by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
 
It was like a scene from Atlas Shrugged: Polly Shaw of China-based Suntech told an Arizona House Government Committee hearing that massive solar production subsidies and even bigger consumer subsidies were not enough. If the Legislature passed House Bill 2701 and repealed the Arizona Corporation Commission’s rules that require utility companies to purchase increasing amounts of solar energy over the next 15 years regardless of the projected $1.2 billion cost to consumers, her company would pull its operations and a few dozen jobs from the state.

The Committee rejected her threat, approving the bill 5-2. But the next day, Governor Jan Brewer and Speaker of the House Kirk Adams, who co-sponsored the bill before deciding to kill it, successfully pressured the primary sponsor, Representative Debbie Lesko, to withdraw it.

Solar may be the most-subsidized industry in America, and is perhaps the only product that the Arizona government forces people to buy regardless of cost or technological feasibility. Solar doesn’t yet make sense as a wide-spread energy policy, and the mandates vastly exceed the Commission’s rate-making authority. That is why the Goldwater Institute is challenging the rules in court and 51 legislators co-sponsored the bill that would repeal them.

So, the solar lobby invoked the one word that will make normally sensible elected officials do crazy things: jobs. Yes, Suntech will employ 75 people. But between the lavish subsidies and costly mandates these may be the most expensive jobs ever created. Nevertheless, the strategy eventually worked; the bill is dead for now.

Suntech’s Shaw claimed the bill would “obliterate the demand for solar,” which may be true if that demand primarily is government-created. Mandate-based industrial policy didn’t work out well in the Soviet Union and it won’t work in Arizona. What’s especially perplexing, though, are the supposedly “pro-market” politicians who think its time has come.

Arizona should stop spending more and more in a frenzied competition with other states over who can give the biggest subsidies to solar and instead create a favorable tax and regulatory climate for all businesses, large and small, in any industry.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has sent a strong signal that it will seriously consider intervening if the fate of matching funds in Arizona’s system of publicly funded campaigns is not determined quickly by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In January, U.S. District Court judge Roslyn Silver ruled in favor of the Goldwater Institute and struck down the matching funds portion of Clean Elections, calling it “unconstitutional under the First Amendment.” However, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to put Silver’s ruling on hold until it acts on the case.

In response, the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation filed an emergency motion with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to lift the stay from the Ninth Circuit, arguing the Ninth Circuit “defied” the principles enforced in Citizens United v. FEC by keeping alive the threat of matching funds being handed out to state-funded candidates during Arizona’s 2010 election cycle. Justice Kennedy is the author of the majority opinion in Citizens United, which struck down laws that had prohibited groups of individuals–whether corporations, unions or informal associations–from freely spending their money to express their support or opposition for political candidates.

Last week, Justice Kennedy denied “without prejudice” the Goldwater Institute’s emergency motion after referring it to the full Court for consideration. The referral to the full Court was an unusual act, signaling the possibility that Justice Kennedy considered taking more sweeping action on the case. Instead, the Court decided to give the Ninth Circuit an opportunity to rule on the pending appeals, saying if the Ninth Circuit does not decide the matching funds issue by June 1, 2010, the emergency application can be filed again.

Because the state can start handing out matching funds to taxpayer-funded candidates on June 22, 2010, this shows the Supreme Court wants candidates and their supporters to have reasonable certainty about the rules that will apply to the 2010 statewide elections.

In fact, there is a good chance that the First Amendment will be vindicated before the primary election begins; oral arguments are scheduled before the Ninth Circuit on April 12, 2010.

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.

Goldwater Institute
News Release

PHOENIX–Some Arizona cities that recruit major shopping malls and high-rise buildings have used a special tax incentive that waives most of the development’s property taxes, often for 50 years or longer. A Goldwater Institute investigative report found development projects valued at more than $2 billion pay only a small fraction of what they otherwise would in property taxes. As a result, local governments raise property tax rates for nearby businesses and homes that don’t qualify for this special tax break.

To qualify for the property tax exemption, building developers transfer ownership of the property to the city and then lease it back to operate. State law requires that the developer pay a Government Property Lease Excise Tax, or GPLET, that is supposed to replace a significant portion of the waived property taxes. Mark Flatten, a Goldwater Institute investigative reporter, shows that GPLET projects throughout Arizona pay at least $31 million less in property taxes each year.

“Arizona’s high property taxes deter businesses from moving here. It’s no surprise that companies look for ways to lighten the tax burden using the GPLET system. However, any time you offer a tax break to one business, it should be available to all,” said Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute. “GPLET programs that single out select businesses for deals essentially leave neighboring businesses and homeowners with the tab.”

Most GPLET projects are located in Tempe and Phoenix, where most downtown high-rises built since 1996 benefit from a property tax exemption. Other communities have started to approve GPLET projects as well. For example, Mesa has agreed to waive an estimated $776 million in property taxes over 50 years for a future convention center and luxury resort near Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. Mr. Flatten reports cities generally don’t worry about lower property tax revenue because property taxes are a relatively small portion of their budgets.

School districts and community colleges, on the other hand, depend more heavily on property taxes. But school districts haven’t had to worry either, because the state government had filled the gap created by GPLET projects. That will change this year because lawmakers have changed the law that protected school district budgets. Now, GPLET projects likely will prompt school districts to raise property taxes or reduce spending. “It’s a great concern. It shifts the tax onto our property owners, our homeowners, and it’s a huge shift,” Antonio Sanchez, superintendent of the Wilson Elementary School District in Phoenix, told Mr. Flatten.

Some lawmakers have tried in the past to change GPLET laws to limit the length of the new leases and to increase the amount that new projects have to pay in excise taxes so that it is more comparable to what businesses that do not have a special exemption are required to pay. These efforts have been thwarted by lobbyists for cities and developers who expect to benefit in the future, Mr. Flatten reports. State Representative Rick Murphy has introduced a bill this year that will try to curb the practice.

The Goldwater Institute recommends that governments pursue economic development efforts that would benefit a wide range of businesses, instead of giving a handful preferential treatment. The Arizona Supreme Court recently reinforced the Arizona Constitution’s “Gift Clause,” a prohibition that GPLET leases might violate. Examples of more appropriate business incentives would include reducing property tax rates for businesses to match the rates paid by homeowners and the expansion of enterprise zones in which reduced tax rates are offered to all businesses.

“These deals show that Arizona’s tax burden is too high to attract business. That is easy to correct without giving special privileges to the few. Lower property taxes to competitive regional rates for all of our businesses and help Arizona grow its way out of the recession,” said Ms. Olsen.

Read “Shifting the Burden: Cities Waive Property Taxes for Favored Businesses” online here.

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
 
Efforts to keep the Chicago Cubs in Mesa present the first opportunity to see if Arizona elected officials were paying attention to the Arizona Supreme Court decision striking down government subsidies to individual businesses. A city can construct and own a baseball stadium. (We’ll leave aside for now the question of whether that’s good public policy.) However, the funds being considered by the Legislature are problematic: a new tax on all tickets to Cactus League spring training games for the benefit of the Cubs and an increase to the already hefty car rental tax. Adopting these taxes to benefit a single sports franchise may constitute an illegal special law under the Arizona Constitution. The proposed bill would confer to a sports authority such unbounded power that it may be an improper delegation of legislative authority, which also presents constitutional problems.

The potential deal between Mesa, which will own the facility, and the Cubs also raises serious issues. Under the proposed deal, the Cubs reap all of the financial benefits and have to do little more than show up. Under the CityNorth decision, the beneficiary of a government incentive must produce roughly comparable direct, tangible benefits. The best way to achieve this is fair market rent, which the Cubs are apparently unwilling to pay. A deal probably could be constructed that complies with the constitution, but it will require the Cubs to make far greater commitments than they have appeared willing to do.

Any baseball fan would want to have the Cubs here. And certainly the Cactus League is a valuable asset. But at some point, incentives become illegal subsidies, and taxpayers are asked to do too much. We hope our elected officials will heed the wisdom of the Arizona Supreme Court in the CityNorth decision and honor their constitutional limits.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Tuesday, February 16, 2010  

The duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state or federal official.

This is settled law that most people are not aware of.

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states’ rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ……

“If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody.”

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried – not in Wyoming, not yet.

But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff “has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official,” the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.

The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.

Gosh, it makes one wish that the sheriffs of the counties relative to Waco, Texas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma regarding their jurisdictions were drinking the same water these Wyoming sheriffs are.

Sheriff Mattis said, “I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law.” [Amen].

However, the sad reality is that sheriffs are elected, and that means they are required to be both law enforcement officials and politicians as well. Unfortunately, Wyoming sheriffs are the exception rather than the rule . . . but they shouldn’t be. Sheriffs have enormous power, if or when they choose to use it. I share the hope of Sheriff Mattis that “more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens.”

If Wyoming Sheriffs can follow in the steps of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and recognize both their power and authority, they could become champions for the memory of Thomas Jefferson who died thinking that he had won those “states’ rights” debates with Alexander Hamilton.

This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States. It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that “political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States.”

Winston Churchill observed, “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fights with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

by Dave Robinson Keene Free Press March 31, 2008

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Almost a month ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Citizens United v. F.E.C. that there is no such thing as a “de minimis”–or insignificant–denial of free speech. The ruling should have immediately sparked a sweeping repeal of campaign speech regulations that were previously justified as imposing only a “de minimis” burden. An axe, not a scalpel, should have been taken to the volumes of complex, vague and burdensome campaign laws. Instead of seizing the moment, it appears Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett wants follow the lead of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Secretary Bennett has joined Pelosi’s drive to preserve the barriers to political entry swept away by Citizens United. Instead of outright bans on campaign speech by individuals who associate through corporations or unions, the Secretary of State wants to kill campaign speech through regulation. Secretary Bennett wants to threaten class 6 felony charges against any individual or group spending $500 or more to promote their political ideas unless they register with the State and continuously report their expenditures every 24 hours during an election season.

Political elites easily navigate such laws. But they will confuse ordinary people, deter them from seeking a voice in politics, and entrap them with mistakes that will expose them to serious criminal charges. Advocates of these new regulations have no idea how they would impact newer methods of political expression, such as Internet blogging.  And no one at a recent meeting called by the Secretary of State could identify any actual problem the regulations were meant to fix. The justification was that something had to be done, and the State could always clean up the mess later. Besides, the advocates reasoned, the Supreme Court did not strike down reporting laws.

Only politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists could agree with the argument that anything that can be regulated under the Constitution should be regulated. Citizens United does not embrace prior restraints on free speech in the guise of campaign registration and reporting requirements. Rest assured, if Secretary Bennett and Speaker Pelosi go too far, the Goldwater Institute won’t let the State transmute the golden principles applied in Citizens United into a leaden excuse for diminishing our most fundamental rights.

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.

PHOENIX–At a Superior Court hearing, Maricopa County Judge Kenneth Mangum decided the City of Phoenix must turn over public records related to a deal it is making with the Wyndham Hotel by February 19, 2010. The City was ordered to turn over some documents to the Goldwater Institute and other documents to Judge Mangum for his review.

In December 2009, news reports stated that the City was offering a sizeable tax break to the Wyndham Hotel through a sales-lease back arrangement. Concerned that unconstitutional tax breaks could be given to the hotel, the Goldwater Institute requested public records to see the development agreement and other related public documents on January 5, 2010. The City refused, saying no documents would be made public until a development agreement has been signed.

“The City of Phoenix admitted in court that it has documents that it can turn over to the public now, and that it is willing to do that,” said Carrie Ann Sitren, an attorney with the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. “It is disappointing that it took a lawsuit and the Court’s valuable time to have them comply.”

The City said it was concerned some of the documents could affect its negotiations with the Wyndham Hotel. Because of this, Judge Mangum decided the City must turn those specific documents over to him for a private inspection. Judge Mangum will then decide if those particular documents should be released to the public.

Read more about this and other Goldwater activities to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
 
Even before an array of national groups and taxpayers mounted a brave and seemingly unwinnable challenge to nationalized health insurance, an Arizona doctor began the fight to strengthen protection for health care freedom at the state level. Three years later, his idea has spread like wildfire.

Eric Novack is a superb orthopedist (as my once-shredded rotator cuff can attest) and a family man with no background in politics and little time for a crusade. But in 2007, he was worried about threats coming down the road to the freedom to practice medicine. He decided to do something about it.

Working with the Dr. Jeffrey Singer and the Goldwater Institute, he drafted the Health Care Freedom Act, which would amend Arizona’s Constitution to protect two essential rights: the freedom not to participate in a government health-insurance system, and the right to directly purchase lawful medical services outside of any insurance system.

Despite being heavily outspent by special-interest groups mobilized, the measure failed on the 2008 ballot by less than one-half of one percent of the vote. Last year, the Legislature referred a revised version to the November 2010 ballot.

Meanwhile, the election of Barack Obama highlighted the threat to health care freedom for everyone. So the American Legislative Exchange Council adopted the Arizona legislation as a model bill. It has been introduced in 36 states, leading both the New York Times and the Washington Post to cover it extensively. Earlier this month, the Democrat-controlled Virginia Senate approved the measure, and other states are moving forward with plans to adopt it.

The act would provide a shield with which states can protect their citizens against excessive federal regulation. The Goldwater Institute has pledged to defend the constitutional amendment against legal challenges if Arizona voters decide to approve it.

And it all started with one man’s good idea–proving once again how big a difference each of us can make.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Every politician from liberal democrat to conservative republican likes to wrap themselves in the flag and the constitution.  Do they really support it?

Article One, Section Eight of the constitution states: “Congress shall have power to … declare War”.  It does not state that the President shall have power to declare war.  Nor does it state that the Congress shall have the power to delegate its power to declare war to the President.

The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  It does not state that the federal government has powers not expressly granted to it in the Constitution.  It does not state that the Congress or President can take powers not expressly granted to it if no one objects.

The Constitution plainly and clearly states what it means.  It was written at grammar school level English at the time it was written.

While all of us accord respect and gratitude to the military, especially veterans, for their service, anyone who has served recently, especially if they have fathers or grandfathers who have served, know that today’s military is not the same military it was 20 or 40 years ago.

Today’s military is a political force.  It is a globalist force.  It has been stalinized by the executive branch through purging experienced military leaders, replacing them with political lackeys at the Pentagon.

It’s primary purpose is no longer defense of the constitution or the constitution of this nation, in other words its people, but is used as an extension of foreign and domestic policy.  Do you believe that is constitutional in the spirit and intent of what the founding fathers would consider “constitutional”?

“…what all of us need to realize is, World War II was the last constitutionally fought war in which America has been engaged. The United Nations was created at the end of WWII, and ever since then, our military forces have increasingly become the “peacekeeping” arm of that evil institution.”

“Since WWII, American forces have fought major wars in South Korea, South Vietnam (including Laos and Cambodia), Kosovo, the Persian Gulf (Kuwait), Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan–all for the benefit of the United Nations.”

“Ever since the United Nations was created, its interests have dominated the usage of US forces. In fact, our military today is quickly morphing into the tip of the spear for a burgeoning, global New World Order. To those with eyes to see, the evidence is everywhere. It’s not even being hidden anymore. Have you seen that new US Navy television commercial? It boldly proclaims, “The US Navy: A GLOBAL FORCE For Good.”"

“This politically correct, UN-dominated New World Order has changed (and is changing) our US military right before our eyes. It has taken the greatest and proudest independent fighting force in the world–one created to defend the people and property of the United States–and turned it into a global military policeman for evil Machiavellians at the UN.”

The above was written by the Constitution Party’s last candidate for president.  To dismiss it out of hand due to its source would be foolhardy, if indeed what is stated is factually accurate.

Sometimes an outsider’s perspective is a fresh reminder if one has deviated of one’s intended path.

Not Your Father’s Army
by Chuck Baldwin
February 5, 2010
Click here to read the rest of the article.

PHOENIX–The City of Phoenix refuses to share with the public any records that might reveal details about a proposed tax exemption to help a downtown hotel remodel its rooms and hallways. The Goldwater Institute filed a new lawsuit today to compel Phoenix under the state’s public records law to release documents related to the City’s secret negotiations with the Wyndham Hotel at 50 E. Adams St.

The Arizona Republic reported on Dec. 16, 2009, that Phoenix was  offering sizeable tax breaks to the Wyndham through a sale-lease back arrangement that Phoenix has used frequently in deals with favored developers. The Wyndham would use the tax incentive to complete $10 million in construction remodeling, the Republic reported.

On Jan. 5, the Goldwater Institute asked to see the development agreement, and any other public records related to the proposed sale-lease back arrangement. The City responded that no agreement has been reached. The City also said it won’t release any records related to the negotiations until a “development agreement is executed,” claiming this would protect the City’s interests and is allowed under state law.

A Goldwater Institute attorney says this stance is alarming because Phoenix residents won’t have any idea what tax breaks might be involved until after the City has signed a contract, which means residents won’t be able to raise objections or determine if the City is complying with Arizona law until it is too late.

“The public has a right to know if Phoenix will obtain real, tangible benefits in this development agreement and not just give tax breaks to a business that should pay for its own remodeling work,” said Carrie Ann Sitren, an attorney with the Goldwater Institute. 

The City of Glendale tried to claim a similar exception to the state public records law during its negotiations with new potential owners of the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team. But in response to a separate Goldwater Institute public records lawsuit, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Edward O. Burke ruled that Glendale was violating the law, and that the public was entitled to review at least some documents even as talks with the Coyotes continue.

While Glendale initially complied with Judge Burke’s order, the City has refused to release any new documents for months. The Goldwater Institute has asked the judge to hold Glendale in contempt of court, and a hearing is scheduled for Feb. 12, 2010.

By filing this lawsuit, the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation seeks to uphold transparency in government policy-making that enables citizens to understand the plans of public officials and to voice any concerns. The complaint is available here.

Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.