AZ Democrats Complain They Can No Longer Blow Taxpayer Money on Margarita Machines

When voters passed the Citizens Clean Elections Act with  50.1 percent support  in 1998, the razor thin margin for passage showed that Arizonans were never that supportive of setting up a bureaucratic system to funnel taxpayer money to politicians to run for office.

Since that time public support for the program has plummeted as the flaws and abuse of the system have been exposed.  It is bad enough their money is being used to buy junk mail and political signs rather than education.  But these tax dollars used to fund political campaigns have been repeatedly misused and misappropriated.

Green, Libertarian, Republican and Democrat candidates have blown public funds on outlandish purchases such as lavish dinners, personal gadgetry, and yes, even a margarita machine. One candidate used roughly half his money with a marketing firm he owned. 

Eventually candidates and political operatives learned a new trick to manipulate the system.  In 2016 they started using their allotment of Clean Election funds to launder money through the Democrat party to be used in swing legislative races.  In response, voters overwhelming approved Proposition 306 which banned taxpayer money from Clean Elections going to political parties.

Not surprisingly, some candidates are upset that they can no longer take advantage of these taxpayer funded loopholes and are considering legal action.  In a recent article in the Capitol Times, Democrats are claiming that their Constitutional right to assembly is being violated because the money they are legally obligated to spend running for office cannot be funneled into other races.

Their claim that a prohibition Clean Election funds going to the Democrat party violates their right to assemble with the Democratic Party is absurd. By that legal reasoning Clean Elections should continue to allow candidates to throw expensive dinners at the Sanctuary for all their friends lest they violate their right to associate or assemble with those friends. 

This reasoning is also hypocritical.  Many of the same politicians claiming that taxpayer money to political parties is a form of association protected by the 1st amendment have also railed against the right to anonymously give and assemble for causes or issues that they support. Apparently, when it comes to using your own money you have limited rights but using taxpayers money to fund causes they support should come without guardrails.

But perhaps the most ironic criticism is the public admission by one lawmaker that they can no longer use public funds to throw parties at Democrat party headquarters. In the same article, Senator Andrea Dalessandro decried the passage of Prop 306 as prohibiting her from “giving any extra money left over at the end of her campaign to the county party for its election night gathering.” So it appears we have now went from candidates manipulating the system to buy margarita machines to now funneling the money to the Democrat party so that they can buy the margarita machines.

Thank goodness voters passed Proposition 306.  Given the disrespect some politicians have with their money, perhaps next go round they will vote to eliminate Clean Elections altogether.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club Releases Additional Endorsements

Phoenix, AZ (June 26th, 2020) – Today the Arizona Free Enterprise Club announced three new endorsements for the 2020 election.      

The endorsed candidates represent individuals who align with the organization’s principles and key policy goals.  Club President Scot Mussi stated, “It is critical Arizona has leaders and policy makers who are able to articulate and stand up for free market principles and pro-growth policies.  This slate of candidates has proven they can and will.”

Arizona Corporation Commission

Jim O’Connor (write-in candidate)

Arizona Legislature

Jana Jackson, LD 28 House of Representatives

City of Scottsdale

Lisa Borowski, Mayor

Supervisor Mike Goodman Wants Higher Taxes But Doesn’t Pay His Own Taxes

Hypocrisy in politics in nothing new, but it does matter when it comes to taking more money out of your wallet. That brings us to the story of Pinal County Supervisor Mike Goodman.

For years Mike Goodman has pushed for tax increases in Pinal County, the largest being the $640 Million dollar tax hike in 2017. This was suppose to fund transportation projects throughout the county, except that his district does not get one penny of the revenue from the tax hike.

That’s right, Supervisor Goodman pushed for a tax increase knowing that his community would not benefit. Now his constituents are being stuck with the tax bill to improve roads for developers and other special interest groups around the county.

But it gets even worse. It turns out that while Mr. Goodman wants others to pay higher taxes that he doesn’t even pay his own!

For years Supervisor Goodman was sent notices from the IRS on back taxes owed totaling over $100,000. After refusing to pay, the IRS was forced to issue a lien on all property and income owned by Supervisor Goodman in the amount of the taxes owed plus interest and penalties.

The IRS isn’t the only entity that Supervisor Goodman has stiffed over the years. Mr. Goodman also operated MB Goodman, LLC., a business that had a poor track record of paying vendors and creditors.

His failure to pay became so problematic that one vendor, Crop Production Services Inc. was forced to take Supervisor Goodman to court for debts owed. Not surprisingly the court ruled against him, issuing a judgement against Mr. Goodman and in favor of Crop Production Services Inc. for $95,300.54.

Yet that judgement wasn’t enough, as Supervisor Goodman continued to avoid paying Crop Production Services what they were owed. They were forced to take him to court again, getting a second order issued ensuring that his wages would be garnished until full payment of his debts were made.

Supervisor Goodman doesn’t pay his taxes. He doesn’t pay his creditors. But he wants his constituents to pay more in taxes for projects that don’t even serve or benefit the community.

This type of irresponsible and hypocritical behavior should not be rewarded. Supervisor Goodman is up for reelection this year, it’s probably time for voters to pick someone new to represent them in Pinal County.






Paid for by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. Not Authorized by any Candidate or Candidate Committee.





Scottsdale Community College Walks Back Actions Violating Academic Freedoms

It is no secret that most universities and colleges across the country are teeming with professors and adjuncts unafraid to insert their liberal biases into their courses and teachings.  A survey of 40 leading universities in the country found that Democrat professors outnumber their Republican colleagues at a ratio of nearly 12 to 1.  Conservatives are a genuine minority on higher education campuses and intellectual diversity has become nonexistent.

The result is an ideological double standard that is destroying our colleges and universities. If you are liberal college professor lecturing your students on the evils of capitalism or how America is a cesspit of bigotry, your academic freedom is sacrosanct. Students that don’t agree with this sentiment are wise to keep quiet and not rock the boat.

What happens when conservative students and speakers don’t fall in line and decide to stand up for their beliefs? They are discriminated against by their professors, or are “shouted down” and attacked for expressing the minority position on campus.

Conservative professors that refuse to embrace the liberal Marxist worldview of their peers don’t fare much better. Case in point: Professor Nick Damask at Scottsdale Community College.

Professor Demask teaches World Politics at SCC and is considered an expert in the area of international terrorism.  This spring he had his students take a quiz that included several questions about Islamic terrorism.  One student in the class claimed that he was offended by the quiz and wrote the professor about his complaints. Professor Damask provided a clarification of his questions and offered to discuss the issue further with the student, but before further discussion could occur, the student posted the quiz on social media. 

The professor and the college were excoriated by liberal pundits and the media for suggesting that there are terrorists that self-identify with Islam. At that point SCC had a choice—treat Professor Demask like how they would have treated every other liberal professor and protected his academic freedom, or throw him under the ideological bus. To no ones’ surprise, they chose the latter option.

SCC immediately voided the test results, issued an apology from the college to the student and sent the professor a pre-written apology letter for him to sign. To his credit Professor Damask, who has taught at SCC for 23 years, did not apologize but instead pursued legal representation for violations of his academic freedom.

After Professor Damask decided to fight back the Maricopa County Community College Board opened up an investigation to determine if SCC handled the situation properly. Nearly a month later the interim Chancellor of Maricopa Community Colleges published his findings and determined that administrators acted inappropriately, and that the school violated the professor’s academic freedom. 

Though Professor Damask was vindicated, in many respects it is a hollow victory.  His reputation has been permanently damaged, which shows that college leadership can’t be trusted to provide due process or protect individuals with different beliefs than their own.

This freezing of any divergent speech on campus is a double-edged sword.  If serious steps are not taken to address this issue it won’t take long before conservatives start playing thought police on campus and engage in their own guerilla tactics to point out every liberally slanted lesson they deem offensive. 

Voter Fraud Complaint Upends Push for Universal Vote by Mail in Arizona

An interesting revelation came to light earlier this month that has added fuel to the fire over the debate to implement universal vote by mail in Arizona.

Several weeks ago news broke that a complaint had been filed with Attorney General Mark Brnovich outlining possible felony voter fraud by the son of Democrat State Representative Mitzi Epstein. According to the complaint, 29-year-old Daniel Epstein has lived in New York since at least 2017.  An extensive online paper trail of Facebook posts and employment information indicate that he moved to the Empire State to attend New York University and, after graduating from NYU two years ago, continued to live and work there as an actor.

Yet living 3,000 miles away has not stopped him from voting in multiple Arizona elections by mail from his parent’s home, including the most recent Tempe city council race in March. How these mail-in ballots were cast is uncertain, which is why a deeper probe into the matter is warranted.

Usually very outspoken and active on social media, Rep. Epstein has yet to comment on these allegations. She likely understands the gravity of the situation and had to be aware of Daniel’s voting patterns since the ballots were sent to her home.  Ultimately, she will have to explain why her 29-year old son who has been working as an actor in New York for years is still casting ballots in Arizona elections.

Also affected by this complaint is the narrative being pushed by media outlets, liberal pundits and Democrat leaders wanting to use Covid-19 as an excuse to implement universal vote by mail. For over two months Republicans have been relentlessly attacked for opposing this plan for the 2020 election. Opposition was tantamount to wanting people to die from Coronavirus, and concerns of voter fraud were scoffed at as unfounded “conspiracy theories.”

Yet ample research and evidence prior to this complaint already showed that mail in voting was susceptible to fraud. According the bi-partisan commission on Federal Election Reform chaired by Jimmy Carter, the findings concluded that absentee ballots remain “the largest source of potential voter fraud” in the electoral process.  The New York Times reported in 2012 that there was a bi-partisan consensus that all votes cast by mail are “less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than votes cast in a voting booth.”

Here in Arizona it is easy to see how our Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL) system can be abused. Since the list is Permanent, voters stay on the rolls long after they are ineligible to vote. There are numerous examples of people finding ballots in interesting locations or receiving ballots from voters that have moved away or have even died.

The only safeguard in the election process prior to an early ballot being counted is an examination of the signature on the front of the envelope. Poll workers do their best to verify the authenticity of the signature but this process becomes an impossible task when hundreds of thousands of early ballots are dumped in their laps on election day.

Arizona needs election reform, but not the type for which our political class has yearned. Though we should maintain our vote by mail system (which is one of the most accessible in the nation for voters), policymakers need to take a closer look at cleaning up our voter rolls and addressing the problem of stacks of early ballots being dropped off on election day. The latter issue has turned into a nightmare for election officials, has led to mistakes by overworked poll workers and delayed results for weeks after polls had closed.

These fixes are long overdue and should take precedent over attempts to make it easier to game our election system.