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

Thursday, September 2, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                                                                   MEDIA CONTACT:

September 1, 2010                                                                        Sean McCaffrey (480/366-5975)

MEDIA ADVISORY: Pearce, Arpaio, Others

Press Conference  9:00 AM                                                                                            

PHOENIX, AZ¾ Arizona Senator Russell Pearce, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and other elected officials and VIPs will hold a 30-minute press conference in front of Arizona Diamondbacks Chase Field at South 5^th Street and East Jefferson Street.

 The press conference will take place at 9:00AM, Thursday, September 2, 2010.  Sheriff Arpaio and Senator Pearce will be joined by other elected officials and VIPs from around Arizona.

“Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Senator Russell Pearce, both national co-chairmen of BanAmnestyNow.com will be announcing the results of B.A.N.’s nationwide petition to keep the 2011 MLB All-Star Game here in Arizona,” said B.A.N. president Sean McCaffrey.

“Arizona is an All-Star State, leading the way in showing our federal government that laws can indeed be upheld,” McCaffrey said.  “Other states are joining us.  Citizens from all fifty states have signed B.A.N.’s petition asking Major League Baseball not to punish the citizens of Arizona because we chose to uphold the law.”

SUMMARY INFORATION:

Who: Sheriff Arpaio, Senator Pearce & Other VIPs

When: Thursday, Sept. 2, 2010 at 9:00AM

Where: Intersection of S. 5^th Street and E. Jefferson St., Phoenix

Why: Because Arizona is an All-Star State!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Please contact Sean McCaffrey at B.A.N. at (480) 366-5975

or on his cell-phone at (602) 885-5815

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

Last week, the Goldwater Institute filed a formal appeal to the Supreme Court to strike down matching funds once and for all. The appeal follows the Court’s decision on June 8, 2010, to suspend temporarily the distribution of matching funds to taxpayer-funded “Clean Elections” candidates.

Matching funds seek to “level the playing field” between taxpayer-funded and privately-funded candidates by showering taxpayer-funded candidates with matching subsidies for every dollar that an opposing privately-funded opponent raises or spends above a specific spending limit.

Imagine if this concept were applied to the media in general, news websites that get “too many” visitors could trigger subsidies to bail out failing newspapers. To provide “balance,” talk shows with ratings that spike “too high” could spawn access to tax dollars for their struggling competition.

Sounds pretty far-fetched, right. The Federal Trade Commission recently published a report urging more funds to public broadcasting, creation of a government program to pay reporters and fund local news, and taxes on electronic devices and online news aggregators. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger wrote this summer in the Wall Street Journal that there is nothing to fear from government subsidizing the media – highlighting China’s CCTV and Xinhua news as examples of unbiased journalism.

If these ideas gain momentum, the government could easily shape the marketplace of ideas through triggered subsidies. Stopping the government from silencing candidates with the threat of massive subsidies to their political opponents is a necessary step to preventing the government’s wider expansion of fiscally-engineered censorship.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

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

Monday, August 9, 2010

Horne trying desperately to hide his pro-amnesty record

Resorts to suing Arpaio to try and shut down powerful television

Breaking news….we have just heard that liberal Republican Tom Horne has filed a complaint against Sheriff Joe Arpaio over this television ad we sent out earlier today to try and get it taken off the air. If you haven’t had a chance to watch it, do it now. Horne’s record on amnesty and other issues can be found at the website http://www.thetomhornetruth.com/ According to the site,

The East Valley Tribune reported on February 14, 2007 that Horne has a “plan” to grant American citizenship to illegal immigrants who meet certain educational requirements.  According to the Tribune, “Horne has a plan that would reward high school graduates with citizenship. All they would have to do is pass a test. “If there’s a standardized test that confirms it, that the student does well and learned, I would have no objection to that” Horne said.

This is what we’re up against: Illegal Alien supporters bussed in from California. desecrate US and AZ flag in front of Arizona State Capitol during the singing of the National Anthem at a pro SB 1070 Rally. H/T to Right Wing House Wife

Happy 4th, all! At UnitedWeStandforAmericans.org, we had a special 2 hour show with Goldwater Institute attorney Clint Bolick on the Constitution and the current state of Constitutional law. Sounds long, but I think it goes by VERY fast! We cover everything from basic Constitutional concepts to recent cases like the McDonald gun rights case and Clean Elections. Enjoy!

4th of July UWSFA show on the Constitution

COMMON SENSE

“In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious or unfriendly, will cease of themselves, unless too much pains is bestowed upon their conversion.”

  July 4th, 2010

Celebrating the Declaration of Independence

Happy Birthday, America

Conceived in liberty, born in conflict, the United States of America has stood as a beacon of hope for mankind the world over, ever since that fateful day 234 years ago in Philadelphia, when courageous men signed the Declaration of Independence. They came from all walks of life, but shared one thing in common, a burning desire to be free, and to confer that freedom to all of their descendants, whether by family ties or those bound by the unity of their American citizenship.

The road we have walked as American has rarely been smooth or straight. We have been challenged and tested many times in many ways – by wars, natural disasters, disease, economic chaos, political strife, and yet the underlying documents that bind us have prevailed until now.

 Today, we stand at crossroads as we face a new kind of enemy, more insidious, and in numerous ways, more insidious than any we have ever known. The enemy is among us, having insinuated its way into the highest offices of the land, threatening our liberty and the very foundations that have made us the nation we have become.

There have been times past when our patriotism has waxed and waned, when the pedestrian burdens that life imposes have distracted us, when we have become complacent in the assumption that all we enjoy is the normal human condition, but it is not. Our liberty was hard won, and must be fought for to maintain.

We are reminded, today, of an immigrant to these shores – Mr. Thomas Paine, a man of modest means who became an anonymous pamphleteer, in a role we well know. Mr. Paine cloaked himself in anonymity to avoid the hangman’s noose. Not all of brave signers of the Declaration of Independence were equally fortunate to survive the Revolution without having to wear the necktie of death. We at   C O M M O N  S E N S E are similarly anonymous, but for reasons that we wish only our ideas to be challenged, and this is best accomplished without the publication of persona.

Throughout the year, we normally ask you to examine just facts and events using your intellect. Today, on our Nation’s birthday, we would like to pull at the heartstrings of your emotions.

Feel free to read the Declaration of Independence http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/  and then take a moment to see and hear the debut of one of our nation’s most stirring anthems. Written in 1917 by Irving Berlin, it was first performed by Kate Smith on Armistice Day, November 11, 1941, just a bare two weeks before the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnQDW-NMaRs As you hear the words, join us in wishing America a grand happy birthday, with many happy returns.

God Bless America.

 ______________________________________________________________________

Who the author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.

Philadelphia, February 14, 1776.”

June 7th, 2010 an article was on posted Sonoran Alliance that included a link to a local poll labeled “Should Deakin drop out of the AZ Senate race?”. Naturally this poll received some attention from the Deakin campaign, and for good reason as the poll indicated that a majority of participants felt that Deakin should withdraw or drop out of the Senate Race. The poll was established shortly after two separate Sonoran Alliance opinion pieces called for Deakin to bow out of the Senate race. What Jim Deakin choose to do with that information however is no mystery. Instead of trying to work at his campaign to put himself into a better position, he choose to tell the organizer of the poll to “Butt out of Arizona Politics”. It’s important to note that Mr. Deakin knows exactly who the pollster was, and that the organizer of the poll is a local Arizona resident, voter, and member of the Tea Party movement in Arizona. The point being made here is that Jim Deakin is establishing an unpleasant reputation among many tea party groups and individuals that are not in support of him. This is a confusing position for him to have since he is a candidate that claims to promote tea party principles, free speech and the Constitution.

On both the Arizona Tea Party Network website and the Greater Phoenix Tea Party website are forum areas for Tea Party members to discuss candidate related content; Deakin and his campaign staff frequent the forums and post updates regularly under pseudonyms like “JPD”. June 8th, in response to the Sonoran Article listed above, Jim Deakin’s camp posted the following message in at least 9 separate areas of Greater Phoenix Tea Party website and 1 area on the Arizona Tea Party Network website:

“Speaking of interfering in elections of a Federal Candidate on an email with this paid for notice “Paid for by Maricopa County Republican Committee”. is a link to a poll made by the Congressman’s campaigner Keith Sippmann “should deakin drop out of the us senate race! Call Rob Haney Maricopa County Chair and tell him… I said HELL NO! (602) 996-1004″;

A rational person would have to question why someone would go through the trouble of posting the same update in ten different places. What is the purpose? The logical answer is that Mr. Deakin was basically implying that the MCRC was somehow approving of the polls position by including a link to the poll in a regular email communication that includes many other links to articles and related local political content. Of course this is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth by the Deakin camp, and a blatant attempt at labeling a citizen activist that opposes his candidacy for Senate as a “Congressman’s Campaigner”, again misrepresenting the truth that the activist somehow officially works for the JD Hayworth campaign. The MCRC was contacted by a concerned Tea Party member and was informed that “ the e-mail that was sent out by the MCRC was NOT an endorsement, simply an FYI, just like any other news link or other piece of information regarding any Republican Race in the State or County.”

Whenever a discussion appears online suggesting that Jim Deakin withdraw from the Senate race, his supporters always use the phrase “only a moron votes for the lesser of two evils as opposed to the RIGHT candidate.” These Deakin’ites don’t care that Deakin still isn’t breaking double-digits no matter what poll is quoted, or that he could possibly hand the seat to McCain. Instead his campaign posts a link to a CBS News article revealing that “Among Republicans, 71 percent would rather vote for a candidate with no experience.”, as if this somehow translates into more Arizona voters supporting him over Hayworth or McCain. At some point the die hard Deakin supporters and Jim Deakin himself, will have to realize that their individualist, political “outcast” attitude is just a matter of pride. To them, popular political movements that don’t favor “their guy” or “their way” of doing something must be wrong. They feel that a majority of people cannot be very smart if they aren’t supporting their candidates or initiatives, which is an attitude of intellectual elitism ironically found on the other end of the spectrum with the far leftists. It would seem that

A few days have passed since my last post responding to the McCain campaign’s attack on JD Hayworth. You may remember I turned the comments off.

Since this is my blog and I have ultimate authority, I can pretty much do what I want here including blocking or unblocking comments, allowing whoever I want to post, etc.

Readers know that I have been very fair and have allowed many varieties of conservatives and libertarians to post here. I get criticized by both sides of an issue which means I’m right where I belong in what gets said here. Any reader who has been following Sonoran Alliance for some time knows where I stand. I like to think I follow the North Star of conservative principles and that allows me to stay focused. If I believe someone is not telling the truth, I’ll say it like it is including those I support. Accuracy equals credibility and I do my best to hold to that. Anyone who knows me also knows I hate bullies and sometimes that means getting in their face and letting them know.

With that said, I’m going to give a brief explanation why I turned comments off a few posts back.

Around $6 Million has been spent here in Arizona by Team McCain to cherry pick issues and place incidents out of context regarding the campaign and character of JD Hayworth. Let’s face it, John McCain can write the big checks and buy the biggest megaphones but it doesn’t mean what he’s saying is true or in context. The fact is that it isn’t and because of that, “Senator Campaign Finance Reform” is contradicting his own principles and character. He can buy as much radio, TV, mailers and robo-calls as he wants and say what he wants. It doesn’t make it true. Instead, it makes it politically expedient.

Now I may be one Arizona conservative voice here on the Internet but at least I can make an effort to call the Senator on his messaging of distortion and contortion. Because I control my own domain, I can say what I want or what others say here on Sonoran Alliance. By turning off comments the other day, I chose to quash free speech within my own domain. It was an exercise in the very thing the McCain campaign is engaging in at the present.

John McCain agreed to debate JD Hayworth but has not kept his word. Hell, he hasn’t even given the courtesy of picking up the phone and responding to JD’s request. He’s spent around $4 Million on attack distortion ads and refused to debate. Mr Character Matters is demonstrating anything but character.

So when I refuse people to comment on my post and everyone bitches and complains, I’m giving the McCain people a minute drop of their own medicine.

In the spirit of equity, I’m turning on the comments – something John McCain can’t find in his own character to do.

PHOENIX – At an emergency meeting Wednesday, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission declared that taxpayer-funded candidates who have accepted campaign subsidies cannot withdraw from the Clean Elections system and run with private fundraising. But the Commission is wrong, according to the lead attorney who convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to block the use of matching funds at this point.
 
“There is nothing in the law that prohibits withdrawal from the Clean Elections system – provided taxpayer-funded candidates return their government subsidies and run with private financing,” said Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute’s director of constitutional studies. “No provision in the Citizens Clean Elections Act addresses the issue of voluntary withdrawal from the system. And no rule prohibits the Commission from allowing candidates to withdraw from the system if they return their subsidies.”
 
Mr. Dranias said the Commission can consider requests for withdrawal from the system if candidates can show a good reason to do so. Now that the Supreme Court has blocked the issuance of matching funds, the Commission should find good cause to allow candidates such as Governor Jan Brewer to quit the Clean Elections system if they return their government subsidies.
 
The sole rule cited at the Commission’s emergency meeting to prevent candidates from leaving the Clean Elections system says candidates “may voluntarily terminate his or her participating candidate status at any time prior to notification by the Commission that such candidate has qualified for Clean Elections funding.” The rule does not say “may only.” The use of the permissive word “may” means that the rule describes one option for withdrawing from the system. Mr. Dranias also said the Commission has the discretion to give candidates an opportunity to withdraw from the system if they return their government subsidies.
 
Even if the rule were an impediment, nothing stops the Commission from repealing the rule or adopting a new rule allowing candidates to return their public campaign funds and raise private donations instead.
 
“The First Amendment required matching funds to be struck down,” Mr. Dranias said. “But nothing justifies the Clean Election Commission’s determination to force candidates to remain in a system that imposes spending limits without the possibility of receiving matching funds.”
 
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents John McComish, Nancy McClain and Tony Bouie, candidates for the Arizona Legislature whose campaigns are funded by private donations. They are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a January 2010 decision in federal district court that strikes down the matching funds component of the Clean Elections system.
 
Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

Goldwater Institute News Release

PHOENIX – In a major victory for free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning blocked the use of taxpayer money as campaign “matching funds.” The Court will decide whether to review a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
“This ruling vindicates the right of traditionally funded candidates to run their campaigns without the heavy hand of government helping their opponents,” said Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney in the case known as McComish v. Bennett.
 
Under the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, candidates who run with public campaign subsidies receive an almost dollar-for-dollar match each time a privately funded opponent raises money above a certain amount, and additional matches when independent expenditures are made against the subsidized candidate.
 
Today, the Supreme Court restored an injunction against the use of matching funds ordered earlier this year by U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver.
 
“In a time of soaring budget deficits, the last thing taxpayers should be paying for are politicians’ campaigns,” said Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.
 
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents John McComish, Nancy McClain and Tony Bouie, candidates for the Arizona Legislature whose campaigns are funded by private donations. All three are running against taxpayer-funded candidates who will receive a dollar-for-dollar match from the government for every dollar they privately raise.
 
In January 2010, Judge Silver ruled that matching funds discourage traditionally funded candidates from raising or spending their donations so they can avoid triggering more taxpayer-funded campaign money for their opponents. Judge Silver determined matching funds are an unconstitutional burden on the election speech of privately funded candidates.
 
A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit disagreed in May, and issued an opinion stating the damage to free speech is minimal.
 
The Goldwater Institute requested that the Supreme Court intervene before the state started to hand out this year’s first round of matching funds on June 22, 2010. In a filing before the Court on Monday, June 7, the Goldwater Institute emphasized that publicly subsidized candidates were first warned by Judge Silver more than 18 months ago that matching funds were unconstitutional. Judge Silver issued her final ruling in late January, but delayed her order so the state could appeal. The Supreme Court’s action today ended that delay and put Judge Silver’s order into effect immediately.
 
Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
In a new bill titled the DISCLOSE Act, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer has proposed burdensome new requirements for federal campaign spending in response to the January 2010 historic decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. The House Administration Committee is scheduled to consider amendments today to the proposed law.

But in an open letter sent to Congress Wednesday, eight former Federal Election Commission commissioners, including Goldwater Institute Senior Fellows Lee Ann Elliot and Bradley Smith, ask federal lawmakers to defend the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. These eight experts say the DISCLOSE Act will repress campaign speech just liberated by the Supreme Court. With this public petition, the former commissioners have joined the Institute’s effort to make clear to lawmakers and to the public that complex and burdensome campaign spending rules interfere with everyone’s right to speak freely during elections.

According to the letter Senator Schumer’s bill “makes the law even more complex, more incomprehensible to ordinary voters, and more open to subjective enforcement and manipulation by those seeking partisan gain.” The letter’s analysis mirrors the reasoning of “Citizens United v. FEC: A Case for Limiting Campaign Finance Regulations,” a Goldwater Institute policy report that explains why federal and state governments should be scaling back campaign regulations instead of adding new ones.

The Citizens United decision struck down federal election laws that prevented corporations, unions and other groups from directly spending money on campaign messages in the days leading up to an election. Congress and states around the country are now required to rewrite their own election laws to lift such bans and ease requirements on people and groups who spend money on campaign messages.

Instead, the DISCLOSE Act attempts to bring back many of the unconstitutional restrictions. For example, it would prohibit any company with a federal contract of more than $50,000 from making any independent expenditures or electioneering. But this prohibition would not apply to government employee unions. The $50,000 threshold is so low that it would literally exclude thousands of businesses from engaging in constitutionally protected political speech, the very core of the First Amendment. Yet public employee unions that negotiate directly with the government for benefits worth many times more than $50,000 would have a free pass to speak their minds.

Sophisticated politicians can easily navigate complex campaign finance rules with armies of lawyers and other professionals. But most people won’t go to such lengths and that creates a barrier to the exercise of First Amendment rights that should no longer be tolerated.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

We’ve seen Jan Brewer’s inarticulate admonitions to vote for Prop. 100, we’ve seen Goldwater underscore that there is more fat to be cut from government. Now, we see the quality of individuals who support prop 100 in this video.  According to this story, a benighted ASU student who supports Prop 100 decided free speech isn’t a right to be accorded to those he disagrees with.  The student was caught red-handed tearing down anti-Prop 100 signs by Mr. Brandon Trichel.  According to Mr. Trichel, about 80% of the anti-Prop 100 signs have been torn down by those who want to take more money from you to spend on what they deem your money is best spent on.  It is little wonder the No on Prop. 100 campaign looks disorganized when thugs are tearing down the signs.

I can’t urge voters enough to go to the polls on Tuesday and vote NO on Prop. 100.  The election was purposefully held on an odd date (Tuesday, May 18) and was intended to be the only issue on the ballot so that a low voter turnout and voter disinterest would allow highly organized constituencies to confiscate more of your money so they can waste it.  Teachers unions, school administrators, police unions, fire unions, the brainwashed parents of public school students, local government workers, construction contractors that build schools and their associated trade unions, etc. will all turn out on Tuesday if they haven’t already sent in their early ballots to force those least able to afford higher taxes to pay more for their purchases.  Arizonans should know well that the lottery was supposed to fund education, and we have repeatedly voted for bonds and overrides and we have thrown money at education time and again all to no avail.  No matter how much money we throw at education, greedy administrators and entrenched special interests will ensure Arizona’s students remain at the back of the pack.  It’s time to send state government a loud and clear message that it’s time to trim the fat.

Mr. Trichel, I strongly urge you to press charges against the student.  It will teach him that the First Amendment still means something and it will convince future tyrants who hate liberty and the free exchange of ideas to think twice before trampling on the rights of others.  Would this tool or his ilk have mercy for any anti-Prop 100 individuals who were caught tearing down Yes on Prop. 100 signs?

For Immediate Release: April 13, 2010

Introduces Debate Challenge Clock on Website

Phoenix, AZ (April 13) – Over 45 days after first challenging Senator John McCain to a series of debates, J.D. Hayworth has reissued his challenge and called for McCain to give the voters of Arizona the attention they deserve.

“Senator McCain clearly believes that spending millions of dollars on attack ads is what constitutes a campaign, but the voters of Arizona deserve much better from our part-time Senator.” said Hayworth.

Hayworth is critical of McCain for continuing to travel around the country while ignoring numerous opportunities to debate Hayworth in front of Arizona voters.

Hayworth went on to say, “It appears that our now-reluctant ‘maverick’ Senator just can’t get enough of the national limelight, but after more than ten years of caring more what voters outside of Arizona think than voters here at home, it is time for John McCain to give the voters of Arizona the same debates he demanded of Barack Obama.”

In McCain’s campaign against Obama, McCain called for ten debates that would allow the voters to hear directly from the candidates – without the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate elections.

Hayworth said, “I would be happy to accept the same scenario, but it would be even better if John McCain would agree to a debate in all 15 Arizona counties.”

“John McCain and J.D. Hayworth have very real differences on a variety of issues, and the voters deserve to hear directly from the candidates.” said David Payne, Hayworth’s campaign manager. “Whether the issue is McCain’s votes for amnesty, cap & trade, bank bailouts, or so many others, I can understand why he would not want to debate a consistent conservative like J.D., but the people of Arizona, like people all over America, are getting very tired of career politicians who do not believe they should be held accountable.”

To help voters track how long McCain has been avoiding debates, the Hayworth campaign has launched a John McCain Debate challenge clock on its website, www.JDforSenate.com.

Goldwater Institute
News Release

PHOENIX—Members of Congress and Arizona election officials have been urging tougher disclosure requirements for campaign spending in response to the January 2010 historic decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. But a new legal analysis from the Goldwater Institute says such proposals would violate the First Amendment.

The Citizens United decision struck down federal election laws that barred corporations, unions and other groups from directly spending money on campaign messages in the days leading up to an election. As a result, the U.S. Congress and states around the country are now required to rewrite their own election laws to lift such bans and ease requirements on people and groups who spend money on campaign messages.

“Everyone should feel safe to speak out about election issues without worrying that they could trigger a government fine or jail time,” said Nick Dranias, director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Dranias authored a legal analysis, “Citizens United v. FEC: A Case for Limiting Campaign Finance Regulations,” which explains why federal and state governments should be scaling back campaign rules instead of adding new ones.

Arizona, however, has reacted to Citizens United by enacting speech crimes and threatening to create political prisoners. Lawmakers passed a new law on March 29 to require corporations and unions to register with the state and report spending as little as $1,000 on a local election. House Bill 2788 also makes these groups report that they have spent money on political advertisements before the public sees anything.

In addition, corporations, unions and other organizations formed to influence elections will have to register as “political committees,” which requires segregated bank accounts, the appointment of designated officers, continuous reporting and vulnerability to government audits. People and groups that don’t follow the rules could be fined up to three times what they spend on a campaign message, and they could be charged with felonies or misdemeanors just for communicating their political ideas to the public. The punishment for both criminal charges can include jail time.

“HB2788 adopts the types of regulations for campaign spending that the Citizens United ruling directly struck down,” says Mr. Dranias. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning suggests almost all federal and state campaign finance regulations should be simplified or removed to make it easier for people to speak their minds at election time,” he says.

“Citizens United declares that spending money to influence elections is fully protected under the First Amendment for everyone—every person, every organization, every corporation and every union,” Mr. Dranias says. “Political elites can easily navigate complex campaign finance rules with armies of lawyers and other professionals. But most people won’t go to such lengths, and that creates a barrier to the exercise of First Amendment rights that should not be tolerated any longer.”

Read “Citizens United v. FEC: A Case for Limiting Campaign Finance Regulations” online or call (602) 462-5000 to have a copy mailed to you.

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

McCain was in Tucson over the weekend with fellow Senator Scott Brown. There were about a dozen or so protesters outside the event at the Manning House. The easy political move is to ignore them, or better yet go out and shake their hands and talk with them. Instead, someone called the Tucson Police and reported that there was a fight. One of our readers in Tucson who was there sent this news report to us (thanks for the first-hand account.)

I’m not really sure who called the cops at the JOHN MCCAIN PROTEST: ROUND 2 organized by THE GOP PRECINCT COMMITTEEMEN AGAINST MCCAIN that was held on Saturday. I guess they thought a handful of peaceful protesters, including grandmothers and children, who were respectfully exercising their 1st Amendments rights posed such a danger that they had to call in backup. In fact, we were so respectful of Senator McCain’s rally, that even though I had been personally invited by FRIENDS OF JOHN MCCAIN via email to enter the rally, we chose to stand outside on the public sidewalk rather than entering the property. Here’s the invite:

McCain 2010

McCain 2010 Tucson Rally with
Senator Scott Brown!

There is no cost to attend this event!

The Manning House
450 West Paseo Redondo
Tucson, AZ 85701
Saturday, March 6, 2010
4:15 PM and goes until approximately 5:30 PM

Or maybe they felt the only way to level the playing field was to call in TPD since we were receiving more attention than McCain and Brown combined. Perhaps they didn’t like that we were interviewed by 3 out of the 4 local news channels. Or maybe it was because the JOHN MCCAIN PROTEST: ROUND2 was a statewide event that focused on protesting all three of Senator McCain’s campaign stops with fellow Senator Scott Brown – first at Montelucia Resort in Scottsdale, then the Arizona Inn in Tucson, and finally ending at the Manning House, also in Tucson. Perhaps it had something to do with McCain’s paid staff worker, Anthony Miller, also Chairman of LD20, who has recently been battling with a couple of the leaders of THE GOP PRECINCT COMMITTEEMEN AGAINST MCCAIN, who’s probably grouchy about these two recent stories:

http://www.gilacourier.com/?p=5716
http://sonoranweeklyreview.com/?p=2882

And let’s not forget the original TUCSON PROTEST OF JOHN MCCAIN, when this story was written: http://www.gilacourier.com/?p=5647

Maybe the McCain camp has finally reached the breaking point. The fact is that whoever called the police completely falsified their report. When the police came zipping around the corner and pulled up and asked me if we had seen a guy on a bicycle in a striped shirt fighting and yelling with people, we were shocked to say the least. Yes, one of us was on a quadcycle, but he wasn’t wearing a striped shirt or doing anything other than circling the Manning House loop with a sign that read: NO MORE MCCAIN. Hardly a reason to call the already understaffed TPD away from more important duties. In fact, 3 squad cars were called the first time. The second time, after the event had ended and McCain was outside being interviewed by the media, another squad car showed up within seconds after some of us were verbally voicing our 1st Amendment rights. Although this officer was very respectful and understanding of our rights, we were not able to continue exercising our rights because of this interference.

Was someone playing dirty politics here?