We’re off to the United States Supreme Court!

I’m heading off to Washington, D.C. this morning along with fellow Arizonans, Steve Voeller (Arizona Free Enterprise Club), State Senator Rick Murphy and former State Treasurer, Dean Martin. We are all plaintiffs or co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the State of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Election law. (I serve as the Treasurer of the Arizona-registered political action committee, Arizona Taxpayer’s Action Committee.) Our legal team consist of The Institute for Justice and The Goldwater Institute. Lead attorneys are Bill Maurer (IJ) and Clint Bolick (GI). Monday morning our case will be argued before the Justices while the four of us sit in the courtroom. Watch my Twitter feed (AZTaxpayerAct) and posts here on Sonoran Alliance. Here is some additional case information:

Goldwater Institute Case Background
Institute for Justice Litigation Backgrounder

Watch the YouTube video about the case.


  1. Without clean elections – what will happen to our more strident conservative voices?
    Will they have to kowtow to the business community for financial support in campaigns?

  2. Good luck! May good sense prevail.

  3. Lou Cinnation says

    Just make sure Clint is ready to answer all of Clarence Thomas’ questions.

  4. Fred,

    You sound like a liberal. If you take government political welfare, you’re not a conservative. If you support government money for politicians, you’re not a conservative–strident or otherwise. As far as I’m concerned, Shane is a rock star for being a part of this suit. The real conservatives are on their way to washington to wipe this progressive idiocy out once and for all. The socialists are the ones who continue to support a system that gave us the likes of Janet Napolitano and Terry Goddard.

  5. I agree Klishouer, the current system is a boondoggle and you are right, the liberals intended it to help their cause, but it didnt. In AZ this system allowed candidates like Russell Pearce to run on clean elections money and avoid having to bow to the Chamber of Commerce.
    It sounds like that was a bad thing to you. If the Chamber picks the candidates with their wallets, will Pearce, Gould and other conservatives have a harder time raising money and getting elected?

  6. Lou Cinnation says

    What Clean Elections really does is allow people to avoid having to bow to the Party. That applies to both D’s and R’s. Maybe you don’t like the connection between the GOP and the Chamber, but that’s another problem.

    What is truly shocking is how *little* money is actually involved in running for office and winning, public financing or not. There are many people now in the legislature that spent less than $1,000 of their own money and won. What do you think about a political system in which becoming a lawmaker is much cheaper than going to law school?

  7. I know one conservative candidate who does not have a lot of money, but chose to go traditional against the advice of a lot of people. But she worked hard, and a lot of people donated to her campaign, and worked to get her elected, and she is now a state legislator without ever having kowtowed to anyone except her constituents.

    And I am extremely PROUD of her, pun intended. 🙂

  8. klaihauer says


    Actually, I just like the free market.

    What’s a bad thing to me is when people call themselves conservatives–saying that they believe in a limited government without handouts or welfare–and the first thing they do is have the government subsidize their campaigns. Your position is that the ends justify the means. My position is about principle. The irony is that the very action of taking government money makes them liberals not conservatives. Call me crazy but think that government money corrupts–whether it is education or welfare or welfare for politicians.

    And for the record Russell Pearce, Ron Gould and every republican in the entire state senate voted for SCR 1025 (No taxpayer money for politicians) so I guess they don’t buy your ends justifiy the means argument either.

    As for the chamber of commerce nonsense: 1. they don’t contribute very much money to candidates, 2. clean elections is opposed by the Goldwater Institute, the free enterprise club and Americans for Prosperity and virtually every business and conservative organization in this state (including the founder of this blog).

    Finally, I think it should be said here: if you don’t support the free market you’re not a conservative. The free market means you don’t support welfare–not for corporations, not for lazy people on the dole and certainly not for polticians. If you believe in the free market you believe in raising your own damn money.

    Donna is right, there are candidates–true conservatives like Teri Proud–who won without taking welfare. Those who didn’t do that are hypocrites or democrats (or both).

  9. BTW, for RINOs who still support this idiotic system, they should read about the thumpin that clean elections got at the hands of Scalia, Roberts and Alito today:


  10. Thomas Grier says

    I actually suggest reading the transcript of the oral argument. The great thing about a Supreme Court oral argument is everyone is generally respectful, judges and advocates. It explains the law and the problems of matching funds very well.

  11. Klihauer,
    I beleive in the free market, and I dont agree with clean elections, but it has helped several conservative candidate, including Pearce in his first run for House and first run for Senate. In the last cycle these liberals used it – Eddie Farnsworth, Carl Seel and John Kavanaugh.
    Most conservatives stop their support for the free market when it comes to hiring (no illegals) and corporations moving jobs overseas, so it is a limited commitment.

  12. “Most conservatives stop their support for the free market when it comes to hiring (no illegals) and corporations moving jobs overseas, so it is a limited commitment.”

    Actually, you could “conservatives” with “trade unions” and you would be more accurate. If you don’t believe in free trade you’re not really a conservative either.

    As stated before, Pearce has voted multiple times to get rid of clean elections, most recently for SCR 1025. Fransworth just heard it in his committee and here’s a video of his comments (just cue it up to 3:20:30 to hear his explanation of how he feels about clean elections).

  13. Debbi Samson says

    Anyone else amused by the fact Dean Martin is there….he ran for Gov under “Clean Elections”. Talk about a flip-flop!

    • Suprise PC says

      I noticed that too. What a joke. He sure loved getting that “welfare” as he described it to fund his campaign.

  14. Klaihouer, Does free trade include doing business as you please? Moving jobs overseas or hiring illegals?
    The conservatives that you cite did take clean elections money when it was convenient. How ideologically pure are they if they vote against the program but participate anyway?
    Is that like John Kerry being for it before he was against it?

  15. Personally, I don’t care if they are like John Kerry or not. I want them to vote the right way. You’re the one who brought them up as good conservatives who took clean elections money. I brought up the fact that they are “good” conservatives who took clean elections money who oppose clean elections. I don’t support candidates. I support ideas.

    I don’t support hiring illegals, because they’re well, illegal. I support business being able to import and export as cheaply as they possibly can. If that means they go overseas, then so be it. That’s called free trade. That’s a bedrock of conservatism. Don’t believe me, then read the republican party platform and 1000s of editorials by the Wall Street Journal and National Review and Milton Freedman and gazillion other conservative thinkers and economists.

    If UAW made the auto companies uncompetitive then the jobs are naturally going where things are competitive. That’s called capitalism. I support capitalism, competition and the free market and not overpaid union workers–which, BTW, is why I also oppose taxpayer funded campaigns.

    Opposition to free trade is nativism and protectionism and pro union. It is not conservative.

  16. Paula Pennypacker says

    Love the photo!!! 🙂

Leave a Reply