by admin | Oct 18, 2018 | Elections, Prop 306
Arizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure
In 1998, 51.19% of Arizona voters approved Proposition 200. Its passage created the Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC), with the intent of creating a public financing system for political campaigns. Unfortunately, the past 20 years have shown that Proposition 200 and the CCEC do not do enough to protect Arizona taxpayers and honor the spirit under which the Clean Elections Act was formed. Because of this, an Arizona representative introduced prop 306.
What Is Proposition 306?
Formally known as Arizona Proposition 306, the Stop Taxpayer Money for Political Parties act has two key provisions:
- Prohibit candidates that receive public financing for their political campaigns to contribute to either political parties or to 501(c) special interest groups that engage in electioneering;
- It requires that CCEC rules are approved by the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC). The GRRC reviews Arizona regulations to ensure that they are necessary and that they avoid duplication and adverse impact on the public.
Why Was Proposition 306 Introduced?
In 2016, it was discovered that many Democratic party candidates that received funding from Clean Elections paid more than $100,000 to the Democratic party. This abuse only increased the clout and influence of political parties in Arizona and showed the public why we need the changes that will result from a yes vote on Proposition 306.
These types of actions have been allowed to occur over the past 20 years because the CCEC has no real accountability. It is a politically appointed commission (comprised of two Republicans, two Democrats, and one Independent), and is the only state agency exempted from the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Prop 306 wants to increase transparency because right now there is nothing that requires the Citizens Clean Elections Committee to follow the same rulemaking process as every other state agency. If voters approve this ballot measure, the CCEC will have to follow an expanded public comment and hearing process. Therefore, every new proposed rule will be reviewed by the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council or the Attorney General to ensure they are lawful and constitutional.
Who Introduced Prop 306?
Representative Doug Coleman (R-16) introduced the proposal to the state legislature, with the House voting 34-25 to place the measure on the ballot, with the Senate voting 17-12 (all votes went along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing.) The main opposition was the Clean Elections Commission, which has shown little interest in addressing the abuse of their program because they are seemingly opposed to any additional oversight.
Why Do We Need Proposition 306?
We need prop 306 because no government entity should have the unfettered political power that the Citizens Clean Election Commission enjoys. Prop 306 introduces much-needed regulatory oversight into the body’s rule-making procedure. It also brings the spirit of the commission back to the original intent of Arizona voters. It can help ensure public funds go to candidates, not political parties or outside groups that may seek to influence elections.
If prop 306 is not passed, it is likely that the current abuse of the system by political parties and special interest groups may increase in the future.
Who Supports Prop 306?
Every Republican lawmaker in the House and Senate.
In response to the abuse of candidates funneling money to political parties, Stop Taxpayer Money for Political Parties was formed. It is a group supported by Arizona citizens that oppose taxpayer funding of political parties and support keeping Clean Elections – clean.
Learn More About Proposition 306 Online & The Propositions Supporters
You can learn more about the supporters of prop 306 by visiting their Facebook Page, or reading more about the proposition on their website (voteyesprop306.com).
Prop 306 has also been publicly supported by these organizations:
- Americans for Prosperity, a grassroots advocacy group
- Arizona Free Enterprise Club
- East Valley Chamber of Commerce
Arguments for Prop 306
In the words of Rep. John Allen (R-15):
“…the parties are going to go out and recruit people who have no real interest, people to run in districts where they can’t win (because) the tide is against them party-wise – get them on the ballot, collect the $5 forms, and then take the maximum amount they can and funnel it somewhere else.”
Rep. Allen is referring to the fact that candidates may enter races in districts where they have no chance of winning. They have no chance of winning but they enter because they will still get the maximum allocation from the CCEC. The party not in power in that district may choose to run candidates because they want to raise more CCEC funds for the party.
How does it work? Instead of spending those taxpayer dollars on that race, the candidate simply signs over the funds to his or her party. The political party then determines how best to use the money. This may or may not be what the taxpayers originally wanted their money to be spent on.
If there’s any doubt that this happens, this argument from Rep. Mark Finchem (R-11) should remove those doubts:
“In 2016, it was discovered that several clean election candidates had contributed over $100,000 to the State Democratic Party. This was an obvious abuse of the system and opens up the possibility that both state parties could look to place candidates on the ballot for the sole purpose of providing clean election funds to the party.”
In the words of Mark Finchem, Representative LD11, Oro Valley
“NO MORE TAXPAYER MONEY FOR POLITICAL PARTIES!
Proposition 306 is a common-sense measure that would prevent your taxpayer dollars from being funneled to political parties and most importantly, it will help ensure donors know where the money they donate goes.
Prop 306 will do the following
1) prohibit participating candidates from contributing their Clean Election funds to political parties
2) prohibit participating candidates from contributing their Clean Election funds to non-profit organizations, such as social welfare groups and labor unions and
3) require the Clean Elections Commission to follow the rule-making requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, a standard that applies to other federal and state government agencies.
He went on to say
Under Arizona’s so-called Clean Elections system, politicians are given taxpayer money to run for office. By collecting a small number of $5 contributions from individual voters, Clean Elections candidates can qualify for much larger amounts of taxpayer money for their
campaigns. Unfortunately, the Clean Elections Commission has allowed politicians to turn around and give that taxpayer money to their political parties.
In 2016, over $100,000 in taxpayer money was given to political parties through the Clean Elections system. In some cases, candidates ran in districts in which they had no real opposition, and once they qualified for taxpayer money, they turned that money over to their political machines to create slush funds for use in other districts.
The Clean Elections Commission has also allowed citizens to give taxpayer money to non-profit organizations such as the NRA, the Sierra Club, and labor unions! Independents should be especially appalled by these abuses. But the same is true for people of
any party who don’t trust political party machines. It is time to end this corrupt and unethical use
of taxpayer money…”
Arizonans Should be Outraged
Independents should be shocked by the current system and the abuse. But the same is true for all Arizonans of any party.
Statistics show that Arizona voters do not trust political parties therefore, we must change the current system. It is time to end this dishonest and unethical abuse.
Why Should I Vote Yes on Prop 306? Because it’s the Right Thing to do!
Voting Yes on Proposition 306 will prohibit candidates who receive public campaign funding from transferring the funds from their campaign to a political party or 501(c)(4) organization. This alone will help ensure that taxpayers will not unknowingly give money to something that may try to influence Arizona’s elections. As it stands today, a taxpayer can unknowingly contribute to something they oppose without ever knowing it. Vote yes on prop 306 because a yes vote creates regulatory oversight of the Citizens Clean Election Commission. The Clean Election Commission will receive the same oversight that is called for by the formal rulemaking process outlined by the Administrative Procedures Act.
Prop. 306: Clean Elections; Unlawful Contributions; Rulemaking. It’s that simple.
Please join the Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity (www.afpaz.com) in voting YES on Prop 306.
Learn more about Proposition 306
Proposition 306, Related to the Citizens of Clean Elections Act (Full Text)
Arizona Prop. 306: Voters undecided on clean elections measure
by admin | Oct 16, 2018 | Elections, News and Updates
Phoenix, AZ (October 15th, 2018) – Today the Arizona Free Enterprise Club announced its final slate of endorsements for the General 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.”
Additionally, the Club has endorsed the two Arizona Supreme Court Justices up for retention this year. “Justices Bolick and Pelander have been independent Justices and have consistently ruled to uphold the Constitution and textually interpret the law. That’s exactly why Arizonans should retain them on the judicial bench.”
US Senate
Martha McSally
Arizona Supreme Court Retention
Justice Clint Bolick
Justice John Pelander
Secretary of State
Steve Gaynor
State Legislature
Nora Ellen LD 17 House
David Gowan LD 14 Senate
Michelle Ugenti-Rita LD 23 Senate
Jay Lawrence LD 23 House
John Kavanagh LD 23 House
Doyel Shamely LD 7 House
Walt Blackman LD 6 House
Leo Biasiucci LD 5 House
Maricopa County Community College School Board
Kathleen Winn (at large)
Debi Vandenboom – District 3
Jean McGrath – District 4
The rest of the Club’s endorsements for 2018 can be viewed at https://www.azfree.org/club-candidates/
by admin | Oct 9, 2018 | Elections
With early ballots scheduled to be mailed later this week, the Free Enterprise Club has released our recommendations for each of the statewide initiatives on the November ballot. There are a total of five measures on this year’s ballot, three of which are proposed amendments to Arizona’s constitution.
We believe that our recommendations are consistent with the Club’s mission of promoting economic freedom, limited government and a strong and vibrant economy in Arizona.
Prop 125–Vote YES
Amends the state constitution to allow for additional legislative reforms to the Correctional Officers Retirement Plan (CORP). While they are limited in scope, the proposed legislative reforms will reduce future liabilities and pension debt for taxpayers.
Prop 126–Vote NO
Would amend Arizona’s constitution to prohibit any future changes to Arizona’s tax code related to service taxes. While the Club opposes higher taxes, we do not support locking our sales tax code in the constitution into perpetuity. Additionally, taxpayers are already protected from future tax increases under Prop 108 (which requires a 2/3 vote to raise taxes).
Prop 127–Vote NO
Tom Steyer backed initiative that would insert a 50% renewable energy mandate into Arizona’s constitution. The Club opposes sweeping changes to our Constitution that will raise costs and picks winners and losers (SRP and other government utilities are exempt from the mandate).
Prop 305–Vote YES
Referendum that will expand Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program to allow parents to send their child to a private school of their choice. The ESA program is capped at 30,000 students and includes transparency and accountability measures in the program. The Club supports expanding choice and opportunities for parents and students, and Prop 305 is a step in the right direction.
Prop 306–Vote YES
In 2016 it was discovered that candidates that finance their campaign with taxpayer money funneled over $100,000 of those funds to political parties. Instead of fixing the problem, the Clean Election Commission codified the abuse, and even expanded the rule to allow public funds to go to political special interest groups as well. The Club urges a YES vote on Prop 306, which would prohibit any taxpayer funded candidate from giving those funds to political parties or special interest groups.
by admin | Sep 19, 2018 | Elections, News and Updates
Since the 1970s, Arizona has appointed judges to the state Supreme Court based upon a merit selection system. An independent body of citizen-appointees recruit, interview, evaluate and select candidates for these higher courts and forward that slate of candidates to the Governor when a vacancy occurs.
This system is often lauded by both sides of the aisle because it ensures a much higher quality bench, keeps judges separate from the influence of politics, and limits the amount of money in judicial retention/rejection elections.
But some groups quickly abandon these tenets as soon as they receive a ruling they simply don’t like.
In August, the Arizona Supreme Court issued separate rulings that barred two propositions from the November ballot. The court concluded that Prop 207/Invest in Ed created “a significant danger of confusion or unfairness” by not accurately describing the increased tax burden on affected classes of taxpayers as well as failing to reference the elimination of the bracket inflation indexing. The Outlaw Dirty Money initiative simply lacked enough signatures to qualify.
Following the rulings, a group of angry activists came together to call for a rejection of two Justices whose terms are up for retention on the ballot: Justice Clint Bolick and Justice John Pelander.
Since their appointments, both Justice Bolick and Pelander have been fair-minded judges that have demonstrated a strong commitment to upholding and protecting the Arizona constitution. They have even reached decisions that have displeased both sides of the political aisle. One example of their independent streak occurred in 2017 when a coalition from the business community–led by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce–sued over the constitutionality of Proposition 206, the minimum wage law. Both Bolick and Pelander ruled against the plaintiffs, a decision that was cheered by many of the same liberal groups now seeking their ouster.
The importance of protecting the impartiality of the judicial branch cannot be understated. The good news is that both Justice Bolick and Pelander have proven to be unafraid to honor their duties to uphold the constitution and strictly interpret the law as written – despite whatever the political backlash may be. And given the partisan political campaign now being waged against them, it is all the more reason why Arizonans should vote to retain Bolick and Pelander.
by admin | Sep 13, 2018 | Elections, News and Updates
If more evidence was needed to support the idea of donor privacy and anonymous speech in elections, the reaction by the left against the ‘Invest in Ed’ and ‘Outlaw Dirty Money’ court rulings should settle it.
It’s been two weeks since the Arizona Supreme Court barred both ballot measures from appearing on the ballot, and the backers of both measures are now waging a campaign to target and harass anyone that supported the legal challenge.
Angry activists and various labor unions began a coordinated effort to protest outside of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and any other private group that participated in exposing the legal flaws and signature issues with both measures. Appropriately named “Fightbacknews” chronicles on their website how these protests were designed to go after not just the private non-profit entities, but to “out” every business or individual that dared to oppose their agenda.
Social media groups supportive of Invest in Ed and Outlaw Dirty Money have been openly discussing strategies to expand their intimidation campaign, both now and in the future. And since the issues they are championing—education funding and donor disclosure—are generally supported by the establishment/liberal media, news outlets have ignored the deployment of these thug tactics to target political free speech. This is especially ironic, since anonymous speech has been the cornerstone of almost all reporting (and even entire books) by the mainstream media since Donald Trump became president.
None of this is really new. Efforts to target people for their political beliefs has intensified in recent years, often with an assist from government officials and politicians. Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich was forced to resign after furious attacks against him for his support of Prop 8 defining marriage between one man and one woman. Prosecutors in Wisconsin launched a corrupt investigation targeting conservative donors that was finally shut down by the Supreme Court last year. And no one should forget the IRS targeting of conservative groups that finally ended with a large payout to victims and an apology from the agency.
That is what makes efforts such as Outlaw Dirty Money so dangerous. Private citizens should have a right to support causes and issues they believe in without fear of harassment, intimidation or retaliation. Donor privacy is crucial to free speech, and is essential to promoting open dialogue on critical issues. If government or angry social media mobs are allowed to dictate the terms of “debate”, it will lead to far worse outcomes than not knowing the identify of a donor to an organization with whom you might disagree.
Rather than looking to target individuals or businesses engaging in political speech, a better approach would be to encourage more speech and let voters make decisions for themselves. Since corporate and individual political spending is evenly split between the two parties, it’s not as if either side has an unfair advantage. Let’s look to promote our 1st Amendment rights, not target people who try to exercise it.
Recent Comments