Kirk Adams, Travis Grantham, Matt Salmon, and Chuck Gray are running for Arizona’s Congressional District 6′s open seat. Tell us who your favorite is and please follow the link to vote.
WFP Poll: Who do you want in the AZ-6 race? Kirk Adams, Travis Grantham, Matt Salmon, or Chuck Gray.
September 17, 2011 By 11 Comments
Introducing Arizona’s Team Romney
September 15, 2011 By 7 Comments
The Arizona Republic has listed the official team for Republican Presidential candidate, Governor Mitt Romney.
This is the first presidential team to announce in Arizona. Here is that list:
Arizona Co-Chairs:
- Secretary of State Ken Bennett
- Attorney General Tom Horne
- House Speaker Andy Tobin
- Paul E. & Susan Gilbert
- Lee & Nancy Hanley
- Ambassador Barbara & Dr. Craig R. Barrett
- Jim & Vicki Click
- Kevin & Melissa DeMenna
Arizona Legislative Endorsements:
- House Majority Leader Steve Court
- Senator Rich Crandall (Education Chairman)
- Senator Michele Reagan (Economic Development & Jobs Creation Chairwoman)
- Senator Adam Driggs (Veterans & Military Affairs Chairman)
- Senator John McComish (Banking & Insurance Chairman)
- Representative Bob Robson (Employment & Regulatory Affairs Chairman)
- Representative Cecil Ash (Health & Human Services Chairman)
- Representative Tom Forese (Higher Education, Innovation & Reform Chairman)
- Representative Russ Jones (Agriculture & Water Chairman)
- Representative Doris Goodale (Education Chairwoman)
- Representative Peggy Judd (Member of Health & Human Services, Agriculture & Water and Energy & Natural Resources committees)
- Representative Nancy McLain (Banking & Insurance Chairwoman)
- Representative Justin Olson (Appropriations Vice-Chairman)
- Representative Karen Fann (Environment Vice-Chairwoman)
- Representative Heather Carter (Health & Human Services Vice-Chairwoman)
- Representative Steve Urie (Member of Appropriations Committee, Agriculture & Water Committee & Government Committee)
Arizona Finance Committee:
- Fred Ash
- Cecil & Linda Ash
- Ernie & Ginna Baird
- Denny & Nichole Barney
- Edward “Trey” Basha
- Leo & Annette Beus
- Max & Debbie Boyer
- Nancy & Art Case
- Steven R. Chanen
- Sam Cowley
- Eric Crown
- Greg & Demi Davis
- Debbie Forrest
- Phil Francis
- Ira A. & Mary Lou Fulton
- Al & Kathleen Gardner
- Mark Goldman
- Todd & Ashley Heap
- Dr. Karl & Diana Hiatt
- Paul Hickman
- David & Rena Hoefferle
- Dr. Bill & Susan Horsley
- Mike Ingram
- Dave Johnson
- Rex & Ruth Maughan
- Steve & Debbie Moak
- Chris & Irene Monson
- Jerry & Vickie Moyes
- Francis Najafi
- Todd & Amy Nelson
- John Norton
- Andrew Pacheco
- Ed Parker
- John & Verna Perkinson
- Marian & Michael Pickerd
- Bob & CC Porter
- Steve & Marilyn Rizley
- Tyler & Kristen Robison
- Diane Ruebling
- Heather & Paul Sandstrom
- Quinton Seamons
- Don Stapley
- Don Tapia
- Peter Thomas
- Eddy & Heather Torriente
- Danny & Jo Lynn White
- Jeff & Holly Whiteman
- Bob & Christi Worsley
Clean Elections Commission taps taxpayer dollars to save itself
September 8, 2011 By 3 Comments
by Carrie Ann Sitren
Goldwater Institute
Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Commission is dirtying up politics. Afraid of a proposal on next year’s ballot that would end the commission’s funding, the commission is using taxpayer money to run ads against the ballot measure.
This ad campaign means that taxpayers who actually support ending funding for the commission could end up paying for the “no” ads – not exactly clean or fair politics.
But there’s more. The commission’s ads mislead by claiming the program uses no taxpayer money. Clean Elections receives revenue from a $5 voluntary check-off box on Arizona tax returns. But the check-off is not a typical tax credit that designates a portion of your taxes for the fund. Neither is it a donation. Instead, checking the box just reduces state revenues by increasing your refund or decreasing your tax liability by $5. It also triggers a $5 appropriation from the state’s general fund to the commission. The total cost to the state is $10 for every taxpayer who checks the box, and last year, the commission reaped $8 million in funding from check-offs.
Talk about muddying the waters. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission should live up to its name and stop using public money to sway elections.
Carrie Ann Sitren is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Supreme Court Declares Arizona’s Matching Funds System Unconstitutional
Arizona Legislature: S.C.R. 1025 (No Taxpayer Subsidies for Political Campaigns Act)
Arizona Legislature: Fact Sheet for S.C.R. 1025
Arizona Republican Party to Co-Sponsor Fundraising Event with Congressman Trent Franks
August 16, 2011 By 4 Comments
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 16, 2011
CONTACT: communications@azgop.org
Event: Fundraiser to re-elect Congressman Trent Franks and ensure Republican Victories in 2012.
When: Friday, August 26, 2011
5:30 PM – VIP Reception
6:15 – 8:00 PM – Dinner & Event
Where: Sun City West Foundation
14465 R.H. Johnson Boulevard
Sun City West, AZ 85375 (Map)
Cost: $40 – Dinner & Event
$100 – VIP Reception
$250 – Host Committee
RSVP: Teresa Martinez
(602) 957-7770
tmartinez@azgop.org
Also, visit our website at www.AZGOP.org
Paid for by the Franks GOP Committee, a joint fundraising committee on behalf of the Committee to Re Elect Trent Franks for Congress, and the Arizona Republican Party. ® Copyright 2011 Arizona Republican Party
Western Free Press: Brad Zinn Interviews Jennifer Wright, a Declared Candidate for Mayor of Phoenix
August 2, 2011 By 1 Comment
Western Free Press’ Brad Zinn interviews Jennifer Wright, a declared candidate for Mayor of Phoenix.
Western Free Press is dedicated to generating public dialogue on Arizona’s most important issues and figures.
Adams raises more than $230,000 in just 45 days!
July 14, 2011 By 1 Comment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 14, 2011
“I am humbled by this show of support”
EAST VALLEY – Kirk Adams is proud to announce that just 2 months into his bid for Congress he raised an impressive $230,775.
The figure, a result of hard work by Adams and his finance committee, shows strong grassroots support and is especially impressive given that Adams did not enter the race until May. The money was raised in 45 days. That means that Adams raised more than $5,100 a day since entering the race.
Moreover, more than $130,000 was raised in the final 10 days of the fundraising quarter, and Adams has more than $203,000 cash-on-hand.
“I am humbled by this impressive show of support,” Adams said. “Our finance committee worked extremely hard. Coupled with the grassroots support we are seeing on the ground, this is the beginning of a very strong campaign.”
“Our finance committee is pleased to see the support that Kirk is receiving in the East Valley,” said finance committee member Ross Farnsworth, Sr. “He is a good man, and I look forward to seeing his hard work in Congress.”
A husband, father and small businessman, after joining the state House in 2006, Adams found himself so frustrated by the unwillingness and inability of Republicans in the Legislature to stand up for their conservative principals that he launched a long-shot campaign to oust the veteran Speaker of the House.
Adams shocked the Republican establishment and political class, winning the Speakership at only 35 years of age and one full term in office – making him the youngest Speaker in Arizona history.
Adams led the House back in a conservative direction with an aggressive reform agenda, taking on some of the most challenging issues in Arizona history – issues others were afraid to address because of the potential political fallout.
A native Arizonan, Adams and his wife JaNae live in Mesa and have five children.
###
Peggy Neely: Look for the Union Label
July 6, 2011 By 8 Comments
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, July 6, 2011
CONTACT: Paul Bentz
Union ties to Stanton, Mattox, and Gullett put special interests before taxpayers.
PHOENIX – Tax increases. Pay raises. Boycotts. The taxpayers of Phoenix are under fire from organized labor union bosses. From the food tax increase to the boycott of the Major League Baseball All-star Game, union leaders have been hurting Phoenix while looking out for their own self interests. In this watershed race for Phoenix Mayor, voters have a choice between a candidate who will serve the taxpayers and those who will serve the special interests.
The Neely for Mayor Campaign launched a new video today titled, “Look for the Union Label.”
“We are at a crossroads. Voters can choose between someone who will represent their interests and someone who will serve the system,” said Peggy Neely, “Phoenix has a long track record of hiring skilled staff and offering quality services to the taxpayers. We have come to expect great things from the City of Phoenix and earned a respectable reputation. However, when the taxpayers start seeing actions such as cutting services while granting pay raises, it is clear that the system is serving itself. We need to make sure that union interests are not being put ahead of public services.”
Greg Stanton
- Opposes SB1070
- Endorsed by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union – who helped lead the Arizona boycott
- Endorsed by Maricopa Area Labor Federation – Affiliated with AFL-CIO which condemned SB1070
- Would have voted for pay increases (Arizona Republic, June 8, 2011)
Claude Mattox
- Supported by the largest public employee union in the City of Phoenix
- Voted for the food tax increase
- Supported this year’s budget and pay increases (Arizona Republic, June 8, 2011)
Lobbyist Wes Gullett
- Worked for Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to organize medical workers to unionize at Maricopa County Hospital
- SEIU helped lead the Arizona Boycott
- SEIU lead the effort to move Major League Baseball All-Star Game
-30-
Supreme Court Declares Arizona’s Matching Funds System Unconstitutional
June 27, 2011 By Leave a Comment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 27, 2011
PHOENIX — Today, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision striking down the matching funds provisions of Arizona’s taxpayer-funded campaign finance system known as Clean Elections.
Mirroring arguments from the Goldwater Institute that prompted the Supreme Court to block Arizona’s matching funds system on June 8, 2010, the Court declared, “Any increase in speech resulting from the Arizona law is of one kind and one kind only: that of publicly financed candidates. The burden imposed on privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups reduces their speech.”
The Supreme Court added: “The First amendment embodies our choice as a Nation that, when it comes to [campaign] speech, the guiding principle is freedom—the ‘unfettered exchange of ideas’—not whatever the State may view as fair.”
The Supreme Court confirmed that Arizona’s system of providing government campaign funding to candidates cannot be squared with its earlier decision in Davis v. F.E.C. In Davis, the Court struck down a regulatory scheme whereby “the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.” Arizona’s matching funds provisions similarly disadvantage citizen-funded candidates for exercising their First Amendment rights by causing their campaign contributions and expenditures to trigger taxpayer subsidies to opposing government-funded candidates.
“This decision protects democratic elections and gets government’s heavy thumb off the scale,” said Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute’s director of constitutional studies and the lead attorney in the case.
Although labeled differently, similar matching funds provisions exist in Florida, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Additionally, Connecticut and Massachusetts previously had public-financing provisions, but repealed them.
The Court’s decision puts an end to these unconstitutional experiments.
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represented John McComish, Nancy McLain, and Tony Bouie, candidates for the Arizona Legislature whose campaigns were funded by donations from citizens, not the government. Previously, the Institute secured three rulings from U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver that Arizona’s matching funds provision violated the First Amendment. Those rulings were overturned by the Ninth Circuit on May 21, 2010.
But on June 8, 2010, responding to an emergency request from the Goldwater Institute, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Ninth Circuit’s decision from taking effect and suspended Arizona’s use of matching funds for its 2010 election cycle. Subsequent decisions arising from the Second and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal followed suit, striking down equivalent matching funds provisions in Connecticut and Florida. The Supreme Court formally agreed to consider the Goldwater Institute’s challenge on Nov. 29, 2010, along with a separate case that had been filed by the Institute for Justice.
Read more about this and other Goldwater cases to protect individual rights and uphold the constitution at http://goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation.
The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act
June 27, 2011 By 6 Comments
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 27, 2011
CONTACT: Christina Walsh
Court Protects Free Speech and Political Participation
Arlington, Va.—In a victory for free speech and political participation, today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “matching funds” provision of Arizona’s so-called “Clean Elections” Act is unconstitutional. The landmark case is Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, argued by the Institute for Justice. Both IJ and the Goldwater Institute had challenged Arizona’s law in court.
“This case is a clear reminder to government officials that they may not coerce speakers to limit their own speech,” said Bill Maurer, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, who argued the case. “The Court’s decision today, like other recent decisions, makes clear that the First Amendment is not an exception to campaign finance laws; it is the rule.”
Maurer said, “As a result of today’s ruling, government can no longer use public funds to manipulate speech in campaigns to favor government-funded political candidates and turn the speech of traditionally funded candidates into the vehicle by which their entire political goals are undermined.”
Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act manipulated election speech by favoring candidates who participated in the public funding system over those who chose to forego taxpayer dollars and instead raised funds through voluntary contributions. For every dollar a privately funded candidate spent above a government-dictated amount, the government gave additional funds to his opponent. The Act even matched funds spent by independent groups that supported privately funded candidates, thereby canceling out those independent groups’ speech.
According to the Court, “The direct result of the speech of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups is a state-provided monetary subsidy to a political rival. That cash subsidy, conferred in response to political speech, penalizes speech.”
The Court’s decision followed the reasoning of its 2008 decision in Davis v. FEC, in which it struck down unequal contribution limits for candidates. As the Court said in today’s decision, although the penalty imposed by Arizona’s law is different in some respects from the law in Davis “those differences make the Arizona law more constitutionally problematic, not less.”
For example, Arizona’s law matches not only candidate expenditures, but those of independent expenditure groups, such as the clients represented by the Institute for Justice. As the Court put it “the matching funds provision forces privately funded candidates to fight a political hyrdra of sorts. Each dollar they spend generates two adversarial dollars in response.”
At bottom, the matching funds provision was a bald attempt by the state to manipulate speech by forcing speakers to either trigger matching funds, change their message, or refrain from speaking. According to the Court, “forcing that choice . . . certainly contravenes ‘the fundamental rule of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.’”
Moreover, the Court recognized that the end result of the matching funds was the total curtailment of political speech, for “If the matching funds provision achieves its professed goal and causes candidates to switch to public financing, . . . there will be less speech: no spending above the initial state-set amount by formerly privately financed candidates, and no associated matching funds for anyone. Not only that, the level of speech will depend on the State’s judgment of the desirable amount, an amount tethered to available (and often scarce) state resources.”
But as the Court strongly reiterated today, “the whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speakers against unjustified restrictions on speech, even when those restrictions reflect the will of the majority. When it comes to protected speech, the speaker is sovereign.”
In finding that matching funds substantially burden speech, Chief Justice Roberts pointed to research by University of Rochester political scientist David Primo, an expert in the case. Contrary to claims of Clean Elections’ backers, Dr. Primo’s original research “found that privately financed candidates facing the prospect of triggering matching funds changed the timing of their fundraising activities, the timing of their expenditures, and, thus, their overall campaign strategy” to avoid sending additional funds to opponents. The research is available at www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/first_amendment/az_campaign_finance/expert-report-d_primo.pdf.
Today’s ruling is important not just for those states and municipalities that have similar “matching fund” systems. As Maurer explains, “The decision prohibits government from attempting to level the playing field among political speakers by creating disincentives for some and incentives for others. The clear message of the First Amendment to government is: Hands off!”
Although today’s ruling affects only the matching funds provision of the Clean Elections Act, there is a measure on the November 2012 Arizona ballot that would end the whole Clean Elections system by forbidding government support of candidate campaigns.
The Institute for Justice has litigated against this unconstitutional provision since 2004. IJ represents independent political groups the Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC and the Arizona Taxpayers Action Committee as well as political candidates Senator Rick Murphy and former State Treasurer Dean Martin.
“Now that matching funds are no more, we do not have to censor our own speech,” said Steve Voeller of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC. “As long as this law was in place, we knew that that speaking out in the election meant that our political opponents would be showered with government money. The more we spoke, the more politicians we opposed benefitted. Now we can actually speak freely.”
Shane Wikfors of the Arizona Taxpayers Action Committee said, “We have always believed that this law was meant to corral not only candidates but also voters by limiting political speech, intimidating organizations like ours and ultimately leading to a political outcome that was tainted by the state’s involvement. We are grateful that the Court protected political expression and struck down this unconstitutional state intervention.”
Rick Murphy said, “I’m grateful a majority of the justices recognized that the government shouldn’t try to ‘level the playing field’ of free speech with public money.”
Dean Martin said, “After nearly a decade, justice has prevailed. Now I am looking forward to November 2012, when the voters have a chance to get rid of the rest of taxpayer money that support politicians.”
Many observers anticipated the Court would strike down the matching funds program. IJ-Arizona Staff Attorney Paul Avelar explained, “It was pretty clear that matching funds violate the First Amendment rights of candidates, citizens and independent groups. The Ninth Circuit’s decision, now overturned, was so inconsistent with protections for free speech in campaigns that two other federal appellate courts almost immediately refused to follow it. In those cases, the courts struck down matching funds systems in Connecticut and Florida.”
“This is yet another example of an important judicial trend the Institute for Justice has advocated since our founding—that of judicial engagement,” said Institute for Justice President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. “The Court looked beyond the state’s claims about Clean Elections to its substance. It recognized that the real purpose of the law was not to eliminate corruption, but to level the playing field by manipulating speech. In the past, the courts have all too often rubberstamped the government’s claims about corruption in elections and upheld campaign finance laws that violated First Amendment rights. The Court seems to be moving in the other direction in campaign finance, and as a result, we are all freer.”
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC is just one of several challenges the Institute for Justice is litigating against restrictions on free speech by campaign finance laws. Mellor promised that “IJ will continue to fight against laws that reduce speech, silence disfavored speakers and viewpoints, and allow government to manipulate the marketplace of ideas thereby stripping away people’s right to govern themselves.”
Social science research shows that the purported benefits of public funding programs rarely materialize, while the costs to candidates and independent groups are real. Dr. Primo summed up the findings of the best available research in a paper for the Institute for Justice (available at http://www.ij.org/about/3466), and concluded, “Public funding is a program that promises much and delivers little.”
IJ recently won a landmark victory for free speech in federal court on behalf of SpeechNow.org, an independent group that opposes or supports candidates on the basis of their stance on free speech. IJ also won on behalf of a group of neighbors who were prosecuted by their political opponents under Colorado’s byzantine campaign finance laws merely for speaking out against the annexation of their neighborhood to a nearby town. In addition, IJ won recent victories for free speech in Florida when a federal judge struck down the state’s broadest-in-the-nation “electioneering communications” law and in Washington when it stopped an attempt to use the state’s campaign finance laws to regulate talk-radio commentary about a ballot issue.
# # #
Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Arizona Taxpayers Action Committee
Institute for Justice – Arizona Chapter
Goldwater Institute
Phoenix Mayoral candidate Jennifer Wright – An upset in the making!
June 26, 2011 By 9 Comments
Watch the following video from this Sunday’s Square Off as political pundit and insider, Chris Herstam makes the prediction that conservative Tea Party candidate, Jennifer Wright could possibly take second place in the upcoming August Phoenix Mayoral race. (Herstam believes that Greg Stanton will win the vote with 30-35% of the vote (not enough to clinch the win) but Wright could finish second place against Peggy Neely if Wright is able to raise enough money to get mailers out.
For those who follow politics a little closer, Chris Herstam also predicted a near win by 2010 Congressional Candidate, Ruth McClung in the General Election against Raul Grijalva. Herstam would not make such a statement unless he could back it up with hard polling data.
Here is the video clip:
Read what Arizona Republic political reporter Robert Leger also wrote about Jennifer Wright:
“Wright could be a key factor. Most pundits, noting she entered the race late and has little money, expect her to finish in the single digits. But an important point: She collected 3,500 signatures in three weeks using only volunteers. Passion is as important as money in a campaign, maybe more so.”
The race for Mayor and Council in Phoenix will come down to a race between the government unions vs the taxpayers. Unions are out working to elect their next “bosses” in order to get the long-term benefits paid for courtesy of Phoenix taxpayers.
Help Jennifer Wright take back America one city at a time by donating to her effort. This is a potential upset in the making and you have the opportunity to make it happen and send a message loud and clear.
AZ GOP: Headed in the Wrong Direction
May 4, 2011 By 49 Comments
DISCLAIMER: The contents of this post represent my beliefs, and in no way should be viewed as being the views of Sonoran Alliance. Sonoran Alliance has a policy of permitting posters with a wide variety of views and does not endorse the content of all posters.
I want to make clear that I am not affiliated with the mystery group or the website that is demanding the resignation of our Chairman via anonymous demands. Although I feel it would be best for him to resign, Tom Morrissey is still the duly elected Chairman of our party. As such, he deserves the respect of people willing to speak in a civil tone and under their own name about their grievances. I am making the case that Tom Morrissey is unfortunately not the leader to lead us to victory in 2012. I have stated the facts to the best of my knowledge and ability and even removed and re-worked the post after someone claimed an inaccuracy in the numbers. There are many debates to be had over this issue, and I ask you to reflect in a respectful and reasoned manner as to the role of the State GOP Chairman. For the sake of a false “unity” should we cripple the party for two critical years? We must have an effective, strong organization against the Democrats in 2012.
AZGOP: Headed in the Wrong Direction
Republican organizations across the country have made fundraising a priority for the 2012 election cycle. The newly elected RNC Chairman, Reince Preibus, stated his priorities would be to raise enough money to compete with President Obama and erase the party’s debt. Preibus is well on his way to accomplishing these goals – the RNC announced last week they have raised $17.7 million in the 1st Quarter, with over $7 million contributed in March alone. Additionally, the RNC has reduced its debt by nearly $5 million.
So the question begs to be asked: What has the Arizona Republican Party, under Chairman Morrissey’s leadership, done to accomplish these same goals?
Fundraising
According to FEC (Federal Election Commission) Reports, the AZGOP is headed in the wrong direction. Year-to-date, our State Party has raised $176,653. Republican revenue was $80,129 in January, $62,526 in February and $33,998 in March. Since Tom Morrissey was elected as our State Party Chairman, revenue has dropped 46%.
The Arizona Democratic Party, on the other hand, has raised an outstanding $220,448 to date, with $70,617 in January, $72,588 in February, and $77,243 in March.
These numbers show that Democrats are increasing their contributions even as Republicans are showing declining revenue. The Democrats have out-raised Republicans in Arizona by $91,942 in only three months. The election of the young, dynamic Andrei Cherny has given the Democratic Party an effective leader who moved quickly to heal splits in his Democratic Party, and has given the AZGOP a formidable adversary. It should also be noted that Cherny’s election was heavily contested; indeed, factions within the Democratic party attempted to prevent his nomination as Chairmen on procedural ground. Despite the overwhelming Arizona Republican victories of 2010, Arizona only has an 11% Republican registration advantage and the Democrats appear to have been motivated to rally in the face of their setbacks. We Republicans have grown complacent and the State Party under Tom Morrissey has shown the troubles this can cause.
Reducing Debt
As of February 28, 2011, the AZGOP had $7,505.41 in debt, consisting primarily of monies owed to CBIZ MHM, LLC for FEC Report Preparation.
By the end of March 2011 the Party’s debt ballooned to $73,616.67. As Republicans at every level of government are fighting against wasteful spending, incredible deficits & unsustainable debt, the AZGOP has increased their debt by nearly 1,000% in 30 days. It is hard to imagine the party ever previously going through a period of such staggering debt accumulation.
Where did this debt come from?
- $20,000 in legal fees to two law firms
- $5,149 due to T-Mobile
- $10,062 for FEC Reporting owed to two firms
- $4,865 Property Taxes
- $1,327 Reimbursement
- $683 to Cox for Internet Service
- $14,334 to Political Media for web page consulting
- $17,193 for Direct Mail, Telemarking and contribution envelopes
Following are some of the questionable expenditures by the AZGOP since Morrissey became Chairman:
In March 2011, the AZGOP paid Political Media $14,334 for web page work. This is in addition to the $4,954 they paid Political Media in February for web page consulting. That brings the total year to date cost for web page consulting to a staggering $19,228.You may visit www.AZGOP.org and decide for yourself if the new website is worth nearly $20,000.
Business leaders understand “to make money you have to spend money.” Unfortunately, the AZGOP is spending money with no results. In March, the AZGOP spent $35,574 on various fundraising efforts consisting of Direct Mail and Telemarketing. These efforts raised $33,998, resulting in a net loss of $1,575. To put this in perspective, they spent $1.05 for every dollar they brought in and considering the $20,000 website could have generated some donations, this is a generous assumption.
The AZGOP spent $4,000 in March to lease a copy machine, and also spends $140 per month for a landscaper to maintain the grounds (ie. the half dozen trees scattered around the rock and asphalt) at headquarters. One can easily make the argument the State Party is wasting the money it is raising, and not spending it on the essentials. Those that attended the April Executive Guidance Committee meeting realized that the extravagant spending of the AZGOP does indeed have its limits – the air conditioning was broken. Rob Haney has moved the May meeting as well due to the air conditioner being still in need of repair, and recently noted that he has reserved locations to hold the meetings outside the Republican Headquarters in June and July, with reservations for August and September are in progress as well. Although I cannot speak on behalf of the Maricopa Republican Chairman, I hope he is not alluding that the Republican Headquarters expects to be without air conditioning for the entire summer.
The Arizona Republican Party needs true leadership, a leader who can fill our war chests for the inevitable redistricting fight that will influence Arizona politics for the next decade. We are all aware the Democrats will file suit in every case where the district boundaries do not serve their interests, and right now we do not have the financial resources to fight any legal battle. In fact, we have already taken ourselves deeper into debt with $20,000 of unpaid legal fees. Sadly, the Arizona Democrats, who are in the exact same position with new party leadership, seem to be gearing up for this fight. They have out raised and out spent us without accruing any additional debt.
The Arizona Republican Party seems to be on a fast track to bankruptcy and demise from internal and external destruction. We need a consistent, qualified leader that can fundraise and ultimately, unite the party when it really matters. Without this unity, we are not only diminishing our ability to defeat Obama in 2012, but also risking our majority Arizona Congressional Delegation, and the super-majorities we have gained in the Arizona House and Senate. With the 2012 election right around the corner we need a strong State Party more than ever, and so far we have yet to see the results or actions we need.
I, personally, did not support Tom Morrissey for State Chairman. However, I feel that barring extraordinary circumstances, it is important to support a State Chair. Unfortunately, these are extraordinary circumstances. Asking for a State Chair to step down is a very serious matter, and should not be taken lightly or for reasons of philosophical differences. It should only be done in times of grave crisis. I fear we are heading for that crisis.
Arizona Republicans need a leader who can be effective in preparing our State Party for the challenges that await us in 2012. Tom Morrissey is not that man. Tom Morrissey is not a leader.
You may verify the numbers above on the FEC website:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00008227/725939/
Join David Schweikert this Friday for 112th Congress Coffee Club!
May 4, 2011 By
Please Join Republican Congressman
David Schweikert
For the 1st Breakfast in the 112th Congress Coffee Cup Club series
with Special Guest Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane
Get an Arizona 5th District Coffee Club Mug and enjoy breakfast with Congressman David Schweikert and, special guest, Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane this Friday morning!
This unique coffee mug is the first of its kind for the District and a great way to celebrate returning the District to the Republican side of the U. S. House of Representatives.
Plan on joining the Congressman and Mayor at this informative and casual event by making your reservations now!
Friday, May 6th
8am-10am
Chaparral Suites
5001 N. Scottsdale Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
(Corner of N. Scottsdale Rd and E. Chaparral Rd)
Registration begins at 8:00am
Breakfast served at 8:30am
Tickets ~ $50
Please bring items to support the troops for Packages From Home
[ Click here to see their list ]
Seating is Limited
For additional information, please contact Karen Garrett at (602) 571-6020 or Karen@davidschweikert.com
The Fiesta Bowl exposes the sham of Clean Elections
April 13, 2011 By 6 Comments
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
The Fiesta Bowl investigation is exposing the fact that taxpayer funding for political candidates under Arizona’s Clean Elections system does not, in fact, keep politicians clean. Nearly half of the state legislators receiving allegedly illegal contributions and previously undisclosed junkets from the Fiesta Bowl ran for office with Clean Elections funds. Arizona’s campaign finance system has nothing to do with preventing the appearance of impropriety and everything to do with funneling taxpayer dollars to politicians.
Indeed, Arizona’s system is easily gamed to allow politicians to evade campaign finance regulations on a scale unmatched by any alleged Fiesta Bowl player. During the 2008 race for three seats on the Arizona Corporation Commission, Sam George, a privately-financed candidate, ran on a “Solar Team” slate with two taxpayer-funded candidates, Paul Newman and Sandra Kennedy. As part of a coordinated campaign, Sam George spent nearly $500,000 on his campaign to trigger nearly $1 million in matching taxpayer subsidies to teammates Newman and Kennedy. Mr. George essentially leveraged Clean Elections to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to his preferred candidates.
Sam George-style gaming is not an anomaly. Ever since the enactment of the Citizens Clean Elections Act, taxpayer-funded candidates have been routinely accused of teaming with privately financed candidates, accepting illegal in-kind contributions, violating contribution limits, and even committing perjury. The reported shenanigans of the Fiesta Bowl are small potatoes compared to the systematic campaign finance abuse enabled by the Clean Elections system. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will finally end Arizona’s failed experiment in taxpayer-funded campaigns when it issues its decision in McComish v. Bennett and Arizona Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett by the end of June.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: McComish v. Bennett
Institute for Justice: Arizona Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
Fiesta Bowl: Final Report of the Counsel to the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the Fiesta Bowl
Phoenix New Times: The Dirty Truth about “Clean” Elections
Legal minds question Arizona Republic’s campaign activities
April 10, 2011 By 30 Comments
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arizona Republic under investigation for possible illegal political activity
April 5, 2011 By 22 Comments
Friday Poll: Are Arizona’s elected officials culpable in the Fiesta Bowl Scandal?
April 1, 2011 By 11 Comments
This Friday’s poll asks the question whether or not Arizona elected officials are culpable in the Fiesta Bowl scandal. Did they know what they were getting themselves into when they accepted “gifts” from Fiesta Bowl officials/employees or were they completely in the dark? Or is ignorance no excuse in this case?
Are Arizona’s lobbying and gifts statutes too lenient or too strict? What about disclosure? Should it be full and immediate?
It certainly seems that this scandal will continue to broaden and have an impact as well. How will it affect both parties and will it lead to further reforms in the areas of campaign finance, lobbying and non-profit reporting?
Will Supreme Court let the government favor taxpayer-funded candidates?
March 28, 2011 By 8 Comments
By Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
The Goldwater Institute has fought Arizona’s “Clean Elections” system all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to ask one basic question: Can the state manipulate the political game to silence privately-financed candidates and drive them out of elections in favor of government-funded candidates?
The Court answered “no” last June, at least temporarily, when it suspended the matching funds portion of Arizona’s system. But the Court’s extraordinary intervention was not the last word, as that action came nearly six months before the Court accepted the Goldwater Institute’s lawsuit for review, as well as a second case from the Institute for Justice. Only after the Court hears oral arguments today in Washington, D.C., will the question finally be answered for good.
The matching funds component of Arizona’s system is clearly designed to hobble candidates who project their campaign messages to the public in the traditional manner, supported by private donations and personal funds. For every dollar raised or spent by a traditional candidate, the state awards nearly a dollar in subsidies to each opposing government-funded candidate. That means when a traditional candidate faces three government-funded candidates, every dollar he spends will trigger nearly three dollars in government subsidies to oppose him.
Likewise, if independent political groups do anything other than oppose traditional candidates, the state will award nearly a dollar in subsidies to each competing government-funded candidate for every dollar they spend. The government thus systematically encourages independent groups to oppose traditional candidates.
It is very dangerous business for the government to manipulate elections in this way. The electoral process is supposed to check government power. A system that silences traditional candidates in order to expand opportunities for government-funded candidates cannot check government power. For the sake of free speech and the integrity of the electoral system, the Supreme Court must finally stop Arizona from picking winners and losers.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: McComish v. Bennett
Arizona Republic: Supreme Court weighs Clean Elections funds match
Wall Street Journal: Government Shouldn’t Play Election Favorites
Washington Post: Supreme Court to decide Arizona’s unique campaign financing law
Christian Science Monitor: Supreme Court to decide Arizona’s unique campaign financing law
Yankee Institute: Let Voters Decide, Not Gov’t
Institute for Justice: Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
