Watch as a sign thief is caught red-handed by hidden camera as he steals three candidate yard signs. The signs were posted on private property with the consent of the owner. The theft occurred in Scottsdale.
The campaigns of David Schweikert, Michele Reagan and Shawnna Bolick are probably not happy.
We’ve learned that police did contact the perpetrator and he does have a court date.
Let this be a lesson to all those contemplating a little sign thievery. You may be caught on camera!
By Joseph F. Connor
Of all the malfeasant scandals the Clintons have committed, from lying under oath, to Whitewater to the Marc Rich pardon, little compares to the politically craven 1999 clemencies to 16 unrepentant terrorists of the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN (Armed Forces for National Liberation). Fred DuVal was the co-chair of President Clinton’s White House Interagency Group of Puerto Rico, one of the groups that actively promoted clemency for terrorists.
From 1974 to 1983, the FALN waged a merciless, bloody war against the United States, attacking civilians mainly in Chicago and New York. On January 24, 1975, the FALN’s most deadly attack, the infamous lunchtime bombing of Fraunces Tavern, a New York City landmark, killed my father, Frank Connor, 33, and three other innocent men. It was supposed to be the day we would celebrate my brother’s 11th birthday, and my 9th.
An FALN communique of that day took credit for the attack, which it called a blow against “reactionary corporate executives.” In fact, my dad was born to immigrants and raised in working-class Washington Heights in northern Manhattan, not far from several of the FALN terrorists themselves.
The FALN continued its reign of terror until the early 1980s, when 11 of its members were arrested, tried and convicted of (among other serious felonies) weapons possession and seditious conspiracy. The entirely appropriate prison terms were to run from 55 to 70 years. During their Chicago trials, these defendants rejected US jurisdiction, claiming to be prisoners of war. Several FALN members threatened to kill or maim the judge, Thomas McMillan.
However, on August 11, 1999, President Clinton, (almost certainly in an attempt to gain favor with New York’s Latino community for Hillary Clinton’s 2000 NY senate run) offered 16 FALN members executive clemency. The FALN terrorists did not even request their own clemency. Freedom was engineered on their behalf by none other than then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder with the help of DuVal’s interagency group. Disgracefully terror supporters were provided a reported nine meetings with the Justice Department while victims and families like ours were ignored. We only found out about the clemencies after they had been offered. If the unrepentant terrorists weren’t granted a month to decide to accept their freedom, they would have been released before families even knew of the offers.
Tellingly, one of the terrorists, Oscar Lopez Rivera, whose release DuVal’s office championed, was so committed to his comrades and cause that he outright refused clemency and remains in prison today.
DuVal and terrorist supporters may recite the line that these terrorists were not accused of killing or harming anyone. In fact, they were convicted of willfully and knowingly joining a conspiracy to commit various acts of violence, including 28 Chicago-area bombings that maimed several people.
Further, all evidence indicates that those convicted in Chicago were part of the same national conspiracy that killed five people in New York, including the Fraunces murders and the New Year’s Eve 1982 attacks on Police Headquarters that left three NYPD detectives permanently injured.
The most vital role of government is to protect its citizenry. As I said when testifying at Eric Holder’s AG confirmation in hearing in 2009, by releasing terrorists Holder (and by extension, DuVal) was playing Russian roulette with the American people. Arizonans saw the results of that again through Operation Fast and Furious and the death of Border Agent Brian Terry.
Does Arizona want a governor who has already put cheap politics ahead of the safety of the citizens he is sworn to protect? I think not.
Joseph Connor works in the financial services industry. He testified at Eric Holder’s 2009 Senate AG Confirmation Hearing and is co-author of “The New Founders,” a novel bringing the American founders alive in the 21st Century.
Federal judge upholds $638,148 wrongful termination suit for Deputy County Attorney against county supervisors for whistleblowing
VOTE for John King and Jill Norgaard for LD18 House – Tom Morrissey for LD18 Senate
Arizona Legislator Rob Robson, recently endorsed by Governor Brewer, was cited late Monday with a Class 2 Misdemeanor for stealing yard signs! The Maricopa County Sheriffs Department cited the thieving Legislator for violating section 16-1019A – tampering with campaign signs and set a court date for September 2, 2014 in the San Marco Court, presided over by Judge Frankle at 9:00 am.
Robson received $15,000 from Governor Brewer who refers to all who have promised to keep Obamacare and Common Core in Arizona as “responsible, considerate Republicans.” Suspending the Rules is considerate? I call that cheating. Spending more money than Arizona taxpayers make and pay in taxes to the state is responsible? I call that stealing. Only the Governor who calls a Special Session to pass a budget that is in-between committee could make these statements with a straight face.
Rob Robson was harshly censured by the Republican Party throughout Arizona for a list of votes which violate the core Republican principles of limited government and individual liberties including Obamacare Medicaid Expansion, Common Core, and increasing spending leaving Arizona taxpayers with a potential tax increase. Robson cheated in the Special Session when he voted to suspend the rules of the house to force OBrewercare Medicaid Expansion on Arizona.
Robson was then BLACKLISTED by the grassroots in Arizona and two excellent conservative candidates, John King and Jill Norgaard, stepped up to primary him in legislative district 18.
Throughout LD18 ‘Arrow of Truth’ signs begin popping up next to Robson’s signs with simple ‘Voted for Obamacare’ and an arrow pointing to the signs. The signs began disappearing so a team sat one night
|Arrow of Truth|
and witnessed Robson and an accomplice working as a team removing the signs and destroying them before disposing of them. They captured the vehicle leaving the scene with a license plate clearly reading “ROBSON”. The investigation is still ongoing.
‘Tidy the Tent’ in Arizona.
Remove ROB ROBSON. And Don’t Dial his buddy.
VOTE for John King and Jill Norgaard for LD18 House – Tom Morrissey for LD18 SenateChristine Bauserman, Chairwomen, Alliance of Principled Conservatives
STATEMENT BY HUGH HALLMAN ON JEFF DEWIT’S ACCUSATIONS ABOUT POLITICAL SIGN TAMPERING
Today, Jeff DeWit accused our campaign of blocking the view of his road signs to passers-by by placing our signs in front of his.
We know signs are a lightening rod for mischief. And we know that pictures can tell false stories — and the ones produced by Jeff DeWit’s campaign are no different.
To be clear — our campaign has a strict policy to never purposefully interfere with the signs of any other candidate, and to be fair with the placement of our signs near the signs of any other candidate, including competitors. This is a policy for all campaign staff and has been clearly communicated from Day 1.
Why would we take the risk of embarrassing our campaign to block one or two out of the thousands of road signs currently positioned by all candidates statewide?
Our campaign can also produce photos showing Hallman signs that have been blocked by DeWit signs, taken down and/or tampered with. But we’re not going to accuse a grown man running for office of being behind teenage shenanigans. Candidates running in an important statewide race should have more important things to worry about.
When we find instances where our signs have been tampered with, we fix them and move on. We don’t have a fit about it on Twitter.
Instead, we try to address these issues like adults. We’re not going out and making baseless accusations about anyone. If Jeff DeWit — or any other candidate for that matter — has a problem with the placement of any of our signs, we invite them to call us at 480.423.0515 and let us know.
It would also be helpful to let us know where they are, which DeWit didn’t do. Our staff went out today to make sure there were no instances of these kinds of shenanigans, spending several hours where we believed the “gotcha” photos were taken to make sure we caught any sign placements others may have done that were improper.
With less than two weeks left until Election Day, we can’t help but wonder if Mr. DeWit is looking for a distraction — any distraction — to keep voters from focusing on the concerning record of risky business by his day-trading firm, or the lack of support he has from statewide conservative leaders, or the fact that he has had to almost entirely self-fund his campaign because he can’t raise money from supporters.
But if it’s really signs Jeff is most concerned about, then Jeff, give us a call. We’re happy to discuss it like adults.
State Rep Paul Boyer Files Complaint with Clean Elections, SOS over Scott Smith Campaign Coordination
State 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
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
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.
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.
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 Napolitano, ran 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.
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
Attorneys in Colorado and Oregon calling out John Gleason for political targeting“Abused his authority to selectively prosecute effective advocates of their license without due process of law”
Finally some justice is being done. John Gleason, the slimy Colorado Bar prosecutor the Arizona State Bar brought in to disbar Andrew Thomas, because they knew of his history of successfully politically targeting conservative attorneys, has lost his job over it – AGAIN. Gleason was forced out of the Colorado State Bar after his targeting of Thomas, and could only find a job with the State Bar in Oregon, leaving his family behind. Now, only a year later, he’s out there too.
Here are some excerpts from the article in Oregon Live:After a short, stormy run that antagonized some lawyers around the state and divided the Oregon State Bar, John Gleason, the bar’s high-profile new disciplinary counsel, quietly left the job and Oregon late last month.“Gleason came here with a goal to radically change Oregon Bar discipline which he disclosed only to (Bar Executive Director) Sylvia Stevens and I’m glad he’s gone,” said Greg Hendrix, a Bend lawyer and former chair of the bar’s State Professional Responsibility Board.Here are some excerpts from the comment after the article, written by a successful Colorado attorney who Gleason targeted:Far from being cause for concern, John Gleason’s premature departure from the post of Disciplinary Counsel should be welcomed by anyone devoted to “Equal Justice Under the Law”. Gleason is third-rate lawyer and under- qualified career bureaucrat with little to no meaningful experience in private practice who, even while his Colorado office routinely ignored or countenanced massive ethical lapses by attorneys for the rich and powerful, complaisantly abused his authority to selectively prosecute and unconstitutionally deprive effective advocates for the little guy of their liberty and property interests in their profession and license without due process of law. I am a Stanford Law School graduate with over 25 years of experience in labor and employment counseling and litigation in the private, public, and corporate sector.In 2006, I won a $1.22 million ADEA jury verdict against the City and County of Denver on behalf of a long-time firefighter whom it had unlawfully terminated on the pretext of fraudulent shoplifting charges after he turned age 50 (and retirement eligible). In Nov. 2006, the presiding judge, Robert Blackburn, entered judgment in the full amount of the verdict, stating that there was more than enough evidence of willful age discrimination to support the jury’s verdict.In late September, 2007, however, Blackburn fraudulently, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally granted a new trial in the case on the basis of alleged trivial misconduct by me during trial that was never the subject of a motion for mistrial and was therefore waived, as a matter of law, as grounds for a new trial.As Alan Prendergast of “Westword” reported soon thereafter, and as the new trial order itself impliedly admitted, there were absolutely no grounds for a new trial. As the jurors Prendergast (and, later, Asst. Attorney Regulation Counsel Kim Ikeler) interviewed attested, the judge’s new trial order was completely unfounded, and they had decided the case in full conformity with the evidence and the law, as instructed:After interviewing the jurors, Asst. Attorney Regulation Counsel Kim Ikeler told me on Jan. 31, 2008 that he found no clear and convincing evidence of misconduct by me during trial, and would therefore recommend dismissal of the complaint against me.Nonetheless, at the request of the City of Denver, which has numerous Democrat allies on the Colorado Supreme Court, the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel directed Ikeler to defraud the Attorney Regulation Committee by unlawfully and unethically concealing evidence (the juror’s statements) exculpating me in order to gain permission to prosecute me, then subjected me to a retaliatory and completely unfounded witch hunt and show trial for the purpose of: attempting to force me off the case before retrial; providing a fraudulent veneer of credibility to Judge Blackburn’s blatantly unlawful new trial order; retaliating against me for humiliating the City and its lawless officials so very publicly and gleefully; making an example of me to any other maverick, politically unconnected attorney who might be encouraged to do the same, given the massive corruption and stupidity within the City of Denver’s government; punishing me for my searing criticism of Judge Blackburn and the Colorado Supreme Court.For the serious crime of winning my client’s case, and vindicating his federally protected rights, against the resistance of a massively powerful, corrupt, and dishonest bureaucracy, another massively powerful, dishonest and corrupt bureaucracy, the Colorado Supreme Court, effectively destroyed my reputation, and ability to ever again practice law, by suspending me for a year and a day for the void-for-vagueness offense of “interfering with the administration of justice” by winning my client’s case through very hard work and skillful lawyering. They exploited local mainstream media to defame me from behind the cover of the fair report doctrine by conspiring with them to portray me in the worst possible light, and refrain from reporting the wealth of evidence exculpating me. Only a few isolated bloggers came close to reporting the truth, and then only after they had parroted false reports I encouraged them to retract, for example:|http://myshingle.com/2010/01/articles/ethics-malpractice-issues/a-travesty-of-justice-in-colorado-lawyer-suspended-for-a-year-and-a-day-for-winning-his-clients-case/My very well-founded appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court was, of course, ignored. I was informed by expert counsel that there was no chance the US Supreme Court would take up my case. Because of overbroad abstention and immunity doctrines, I could not sue in federal court for this blatant violation of my right to due process and deprivation of my liberty and property interests in my career and license.In short, I was judicially lynched by Mr. Gleason and his colleagues in the Colorado Supreme Court as part of a politically-motivated prosecution that had no foundation in the facts or the law. They did the same thing to me for which Gleason was hired (by Andrew Thomas’ political enemies in Arizona) to disbar Andrew Thomas: abusing prosecutorial powers to punish political enemies.THAT is the sort of bureaucratic weasel the Oregon Bar hired as its Disciplinary Counsel. Maverick Oregon advocates for the little guy should be relieved by his premature departure under pressure.Here are some excerpts from another article & comments about the complicit judiciary (sound familiar?):You have experienced what I believe sadly is the norm of the Colorado Judicial Branch. It has become so flagrant and the “players” so comfortable in their roles that there is no possibility of correcting it. Think about it. What can you or anyone possibly do to overcome the corruption that has become so deeply embedded in every facet of our government. Yes, you can try and fight it, but for what purpose? Unless you resign yourself to the role of bending your knee and bowing your head; life will be very difficult for you as an attorney in Colorado.It is obvious that this is a political prosecution, and that Gleason, a political reptile who has long abused the power of his office to oppress enemies of those who control the State of Colorado, and protect their friends from scrutiny or prosecution for their routine subversion of justice for fun and profit, was called in to provide the result desired by Thomas’ political enemies.SunnyFebruary 28, 2014 atVery good, Mark. Andrew Thomas’s chief political enemy is Conley Wolfswinkel, a Phoenix developer who is partners with S&L crook Charles Keating, who is a “business partner” of Larry Mizel’s, Mizel being a Colorado homebuilder who–like Keating–is also a big S&L crook. He obtained huge loans from Silverado Savings & Loan which he never paid back. It is zillionaire Larry Mizel who picks the public officials in Colorado, via his criminal campaign-contribution shakedowns. (There’s a classic Denver Post picture of Mizel’s “green light” to John Hickenlooper to run for governor over lunch, for example.) The governor then appoints ALL judges in Colorado, and it was one of these, chief justice Mary Mullarkey–herself appointed by Mizel stooge Roy Romer–who selected John Gleason to head the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. That selection is more than a little curious because Gleason flunked out of college and never practiced law before joining OARC, despite lying about his “prosecutorial” and “extensive private practice” experience on his bios which are online. So we come full circle: my take is Gleason was imported to Arizona because Wolfswinkel wanted to end Thomas’s career, and needed a mob plant with “disciplinary power” to do it. Aside from the fact he is a lawyer impersonator, as mentioned, witchhunts and abuses of power are John Gleason’s trademark.It bears mentioning that Gleason was advanced early in his career by the sheriff of Arapahoe County, Pat Sullivan, who gave him rave reviews on evaluations. Sullivan was arrested in 2010 for offering to exchange drugs for homosexual sex, an offer he also apparently routinely made to jail inmates in return for letting them bond out, when he was sheriff. Gleason currently runs, on the side, a nonprofit called “Warrior Youth Sports,” which I have been told, by a parent of a child involved in it, is engaging in financial improprieties. I’m wondering if there are worse abuses afoot, a la Jerry Sandusky. Are we concerned yet?See “John Gleason–Lawyer Impersonator?” (and follow-up posts) on my blog,therealcolorado.blogspog.com, for documentation supporting what I’ve said about this man. There should be more documents, of course, but Gleason’s personnel file at OARC, including his application, has been unlawfully withheld. This sure looks like they’ve got to hide that application, because it shows the reptile lied to get the job–as well as that he was profoundly unqualified. Complying with the Open Records Law and producing these records would, of course, impair Job #1 at the OARC, which–as Mark and I both know firsthand–is to protect white collar crime.
Bartles and Jaymes called. They want their congressman back!
Frank Riggs may have relocated to Arizona in 2001 but the astute voter can clearly detect the odor of California politics emanating from the former congressman. Perhaps it’s just sour grapes.
Riggs, who tried to run for Arizona Governor in 2006, quit his exploratory bid when he realized he failed to meet Arizona’s residency requirement for the race.
Riggs pulled the same quitting maneuver in California – twice! When a Democrat state senator challenged him in his congressional re-election, Riggs quit and decided to run for the U.S. Senate instead. But then he dropped out of that race too, blaming his lack of fund-raising prowess and the long commute between northern California and D.C. (Tony Perry, “Riggs’ Money Woes Kill Longshot Bid for U.S. Senate,” Los Angeles Times, 4/10/1998)
But quitting his political races at the slightest nudge of a challenge is not the only indicator of Riggs’ lack of preparedness and commitment.
The former congressman also had a problem keeping his promises. According to the same article, “Riggs spent considerable time in his first term deflecting criticism that he reneged on a promise to turn over his congressional pay increase to charity (he ended up sending half to charity) and another pledge not to take contributions from the oil and timber industries” (read article). Why Riggs held on to the other half of his pay raise, and broke his promise to reject big industry cash, is open to speculation but it may be another indicator that the congressman simply had a problem handling money.
The same Los Angeles Times article stated that Riggs violated federal campaign finance laws and only dodged being penalized because the statute of limitations had run out: “A Federal Elections Commission audit of his 1990 campaign found that he had violated election law by improperly bankrolling his campaign with corporate money and loans from his mother, father and sister that exceeded contribution limits.” When honest people are desperate for cash, they usually buckle down their expenses and find ways to earn extra money – not bend the rules as a means of financial survival.
Keep in mind, this is the same Frank Riggs who paraded himself alongside six other freshmen Republicans in 1992 as the “Gang of Seven.” You remember these crusaders. They took on the infamous House banking scandal that embroiled fellow members of Congress who had overdrawn their House checking accounts. There’s only one problem: if you’re going to place yourself on an elite pedestal, you’d better be above reproach yourself. It was later discovered that Riggs also bounced several checks as part of the scandal. Ouch!
But it must be noted that Riggs not only didn’t mind burdening others with his financial problems, he also doesn’t mind burdening small business with increased costs by voting to raise the minimum wage not once, not twice, not even three times. Congressman Frank Riggs voted for legislation to raise the minimum wage four times. That’s four opportunities Riggs missed to stand up for small business and free market economic principles. Today, of course, he claims to be an advocate for small businesses and free enterprise, which directly contradicts previous support for increasing the minimum wage. Can you say flip flop?
But wait, it gets worse! During one term of Congressman Frank Riggs tenure, he managed to sneak $35 Million of pork into bills to benefit his district. That’s right. All told, Congressman Riggs brought home the bacon in the form of university buildings and a harbor dredging project(read article). Doesn’t quite sound like the congressman who only two years earlier, signed on to the Contract with American opining about fiscal prudence and balanced budgets.
But even when Congressman Frank Riggs bothered to show up for work and vote (he missed a higher-than-average number of roll call votes, according to GovTrack), his conservative rating was mediocre at best. According to VoteSmart and the American Conservative Union, Riggs scored a lifetime conservative rating of 76%. To put that in perspective, Riggs’ lifetime conservative score was lower than every one of Arizona’s Republican delegation at the time – including Jim Kolbe.
And when Riggs makes bad votes, they’re not just minor swerves to the left – they’re major over of the cliff calamities. Take the January 12, 1991 vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq in accordance with US Security Council Resolution 678. Congressman Frank Riggs was one of three Republicans in the US House who voted against it. Arizona has already had its handful of unprincipled Republicans. She cannot afford another one – especially in the Governor’s office.
Anyone who performs a political credit check on Frank Riggs will easily discover that he scores far below the caliber Arizonans demand in their next governor. When our neighbors to the west leave California, they usually come here for a good reason – to leave behind the liberal California policies, values and bureaucratic regulations and red tape that strangled their businesses and finances. But, based on his record, Frank Riggs wants to bring those mediocre values to Arizona’s government. Republican voters in Arizona are smart and can sniff out the scent of a faux conservative. They should turn up their noses to candidates like Frank Riggs who cannot reconcile their rhetoric with their record.