by admin | Nov 7, 2018 | Elections, News and Updates
The 2018 elections were filled with contentious candidate races and divisive politics. But one issue voters decisively agreed upon was Proposition 306, which ended the practice of publicly-financed candidates using their taxpayer money to enrich their political party.
Proposition 306 was passed by the legislature and referred to the ballot box to stop the abuses discovered in the 2016 elections, where over $100,000 of taxpayer money was funneled to the Democratic Party. That abuse continued this election cycle and would have continued to proliferate if voters hadn’t approved Prop 306.
“We are very pleased that voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 306 and ended the abuse of the Clean Election System. And considering that the Citizens Clean Elections Act originally passed with only 50.1 percent of the vote, this was a clear message that voters wanted more accountability and oversight over the program,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Chairman of the Stop Taxpayer Money for Political Parties campaign.
Along with the end to the corruptive practice of enriching parties off the taxpayer dime; Proposition 306 will also give much needed oversight of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission by requiring them to follow the same rule-making procedures as every other agency in the State.
Although the elections results were a mixed bag of results for both sides of the aisle – the passage of Proposition 306 was a win for all Arizonans of every political stripe!
by admin | Oct 31, 2018 | Elections, News and Updates, Prop 306
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission claims they care about keeping special interests out of the political process by providing candidates with taxpayer funds to run for office.
But as was discovered in 2016 election cycle, politicians and political operatives know how to cheat the system and the unaccountable Clean Elections Commission just doesn’t seem to care.
An examination of campaign finance reports filed by publicly funded Clean Election Candidates in 2018 show over $100,000 being funneled to the state, county and local political parties, as well as to other political operations such as the Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (ADLCC).
As was the case in prior elections, the democratic candidates running in the least competitive legislative districts are the biggest contributors to these electioneering efforts.
One of the worst offenders is candidate Lynsey Robinson from conservative legislative district 12 in the East Valley. She gave a staggering $22,590 to the Democratic Party Operations, which is over 50 percent of the total amount she receives from Clean Elections! If her intention was to win her race, sending over half her money to the Party seems like a poor strategy to do so.
Other giveaways to political groups include:
$21,442 from Jo Craycraft, candidate for Senate in LD 1
$18,980 from Hazel Chandler, candidate for House in LD 20
$18,500 from Chris Gilfillan, candidate for House in LD 20
$14,170 from Mark Manoil, candidate for State Treasurer
$12,400 from Kiana Sears, candidate for the Corporation Commission
$9,520 from Kathy Hoffman, candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction
Interestingly enough, the largest benefactor of these public funds was the ADLCC, a Political Action Committee chaired by legislative democrats to elect democrats around the state of Arizona. Traditionally, victory PACs such as this provide money and support to candidates—they don’t receive money from them. This is because committees such as this fundraise for the express purpose of playing in election races. However, they do so independently of any candidate because it is against the law for organizations and PACs to coordinate with candidates on their election activities.
That makes the expenditure to the ADLCC even more suspicious. Either a candidate is giving them money to use in other more competitive races (which is wrong and must be stopped), or they are giving them money to provide services to their campaign (which is likely illegal.) Either way, the ADLCC’s taxpayer gravy train is an offensive abuse of the system and should be stopped immediately.
The unaccountable Clean Elections Commission has made it clear that they don’t care how our money is wasted, which is why voters must vote YES on Proposition 306. Prop 306 would prohibit candidates from funneling taxpayer funds to political parties and political special interest groups. If there was any question that the exploitation of the system would continue and proliferate – this year’s election season proves otherwise.
Voters should put an end to it by Voting Yes on Prop 306.
by admin | Oct 17, 2018 | News and Updates, Tax
Proposition 126 is arguably the most difficult proposition to contend with on the November ballot for conservatives.
On the one hand, the initiative shuts the door on a potential tax grab in the future – taxes on services. It creates predictability for businesses in the service industry. And it is finally an example of a citizen’s ballot initiative that curbs taxes rather than doggedly seeks to increase them permanently.
Yet, Governor Ducey, the Maricopa Republican Party and taxpayer watchdog organizations such as Americans for Prosperity and The Arizona Free Enterprise Club are urging their bases to vote ‘No’ on Prop 126.
Why? Not because they want to see services taxed in the future…
Limitations on Taxation Should be Broad-Based and Inclusive
One of the core arguments in favor of Prop 126 is taxpayers should support any measure that prevents future tax increases. Though this is a laudable goal, the problem with this strategy is that when those limitations are narrowly targeted to benefit a particular group, it leaves everyone else exposed to future tax hikes.
That is the fundamental flaw with this service tax initiative. If stopping future service taxes is a good idea, why not apply the prohibition to the entire tax base? Fortunately, we already have a broad-based solution on the books—Proposition 108. Approved by voters in 1992, this constitutional amendment requires any tax increase by the legislature have a 2/3 vote, including taxes on services. If there is a concern of future tax hikes, then a better approach would be to clarify and expand this taxpayer protection rather than creating a new one.
Prop 126 Impedes Comprehensive Tax Reform and Actually Threatens More Tax Increases
Our organization is unapologetically in favor of eliminating the state’s income tax in the future. A mountain of research exists demonstrating states without an income tax and with a lower income tax burden consistently economically outperform states with an income tax or a high-income tax burden.
If Prop 126 passes, it increases the likelihood that we will have to become MORE DEPENDENT on income and property taxes in the future. The reason for this is because our current sales tax base built on taxing goods is shrinking. When our current tax code was shaped over 80 years ago, services made up only a small fraction of our economy. Now it is approximately half and is expected to become a larger share throughout the next century. If the current sales tax base continues to erode, the only option will be higher taxes on our income and property.
How We Cut Taxes Matters
Just as important as ensuring Arizona has as low a tax burden as is possible, is the method by which we craft tax policy. Prop 126 is a Constitutional Amendment that if passed by the voters, could not be changed, tweaked or amended without sending it back to the ballot box.
Simply put, rifle-shotting tax policy into Arizona’s constitution is not how a representative government should function. A more prudent method of governance is the legislative process. The initiative process gives voters a binary choice: vote for this specific policy or reject it. The legislative process in contrast, allows for changes, compromises and inherent checks.
Also, although the citizens’ initiative process was contemplated as a separate and coequal branch of the government and a check on the legislative branch – what it is today is far from that. Rather than initiatives being reflective of the “will of the people” they are banked rolled and run by the machines of special interest groups – Prop 126 is no different.
The Economy Changes, and so Should the Tax Code
The evolution of technology and therefore our economy necessitates changes to our tax code. The revolution in transportation technology on the horizon will dramatically change our economy.
It is conceivable that as ride sharing becomes so affordable and autonomous cars so efficient, that transportation becomes another great commodity by which people subscribe to a monthly service and opt out of purchasing their own car.
Self-driving cars and affordable ride-sharing services has already created a huge disruption in the automotive industry. Most cities in Arizona rely heavily on sales tax and of those revenues a huge portion consists of the taxes generated from car sales.
Car ownership is already in decline, especially among younger generations who are opting out of even getting a driver’s license. Predicting what this phenomenon will look like in 10 years, let alone 50 years is impossible.
Arizonans Could Seriously Regret Passing Prop 126 in the Future.
Despite its ostensible appeal, the actual benefits to Arizona taxpayers’ if they pass Prop 126 are superficial. Yet the manifold downsides are deep, long-lasting and may even create the opposite effect of what many voters wish to accomplish with its passage. For these reasons we encourage voters to take a second look at Prop 126 and Vote No.
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 | 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