing, and another group the opposite just to appease each.  In the past, Hugh Hallman has proudly proclaimed that “the state’s Medicaid expansion is needed and that Common Core is good for Arizona students” and that he was instrumental “in creating, building and enhancing the very model by which STEM and the entire Common Core can be delivered universally, for all of Arizona’s student population.”  And yet in Republican meetings has said he is now against Common Core, but is a supporter of the Arizona College and Career Ready Standards (which many know is the exact same thing but with a different name).  Hallman has also sent mixed messages on varying other topics important to Arizona voters, to which he has taken much heat and it makes sense why he is trying to redirect the discussion away from his unpopular views and lack of a financial investing experience right before voters receive their ballots.

I now understand why more good people don’t run for office.  Politics can be a dirty business, in which some self-serving individuals are out to destroy anyone who opposes them. In a small way I understand Hugh’s attack.  I am the most qualified to be Arizona’s next State Treasurer and a threat to his political career ambitions.  Some view this and say, “welcome to politics.” But my thought is why do we have to accept this?  Aren’t we tired of this behavior and politics as usual?

One of the many things I have learned in my first campaign is that after a long time in office, many politicians seem to catch some sort of a communicable ethical disease which leads them to look out solely for themselves, and forget the will and needs of the people they represent.  Hugh Hallman appears to have been infected, and as a voter myself I hope to send him to be quarantined in the private sector for a dose of free market anti-venom.  And I hope he uses that time to take a long look in the mirror and realize that instead of lying about good hard-working people, the best way to improve Arizona is to protect taxpayers and promote policies that help our business community, bring in jobs, and grow Arizona’s economy.”


SigBlueJeff

 

*Take-Down Notices

DeWit – 2014 0724 – LT KFYI re Negative Ads

DeWit – 2014 0724 LT KAZM re Negative Ads

Bob Worsley Voted For Obamacare Medicaid And Lied To Me

We’re seeing a lot of ads supporting Bob Worsley in his re-election bid to the Arizona State Senate. The last campaign finance report shows that Senator Worsley had over $180,000 of cash on hand (the job pays $24,000/year). Those ads will continue to run covering up his record supporting Obamacare and the MILLIONS of taxes and costs it will require to keep Obamacare Medicaid running here in Arizona.

Because no one can compete with the kind of money being spent on a simple legislative race, I felt compelled to make my own political ad and post it here on Sonoran Alliance. While Bob Worsley rakes in tens of thousands of dollars from bundlers in the healthcare industrial complex and the chamber of commerce, all I have is my handheld camera and a blog.

Here is my very own “selfercial” explaining why I am voting against Bob Worsley for Arizona State Senate.

YouTube Preview Image

For more information, please visit www.ObamacareBobWorsley.com.

I wrote this ad and I paid for it.

 

Chad Roche Responds to Baseless Accusations of Opponent

Repeated unsubstantiated allegations have been printed about me over the last few months. While I’ve ignored blatant lies, I’d like to clear the air a bit. My staff, many of whom support me, have volunteered their time off-the-clock but Arizona Supreme Court Rule 123(e)(1) states that employee payroll records are closed; after consulting with my attorneys, it was made clear that my office is prohibited from releasing them.

I’ve also been accused of violating campaign finance laws by buying signs and collecting signatures prior to organizing my campaign this year. Arizona state law (ARS 16-901) states that if a candidate spends our intends to spend less than $250 they do not need to organize a campaign or file anything. Prior to the end of March, I didn’t spend or intend to spend more than $250 because I didn’t have an opponent; I printed my petitions at home. As for the signs, prior to ordering my new signs on June 25, 2014 I used my campaign signs from 2010 (you can see them in the attached picture). Just for full transparency I’ve also attached a screenshot showing my purchase from Sav-on-Signs in Tucson for the re-election signs.

During a campaign, a challenger with no record, no experience, and no voting history can say anything they want to mislead the public.

I’m the ONLY life-long pro-life REPUBLICAN running for Clerk of the Superior Court and I ask for your vote! If you’ve got any questions about the completely false and unsubstantiated allegations being spread around about me.

Chad Roche SignSign Receipt

Pro-Life Voter Warning on “Republican” Primary Candidates

Prior to an election I always like to vet candidates on a number of issues including life, liberty and other rights enshrined in our Constitution. The sanctity of life – protecting innocent human life – has always been the top issue for me because if a candidate or elected officials waffles on life, it reveals where they stand on all other rights.

Part of my vetting process looks at whether or not the candidate filled out certain surveys, their answers, public statements, their involvement on the issues and even who is pushing for their election. I also look at who is donating to their campaign and what people and organizations who are opposed to my values are saying about the candidates.

Because of my involvement in the Pro-Life movement for many years, naturally I look at who Planned Parenthood or other high profile pro-abortion organizations and individuals have said about certain candidates. By looking at the donations of “true believers” in a cause, one should get a sense of the value system of the recipient. It would be akin to looking at the donations of Wayne LaPierre. You wouldn’t expect him to donate to an anti-2nd Amendment candidate.

One particular organization and its people I’ve looked at is the Arizona WISH list. WISH stands for Women In the Senate and House. Their fundamental goal has always been to elect “pro-choice” Republican women as the GOP version of EMILY’s list (the Democrats pro-abortion women’s group).

On their national board of directors sat an Arizonan named Deborah Carstens. Although it doesn’t appear that AZ WISH is active or that she currently serves on the national board of directors, Carstens continues to remain active in elections through her donations primarily to candidates who have declared themselves to be “pro-choice” or refuse to state their position on the sanctity of life. These have typically been Republican candidates who define themselves as more moderate but tend to vote liberal on social issues.

Because I have my suspicions on a handful of candidates, I decided to check out a few resources to clarify their positions and to see if Carstens had donated to their campaigns.

Here’s what I found:

Scott Smith was the only gubernatorial candidate to receive a donation from Carstens in the amount of $500. Scott Smith also took the most liberal position on abortion of all the GOP candidates (survey)

Michele Reagan has received a total of $1,250 from Carstens as the only Republican candidate for Secretary of State. Reagan also avoided answering questions on the Center for Arizona Policy voter guide.

Carsten also donated $160 to Terry Goddard, the Democrat running for Secretary of State and $250 to Felecia Rotellini the Democrat candidate for Attorney General. Neither Democrat responded to the Center for Arizona Policy questionnaire – which is very typical of Democrat candidates.

When it comes to state legislative races, Carstens has donated to Republican incumbents and challengers.

In LD-11, Jo Grant received $150 from Carstens in her house race. On CAP’s survey, Grant to answer the question on abortion.

Diane Landis running for House in conservative district 13, also received a donation of $100 from Carstens. Surprisingly, Landis did answer the question on CAP’s survey.

No surprise, Heather Carter pocketed $500 from Carstens in her re-election bid in LD-15. Carter dodged filling out the CAP survey altogether.

Effie Carlson received $100 as a challenger in the LD-23 house race. Carlson did respond to the CAP survey but with qualifiers.

Finally, Kate Brophy-McGee in LD-28 took at $270 donation from Carstens in her house re-election race. Brophy-McGee also evaded the CAP survey.

Another quick check for pro-life endorsements revealed that none of these candidates were endorsed by the Arizona Right to Life PAC.

One interesting pattern among the incumbents who are running for re-election is that they also supported the Obamacare Medicaid expansion vote in 2013. And one may recall that an amendment was attempted on that bill that would have prohibited tax dollars from going to abortion providers. That amendment failed thanks to these incumbents – Carter, Coleman & Brophy-McGee (see vote).

For those of you who remain committed to electing candidates who will protect innocent human life, hopefully this has been informative and an exercise in how to cross-reference candidates and their supporters. Please use this information wisely as you vote in the Primary Election.

Bob Worsley Backed by Health Care Industrial Complex

The latest campaign mailer from Bob Worsley is a classic example  of  political quid pro quo. Those Republicans following the contest for the state senate in LD-25 probably received Worsley’s mailer in the last day touting the support of the healthcare industrial complex.

Let me explain.

Last year during the debate on the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, a minority of Republican legislators abandoned principle and joined with every Democrat in the Arizona Legislature to pass the federal program. Despite weeks of warnings and citizen lobbying, this cadre of Republicans were promised “protection” and big dollars by the Governor and the healthcare industrial complex.

Well, the time to deliver is now.

Worsley’s piece shows him surrounded by medical professionals (which we don’t have a problem with). But what is very revealing is a quote by Peter S. Fine (see below).

Bob Worsley Mailer

Fine is the President and CEO of Banner Health. With the passage of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, access to the billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars was granted to Arizona hospitals. Part of that legislation also included giving the head of AHCCCS authority to establish a bed tax for Arizona hospitals. This is all part of the Medicaid funding scam that the State of Arizona works out with the federal government and Arizona hospitals. Here’s a video to explain how the scam works:

YouTube Preview Image

Let’s just say that Arizona hospitals such as Banner have a lot to gain by the new Obamacare Medicaid expansion here in Arizona.

Is it any wonder then that the President and CEO of Banner Health Care would be lending his support to Bob Worsley?

That’s how corporate cronyism works here in Arizona.

Most Recent Arizona Gubernatorial Ads

Here are the most recent gubernatorial ads for your review and comment. Note, production and airing for these ads is being paid for by money raised from donors, money from the candidate’s own pocket or from Arizona taxpayers through the Clean Elections system. Can you tell which?

Andrew Thomas – July 17, 2014
YouTube Preview Image

Ken Bennett – July 16, 2014
YouTube Preview Image

Christine Jones – July 15, 2014
YouTube Preview Image

Scott Smith – July 15, 2014
YouTube Preview Image

Frank Riggs – July 15, 2014
YouTube Preview Image

Doug Ducey – July 8, 2014
YouTube Preview Image

Fred DuVal – April 17, 2014
YouTube Preview Image

Let us know what you think!