Updated Ratings!!!
For detailed evaluation data, click on detail evaluation data.
For Frequently Asked Questions, click on FAQs.
Arizona Politics for Conservatives: Sonoran Alliance
Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers, Activists, Consultants and Government Insiders.
For detailed evaluation data, click on detail evaluation data.
For Frequently Asked Questions, click on FAQs.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN TO HOST BILL WHITTLE
STATE CAPITOL – (May 14, 2013) Tomorrow afternoon, conservative national blogger, political commentator, director, screenwriter, editor and author, Bill Whittle, will address like-minded opponents of Medicaid expansion. Representative Warren Petersen (R-Dist. 12) will host the discussion on the Senate Lawn.
WHAT: Response to Medicaid Expansion
WHEN: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 – 12:00 PM
WHERE: Arizona State Capitol, Senate Lawn
WHO: In attendance will be:
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013, which provides consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as “a la carte,” giving Americans more control over their viewing options and, as a result, their monthly cable bill.
Video of Senator McCain introducing the legislation HERE
The full text of the legislation HERE
Text of Senator McCain’s statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate introducing the legislation:
“Mr. President, today I am introducing the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013. This legislation has three principal objectives: (1) encourage the wholesale and retail ‘unbundling’ of programming by distributors and programmers; (2) establish consequences if broadcasters choose to ‘downgrade’ their over-the-air service; and (3) eliminate the sports blackout rule for events held in publicly-financed stadiums.
“For over 15 years I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as ‘a la carte’ – to provide consumers more control over viewing options in their home and, as a result, their monthly cable bill.

‘Sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to hostile countries is unconscionable’
WASHINGTON, D.C. -U.S. Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S (AZ-04) introduced the Foreign Assistance Under Limitation and Transparency Act or the F.A.U.L.T Act. This legislation is intended to limit foreign aid to five countries that undermine U.S. foreign policy objectives – Iran, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan. Rep. Gosar issued the following statement:
“Sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to hostile countries is unconscionable. Yet, only in Washington, D.C. does it make sense to pay other governments to undermine our foreign policy objectives.”
Rep. Gosar continued, “When countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan act like enemies rather than friends toward the United States and our allies, the time to cut them off from U.S. taxpayer dollars is now.”
Rep. Gosar previously introduced amendments to the last two Department of Defense Appropriations Acts that sought to ensure that foreign aid was not given to hostile international regimes and organizations. He has introduced the F.A.U.L.T Act as stand-alone legislation in the hope to expand upon these principles and codify them into law.
Washington, D.C. – United States Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), today offered two amendments during the Senate Committee on the Judiciary markup of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The amendments were adopted en bloc.
Flake #1: Adds three private land owner representatives (one from the Northern border region and two from the Southern border region) to the Department of Homeland Security Border Oversight Task Force included in the bill.
Flake #2: Revises the schedule for the Department of Homeland Security’s submittal of the semiannual status report regarding the implementation of the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy to 180 days after submission and every 180 days thereafter. Additionally, it adds the Comptroller of the United States as a recipient of the status report, and adds a requirement for an annual review by the Comptroller of the reports and an assessment of the status and progress of the strategy.
Senator Flake announced the adoption of these amendments on Twitter:
###
WASHINGTON, D.C. -U.S. Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S (AZ-04) appeared on C-Span’s Washington Journal to discuss the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Benghazi Consulate attack.
Please click HERE or the image below to watch the interview:
“There’s accountability in the private sector, but what we lack here is accountability in the public sector.”
—-
“This narrative that was put out was a deceitful lie that misled the American public.”
—-
“There is definitely a problem that we’ve got here. It’s not a matter of if, it’s just when, this is going to happen again and that’s why these hearings are so important.”

Commissioner Gary Pierce
Arizona Corporation Commission
Commissioners Wing
1200 W. Washington – 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL
Docket No. E-01345A-12-0290
Dear Honorable Arizona Corporation Commissioners:
As you are well aware Arizona Public Service (APS) has launched a hostile attack on rooftop solar, a customer choice driven alternative to its monopoly. They claim to like solar but it’s clear they only like what solar they own. Their fear of the future and the increased adoption rate of independent solar is cited for acute concern in their Wall Street filings, a clearer indication of their real feelings and true motivations.
But thanks to your leadership energy choice via a thriving rooftop solar market in Arizona is one of the country’s great success stories. Your “more rooftop solar for less ratepayer money” policy has worked to date, driving down prices and increasing adoption for residential solar consumers. Now, APS is asking you to be the first governing body in the country to reverse the net metering policy that is law in 43 states. It would be the most anti-solar move in the country for what has been the most opportunistic of solar states.
APS continually echoes that net metering is a subsidy. It is not and will be proven as much. However, since they raise the issue of subsidies, they introduce the notion that any decision on net metering prior to a more comprehensive review of all APS subsidies, would be premature. I certainly believe this to be the case. Consequently, we ask that you formally undertake such an analysis, prior to the any decision on net metering, in order to convey to the public what the true impacts to Arizona ratepayers are. And, in addition to their monopoly status how APS’ subsidies grant an unfair competitive advantage to energy choices like ours.
At every step from the beginning to the end of the electrical generation cycle, incentives in the form of preferential treatment are applied such as subsidies, price support, tax treatment, accelerated depreciation, and capitol recovery.
While the Corporation Commission does not control and did not create all of these subsidies, its constituents, the utility ratepayers, pay for all of them whether it be through their electric bills or state or federal taxes. As a result, their impacts on those you represent are real, must be understood, and cannot, despite APS’ wishes, be ignored.
Why would the Commission take action on one alleged “subsidy” without understanding the impact of all subsidies on Arizona ratepayers?
Such an analysis should include but not be limited to:
These are just a few examples. APS’ premise seems to be that APS and her shareholders should continue to receive subsidies for dirty and dangerous power sources while solar choice should be punished such that APS should make even more money when its customers choose to buy a different product? APS is standing on stilts and calling the solar industry short.
Because of their audacity – and abuse of its monopolistic privilege in trying to squash a disruptive technology like solar – it is imperative that the Arizona Corporation Commission not only say no to their outrageous requests but entertain new ones like even more competition, because of them.
Very clearly, APS intends to try and convince you to defeat any competitor and any threat just as typewriters once lamented computers. In APS’ world no disruptive technology should ever be allowed because it would be bad for them.
But like school choice and healthcare choice the tide of freedom and innovation should be our yardstick. It should not and must not be the job of this Commission to be more concerned with APS’ assured profits than accelerating the kind of competition that is best for consumers and our state’s future.
In other words, just as Republicans have looked for ways to end the public school monopoly because it has hindered innovation and achievement, so too should you look for more ways to end APS’ monopoly now.
I sincerely appreciate your service, having been in that arena myself, once upon a time.
APS’ recent actions remind us of the opportunity you now have: To say no to their requests and maintain a robust solar market in Arizona. To say yes to a thorough analysis of their extraordinary incentives and tax breaks so we may best understand the debate now before us. And to say yes to new ways to wean ourselves off the monopoly.
Republicans are at our best when we are pushing for more innovation and competition that inevitably benefits the taxpayers, as opposed to doing the bidding of companies most concerned about their bottom line, not Arizona’s.
The Best Always,
Barry Goldwater, Jr.
Chairman, T.U.S.K.
For Frequently Asked Questions, click on FAQs.
Here’s a brief update on the push to expand Medicaid in the Arizona Legislature.
Rumors are circulating that Senator John McComish is attempting to orchestrate a coup d’état on Senate President Andy Biggs as former Senate President Steve Pierce looks on with plausible deniability. Why a coup? Because Senate President Andy Biggs is the one individual holding firm against a vote on Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in the State Senate. Both McComish and Pierce are supporting Governor Brewer and trying to pave the way for her Medicaid plan. But you should also know that McComish and especially Pierce took thousands of dollars from higher-ups in the healthcare industrial complex during the last election cycle. (Biggs did not.) We are compiling the names and amounts of all the donations received by Medicaid proponents with the goal of connecting the dots. Just another example of the corporate-political incest (yes, it happens on both sides.)
Meanwhile in the State House, Governor Brewer does NOT have the votes to pass her Medicaid expansion. Proponents of Medicaid expansion are short the votes needed to require both a simple majority and two-thirds vote (Prop 108 requirement). House Speaker Andy Tobin is also holding back a vote on the legislation so you can imagine he is under tremendous pressure to let the legislation move for a vote.
At the same time all this is taking place, Democrats are getting very irritated with an effort to amend any legislation to prohibit our tax dollars from going to Planned Parenthood. (We all know that giving money to Planned Parenthood is an accounting game that allows them to free up other funds for abortions.) Democrats want the Medicaid bill to remain silent on tax dollars to abortion providers because they know Planned Parenthood would be feasting off the same steady stream of tax dollars “returning” from the federal government. In fact, House minority leader and likely Democrat gubernatorial candidate Chad Campbell sent an email out today expressing frustration, covering for abortion providers and urging individuals to call their legislators. His rhetoric has heated up calling social and religious conservatives “extremists,” “right-wing” and “special interests” all because they oppose using tax dollars to fund Planned Parenthood.
Keep your eyes on the players in this whole exercise of corporate cronyism and who stands to gain the most “free” tax dollars.
Arizona Conservative Coalition Republican Legislator Rankings
Legislative Actions as of 4/26/2013
Last Updated 4/28/2013
Narrative:
The number of bills being tracked is 254 plus 3 Strike All amended bills.
There were some bills voted on this week that increased economic regulations or expanded the delegation of law making (regulatory) authority from the legislature to the executive branch. There were votes to add regulatory requirements to insurance agents, add state regulation of Music Therapists, and burden private providers of Department of Motor Vehicle Services with regulations that it is likely the actual Department of Motor Vehicles is unable to comply with (the private companies can be shut down, though, while the government agency cannot be). Some Republican legislators voted against these laws, but many voted in favor of them (along with most Democrats).
We have added a new feature to the ratings. There is now a section showing scoring exceptions for a legislator voting NO on a bill in order to make a motion to reconsider it. This is explained in the score section in more detail. The basic idea is that, in this special case, a NO vote is counted as a YES vote in the evaluation because the legislator is actually advancing the bill by using the NO vote as a parliamentary tactic to be permitted to give the bill another chance to be voted on.
As we near the end of the session, we remind legislators as well as the voters to beware of omnibus bills and last minute amendments that can contain legislative language that might be glossed over by overwhelming legislators with too many pages of legislation to read before voting or by making last minute changes that are difficult to properly evaluate before a vote. Legislators should understand that any bill containing legislative language from a bill that we gave a negative weight may get the negative weight of that negatively weighted bill regardless of how many good things are also in the revised bill currently being voted on. Since it will be impossible for the contents of omnibus bills or bills with last minute amendments to be known early enough for an announcement about how the bill weights will be reset for the evaluation, everyone needs to be aware that they will be evaluated on the final version of the bills they vote on after the votes take place. With the Governor digging in to pressure the legislature to expand Medicaid, we will be watching for that in late breaking bills as well as appropriation omnibus bills. We will also be looking for Common Core funding in omnibus bills. We strongly oppose both and will weight bills that include them accordingly.
These are NOT final scores for the session until our final report after the session ends! We encourage conservative activists to use these weekly evaluations as a way to work with legislators to achieve more conservative results in the legislative session.
The legislation causing the most lowering of scores is HB2047 combined with HB2045 which switches Arizona from the AIMS standard to the Common Core standard. Our concern is that Common Core surrenders state autonomy on education to the federal government and promotes nationalization of education well beyond the proper scope of the federal government. In addition, the curriculum associated with Common Core relies on an international perspective instead of traditional study of American and World history. HB2425 was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor.
Other bills having a significant negative impact on scores remove significant limitations on school district spending, allow executive agencies to set fees in order to bypass limitations on the legislature raising taxes or fees, or increase government regulation of businesses.
Many Republican legislators have argued that good business regulations that “make people do the right thing” are good. This, unfortunately, is almost a perfect definition of fascism which Republicans traditionally oppose. There are always situations where we might wish others would deal with us on terms of our choosing when they are not willing to do so. Using government to force people to deal with us on our terms rather than mutually agreed upon terms is tyranny even if it is dressed up as consumer protection or professional responsibility or trying to improve market efficiency. Of course, in a free economy, people can decide for themselves what is good and make decisions on that basis as both consumers and businesses. Also, government regulations usually have unintended consequences that are usually bad. These consequences are then used to justify still more regulation when less regulation is the best solution.
For detailed evaluation data, click on detail evaluation data.
For Frequently Asked Questions, click on FAQs.
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
Friday, April 26, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
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
Friday, April 26, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
In the most general of terms, a conflict of interest is “a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.”
In Arizona, there really are no rules governing legislative conflict of interest statutes. Essentially, as long as at least 10 people benefit from a piece of legislation, there is no conflict of interest. Should allegations of conflicts of interest arise, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it. Arizona is one of only nine states without an independent organization to oversee ethics comp
It is not uncommon for legislators to sponsor or vote on bills that affect their personal career industry. When you have a “citizen legislature” it’s impossible to not vote on bills that relate to education, doctors, lawyers, real-estate agents, landlords, etc. But what about political consultants? Does that pass the “citizen legislature” smell test?
The Arizona Republic pointed out earlier this year that there are a number of lawmakers who run or work for consulting firms whose scope of work remains unclear. The campaign disclosure forms do not require lawmakers to reveal their clients, making their potential conflicts of interest even murkier. But, some of these contracts are no doubt related to campaigns and public policy objectives.
House Minority Leader and potential Democratic candidate for Governor Chad Campbell lists “public affairs consulting” for Inspired Connections on his financial disclosure form. The “About Us” page for Inspired Consulting does not list Campbell as a member of their staff and it is unclear what his role is with the firm. Other state legislators who serve as “consultants” include Sen. Al Melvin, Sen. Steve Gallardo, and Rep. Ruben Gallego. Melvin recently made news by announcing he’s exploring a run for governor.
Former LD15 State Senator David Lujan (and good friend of Kyrsten Sinema) directed an independent expenditure effort against Republicans during the 2012 election cycle. “Building Arizona’s Future” spent over $700,000 in the last cycle defeating Republicans, funded in large part by national Democratic money from D.C. that Sinema helped direct into Lujan’s committee coffers. Lujan is now running for Phoenix City Council District 4.
This isn’t the first foray in the consulting arena for Campbell or Lujan. In 2007 Campbell and Lujan formed a political consulting firm with then Democratic legislator and colleague Kyrsten Sinema. It is unclear what Forza Consulting did or whom they represented, but according to records with the Corporation Commission the LLC still remains “open.”
Democratic Representative and rising star of the Left Ruben Gallego currently has the most prolific consulting background. Before being elected to office in 2010, Gallego previously spent time with Valley PR firm Reister, and also served as Chief of Staff for Democratic Phoenix City Councilmember Michael Nowakowski. He was also the Vice Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party. Gallego’s wife, Kate Gallego, is running for Phoenix City Council in District 8 to replace term-limited Councilmember Michael Johnson.
Ruben Gallego is listed as the Director of Latino and New Media operations for Strategies360’s Arizona office. Gallego works with Director of Arizona Operations Robbie Sherwood, a former reporter for the Arizona Republic and former Congressman Harry Mitchell’s Chief of Staff.
During the 2012 election cycle, Strategies360 was paid by the Yes on Prop 204 committee (“Quality Education & Jobs”) to handle communications on behalf of the union-funded campaign. Prop 204 proposed the single-largest permanent sales tax increase in Arizona’s history and was viewed by many as a “special interest giveaway.” Voters defeated the proposition nearly 2-to-1
Strategies360 was also paid at least $10,000 during the 2012 election cycle to handle “earned media outreach & strategic communications” for the Arizona Accountability Project (AAP). The AAP was one of the chief committees used to funnel liberal money into the last election cycle to defeat Republican candidates. AAP spent almost $600,000 last election cycle targeting Republicans including efforts against Jerry Lewis, Joe Ortiz, Frank Antenori, and John McComish. They also did work in support of Democrat Tom Chabin.
Strategies360 was involved in the 2012 election to defeat Sheriff Joe Arpaio and is currently involved in the present effort to recall Arapaio. Recently, Gallego appeared at a “Respect Arizona” rally (the group organizing the recall). Also present at that event was Minority Leader Chad Campbell.
During 2012, Gallego even helped lead the efforts of the group opposing Arpaio, Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement PAC. Arpaio’s campaign manager at the time, Chad Willems, questioned the financial motivations of Gallego and others:
“This is just another group out there of people lining their pockets,” Willems told HuffPost. “It seems like a full-time employment group for these guys.”
Gallego’s reach into the far-Left elements of the Democratic Party are deep. He even served as the professional consultant for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona during the 2012 cycle, orchestrating their attacks against pro-life Republicans. His firm was paid nearly $5,000 in consulting fees, and they were paid more than $20,000 to handle the mail program attacking several Republican lawmakers and candidates.
Let me be clear: there’s nothing illegal about what Gallego or his firm is doing. Consultants on both sides of the political spectrum are involved in these sorts of efforts every cycle. Some would argue this is no different than the efforts of the Senate President and the Speaker of the House and their Victory Funds last cycle. That’s a fair comparison, but unlike Gallego (and possibly other legislators), the President and the Speaker were not financially compensated for their involvement.
Current Arizona statute provides for a one-year ban on former legislators serving as lobbyists after they leave the legislature. Specifically, ARS 38-504(a)(b) state that for one year, a former public officer, including legislator, shall not represent another person for compensation before the legislature concerning any matter with which the legislator was directly concerned and personally participated.For two years after he or she leaves office, no public officer, including legislator, may disclose or use for personal profit information designated as confidential. Further, section c states:
A public officer or employee shall not use or attempt to use the officer’s or employee’s official position to secure any valuable thing or valuable benefit for the officer or employee that would not ordinarily accrue to the officer or employee in the performance of the officer’s or employee’s official duties if the thing or benefit is of such character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence on the officer or employee with respect to the officer’s or employee’s duties.
When legislators like Gallego are using their positions of influence to help direct thousands of dollars in independent expenditure efforts designed to defeat their colleagues and change the partisan make-up of their chamber, while simultaneously making money off of these efforts, how is that not a conflict of interest?
The Maricopa County Integrated Health Systems Board of Directors is currently meeting in closed-door Executive Session to discuss the current legal challenge and protest filed by Magellan and United RHBA against MMIC (Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care), MIHS CEO Betsey Bayless, and Maricopa County Special Health Care District. The current agenda shows a 30-minute spot dedicated to discussion of this subject, all of which will be exempt from records requests and exempt from public inspection.
It is not surprising that the MIHS Board is keeping a low profile and is remaining tight-lipped about this controversial contract after being awarded a possibly illegal $2 billion to $3 billion dollar contract from the State of Arizona. This came on the heels of a controversial pay raise for MIHS CEO Betsey Bayless that raised her taxpayer salary to $500,000.
The board will apparently receive legal advice on the protest to the bid and discuss options moving forward. An administrative law judge is likely to uphold the Department’s awarding of the contract, leaving a lawsuit targeting the state as a possible option. Magellan has already filed a civil suit seeking financial damages in Maricopa County Superior Court against MIHS and MIHS’ CEO Betsey Bayless. Magellan alleges MIHS was awarded the contract improperly and used proprietary information from Magellan to win the bid.
The new contract was set to begin on October 1, 2013, but the protest and lawsuit are likely to delay implementation. Previously MIHS responded to the formal protest with the following statement:
“We are studying those protests and will respond in the appropriate venues,” the statement said. “We are confident in the strength of our bid, and we are proud to offer a unique, collaborative approach to meet Maricopa County Medicaid recipients’ behavioral-health needs and to integrate the behavioral- health and medical services for those with serious mental illness.”
If you recall, the lawsuit also alleges “serious conflicts of interest” by MIHS because Mercy Maricopa both manages the system and provide services, which is “prohibited by the contract and by state law.” Magellan also alleges that the bidding process contained “serious irregularities,” such as the state’s bidding process being amended twice to unfairly benefit MIHS over their private competitors. Additional claims include conflicts of interest, improper scoring, licensing problems, and disclosure of proprietary information to competitors. Magellan originally serviced the state contract since 2007.
The serious allegations require attention and deserve public scrutiny. MIHS should be holding discussions on the contract and the protest, but they should be doing this in the face of the public. Not behind closed doors immune from public records requests. MIHS is a government entity that collects nearly $60 million dollars in property taxes every year and is run by a publicly elected Board of Directors. When the state awards a contract that could be worth up to $3 billion dollars, possible bias in favor of a taxpayer funded MIHS over private competitors deserves more sunshine and certainly more accountability.
If you’d like to contact the MIHS Board of Directors and demand more transparency for taxpayers, they can be reached via email as follows:
For Frequently Asked Questions, click on FAQs.
AFPF-Arizona’s Local Government Scorecard for the 2013 fiscal year (its 6th annual local scorecard) covers 106 Arizona cities, counties and special-purpose taxing districts, and 670 local officials. The Scorecard grades local officials on overall budgets, property tax levies and sales tax changes, and includes yearly scores for current officials going back to the 2008 fiscal year, as well as cumulative averages. AFPF-Arizona’s Local Government Scorecard for the 2013 fiscal year comes out at a time when many local governments in Arizona are finalizing tax and budget plans for the 2014 fiscal year. View the scorecard at this link: http://americansforprosperityfoundation.com/arizona/legislativealerts/1000-2/
Legislative Actions as of 4/12/2013 Last Updated 4/16/2013
Narrative:
Two bills were added to the evaluation after being brought to our attention by members of the legislature. Although it is late in the session, both bills are well within our policy guidelines indicating the type of weight they would receive.
HB2341 reduces government regulation on remodeling homes when significant structural changes are not being made. We weighted this (+5) because it actually rolls back government regulation. If it had been brought to our attention earlier in the session, it would have gotten a higher weight because the information would have been available before the votes. However, reducing regulations on citizens is a consistent policy objective we espouse.
SB1223 eliminates Fish and Wildlife fees being set by the legislature and assigns that responsibility to an unelected board. This is an obvious attempt to bypass rules that require the legislature to get two thirds majorities to raise taxes and fees. We have consistently told legislators we would weight any bills that delegate the legislature’s taxing authority to the executive branch of government as (-10). That is the weight assigned to SB1223.
The weight on SB1437, a bill for establishing licensing for music therapists, was changed from (-6) to (-5) because an amendment adopted in the House slightly improved the bill by addressing one of our concerns. The weight of (-5) still indicates we oppose the bill as we cannot see that it is an appropriate role for the government to help certain groups of professionals and/or businesses either form cartels, restrict competition, or use the government to provide them with a seal of approval or respectability.
The number of bills being tracked is now 254 plus 3 Strike All amended bills. There were some changes in scores – especially a general move downward in the Senate.
These are NOT final scores for the session until our final report after the session ends!
We encourage conservative activists to use these weekly evaluations as a way to work with legislators to achieve more conservative results in the legislative session.
The legislation causing the most lowering of scores is HB2047 combined with HB2045 which switches Arizona from the AIMS standard to the Common Core standard. Our concern is that Common Core surrenders state autonomy on education to the federal government and promotes nationalization of education well beyond the proper scope of the federal government. In addition, the curriculum associated with Common Core relies on an international perspective instead of traditional study of American and World history. HB2425 was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor.
Other bills having a significant negative impact on scores remove significant limitations on school district spending or increase government regulation of businesses. Many Republican legislators have argued that good business regulations that “make people do the right thing” are good. This, unfortunately, is almost a perfect definition of fascism which Republicans traditionally oppose. There are always situations where we might wish others would deal with us on terms of our choosing when they are not willing to do so. Using government to force people to deal with us on our terms rather than mutually agreed upon terms is tyranny even if it is dressed up as consumer protection or professional responsibility or trying to improve market efficiency. Of course, in a free economy, people can decide for themselves what is good and make decisions on that basis as both consumers and businesses. Also, government regulations usually have unintended consequences that are usually bad. These consequences are then used to justify still more regulation when less regulation is the best solution.
To look at the AZ Conservative Coalition home page, click on Home Page.
To look at the legislator scores, click on legislative report.
For bills used in evaluation, click on bill weights.
For Frequently Asked Questions, click on FAQs.
Copyright © 2013 ·Sonoran Alliance by Adeptplus · Log in