You are here: Home / Archives for Campaigns & Elections

Aaron Borders: Republicans and the Blue Collar Worker

May 23, 2013 by Leave a Comment

I want to open this article with a simple, yet profound, statement from President Reagan “You can’t be for big Government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.”

When I talk to Blue Collar workers I have found many of them do not spent much time following politics. They rarely know how government works from the federal level down to local government, yet they have a common thread as they often tell me, “Republicans ONLY care about the Rich.” It always breaks my heart to hear this because I know that it is the furthest thing from the truth; yet, a lot of the Blue Collar workers I meet truly believe this from the bottom of their hearts.

I could go back and explain how we got to this point, and I used to try. However, I find that I usually lose them as I dig into American political history. Lets face it, unless you’re really plugged into politics, a 10 minute dissertation is way too painful to the average “non-political” Joe.

This is where our challenge lies. How do we educate, but not lecture? How do we be informative, but not come across as combative, arrogant and preachy? How I have started talking about Republican economics is simply to tell of my Blue Collar struggles and their paycheck.

Long ago in Ohio I worked with my cousins and friends in the construction field and I found that it was a trade that would suit me. Soon after, I started to work for a masonry company and went to masonry school to be a brick, block and stone mason. A few years later I started working for a General Contracting company, and started to make the best money of my young life. One afternoon the boss asked me to work a Saturday to help keep a project on track and enticed me by saying, “I will pay you time and a half!” I jumped on the opportunity.

A week or so later I went to grab get my check so I could take my young wife out to dinner to make up for the prior Saturday. When I opened my check, it was smaller then my normal checks. I thought there must be some mistake and went to speak with the HR department. Betty-Joe from HR sat me down and listened to my bewilderment for a few minutes before finally cutting me off. She calmly explained it to me, “Aaron, I know this is hard to understand, but you made too much money this week. It pushed you into a higher tax bracket, and so you have to pay a higher percentage in taxes then you normally do, making your check smaller.”

I had taken economics in school and thought I understood government taxes, but that day solidified my realization that I deserved the money I worked for, not the government. I have always believed that taxes were the ultimate win-fall for the government, but now I knew how unfair the system was. I had worked hard, negotiated my wages, put in extra time, yet now that I had worked one day more the government needed more of my money. I remember thinking, that was MY money, MY time and I earned it; not the Government.

From then on whenever my foreman asked me to work on Saturday, I always said that I had prior plans, and couldn’t. This in turn, made the projects we were building take longer, stalling the projects opening and thus slowing the growth of the economy in our small town.

There was no financial gain for me to work harder, so why would I; especially since the additional work actually accounted for a loss to my paycheck. If I would have gotten the　paycheck with the extra money instead of extra taxes; my wife and I would have supported a local restaurant, tipped the waiter/waitress a little bit more, and probably spent a little more money at the store. All of that was taken out of the local economy, because I refused to work harder to earn less.

As I moved through my life and I became a business owner. I found this reasoning also applied to business. With a normal business plan, a business strives to reaches different levels of success in order to reinvest into its self. Whither it is more efficient tools, a larger facility, or more employees; a business is reaching for higher benchmarks. During this struggle to grow, they always have to account for the constant draining of funds being pulled away from the business via the government and taxes. This constant draining is a roadblock that every determined job creator has to jump over to be successful.

Democrats try to put blinders on low-income employee to say, “the other guys can afford to pay a little higher taxes.” However, many times the ‘other guy’ in this statement is their employer or a corporation that with the ability to keep a bit more of THEIR profit could hire more employees. Just like when I couldn’t spend MY money on MY family with MY earnings, a company getting a higher tax bills can not spend or invest their money in their company, through pay raises (to the Blue Collar Workers), new equipment, or new employees.

These financial hurdles and roadblocks hurt Blue Collared Workers yet, the Democrats consistently want to raise taxes on income and businesses that directly impact Blue Collar Workers. The Democrat Party says it’s a huge supporter of the “little guy”　and the “Blue Collar Worker”　but then their economic plan completely rejects this point. Anyone who wants people and businesses to pay more, because of their hard they work cannot say they want everyone to succeed. This makes the Democrat platform either completely disingenuous or completely inept to basic capitalistic principles.

When I tell this story to Blue Collar workers, I watch as they put it into perspective and see the basic logic and reasoning. Many Democrat candidates demonize corporations, big business and “the Rich.” In all actuality they are really demonizing every worker who wants to work hard to succeed for their family. Every worker should be able to work hard to support their family and every corporation needs to work hard to reinvest into itself. This is how Republicans view the economic development with tax cuts in order to spur economic growth.

President Ronald Reagan implemented this strategy when he cut taxes across the board and created a boom in the economy in the 1980’s. He so eloquently said, “A rising tide floats all boats.” When I try to start with this quote, I am always accused of　defending the “rich guy.” But when I start the story from the beginning, I find that this quote is a great closer because by then nearly all my Blue Collar friends have realized that Republicans are actually the party for the hard working Blue Collar workers, not the Democrats.

——–

About the Author: Aaron Borders is a Financial Specialist and business owner in Arizona. Aaron was a Journeyman Mason and partner in a General Contracting and Construction business prior to the 2008 market crash. He got the proper education in order to help families and businesses with their Risk Management and Financial needs. He lives in Litchfield Park with his wife Shelly and three little boys, with a baby girl due in Sept. Aaron Borders is also a candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 29. For more information on Aaron, please visit his website at www.AaronBorders4AZ.com.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Guest Opinion, Political Parties, Political Science, Voter Registration Tagged With: , , , ,

Arizona Conservative Coalition Updated Ratings

May 14, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Updated Ratings!!!

 

Arizona Conservative Coalition Republican Legislator Rankings
Legislative Actions as of 5/10/2013
Last Updated 5/13/2013
Narrative:
The number of bills being tracked is 255 plus 3 Strike All amended bills. One bill, HB2608, was just added to the evaluation. It was previously overlooked, but it is a terrific bill that moves the state government on the road to employee pension reform by switching a small group of employees from defined benefit to defined contribution retirement plans.
Here is what happened in the past week with bills that are part of the evaluation:
In the House:
SB1266, which provides penalties for illegal dumping of trash, passed the House. This bill, which we support, helps protect innocent property owners from people who would despoil their neighborhoods.
In the Senate:
HB2608, which switches new participants in relatively small state pension plan from defined benefit to defined contribution, passed the Senate on its second try when it was reconsidered after the first attempt failed due to absent Senators in favor of the bill. We support this bill.
HB2281, which requires tenants to be kept informed of foreclosure activity on the property they are leasing, passed the Senate. We support this bill because it helps protect defendants from being defrauded by defaulting property owners.
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 to sneak it past legislators. This is often done 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. K-12 education, particularly inside a state, is clearly beyond the proper scope of the federal government, and Common Core makes federal usurpation even worse. 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.
To look at the legislator scores, click on legislative report.
 For bills used in evaluation, click on bill weights.

For detailed evaluation data, click on detail evaluation data.

For Frequently Asked Questions, click on  FAQs.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Elected Officials, State Government Tagged With: ,

Friday Poll: The Race for Arizona’s CD-1

May 10, 2013 by 3 Comments

We’re still in the early stages of the 2014 mid-term election and that means that individuals are starting to prepare to become candidates in campaigns for Congress.

With Ann Kirkpatrick in trouble in Arizona’s 1st Congressional district, we’re asking our readers to weigh in on who they best think would win back the district for Republicans.

Some of these names are confirmed but others are speculation or wishful thinking. Here’s your chance to vote:

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Polls, Predictions Tagged With: , , ,

State Representative Steve Smith Exploring Return to the State Senate

May 3, 2013 by Leave a Comment

SteveSmithPINAL COUNTY – State Representative Steve Smith announced the formation of an Exploratory Committee for the LD11 State Senate seat that would be vacated in 2014 should current State Senator Al Melvin run for Governor.

Smith represented much of the district when he won the old LD23 State Senate seat in 2010, but he deferred to then LD26 Senator Al Melvin when redistricting placed them into the same district.  “It was the right thing to do because it thwarted the Democrat plan to pit two good conservatives against each other and it gave our district greater seniority in the Senate.” said Smith about that earlier decision.  He later added “But with Senator Melvin likely running for Governor, we need to ensure that our district continues to enjoy quality conservative representation, and I intend to fully explore the possibility of returning to the Senate in 2014.”

Smith noted that this move had the support of Senator Melvin, his seatmate in the House, Representative Adam Kwasman, and already declared House candidate Vince Leach.

“Politics is a team sport,” said Smith, “and I feel great about being a part of such a great team.”

# # #

Paid for by Elect Steve Smith

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Press Release

Republican Gubernatorial Candidates: Who Do You Like?

May 3, 2013 by 1 Comment
Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Polls Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Jeff Weninger Launches Exploratory Committee for State Office Run

May 2, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Chandler City Councilman Jeff Weninger today filed the necessary paperwork with the Secretary of State to form an exploratory committee for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 17.

Weninger is serving his second term on Chandler Council and previously served as Vice Mayor.  He also currently holds a Republican Precinct Committeeman seat in District 17.  In addition, Weninger has run five successful valley restaurants as co-owner for the last 17 years.

Weninger’s decision to form an exploratory committee is largely due to the numerous requests he has received from Republican leaders within the state, including Representatives J.D. Mesnard and Tom Forese, and Senator Steve Yarbrough, who currently represent the district.  Jeff has the support of all three legislators.

Representative J.D. Mesnard said, “Jeff has long demonstrated his commitment to our community in his professional endeavors and through his service on the Chandler Council.  He has the right principles and I’m excited about the chance to serve with him in the House.”

“I am thrilled at the prospect of Jeff filling my seat in the Legislature as I look at pursuing other opportunities,” said Representative Tom Forese.  “In addition to being a husband, father, business owner, and public servant, Jeff is a proven leader.”

Senator Steve Yarbrough emphasized that Jeff has been a strong conservative voice ably representing the values of East Valley residents as both a family man and a businessman.  “He will be a great addition to the state House of Representatives,” Yarbrough said.

“I am honored to have the support of so many respected Republican leaders, particularly those who have been faithfully serving this district,” Weninger stated.  “I am looking forward to hearing from the citizens in District 17 as my family and I explore this important decision on running for the State House.”

Jeff is a life-long Republican and has lived in the East Valley for 20 years.  He and his wife Janet have three children and reside in Chandler.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, City Government, Press Release, State Government Tagged With: , , , ,

State Representative Steve Montenegro Asks for Retraction from Reagan Campaign

May 2, 2013 by Leave a Comment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PHOENIX – State Representative Steve Montenegro today asked State Senator Michele Reagan to denounce and retract attacks made by her campaign consultants that introduced ethnicity into a debate over the voting rights of all Arizonans.

“I was one of several lawmakers who voiced objections to several pieces of legislation that would take power from the citizens of Arizona and give it to the judiciary or the Secretary of State.  In our objections we made no mention of Senator Reagan and our objections were in no way related to the race or ethnicity of any group of voters.  To the contrary, the bills trample the rights of every voter and each and every voter is equally deserving of protection.”

“I was saddened that I alone, of all of the signers of the letter, was singled out for attacks by Senator Reagan’s campaign.  Far worse was that I was accused of “Pandering to Hispanics”.  Senator Reagan’s campaign team is clearly eager to begin a contest that does not even exist yet, but introducing race or ethnicity where it doesn’t belong is the ugliest form of political mudslinging.  I am not asking for an apology.  After defending our conservative values for the last five years I have developed some pretty thick skin.  But these types of attacks demean the process, insult the voters, and illustrate why our Republican Party still has a long way to go if we are to appeal to every Arizonan.”

Montenegro asked Reagan to have her campaign retract their attacks and to promise that any potential campaign would be waged on the issues and the records and positions held by the candidates in the race, rather than on racial or ethnic stereotypes or attacks.

There were several tweets from Kyle Moyer & Company that targeted Montenegro including one from Chris Tolino, a consultant with that firm who tweeted the most inappropriate attack.

 

Tolino Screen Shot 2013-05-01 at 10.18.34 PM

# # #

Paid for by Montenegro for Arizona

 

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Latinos, Press Release

VOTER ALERT — Beware SB1263, SB1264, and SCR1019!

May 1, 2013 by 1 Comment

Three bills that have made their way through the State Senate and are now making their way through the State House attack the rights of Arizonans to access the petition process and make their voices heard.  It is imperative that your Representatives hear from you to Vote NO on these three bills.

SB1263 would require “background checks” of ALL petition circulators, without specifying the nature or depth of the background check.  It would give the Secretary of State unprecedented power to hinder the circulation of petitions, assigns the Secretary of State unlimited powers to adopt a procedures manual that circulators would have to abide by, and would consume large amounts of time that is precious to any group that is engaged in exercising their constitutional rights.

Imagine that a candidate realizes that their volunteers have been slow to collect signatures, so they decide to hire their neighbor’s college-aged kids to help.  Would you really have to hire a private investigator to do a full background check on your neighbor’s kid?  Yes.  Even your own.  Worse, they could not circulate petitions until the Secretary of State approved them and entered them into a database.  Imagine the stonewalling possible if the Secretary of State was opposing that candidate!  In addition to this being a poorly conceived bill, it is likely unconstitutional.

SB1264 is a poorly disguised effort to give the judiciary the power to kill outright any initiative it does not like.  It makes any error, no matter how slight or immaterial, fatal, meaning that it would kill the entire petition.  The penalty is set in stone so that any judge finding such error would kill the petition, but it provides wide latitude and discretion to the judge as to what is an error or not.

The legal standard should always be the intent of the voter signing the petition – and any legislative action that modifies the petition process must protect the rights of the voters to join together on a petition to make their voices heard.  If their intent is clear, then a judge should allow them to exercise their constitutional rights.

SCR1019 is the most blatantly unconstitutional bill of the three.  It would require that in order for any initiative to qualify for the ballot, at least 25% of its signatures must come outside of Maricopa and Pima County.  Whatever the intent of the bill’s author is, disenfranchising the voters of Maricopa and Pima County by determining that any signatures gathered over a certain amount do not count is an affront to Arizona’s century-old respect for the initiative process.  It is also a clear violation of the Constitution in that it seeks to essentially declare “one man, one vote, unless you live in Maricopa or Pima County.”

In total, these bills represent a real power grab away from the citizens of Arizona, and they should each be defeated.  Unfortunately, we are late in drawing attention to them and they have all passed out of the Senate.  Fortunately, we can stop them in the House.

Please contact your State Representative by calling the main House Switchboard at (800) 352-8404 and let them know that your rights are sacred and are not to be violated.

There have been ballot initiatives that we opposed over the years that would have been stopped by these rules, but that is no reason to support these bills.  The right to petition your government should be sacred in Arizona.  Good ballot initiatives have also been passed over the years to protect private property rights, the right to a secret ballot, requiring voter ID at the polls, protecting our health care freedoms, and more.  Please make your voices heard immediately as these bills could move any day now.

Thank you,

Rep. Steve Montenegro

Rep. David Livingston

Rep. Kelly Townsend

Rep. Darin Mitchell

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law

Latinos/Hispanics and Republicans

April 29, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By Aaron Borders

I want to start this article with this thought in mind. Republicans don’t need to change their platform to bring in Latinos/ Hispanics to the GOP, they need to get their message to the Latino/ Hispanics people. I base that comment on my MANY conversations with Hispanic and Latino Arizonans. It seems that when I approach a Hispanic or Latino Voter I ask them what they think about the Republican Party. I usually get one of these two answers or both. “Republicans are racist and they hate Latinos/Hispanics”, or I get this,” you’re the first person that’s asked, I don’t even know what the Republicans believe”.

I grew up in a generation that didn’t see race as an issue at all. When I was a boy, Michael Jordan was the biggest basketball star, Tiger Woods was the biggest talent in golf, and Emmitt Smith was the best running back in the NFL. As I got older and I learned more about politics, I learned that Democrats opposed EVERY piece of civil rights legislation that our Congress has passed. Now I know you are reading this and thinking, ‘what do Latinos/ Hispanics have to do with the African- American Civil rights movement?’ Very simple, the same way the Democrats have sucked in the same people they fought to enslave (remember Lincoln was a Republican) and through big Government programs, they have destroyed their culture and family values. This is their plan for the Latino/ Hispanics population as well.

In the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s the African-American people were fighting for their civil rights and liberties. By in large, they were religious folks following Dr. Martin Luther King (Republican) and his quest for equality for his people. The African-American community had tight family bonds and values. ALL they wanted was to get equal pay and equal opportunity. So, with MUCH rejection from the “Dixiecrats” which were a proud group of Democrat segregationist and their supporters that had assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full. They also opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy. With great pressure from the Civil Rights Movement and the Republicans in Congress, a lot of civil rights legislation was passed into law. President Lyndon B. Johnson only went along because he saw the “voter loyalty” that came with it.

The Democrat Party continues to get the African-American vote solely out of loyalty to a Democratic President who signed Republican Civil Rights bills, they consistently vote against their own interest with blind loyalty. THIS is how African-Americans relate to Latinos/ Hispanics. With the Latinos/ Hispanics, however, it is just getting started. Here are a few examples.

Proposition 8 in California was a great illustration of what I am referring to. The LA Times recorded this, “California’s black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state’s same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court’s May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press. More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8.” It’s Amazing that something that is a core belief issue to African-Americans and Latinos who felt so strongly about same-sex marriage they, “turned out in droves” on an non presidential election year to oppose it, but; blindly voted for a party that openly supports it.

Here is another example, According to a Reuters report, “U.S. Hispanics — traditionally an anti-abortion group influenced by their predominant Roman Catholic faith. A 2007 joint survey by the respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Hispanic Center shows that 65 % of first-generation U.S. Hispanics believe abortion should be illegal.” However, according to the New York Times, Nationwide Hispanics voted 67% in favor of Obama. Such a solid disconnect. An anti-abortion position is an unwavering position because there is a belief that legalized murder is taking place. Yet once again, the party that openly supports abortion and late term abortion was the party that got the anti-abortion Hispanic/Latino vote. Not to mention President Obama who openly supported infanticide as an Illinois State Senator.

I will give you one more example before I share with you what I feel the Republicans can do to fix this problem.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States increased by 43.7% to 2.3 million, more than twice the national rate of 18% between 2002 and 2007. About 45.8% of all Hispanic-owned businesses were owned by people of Mexican origin. Hispanic-owned businesses generated $345.2 billion in sales in 2007, up 55.5% compared with 2002. The number of Hispanic-owned businesses with receipts of $1 million or more increased 51.6%— from 29,168 to 44,206 businesses between 2002 and 2007.These new data come from the Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Businesses: 2007. Once again common reasoning would tell you these folks would vote for Pro-Growth Candidates and support Pro-Small Business policies. Unfortunately as I previously stated, President Obama, who is certainly not Pro-Growth (unless you’re talking about Gov. Regulation) or Pro-Small Business, got 67% of the Hispanic vote.

So what does this all boil down to? I refer to the second comment I get from Hispanics and Latinos when I ask them their thoughts about Republican Party.

First the Democrats have told the lie that Republicans are racist. Republicans know that’s not true but we haven’t adequately reached out to the Hispanic Voters and explained our history of, NOT being racist. The truth is that the Republicans want a secure border. Not only to keep U.S. commerce in the U.S. to grow our economy, but for the security of our Nation. We MUST explain that there is proof that Hezbollah and Hamas have infiltrated the Mexican drug cartels and a dirty bomb from them will not discriminate between Republicans or Democrats. Hispanic and Latino Voters MUST see these lies as a ploy to pit them against Republicans; at the risk of their families’ security.

Second, the Republican Party must work harder to explain their platform to Hispanics and Latinos. I don’t want to discount the work that the Arizona Latino Republican local groups have done, but as a party we must do more. As I have illustrated, there is a huge voter base that agrees with the Conservative Republican platform, they just haven’t been told by us what we believe. The Democrats tell them what we believe and most of the time the Democrats are the only one talking to them. So in essence, they only hear lies about how we are racist, then we don’t reach out to them for their vote, and that further solidifies the lie in their mind.

As a current candidate for the LD-29 Arizona State House, I have been blown away when I speak to Hispanic and Latinos Voters. For some of these folks I am the first Republican that has ever talked to them. Furthermore, when I explain our platform to them they almost ALL look at me confounded and say, “I didn’t even know I was a Republican.”

As Republicans, we had better wake up as a party and invest in our message to the Hispanic and Latino Voters because they are us, they just don’t know it.

Aaron Borders is a Republican candidate for the Arizona Legislature in Legislative District 29. You can find out more about Aaron at his website at www.AaronBorders4AZ.com. You can also follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Demographics, Guest Opinion, Latinos, Political Parties, Political Science Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Consultant Legislators: A conflict of interest?

April 24, 2013 by Leave a Comment

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

ethicsIt 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.

10-veterans-videoDuring 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?

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, City Government, Conspiracy Theories, Elected Officials, Ethics, Guest Opinion, Public Relations, Uncategorized, Unions Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Submit your nominations now for Best of the Capitol 2013!

April 24, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Join Arizona Capitol Times as we honor this year’s contenders for Best of the Capitol.
Now in its seventh year, this annual section and event has become a celebration of Arizona’s Capitol community.


Nomination Deadline: April 26

Categories:
Elected Officials • Debaters • Committee Chairs • Fashion • Hair • Lobbyist
Lobbyist Under 40 • Capitol Staffer • Political Rising Star • Power Broker
Political Operative • PR Person • PR Firm • Twitterer • IE/Ballot Measure Campaign
Grassroots Effort • Candidate Campaign • After-Hours Hangout • Place to Impress a Client • Capitol Lawn Event • Awards Event • Cocktail Party

_______________________________________________________________


Best of the Capitol event: 
Tuesday, June 25 • 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. • Location to be announced
_______________________________________________________________
You may register at http://regonline.com/2013BestofCapitol

For individual seating and tables call Tom Misener at 800-387-7450
or email tom.misener@thedolancompany.com

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Interested in event sponsorship or advertising in our special insert?
Contact Melanie Campbell at 602.889.7125 or melanie.campbell@azcapitoltimes.com

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Endorsements, Media, Political Ad, Press Release Tagged With: ,

Vince Leach Announces for Arizona State House in 2014

April 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

SaddleBrooke Resident and Conservative Activist Vince Leach Announces Run for State House in 2014

Vince LeachPINAL COUNTY ­ Longtime conservative activist Vince Leach today announced his intention to run for the State House in Legislative District 11. The district is currently represented by both Steve Smith and Adam Kwasman in the House, but Smith is expected to run for the State Senate seat that is expected to be vacated by current State Senator Al Melvin, who announced yesterday that he was forming an Exploratory Committee to explore a campaign for Governor of Arizona.

In his announcement, Leach said “Our district has a great delegation made up of three rock-solid conservatives. I’m excited to hear that Al is considering running for Governor and that Steve would then run for the State Senate seat. But those moves will leave a vacancy in the State House and I am running to be sure that we continue to have reliably conservative representation.”

Leach recognized that he was off to an early start but noted the likely expense of the race and the need to organize quickly. “I assume that we will have a competitive primary and that those who favor a larger government and higher taxes will likely field a candidate. With my expectation that we are going to need at least $60-70,000 for a competitive primary, I need to get going right away to raise the necessary funds and to build the required organization.”

Leach also announced that he was endorsed by both Melvin and Smith. Melvin said that Leach “has been a constant and effective presence here at the Capitol on behalf of our community and taxpayers all across the state, and his knowledge of how things work at the Capitol will be a real boon to him and the district.” Smith said that he looked forward to working with Leach because “having conservatives makes the work here a lot easier, and I know that Vince is a reliable conservative who will fight for taxpayers, our Constitution, and Arizona.”

# # #

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Press Release Tagged With: , ,

Follow the Money…..

April 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

MIHSThe recent mental health contract awarded by the state to Maricopa County Integrated Health System or MIHS is raising eyebrows. MIHS, a government funded and owned entity, is on the cusp of receiving a 3-year contract that is potentially worth $3 billion dollars.

Any $3 billion dollar deal should be viewed as suspect by watchdog groups and taxpayers, but what makes this deal special is that MIHS is a government owned, property tax levying entity bidding against private providers.  In fact, MIHS currently collects nearly $60 million dollars in property taxes each year.  MIHS is even allowed to go into debt with revenue bonds that can be paid for through the district’s operating property tax levy without voter approval.

To secure the lucrative contract, MIHS teamed up with Aetna-owned Schaller Anderson, Medicaid provider Mercy Care Plan, Carondelet Health Network and Dignity Health.  Not surprisingly, private providers Magellan Health Services and UnitedHealthcare (both of whom bid on the same contract) have filed formal protests against MIHS and MIHS CEO Betsey Bayless.

MagellanWhy would the state award the largest contract its ever offered to another government entity in what appears to be a clear violation of the Arizona Constitution’s “gift clause?”  When you pull the thread and follow the money trail, it’s hard to not suspect corruption, cronyism, and a healthy dose of conspiracy.

MIHS was created by Proposition 414 in 2003 after voters approved the measure in a special election by a margin of 58% to 42%.  At the time, AZ Republic columnist Robert Robb called the establishment of a property-tax-supported hospital district “unnecessary and unwise.”  Robb even warned voters that “…special tax districts, focused on only a single service with independently elected boards, are bad fiscal policy.  Hard choices are good for taxpayers and make for more efficient government.”

Robb even called the publicity pamphlet and ballot question used to promote the measure “the most blatant case of government propagandizing I’ve seen in over a quarter century of Arizona elections.”  Bold statement for a columnist who typically calls it as he sees it.

The lobbying firm responsible for the passage of the ballot referral legislation at the Capitol also ran the ballot campaign.  Phoenix-based HighGround public affairs is run by consultant Chuck Coughlin, Brewer’s campaign advisor and a man who has been referred to as Arizona’s “shadow governor.”   According to their website:

“Our team was the principal public affairs and lobbying team for the legislation that authorized the creation of the new Maricopa County Hospital District on behalf of Maricopa County.  Following the successful passage of the legislation, HighGround was retained as the principal campaign consultant for the Yes on 414 Committee.”

Fast forward to 2008.  HighGround is once again rewarded for their work and is retained by MIHS with their first lobbying contract.  Today, HighGround works hand-in-hand with Betsey Bayless who was hired as MIHS’ CEO in September 2005.

BaylessIn February 2013, Bayless was given a 33% pay raise, an extra $125,000 per year, bringing her annual taxpayer-funded salary to a whopping $500,000.  This despite a poor rating issued by a national accrediting group, the Joint Commission, which found widespread record-keeping problems and other flaws that posed risks to patients’ safety.  This even despite the fact that Bayless has already announced she’s leaving her position at the end of 2013.  Two of MIHS’ board members even voted against the pay raise, saying they opposed raising the pay of a CEO who is leaving in less than a year and working for a public hospital.

“It really rubs me the wrong way that we’re spending this type of money,” board member Elbert Bicknell said. “Don’t get me wrong. Betsey is a smart … woman, and she’s done a hell of a job from 2005 to now. But a ($125,000) raise in a year when we give our janitors maybe a 1 percent raise or lay off people? It just doesn’t make sense.”  Dissenting board member Sue Gerard commented: “I think having that kind of salary is totally inappropriate.”

Could the pay raise have anything to do with the fact that it was widely speculated that MIHS was going to be awarded the enormous mental health contract?  Was this Betsey’s “swan song” on her way out the door?  Possibly.

But where this story gets really tangled is when one considers the ramifications of the state adopting Governor Brewer’s Medicaid expansion proposal.  Again, the value of the contract could increase an additional $1 billion dollars if the state accepts federal Medicaid dollars.  Who is running the campaign in Arizona for Medicaid expansion?

If you guessed Chuck Coughlin and HighGround, you’re correct.  Serving as Coughlin’s wingman is Peter Burns, a former Brewer budget advisor.  Perhaps that explains the governor’s complete flip-flop on this issue from less than a year ago.  The Wall Street Journal went as far as to describe the governor’s flip-flop as a “political 540°” and “a case study in the political pressure and fiscal gimmicks designed to get states to succumb.”

The New York Times sums up the magnitude of political forces and financial incentives behind this coordinated effort:

Recently, 40 lobbyists, representing at least 110 groups pushing for the expansion, among them hospitals, health care associations and business organizations, huddled in the executive wing of the State Capitol to update the governor’s advisers on their progress and hone strategies.

The Wall Street Journal goes further, discussing how “Ms. Brewer was nonetheless besieged by health-industry lobbying, especially from hospitals that want more government money and the insurers that administer Medicaid.”

There is something wrong with the State of Arizona climbing into bed with private business to give away billions of dollars in public funds.  When those decisions are tied to the largest health contract the state has ever awarded and possibly the biggest expansion of federal government our state has ever seen, tax-paying citizens are owed an explanation and deserve transparency.

Aside from the arguments of whether accepting federal Medicaid dollars related to the full implementation of Obamacare is good or bad policy, the one thing that is clear is that the consultants, lobbyists, and hospital administrators pushing the plan stand to make millions of dollars in profits.

Money makes people do strange things, indeed.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, County Government, Ethics, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Republican Primary Voters Weigh In on Medicaid Expansion for Arizona

April 11, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Round two of a recent poll is now out and there are some revealing numbers on how Republican primary voters feel about Governor Brewer’s push to expand Medicaid in Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and several legislative districts. Here are those results:

This memorandum is an executive summary of an automated voice recorded survey of 718 likely Republican primary voters in six legislative districts in Arizona. The legislative districts surveyed were 13, 17, 18, 20, 25 and 28. The interviews were conducted March 27th and 28th, 2013. This survey has a margin of error of +/-­‐ 3.65% at the 95 percent confidence interval. This survey was weighted based upon past Republican primary voter demographics. The focus of this survey was to measure Republican primary voter opinions regarding the expansion of Medicaid, the implementation of Obamacare, as well as voter reaction to their state legislator’s support or opposition to Medicaid expansion. The survey toplines are also included with this document.

GOVERNOR BREWER IMAGE RATING

Among Republican primary voters in the six legislative districts, Governor Brewer has a very strong image rating with 69% of voters having a favorable opinion of her, 23% having an unfavorable opinion of her, and 8% being undecided or not having an opinion.

SENATOR FLAKE IMAGE RATING

Senator Jeff Flake also has a very strong image rating among Republican primary voters in the six legislative districts, with 70% of voters having a favorable opinion of him, 18% having an unfavorable opinion of him, and 12% being undecided or not having an opinion.

GOP PRIMARY VOTER SUPPORT FOR THE EXPANSION OF MEDICAID

Republican primary voters in the six legislative districts were asked if they support Governor Brewer’s proposal to expand Medicaid in order to fully implement the federal government’s health care system in 2014. Among all respondents, 30% support the expansion of Medicaid, 51% oppose expansion, and 19% are either unsure or do not have an opinion about the issue. The following table shows responses by legislative district.

“As you may know, Governor Brewer has proposed the expansion of Medicaid in Arizona in order to fully implement the federal government’s health care system in 2014. Knowing this, do you support or oppose the expansion of Medicaid in order to implement the federal government’s health care system?”

Medicaid GOP Primary 1

 

VOTER OPPOSITION FOR LEGISLATORS WHO VOTE TO EXPAND MEDICAID

To measure voter reactions if their state legislator voted to expand Medicaid, the following question was asked:

“Would you be more or less likely to vote to reelect your state legislator if they voted for the expansion of Medicaid?”

Medicaid GOP Primary 2

 

Not surprisingly, among Republican primary voters in the six legislative districts a majority, or 53% are less likely to reelect their legislator if they voted to expand Medicaid and only 22% would be more likely to vote for their state legislator. When looking at the results by legislative district, the percentage of voters that are less likely to reelect their state legislator ranges from a low of 37% to a high of 69%.

GOP PRIMARY VOTER SUPPORT FOR TAX INCREASE TO FUND MEDICAID EXPANSION

In addition to measuring Republican primary voter’s reactions toward their state legislators if they voted to expand Medicaid, the survey tested voter reaction to a tax increase on hospitals to fund the expansion of Medicaid. Again, it is no surprise that Republican primary voters vigorously oppose this idea and do not want their legislators supporting a new tax on hospitals to fund the expansion of Medicaid. Among all respondents in the six legislative districts, only 11% would be more likely to vote to reelect their legislator, and two thirds, or 68%, would not vote to reelect their legislator. In short, if an incumbent voted for such a proposal it would be toxic for their reelection. The following table shows the question responses by legislative district.

“Would you be more or less likely to vote to reelect your state legislator if they voted for a new tax on hospitals to fund the expansion of Medicaid?”

Medicaid GOP Primary 3

 

CONCLUSION

Among the likely Republican primary voters surveyed in these six legislative districts, it is clear they oppose the expansion of Medicaid by varying degrees from a plurality of 42% to a large majority of 62%. Support for Medicaid expansion ranges from a high of 35% to a low of 26%. The survey also finds a plurality, or a majority, of Republican primary voters would be less likely to vote for their legislator if they voted to expand Medicaid in all six legislative districts. Finally, the information in this research should be of concern to incumbent legislators as they consider how to handle this issue.

View/Download the entire report including the topline results.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Elected Officials, Federal Government, Legislation, Political Parties, Polls, Press Release, State Government Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senator John McCain Moves Money from McCain-Palin Compliance Fund to Senate Campaign Account

April 10, 2013 by Leave a Comment

More revelations how money moves in the political campaign world. Here’s an article by David Levinthal on PublicIntegrity.org about our senior senator that also reveals his plans for 2016.

More than four years after the fact, John McCain the senator is benefiting big time from John McCain the presidential candidate.

That’s because the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund Inc. of a presidential election more than four years distant transferred $819,200 this winter to the Arizona Republican’s U.S. Senate campaign committee, according to a document filed today with the Federal Election Commission.

Cash transfers between established political committees are in general, legal, and McCain for several years after the 2008 election routinely shuttled funds among the several political committees under his watch. They include his 2008 presidential committee, a Senate committee, joint fundraising committees and a leadership political action committee.

But the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund was supposed to raise private dollars to pay for legal and accounting costs associated with McCain complying with presidential campaign finance rules.

It now will ostensibly fuel a Senate re-election bid, which would next come in 2016 for the 76-year-old senator.

(Continue reading)

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections, Elected Officials Tagged With: , , ,

Government Contract Rigged for MIHS?

April 9, 2013 by Leave a Comment

CASH

Magellan Health Services filed a “formal protest and a lawsuit” against Maricopa Integrated Health Services or MIHS. Magellan had managed a contract that included serving Maricopa County’s poor since 2007. Magellan’s complaint alleges numerous irregularities:

In its protest, Magellan alleges that Mercy Maricopa has “serious conflicts of interest” because Mercy Maricopa intends to both manage the system and provide services, which is prohibited by the contract and by state law. Magellan also claims that Mercy Maricopa should have been ineligible to bid on the contract but that state procurement officials improperly amended the request for proposals “to permit the winning bidder to qualify as an eligible bidder.”

Magellan Arizona CEO Richard Clarke told The Arizona Republic that there were “serious irregularities in the bidding process,” such as the state twice amending the proposal request “at the last moment” to allow bidders to subcontract services, which benefited the Mercy Maricopa proposal.

Magellan also claims that the bids were improperly scored and that “there was an overall bias in favor of the winning bidder.”

For example, Clarke said, both organizations proposed eliminating the separate provider network for children’s treatment and using the administrative savings for direct services. Mercy Maricopa earned points for that portion of its proposal, but Magellan did not, he said. “There are a number of errors like that where it’s really clear to us that the two entities were judged very differently,” he said.

Magellan’s complaint targets not only MIHS but Betsey Bayless, MIHS’ CEO. Bayless has previously been under scrutiny for receiving a $125,000 taxpayer funded pay raise earlier this year, bringing her annual salary to $500,000 - in taxpayer money.  Bayless was viewed by many as a spoiler in the 2002 governor’s race between Matt Salmon and Governor Napolitano. Napolitano won by less than 10,000 votes and in return, Bayless was appointed as director of the Department of Administration. Bayless’ appointment would serve as a launching pad to her lucrative position at MIHS, a position which many view is beyond her qualifications.

The Arizona Republic also states an interesting fact about the state contract:

The contract, worth $2 billion to $3 billion, depending on whether the state expands Medicaid, is the states first for integrated health care, which blends physical- and mental-health treatment.

The difference between $2 billion and $3 billion is staggering. The Arizona Republic understates the amount and ignores the underlying possible nefarious motive for the changing of state law, bidding processes, and why MIHS would want the contract.  To put this into context, the difference between $2 billion and $3 billion is the difference between, say, Jerry Jones and Steven Spielberg.

Another key factor easily glossed over by the Arizona Republic is that MIHS receives nearly $60 million dollars in property taxes each year.  So, you essentially have a taxpayer-subsidized government entity bidding against private providers for the largest behavioral health contract the state has ever offered.  Does that seem fair?

The legal challenge by Magellan will hopefully shed light on the seemingly back door deal and reveal what really took place in the bidding process. When $3 billion in taxpayer dollars is at stake, the people deserve complete transparency on state contracts.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, County Government, Government Reform, State Government, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

AZ Conservative Coalition responds to Complaint

March 13, 2013 by Leave a Comment

A letter of complaint written by a Republican legislator about the Arizona Conservative Coalition’s (ACC’s) Legislator Evaluation was posted on another (not so conservative) blog.

We are used to getting complaints from legislators not getting scores as high as they want.

The ACC responded to this email. Because the email was publicly posted, we are providing our response so it is available to the public as well.

The email with the complaint and the ACC response can be read here.

The legislator and the ACC have agreed that we will work amicably together going forward, but we can’t allow the email posted to a blog (presumably without his prior knowledge) go without a public response.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Elected Officials, Special Interests, State Government Tagged With: ,
«Older Posts