by admin | Jul 2, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates
When Arizona’s founding fathers sought
to include a voter initiative process in Arizona’s constitution, the intended purpose
was to provide regular citizens with a check against wealthy special interests and
political insiders that often dominate the legislative process.
Yet it appears that the very
system designed to curtail the influence of wealthy billionaires and the
political establishment has been taken over by them. Even worse, the hijacking
of the initiative process has been carried out primarily by out of state
special interests parachuting into Arizona to buy their way onto the ballot box.
In 2018, all of the high-profile
ballot measures that qualified for the ballot were primarily funded by California
billionaires and special
interest groups. This campaign cycle is no different. Four initiatives
appear to be on track to qualify for the November ballot. All four are being bankrolled
by deep pocketed unions and liberal special interest groups from outside the
state:
- Healthcare
Rising is an initiative seeking to make several radical changes to
Arizona’s hospital system, has received
99.5 percent of their funding from the California chapter of
the Services Employee International Union. Of the $3.2 million they have raised
to date, only $14,000 (in the form of an in-kind contribution) has come from
Arizona.
- Criminal
Justice Reform measure looking to overhaul Arizona’s sentencing
guidelines has been 100
percent funded by Oakland based Tides Advocacy; a well-financed
501(C)(4) organization with close ties to George Soros and other major
progressive donors.
- Invest in
Ed
is an education measure looking to double the state income tax on small
businesses and high earners in the state. Of their funding, 90
percent has come from Stand for Children, Inc., a liberal education
group located in Portland, Oregon.
- Smart and
Safe
is a proposal seeking to legalize marijuana in Arizona. Nearly
half
of their funding is from large dispensary corporations throughout the country
who stand to profit immensely from the exclusive licenses that they will be
granted if the ballot measure passes.
Arizona’s initiative process was
never intended to be a petri dish for experimental policy cooked up by wealthy
special interests from around the country. Yet that is what the process has
devolved into because of the low standards that exist to purchase your way onto
the ballot.
Based on the current signature
requirements and constitutional protections for paying circulators to collect
signatures, it is possible to gather enough signatures to qualify a measure for
the ballot for around $2 Million dollars.
Though to most Arizonans that
sounds like a lot of money, for wealthy donors and political players in
California or Washington DC looking to promote radical reforms, $2 million is a
small sum of money. Add in the fact that the initiative process is often seen
as a way to increase voter turnout and force your political opponents to spend
precious resources battling you at the ballot box, these types of financial investments
are a no-brainer.
Can Arizona’s initiative process
be fixed to protect it from outside influence? It’s possible, but it will
require reforms geared toward increasing transparency and requiring more local
support and involvement when collecting signatures for the ballot.
One reform worth considering is a
geographic distribution requirement for signature collection. Under current
Arizona law, initiative measures are not required to gather signatures from
around the state in order to qualify for the ballot. Any group can make the
ballot simply by gathering signatures from one large city or county.
Stipulating that initiatives must
gather signatures from every legislative district would make it much more
difficult for out of state special interests to parachute into Arizona and flood
the Phoenix Metro area with paid circulators. Additionally, rural communities
would gain a voice in the process since initiative groups would have to build
support for their ideas in all corners of the state. Of the 27 states with a
voter initiative or referendum process, 15 require a geographic distribution of
signatures.
Another solution would be to
limit the number of topics that may be included in an initiative. One factor
that has made Arizona’s ballot measure process so attractive to groups around
the country is the ability to include multiple issues in the same measure.
Often referred to as log rolling, campaigns will include a few unrelated
popular provisions in the initiative in order to provide political cover for
other sweeping reforms of which voters are unaware. A single subject requirement,
which already exists for all bills proposed at the legislature, would eliminate
log rolling and reduce voter confusion at the ballot.
Arizona’s initiative process
should not be for sale. It especially should not be controlled by special
interests with deep pockets and no ties to our state. Fixing this problem won’t
be easy, but should be an issue all Arizonans can rally around.
by admin | Jun 29, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates
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.
by admin | Jun 26, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates
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
by admin | Jun 18, 2020 | Misc, News and Updates
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.
by admin | Jun 11, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates
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.
by admin | May 21, 2020 | News and Updates
Yesterday, in a very ironic twist
of events, Democrats in House Judiciary argued against the very platform they
purport to stand for.
Criminal justice reform.
In an astonishing display of
intellectual dishonesty, Democrat members attacked legislation
that reforms the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws that would require the
government obtain a criminal conviction prior to forfeiting an individual’s
property. Not only is this one of the
most important areas of criminal justice, it is an effort for which democrats
themselves have advocated and voted. In fact, just three years ago when more
modest reforms were being proposed, many democrats stated they would like to
see the legislation go further to include a criminal conviction.
Their public objections to the
bill teetered on the bizarre. They
claimed because the bill prohibits the Attorney General from funding employees
with RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) funds that would
force government to cut other areas of government such as public defenders. A clear demonstration as to why a built-in
profit motive is grossly immoral. They
also argued that the bill would eliminate law enforcement’s ability to seize
assets of criminals and therefore hurt victims of crime. A patently false statement that would have
been easily dispelled had any of the Democrats bothered to read the actual
bill. Perhaps the most strange argument
was that under current law, advocates of the bill could simply file a “1487” a
mechanism in state law that allows a lawmaker to request an Attorney General
opinion as to whether a local county or city is breaking the law and then withhold
state shared revenues if they were found in violation. The most blatantly obvious problem with this –
law enforcement isn’t breaking the law.
They can lawfully seize and forfeit an individual’s property
without even charging them with a crime.
That is in fact the reason for the bill in the first place.
Their arguments had themselves
turned in knots.
This new-found alliance between
democrats and prosecutors has them abandoning the people they claim to advocate
for the most – minorities and the impoverished.
Afterall, their philosophic truth council the ACLU
has been stalwart advocates for the overhaul of the forfeiture system both in
Arizona and around the country, in part because the backward laws
disproportionally harm minority and low income populations. Considering how instrumental the ACLU was in
passing Arizona’s 2017 reforms, it is curious they didn’t have more sway with
House Democrats this time around.
It is quite clear that the discussion of SB1556 has eroded into the politics of personality. House Judiciary Democrats being happy to sell out completely on their principles of criminal justice reform and defending the most vulnerable persons in the system to stick it to a bill sponsor they don’t like. Or perhaps they have flip flopped on the issue because in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, they now support taking people’s property without due process.
Considering we are living in a
time when many Americans and Arizonans are concerned with government overreach
and oppression, it is unconscionable that lawmakers would consider protecting a
system of legalized government theft.
Hopefully, House Democrats will remember who they represent and vote YES
today on SB1556.
Recent Comments