Scottsdale City Council bails out Arizona American Water

After more than 2 hours of presentations and discussions at Tuesday's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council, the Council voted 5 - 2 to enter into a "Treat and Transport" agreement with Arizona American Water (AAW) whereby Scottsdale will treat TCE-contaminated water from wells controlled by AAW and then return it ("transport") back to AAW's system for delivery to its customers.

Previous posts on the matter here and here.

I'll keep this brief because I walked out of the meeting thoroughly ticked off at the selling out of Scottsdale residents by the majority on the Council, and that anger will affect the quality of my writing.

The five members who voted to shoulder AAW's cleanup responsibilities were Mayor Jim Lane, Vice-Mayor Suzanne Klapp, Council member Wayne Ecton, Council member Bob Littlefield, and Council member Marg Nelssen. 

Littlefield and Ecton are up for reelection this year.  Littlefield's support of AAW was no surprise - he's long been a corporate apologist.  Ecton's was a bit of a surprise, and he had a seriously sour look on his face when he cast his vote, but he voted in favor of AAW nonetheless.

The two members who supported condemnation of AAW were Council member Ron McCullagh and Council member Lisa Borowsky. 

McCullagh's support of condemnation was no surprise - he's a customer of AAW and has been the victim of their screw-ups (and AAW's arrogance about those screw-ups) for years.  Borowsky's support of condemnation was weaker and seemed to be rooted in some reservations about the trustworthiness of the AAW figures that she has met with, not in a whole-hearted support for acquiring AAW's Scottsdale operation and folding their customers into the Scottsdale municipal system.


In the interests of keeping this brief, and because the AZ Republic will probably cover the matter in more depth later today, here are some observations from the meeting:

- It was definitely a "strange bedfellows" sort of evening - Lane and Littlefield were on the same side of the issue as the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce.  Definitely an unusual event.

- More "strange bedfellows" - former (2008) rivals for the R nod for CD5, Laura Knaperek and Susan Bitter Smith, were there to lobby for AAW.  I'm not sure that it means much, but they stayed well away from each other during the meeting.

- They weren't even together during the group hug/backslapping session held outside City Hall by AAW's lobbyists after the hearing.

- Two member of the governing board of the Central Arizona Project were in the Kiva to support AAW, though neither was ID'ed as such.  Both Tim Bray, who spoke, and Bitter Smith are current members of the Board.  Bray is running for reelection; Bitter Smith is not.

- Before the meeting hypocrisy alert (unrelated to the AAW matter) - at the beginning of the meeting, Jim Lane proudly announced that the City had purchased more land for the McDowell Sonoran Preserve, partially with money from the Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund.

A fund that Republicans, including Lane, want to dismantle in favor of corporate tax cuts (Proposition 301).


All in all, it was a very frustrating evening, both for me and for most of the residents in the Kiva.  The vast majority of those who weren't there on AAW's dime strongly supported condemnation.

I left the building with one thought - if the issue at hand was a tattoo parlor in north Scottsdale increasing profits by cutting corners on needles, and exposing residents of north Scottsdale to hepatitis, HIV, or something else, the Council would have fallen all over itself to shut down the operation and kick it out of Scottsdale.  However, the people exposed to poison as a result of AAW's shoddy maintenance practices (and that was part of the final report of the investigation looking into the incidents that precipitated Tuesday's agenda item) were all in south Scottsdale.

People noticed that, and many of the folks walking out of the Kiva after the meeting left muttering that they would be supporting whoever runs for Mayor against Lane in 2012.

While Tuesday's meeting was a serious setback for supporters of good governance, from any partisan affiliation (I'm a D, yet both McCullagh and Borowsky are active Rs), something tells me this isn't over.  Tuesday's vote was for approval of guidance to City staff, not on approval of a specific contract.

Later...

Short attention span musing...

Haven't done one of these in a long time, and since there are a couple of things in today's news worthy of comment, it's appropriate to do one now.

...Colleen Clark, president of the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District has revealed that in July, she was arrested for DUI in Scottsdale. (AZCentral.com coverage here; Phoenix New Times coverage here)

Fellow board member Debra Pearson (nee Brimhall) has called for Clark's resignation, citing the arrest as evidence of "immature behavior."

Ummm...given that when Pearson was in the state lege, she was best known for marching in a parade in a Xena costume, maybe she shouldn't be pointing fingers...anyway, I digress.

On this one, given the facts available thus far - no one was injured, apparently this was a "first-and-only" incident, and she didn't try to use her office and influence to get out of the arrest - she should be allowed to face the music but keep her office.

In the event that some readers think that this opinion is one partisan Democrat supporting another, think again.

Ms. Clark is a Republican and a teacher/coach at her church and works for an Illinois-based abstinence project.

In short, she's easily conservative enough to be a member of the "Bay at the Moon" Club on West Washington.

Even so, she gets to be human (unless one of the material facts cited above changes.)

The Governing Board would have been better served if instead of calling for Clark's resignation, Pearson had pushed for the resignation of member Jerry Walker after the incident earlier this year where he used his office and presence on a District-sponsored field trip to intimidate a student to tears over her advocacy for the DREAM Act.

*That* one merited removal from office.


...Does the Fifester realize that he was pardoned because the President owed a favor to someone who owed Fife a favor, not because he was wrongfully convicted?

Apparently not, because he says he is considering a run for Governor in 2010.

The money quote from the AZRepublic article linked above?

"My record is clean," Symington said. "I won at the end of the day."

No Fife, your record is NOT clean. Of course, in today's AZGOP, that doesn't mean anything.


...Hmmmm...wonder if Laura Knaperek is looking for someone, *anyone*, to take on and defeat Harry Mitchell, who has defeated her so many times? And if "anyone" means "anyone not named David Schweikert"??

Note: Schweikert had the audacity to beat Knaperek in last year's GOP primary in CD5.

Let's see -

One "Ray Torres" has a letter to the editor in Friday's AZ Republic criticizing Harry Mitchell and expressing support for Jim Ward, a candidate in next year's GOP primary in CD5.

One "Ramon Torres," nicknamed "Ray" is the chair of the ORANGE Coalition in Scottsdale (allegedly in Scottsdale, anyway*).

A director of that organization is one...Laura Knaperek, former LD17 state representative and failed Congressional candidate.


*Hmmmm...the ORANGE Coalition isn't registered as a political committee (even though it was lobbying the City of Scottsdale via its Charter Review Task Force); it's registered as a non-profit Arizona corporation. Both directors listed on the organizational paperwork, including Mr. Ray Torres, list a New Jersey address (or as they like to refer to it - "really eastern Scottsdale").

BTW - the New Jersey address listed is the same as that of the headquarters of American Water, the parent company of Arizona American Water.

Not exactly a shocking coincidence, that.

It will be fun to watch Mr. Ward's campaign finance reports for money from New Jersey and American Water.


Later...

FEC Reports are in....

Others have covered this area already, but have tended to focus on their own CDs; the basic raw numbers from all CDs with active committees are included in this post.


Key - candidate - net contributions, individual contributions, PAC contributions, net expenditures, cash on hand. (Net contributions may not match the total of individual and PAC contributions due to refunds, candidate contributions to their own campaigns, or other reasons. Generally, any such variance isn't significant.

CD1 -

Ann Kirkpatrick (D), challenger - $328053.05, $218453.05, $109600.00, $125340.27, $668177.46

Howard Shanker (D), challenger - $33274.60, $33274.60, $0, $46603.04, $20972.36

Mary Kim Titla (D), challenger - $54104.75, $52466.36, $1638.39, $45039.94, $57385.88

Sydney Hay (R), challenger - $95033.73, $76518.73, $18515.00, $59959.65, $257408.09

Preston Korn (R), challenger - $2885.00, $2885.00, $0, $7362.48, $9173.96


CD2 -

John Thrasher (D), challenger - $8295.00, $7895.00, $0, $6599.59, $14207.90

Trent Franks (R), incumbent - $88386.00, $53261.00, $35625.00, $44885.27, $129774.83


CD3 -

Bob Lord (D), challenger - $233202.50, $161794.90, $73507.60, $158933.66, $706523.25

John Shadegg (R), incumbent - $536024.78, $421210.36, $140014.42, $121592.91, $1354246.30

The Shadegg campaign is gloating about their fundraising success during the April - June reporting period, but there's more than a little element of "whistling past the graveyard" in their press releases - Bob Lord is easily the strongest challenger, Dem or Rep, in the state and he's mounting a challenge to Shadegg that is far tougher than any challenge he's faced since entering Congress.

Note: The grand opening of the Lord campaign headquarters is this Saturday, July 19, at 4736 N. 44th St., Phoenix (just south of Camelback) from 11 a.m. - 1 p.m.


CD4 -

Ed Pastor (D), incumbent - $229493.13, $117377.88, $113515.25, $69158.20, $1428843.55


CD5 -

Harry Mitchell (D), incumbent - $335002.66, $224962.13, $113175.00, $85554.75, $1372464.22

David Schweikert (R), challenger - $162749.05, $162749.05, $0, $155851.16, $520990.10

Jim Ogsbury (R), challenger - $49783.24, $46783.24, $3000.00, $79435.55, $323442.10

Laura Knaperek (R), challenger - $34249.00, $37549.00, $0, $23200.05, $105520.79

Mark Anderson (R), challenger - $29278.14, $29278.14, $0, $25618.73, $68791.33

Susan Bitter Smith (R), challenger - $150379.51, $110603.51, $7000.00, $52363.67, $247945.89

The Republican challengers to Harry Mitchell have made some major bets on their abilities to emerge victoriously from the primary and then move on to defeat Mitchell - they've accumulated over $700K in loans and debts - Ogsbury and Schweikert at $250K each, Bitter Smith at more than $156K, and Knaperek has $50K in campaign debt. The only CD5 Rep who lists no campaign loans or obligations is Mark Anderson. In most cases, the loans/debt constitute a significant percentage (half or more) of the candidates' cash on hand totals.

Expect the following headline in mid-November - "Join the LD8 and LD17 Republicans for a joint campaign-debt retirement bake sale and car wash."

OK, OK, probably not... :))

Candie Dates (love that name!) at Sonoran Alliance has a post with some good graphs showing the CD5 challengers' financial positions.


CD6 -

Chris Gramazio (D), challenger - $3137.15, $3075.00, $0, 2539.24, $597.91

Jeff Flake (R), incumbent - $200035.00, $194835.00, $8800.00, $74097.13, $1091474.52


CD7 -

Raul Grijalva (D), incumbent - $125,398.00, $64,398.00, $61,000.00, $89,625.11, $171,043.21.


CD8 -

Gabrielle Giffords (D), incumbent - $562167.97, $381748.16, $181753.35, $156814.05, $2077845.80

Tim Bee (R), challenger - $390406.65, $307856.32, $79950.00, $229078.66, $687703.62


No reports that I could find from challengers Rebecca Schneider (D - CD6), Lee Gentry (R - CD5), Don Karg (R - CD4), or Joe Sweeney and Gene Chewning (Rs - CD7).

Withdrawn candidates - Annie Loyd (I - CD3).

Later!

Rejected Campaign Slogans From CD5

Time for a couple of posts worth of smack talk...this is the gentle one. :)

BTW - this concept is shamelessly stolen borrowed from the Arizona Report...


From the trash baskets of the various Republican candidates in CD5 who are competing for the chance to take on Harry Mitchell -

Lee Gentry - "Don't think of it as zero name recognition, think of it as low negatives."

Jim Ogsbury - "The 'legislator to lobbyist' career track historically leads to corruption; going from lobbyist to legislator means the opposite, right?

Mark Anderson - " 'Really Conservative But Sane*' * = when compared to some of the other state legislators from LD18"

Susan Bitter Smith - "That Darn Ogsbury! He beat me into the race, and he beat me to that slogan!"

Laura Knaperek - "I've lost to Harry twice already and my friends lost to his son for Tempe City Council earlier this year, but I can beat him this time. I promise."

David Schweikert - "It may have been only a county gig, but at least I wasn't indicted, sued, or faced possible disbarrment because of the way that I performed my duties."

:))

The John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award

This week's award doesn't go to just one person - the organization known as the Arizona Republican Party, on behalf of some of its candidates in CD5, a radio talk show ranter, and some of its bloggers, earns this week's award.


Late last week, news broke that an employee of the Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) had attended a fundraiser for Republican CD5 candidate Laura Knaperek. (PolitickerAZ)

The ADP employee was spotted taking pictures of people attending the fundraiser and of the license plates of their vehicles.


Knaperek's campaign manager, Lauren Barnett, went on JD Hayworth's radio show to decry the move as "undemocratic" and "reprehensible".


[Not so coincidentally, this was the same JD Hayworth who lost in 2006 to the man Knaperek wants to face in November, Harry Mitchell. Oh, and also not so coincidentally, Laura Knaperek has lost twice to Harry Mitchell, and her obsession with beating him by any means necessary almost makes me embarrassed for her. Almost, except for the fact that it can be soooo entertaining. :) ]


Emily Derose, spokeswoman for the ADP contended that the move was a standard campaign 'due diligence' practice of both parties, something that was immediately denied by Sean McCaffrey, spokesman for the Arizona Republican Party.


From the PolitickerAZ story -

"We don't do that, we think it's ridiculous and it contributes to people's low opinion of the political process," said McCaffrey.

Perhaps someone should send Mr. McCaffrey (and perhaps to good ol' JD himself) a copy of this pic -



















For those you who don't recognize the scene or the man with the crossed arms walking around the edges of the crowd, the scene is the Harry Mitchell's Congressional campaign kickoff rally in April of 2006, and the man surveying the crowd is Todd Sommers, then a legislative assistant for future ex-Congressman Hayworth. (My post on the matter here. Please note that my original source was Tedski at R-Cubed. His original post is here.)

While one party sending an employee to the public events of another party may be tacky, especially when they're caught at it :) , it's not unethical.

The same cannot be said for sending a paid Congressional staffer to a challenger's event.


Et tu, Sean.

And JD.

And Laura.

And every Rep blogger who has been cloaking himself in faux self-righteous indignation. (Sonoran Alliance here, for example)


And for the shameless, "do as we say, not as we do" brand of hypocritical flip-floppery, they all earn this week's John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award.


Don't forget to check out Desert Beacon's latest "Sunday Morning Deck Bass."


BTW - When I first heard the story, the movie geek in me flashed on an early scene in the film "The Godfather" where FBI agents are spotted at the wedding of Don Corleone's daughter, taking pictures and writing down the license numbers of various mobsters attending the wedding.

In many ways, the movie scene summed up my feelings on this - while the observations were a distasteful but legitimate and necessary endeavor, it became a tacky one when it was discovered.

I'm actually glad that I couldn't find a screen cap of that scene because I would have gone with that before I remembered Mr. Sommers' visit to Tempe two years ago.

While that image would have been *almost* perfectly appropriate for this subject, the Sommers pic *is* perfect for this.

Later!


P.S. - I do want to thank this week's Crappie Award recipients for giving me the opportunity to legitimately liken Republican campaign contributors to mobsters.

Yup, that was sweet.

:))


P.P.S. - for those of you who are wondering how I can harshly criticize Congressman Mitchell in the post immediately prior to this one, yet so strongly support him (and the ADP) in this one, there's no disconnect here. His vote on the FISA bill with retroactive telecom immunity was a dreadful mistake, one that I wholeheartedly disagree with, but he's done some great work for veterans, students, and his district, and he is head and shoulders (and torso, hips, thighs, and knees, too!) above his challengers in terms of his qualifications for the office.

Republicans try to hold unemployment benefits hostage...

...hostage to increased oil company profits...

In one of the Republicans' most shameless displays of contempt for the average American in recent memory (well, in nearly two years, anyway), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) actually argued on the House floor that opening up ANWR to oil drilling is more important than helping unemployed Americans. (I'll update with a quote after the Congressional Record of today's debate is posted tomorrow.)

Edit on 9/13 to add the aforementioned quote...

Boehner, from page H5356 of the Congressional Record -

Why aren't they thinking about the hardworking men and women in America, who go to work every day, they pay taxes, they do tough jobs, they have to give part of their money to us so that we can spend it on behalf of the American people to provide services? We should always remember that it's the hardworking people in America that provide the taxpayer funds that we spend. And our job is to spend those funds in a responsible way, and this is not, in my view, a responsible bill.

{snip}

I think the American people want us to achieve energy independence, and the only way we're going to get there is to do what I call, "all of the above.'' We need to conserve more in America. We need biofuels; we need alternative fuels; we need to get serious about nuclear energy; and we need to produce more oil and gas here in the United States instead of depending on some 70 percent of it coming from foreign sources.

Helping unemployed Americans is "irresponsible" while guaranteeing drilling into (and destroying!) ANWR isn't?

Oh, and how does more oil drilling fit into a discussion of unemployment benefits?

End edit...

Boehner's press release on the legislation is here; his press release on oil drilling (as well as blaming Nancy Pelosi for rising prices at the pump) is here.

The bill under consideration, H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008, would extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks. The bill was heard on Wednesday under suspension of the rules, but failed to garner the 2/3 majority needed for passage. It was brought back today under a rule that would allow it to pass with a simple majority.

Additionally, one of the Reps' biggest objections to the bill is that its benefits are not limited to states with the highest levels of unemployment. The example they cited most frequently was Oklahoma, whose rate stands at 3.2%.

Guess they think that someone who is unemployed in OK is less out of a job than someone who is unemployed in Michigan (6.9%).

Boehner and the Reps frequently cited their desire to help workers in Michigan while decrying the "election year politics" that they said are behind the measure.

Wonder who's playing "election year politics" here - in the race for the presidency, Michigan is considered a battleground state with 17 electoral votes, Oklahoma is safe Republican and only has 7 electoral votes.

In the end, H.R. 5749 passed 274 - 137, with the votes of the Arizona delegation breaking along party lines - Democrats Mitchell, Giffords, Grijalva, and Pastor in favor, Republicans Shadegg, Franks, and Renzi opposed, and Flake absent (bereavement).

Note: The Arizona breakdown for yesterday's vote on the bill was the same - Democrats in favor of extending unemployment benefits, Reps opposed, Flake absent.

Regarding local "election year" political considerations, I can understand why Rick Renzi didn't vote for the bill. He's not running again, so he has no real motive to work for his constituents. I can even understand why Trent Franks didn't vote for it - while he is facing a challenge from respected teacher John Thrasher, he still looks fairly safe in his district, which has a Rep registration advantage of over 60,000.

But why is John Shadegg voting against a bill that even his fellow Republicans think won't get passed in the Senate, much less signed into law by the President? I realize that his ideology is very to him, but a vote for this bill would have given Shadegg a little protections from criticisms that he doesn't care for (or work for) working families, including active and veteran military families, that have been disproportionately impacted by the downturn in the economy.

Of course, with Shadegg safe in his corporate-funded D.C. sinecure, he has no personal economic worries anyway (an illustration of his carefree attitude is available for download; it's an interview for last year's Conservative Leadership Conference (tip o' the hat to The Irregular Times for heads-up on the interview).

As it is, he's given Democratic challenger Bob Lord another opening.

From an email press release -

"After months of hundreds of thousands of job losses for American workers, it’s unfathomable why my opponent would vote against such important relief legislation for Arizona’s middle class families in such a difficult time for our nation,” Lord said.

Bob Lord is a *lot* more tactful than I am - Shadegg is taking his working- and middle-class constituents and throwing them under the proverbial bus.

CNN coverage of the unemployment legislation and vote here.

Other House campaign news -

...Humorous site of the day - AZ5 Primary Watch. This isn't a satire site, though it's so over the top that it sometimes reads like one. Instead, it's an attack "blog" anonymously authored by Laura Knaperek, one of her family members, or one of her supporters.

How do I know it's a Knaperek blog? Well, the only Rep candidates in CD5 that it *hasn't* attacked are Mark Anderson and Laura Knaperek.

I've met them both, and this doesn't really seem like his style.

On the other hand, I've heard her speak in person regarding liberals using the same terminology and rhetorical style that this blog uses toward liberals.

My early prediction: The CD5 Republican primary will be the dirtiest race in the state this year.

Unless Knaperek wins the primary, in which case the CD5 general election will win that dubious award.

Later!

Mitchell leads main Republican rivals in latest poll

PolitickerAZ has the results of a recent CD5 poll comparing Congressman Harry Mitchell to two of the Republican candidates trying to unseat him, former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert and former state representative Laura Knaperek.

(Marty at Wactivist.com and Zelph at AZNetRoots already have their takes on the info, at the links)

According to the PolitickerAZ story, in head-to-head matchups, Mitchell leads Schweikert by a 50% to 23% margin and Knaperek by 49% to 26%.

This is great news for Mitchell and his supporters because while this year shapes up to be a horrible year for Republicans in general, they still have a serious registration advantage in CD5 (42% - 28%). For this cycle and the next (2010) CD5 is going to be a tough test for any Democrat, even Harry Mitchell.

In 2012, the effects of redistricting should be felt, but God only knows what those are going to be (and God won't know what those are until the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission tells Him what they are :) ).

Until then, however, CD5 is going to be a tempting target for every Republican who's ever run a campaign (or, like Jim Ogsbury, who's ever just given money to a campaign.)


As for this year's campaign, in Marty's post over at Wactivist, he opines that Laura Knaperek may be the Reps' best hope to defeat Mitchell, but I'm not sure I agree.

She *does* have the organization and the experience to run an effective general election campaign, a fact that CD5 Republican primary voters will remember, but she also has experience in running campaigns that were defeated by Harry Mitchell.

Another fact that primary voters will be sure to remember.

She also has high negatives, in that she is part of the radical right wing segment of her party, and while there are a lot of Republicans in CD5, they tend to be part of the "Chamber of Commerce" wing.

She's probably not getting out of the primary, though with her experience and focus (OK, it's less 'focus' and more 'obsession' on Harry Mitchell) she will make a fight of it.

David Schweikert may not have raised as much money as the RNCC poo-bahs would prefer, he still presents the lower negatives of the two - he's as reliably conservative as Knaperek but hasn't ticked off as many people over the years as she has (her habit of throwing ballot-mates in legislative races under the bus at the earliest opportunity could come back to haunt her.)

And Jim Ogsbury and Mark Anderson? Professional lobbyist Ogsbury has serious name rec problems in the district, as does Mesa state rep Anderson. In addition, Anderson is running on a platform that includes the planks that Congress "has too much partisan bickering" and "too many scandals."

Somebody should remind him that it's not 2006 and he's not running against JD Hayworth.

Anyway, I haven't seen anything that indicates that Anderson or Ogsbury have a real chance to win this year's CD5 Republican primary.

The American Hospital Association, the sponsor of the poll, apparently agree with me - their poll didn't include either Ogsbury or Anderson.

Later!

Quarterly FEC Reports Are Pouring In...

They're not all into the FEC yet, so I'll update over the next few days.

The quarterly numbers so far -

CD1 (open seat)

Shanker (D) (challenger) - Total raised $33,688.73; $31,354.75 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $34,320.21 cash on hand. Note: Shanker's committee has $9,367.88 in outstanding debt (credit card statement).

Hay (R) (challenger) - Total raised $98,618.19; $88,118.19 from individuals; $10,500.00 from PACs; $222,334.01 cash on hand. Note: Hay's committee has $70K in outstanding debt (loans by the candidate).

Kirkpatrick (D) (challenger) - Total raised $257,400.17; $194,650.17 from individuals; $62,250.00 from PACs; $465,464.68 cash on hand. Note: Kirkpatrick's committee has $20K in outstanding debt (loan).

Riley (D) (challenger) - Total raised $15,825.00; $15,825.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $216,165.31 cash on hand. Note: Riley's committee has $205K in outstanding debt (candidate loan). Note2: According to PolitickerAZ, Riley has dropped out of the race.

Titla (D) (challenger) - Total raised $39,114.05; $39,114.05 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $48,321.07 cash on hand.

Korn (R) (challenger) - Total raised $14,567.00; $12,266.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $10,494.16 cash on hand. Note: Korn's committee has $3,185.36 in outstanding debt (candidate loan and credit card).

Renzi (R) (outgoing incumbent) - $0 raised; $3966.46 cash on hand; $456,073.37 in outstanding debt (legal fees, candidate loans).

CD1 note: According to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, rumored Republican candidate Ken Bennett has chosen (again!) to pass on the CD1 race.


CD2

Franks (R) (incumbent) - $88,386.00 total raised; $53,261.00 from individuals; $35,625.00 from PACs; 129,774.83 cash on hand. Note: Franks' committee owes $304,100 in outstanding debt (candidate loan).

Thrasher (D) (challenger) - Total raised $3,023.50; $3,023.50 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $12,512.49 cash on hand.


CD3

Lord (D) (challenger) - Total raised $220,166.47; $163,116.47 from individuals; $51,550.00 from PACs; $632,485.41 cash on hand.

Shadegg (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $150,716.41; $163,516.41 from individuals; $47,000.00 from PACs; $937,672.59 cash on hand. Note: The reason that the total raised is less than the combined totals of individual and PAC contributions is that Shadegg's committee refunded nearly $60K in contributions.

Annie Loyd (I) (challenger) - Quarterly report not posted yet.

Shadegg's flirtation with retirement may have cost him some contributions - Shadegg outraised the incumbent, even when ignoring the refunds (which included a refund of $10K in illegal contributions from his own PAC.)

From a Lord press release -

“We could not have come this far or raised this much without the support of the over 1,000 Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who have contributed to my campaign,” Lord said. “I’d like to thank everyone for their continued support. We will change Washington – together.”

CD4

Pastor (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $260,827.71; $164,020.98 from individuals; $96,306.73 from PACs; $1,266,599.90 cash on hand.


CD5

Mitchell (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $321,160.18; $209,028.59 from individuals; $112,110.00 from PACs; $1,121,680.84 cash on hand.

Schweikert (R) (challenger) - Total raised $175,210.23; $171,941.95 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $514,092.21 cash on hand. Note: Schweikert's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).

Ogsbury (R) (challenger) - Total raised 40,421.17; $37,921.17 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $353,094.41 cash on hand. Note: Ogsbury's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).

Hatch-Miller (R) (committee terminated) - Owes $17K; cash on hand $245.20.

Knaperek (R) (challenger) - $49,618.00 total raised; $49,518.00 from individuals; $100 from PACs; $44,471.84 cash on hand.

Anderson (R) (challenger) - $55,115.00 total raised; $55,115.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $69,985.52 cash on hand.

CD5 Notes: Susan Bitter Smith (R) is still 'exploring', but given the facts that the signature deadline is fast approaching (early June) and that her name is dirt with many of Scottsdale's grassroots Republicans (see: Hanover Project, The), my guess is that she isn't going to jump into the race.

Oh yeah - that Schweikert guy has the money race locked up, if not the balloting race. I don't know what the polling numbers among CD5 Republicans looks like, but Schweikert looks like the frontrunner based on contributions from individuals.

Oh yeah2 - Mitchell has more cash on hand that all of his Republican challengers combined. Mitchell still faces a Republican registration advantage in his district, but he is well-positioned to face whichever Rep makes it out of the primary.


CD6

Flake (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $58,342.00; $52,742.00 from individuals; $6,000.00 from PACs; $974,536.74 cash on hand.


CD7

Grijalva (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $91,312.93; $54,296 from individuals; $37,010.00 from PACs; $139,670.64 cash on hand.


CD8

Giffords (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $466,786.20; $333,616.20 from individuals; $138,070.00 from PACs; $1,672,821.88 cash on hand.

Bee (R) (challenger) - Total raised $466,092.60; $406,992.60 from individuals; $40,000 from PACs; $525,439.88 cash on hand.

Musings on a community meeting

Edit on 2/26 to add link at the bottom of the post...

Last night, I took the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Community Council of South Scottsdale at the Granite Reef Senior Center in Scottsdale.

One could tell it was an election year, as there were five members of the City Council or candidates for the council present (Jim Lane, Tony Nelssen, Ron McCullagh, Nan Nesvig, Joel Bramoweth), as well as one candidate for Congress (Laura Knaperek).

The main topic of the meeting was a presentation and discussion of a development/redevelopment project proposed for south Scottsdale. One of the components of the project was 'income-restricted' housing units, targeted at lower-income, first-time home buyers. This generated one of the highlights of the meeting.

The discussion of income restricted housing immediately set off a few people in the audience, spouting off about illegal immigrants and subsidized housing and ruined neighborhoods.

That, in turn, sparked council candidate Joel Bramoweth into taking exception to the bigotry being spewed forth. He was shouted down with cries of "she has the floor", but he still impressed me - most candidates for office today won't go against the tide in a gathering such as that one.

I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for, but he went a long way toward earning my vote (and he sure as hell went a long way toward making up for some of the rather rambling speeches that he gives during Council meetings :)) .)

It should be noted here that this is the same group that last year invited State Rep. John Kavanagh to one of their meetings, inspiring me to right this post, comparing Kavanagh to his friend and ideological hero, Russell Pearce. The anti-mmigrant rhetoric present on Thursday night wasn't a surprise.

Other highlights -

...I spoke with Councilman Ron McCullagh for a few moments before the start of the meeting and research into the possible addition of Arizona American Water Company's Scottsdale customers to the Scottsdale municipal water system. Personally, I don't think it will happen during an election year, especially one where most federal, state, county and municipal budgets are stretched to the max, but stay tuned.

...Laura Knaperek spent some time introducing herself and shaking hands. So far, she's been the only Rep candidate that I've seen working the community gathering circuit in south Scottsdale and Tempe (she was at the Tempe City Council forum earlier this month), but that's said with a couple of caveats - I've only been to a few non-partisan events this month, and I don't attend the 'big money' events such as those put on by the Chamber of Commerce and their ilk.

Race for CD5 note - If Knaperek is any indication, the Republican contenders in CD5 learned at least one lesson from Harry Mitchell's 2006 upset of JD Hayworth - they're stressing their 'fiscal conservative' bonafides while minimizing their harsher 'social conservative' credentials. For instance, Knaperek has be Executive Director of a right-wing organization called United Families International for more than a year. That organization is so far right that it opposes UN efforts to outlaw forced marriage and gender-selective infanticide because such efforts demean the value of traditional marriage. (Knaperek's take here.)

On her website's "Meet Laura" page, she has a 6-paragraph, 336-word bio. She devotes a full paragraph to being a fiscal conservative (two paragraphs on her work with the disabled!) and all of one sentence to her work with UFI, and that sentence has no details on the organization.

Ahhh yessssss...the selectively-edited resume. It serves the same purpose in politics that coverup makeup does with tattoos.

...To be fair to the bigots at the meeting, Mexicans weren't the only targets of their ire. During a discussion of the status of the SkySong development at the old Los Arcos Mall location, there were criticisms over the number of non-American companies that have leased space there. A number of the tenants are from countries such as Turkey, Singapore and China, and a group of audience members felt that was "unAmerican".

I'm not making this up.

Later!

Edit on 2/26 to add -

Ari Cohn of the East Valley Tribune was at the meeting; his coverage is here.

End edit.

FEC reports are in

Edit to update: Turns out that Bob Lord's (D-CD3) financial report is up; I just missed it. I've updated the appropriate section of the post. Thanks to Drew for the comment...

End edit.

It's that time again - time for a quick summary of fundraising results for the various Congressional campaigns in AZ.


Key - Total raised, $ from individual donors, $ from PACs and committees, Cash on hand, and (where applicable) debts or loans.

I'll comment between CDs.

CD1

Kirkpatrick (D) $186108.71, 166108.71, 24000, 292867.66, 20000 loan

Renzi (R) $0, 0, 0, 1786.60, 456058.23 debt

Hay (R) $41822.32, 23935.92, 17886.40, 155727.77, 20000 loan

Shanker (D) $17517.18, 17517.18, 0, 4069.89

No info as yet from Mary Kim Titla (D) or a Democratic candidate that I've never heard of but who has filed organization paperwork, Jeffrey Brown. He's serious enough to have a real, though under construction, website, so I'll mention him here.

It's early still, but pending the still only rumored entries of other Republicans into the contest, right now the race is shaping up to be between industry lobbyist Hay for the Rs and DCCC-annointed Kirkpatrick for the Ds. Their early money and organizations will be tough to beat.


CD2

Franks (R) $72691, 42191, 30500, 86274.1

Thrasher (D) $8543, 8543, 0, 10693.56

Nothing too surprising here; while Franks is beatable, Thrasher needs support to do it. Surf to his website to volunteer or contribute.


CD3

Shadegg (R) $494544.92, 362794.92, 131750, 863636.22

Loyd (I) $14226.55, 0, 14226.55. 8884.33

Lord (D) $211071.23, 187821.23, 18250.00, 503182.54

Something tells me that Shadegg didn't raise half-a-million dollars in what is traditionally the slowest fundraising quarter of the year in response to Annie Loyd's $14K. While Shadegg has, and is expected to maintain, a fundraising advantage (incumbents usually do), he's in the race of his political life. Perhaps his efforts on behalf of John McCain's presidential campaign have an ulterior motive - he realizes that he benefits with McCain at the top of the ballot in November. McCain's presence, while it may not help Rep candidates nationwide, should fuel increased Rep voter turnout here in AZ.

Shadegg should keep something in mind as the campaign unfolds - by sacrificing his constituents and constituent services to campaign for McCain, he could cost himself more votes than he gains with McCain at the top of the ballot.


CD4

Pastor (D) $80125.63, 38120, 42005.63. 1222975.39

$1.2 million CoH and no opponent (as yet, anyway)? Pastor should expect lots of pressure to help out other Democratic candidates this summer.


CD5

Hayworth (R) $-2200, 0, 0, 15310.3

Mitchell (D) $210680, 137255, 71800, 868883.55

Ogsbury (R) $34880, 33380, 1500, 349191.47

Schweikert (R) $505,993, 246393.51, 9600, 412030.69, 250000 loan

Hatch-Miller (R) Just filed organizational paperwork; don't expect financial numbers until April.

Anderson (R) Just filed organizational paperwork; don't expect financial numbers until April.

Knaperek (R) $19948.54, 19948.54, 0, 27356.99

Even without the quarter million dollar loan, Schweikert is the one to beat (money-wise, anyway) in the Rep primary here, though Knaperek and Anderson are veteran campaigners and will know how to use their more limited funds to good effect.

Note: Telecom/cable industry lobbyist Susan Bitter Smith has said that she will make her run/don't run decision sometime after Super Tuesday. As of tonight, no paperwork for her, organizational or financial reporting, has been posted by the FEC.


CD6

Flake $305414.48, 258613.52, 46800.96, 999110.50

Richard Grayson is running a (self-admittedly) quixotic challenge to Flake, but that million dollars CoH of Flake's isn't aimed at him, it was aimed straight as erstwhile primary challenger Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance).

Pearce has recently set his sights somewhat lower - convincing LD18 State Senator Karen Johnson (R-UFO) to step aside and not run for reelection.

Pearce will face Democrat Judah Nativio for the seat.


CD7

Grijalva (D) $40475, 7975, 32500, 99351.11

The Reps are sure to run someone against Congressman Grijalva (they always do), but unless I miss my guess, Grijalva's organization will expend more effort on rounding up votes for presidential candidate Barack Obama than they'll have to expend on rounding up votes for Raul.


CD8

Bee (R) $151074.24, 141324.24, 9750, 161246.04

Giffords (D) $272253.88, 161209.45, 111044.43, 1317357.30

Unless Tim Bee can pull of a miracle dealing with the state's budget deficit, he may come to regret not resigning his seat in the Arizona State Senate. Giffords has an almost 9-to-1 CoH advantage, and Bee is stuck in Phoenix most of the week.

If he leaves the Senate now, he'll get roundly criticized for abandoning his constituents (something that a candidate for another office doesn't want to deal with); if he doesn't leave, his campaign can't get up to full speed until June or July, by which time, Giffords could have a 20:1 money advantage.

PolitickerAZ has a report on the numbers as well, and they have most of the duelling press releases that accompany the releases of fundraising numbers on the main site.

Later!

Short Attention Span Musing - campaigns edition

...Well, in a shock to the MSM, but not to anyone else, both parties' races for the Presidential nomination are wide open right now. Pundits are trying to spin Tuesday's results from New Hampshire as a "major" Clinton victory and a serious blow to Obama's White House aspirations.

Of course, a few days before the NH primary, those same pundits had pronounced the Clinton candidacy DOA and were writing Obama's inaugural speech.

Things aren't much clearer on the Republican side, with McCain newly-reannointed as the frontrunner after winning in New Hampshire.

Of course, he won in NH in 2000.

In other words - it's not over.

...As in Iowa, the most disappointed candidate coming out of the New Hampshire primary has to be Mitt Romney. In addition to the vast amounts of money that he spent here and the hundred-something campaign events, he had home-field advantage - not only was he the governor right across the border, he even has a vacation home there.

He was practically a resident, and still couldn't win there.

His candidacy is definitely in trouble; on the other hand, he hasn't exactly been trounced in Iowa or New Hampshire, and he still has oodles of money.

Next week's primary in Michigan is his last stand. He has to win in his home state (his father was governor there for a while), otherwise his candidacy will lose whatever momentum and support it has left.


...The phrase "It's not over" may not apply to Fred Thompson. At 1% in New Hampshire, he has rapidly gone from "Republican savior" to "Are his SAG dues up to date?" He may try to stay in through South Carolina, but he's done.


...Michigan could cause a big headache for the Democratc Party leadership. It was stripped of its delegates as a penalty for holding its primary before February 5. Hence, most Democratic candidates aren't on the ballot there.

In fact, there are only four candidates, and one of them, Sen. Christopher Dodd, has already dropped out. In fact, the only major candidate on the ballot there is Hillary Clinton, and there lies the problem.

There have been strong rumors that Michigan would have some or all of it 156 delegates restored, rumors that weren't discounted by a highly connected former DNC member at last night's D17 meeting.

If that comes to pass, and the race is close enough for Michigan's delegates to make a difference in the nomination, expect some justified howls of outrage from the non-Clinton campaigns (and from Democrats everywhere) at changing the nomination rules after the fact.

It would look like 'insiders' protecting one of their own, which brings up another point.

Another possibility that the 'powers-that-be' of the national party would have to consider is that even the appearance of inappropriate activity regarding the nomination could give the Republicans the kind of issue that they could use to pry Independent voters away from the Democrats.

I honestly don't think that they really *want* to restore Michigan's delegates, but the longer the race for the nomination stays a race, the more pressureto do so will be brought to bear by certain elements within the Party.

Best scenario for the Democratic leadership: the eventual nominee pulls away before any decision is made regarding Michigan, so that a restoration of its delegates doesn't make any difference.


...In disappointing news, for me, anyway, Governor Bill Richardson is apparently dropping out of the race. While he is far and away the best-qualified and best-suited candidate for the job, he doesn't have the 'rock star' qualities of Obama or Clinton (or even Edwards.) Therefore, he hasn't gained much traction with voters.

Our loss.

Note to the eventual nominee: consider Richardson for the VP slot on the ticket or for the Secretary of State job in your administration. It'll be the best appointment you could make.


...Matt Benson of the AZ Rep's Plugged In has a report that Governor Napolitano "may" endorse a candidate prior to the Presidential primary.

She shouldn't - either she'll have to work with the eventual nominee as Governor, or she'll work for the eventual nominee in his/her cabinet.

Doing anything more than helping the eventual nominee in the general election campaign does nothing for her or for Arizona.


CD5 race news -

...According to PolitickerAZ.com (a relatively new site, so I can't vouch for its accuracy yet. It seems to be pretty decent, though.), Susan Bitter Smith, a possible candidate for the Rep nomination to challenge Harry Mitchell, is waiting until February 5th to decide whether or not to enter the race.

Her stated reason for waiting?

Bitter Smith, the Executive Director of the Arizona Cable Television Communications Association, says that her decision depends on what happens on February 5 – the day Arizonans go to the polls to participate in the state’s presidential primary. She said that a strong Republican turnout would be encouraging.

Bitter Smith also said she was looking for a “strong Republican” to head up the Party ticket in November.

Not really news that; rumors about a possible run have been swirling for months. What is interesting is the rest of the quote from the article -

When asked which candidate she preferred, she laughed. “McCain, Rudy (Giuliani), Romney,” she said.

Well, at least she's consistent; once a corporate tool, always a corporate tool. Her public disdain of Huckabee, the least corporate of the Republican candidates, clearly indicates where her true loyalties lie.

Bottom line - she's not running to represent the residents of CD5.


...In other news from PolitickerAZ, Jeff Hatch-Miller, member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, will be entering the CD5 race, joining Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperek, Mark Anderson, and David Schweikert (and possibly the aforementioned Bitter Smith) in the race for the Rep nomination.

He's termed out at the ACC, and as no statewide offices are up this year, it's a run for Congress or two years of toiling in the private sector for him. The field is crowded, but his connections should generate enough in contributions to make him viable in the primary.

Later!

A quick post about the presidential campaigns

I realized this weekend that while many of my posts have concerned presidential campaign events, few, if any, have concerned the presidential campaigns themselves.

Time to correct that oversight. :)

Think of this as "Short Attention Span Musing - Campaigns Edition."

Some of these topics are few weeks old, but they're still worth covering.

Note - while I haven't firmly decided who I'm voting for in February's primary, I am strongly leaning toward Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico (and former Congressman, ambassador, Cabinet secretary, and multiple-time nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize). A more in-depth post on that topic will be forthcoming shortly.


...Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been sniping at each other over who is the most qualified in the area of foreign affairs.

See the above summary of Bill Richardson's resume to understand why that discussion is so laughable.


...The Clinton campaign has been playing the "oh...the big, bad, boys are ganging up on poor, little ol' me" card as the primaries draw near and the trailing candidates sharpen their criticisms of the leader of the pack.

A leader of the pack named "Hillary Clinton."

To anyone who buys into the "ganging up" card - criticizing the leader in a campaign race is the job of those chasing that leader. Casting that as a the "boy's club" picking on a woman who's encroaching on territory that heretofore was strictly the domain of the "boy's club" is a shamelessly cynical ploy.

And the fact that the tactic probably helped doesn't mitigate that shamelessness..


...A couple of weeks ago, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote a column stating that the Clinton campaign has some damaging information about Barack Obama. The rancor between the two campaigns immediately escalated.

How can the presumably experienced professional operatives of both campaigns place any stock in the scribblings of a Bush/Cheney shill like Darth Novak? This is a guy who publicly outed CIA agent Valerie Plame as retaliation against her husband for criticizing the President.

A little partisan mudslinging is nothing for someone who's soulless enough to do that.


...My information is a couple of weeks old, so things may have changed for the better, but Clinton's Arizona campaign seems to be disorganized at best and practically nonexistent at worst. Reports from both highly involved activists and casual, first-time volunteers are consistent - phone calls and emails aren't returned, information requests go unanswered (I can speak to that one directly :) ), and other signs of a campaign in disarray.

I hope that the Clinton campaign hasn't written off AZ - she doesn't have AZ's primary locked up yet, and if she wins the nomination, she'll need every electoral vote she can get in the general.

And if John McCain isn't at the top of the Republican ticket (something that is looking more likely every day), AZ's 10 electoral votes will be in play.

The Obama, Richardson, and Kucinich campaigns have active organizations in AZ that are not only trying to help their candidates win the nomination but are laying the groundwork for the general election.

The other campaigns, including Sen. Clinton's, should take note of that.

Later!

Quarterly FEC reports - updated

Updated on 10/16 with every incumbent now reporting; many of those who are just 'exploring' haven't filed yet. Many of those, because of the timing of their organization, won't *have* to report until after the first of the year.


Key: Candidate name, affiliation ( * signifies incumbents) - total contributions, PAC and other committee $, individual contributions, cash on hand

CD1

Rick Renzi, Republican* - $1,200; $1,000; $200; $2,085.59
Note: Renzi still owes over $100K in legal fees from earlier in the year.

Ann Kirkpatrick, Democrat - $217,050.00; $1,000; $216,050.00; $173,227.81

Sydney Hay, Republican - $57,933.81; $0; $57,933.81; $106,267.60
Note: $50,000 of Ms. Hay's fundraising came in the form of a loan to the campaign by the candidate.

Howard Shanker, Democrat - $18,160.24; $0; $18,160.24; $9,367.88
Note: $2,586.34 of his total came from the candidate and the campaign owes $9,300 on a credit card.

Ellen Simon, Democrat - $1,550.00; $0; $1,550.00; $4.41
Note: All $1,550 of Ms. Simon's funds came from the candidate herself.

CD1 note: To borrow a phrase from the film "Bull Durham" - Ms. Kirkpatrick has "announced [her] presence with authority." Her strong quarter sends a loud message both to potential Democratic primary opponents and potential Republican opposition in the general. Her candidacy is for real, and anyone thinking of jumping into the race (either side of the aisle) better be prepared for the long haul.


CD2

Trent Franks, Republican* - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87

John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87

CD3

Bob Lord, Democrat - $142,133.52; $5,000.00; $137,133.52; $332,189.52

John Shadegg, Republican* - $192,653.00; $36,400.00; $156,253.00; $450,930.26

Annie Loyd, Independent - $12,139.24; 0; $12,139.24; $5,001.16

Bob Stump, Republican - $0; $0; $0; $13,484.68

CD3 notes: You know that Independent Loyd has an uphill fight when the numbers show that her active campaign has less cash on hand than the inactive (for many years) campaign of Republican Stump. Also, the Lord campaign seems to have legs; while the incumbent Shadegg has outraised him and leads in COH, the differences are fairly insignificant, especially when the majority of the fundraising difference is rooted in Shadegg's advantage in PAC money.

This one is going to be a real race and one to keep an eye on.

Note on the note - Mr. Lord will be speaking at the next meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic on next Thursday. More on that in my "events calendar" post later this week.

CD4

Ed Pastor, Democrat* - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71

CD5

Harry Mitchell, Democrat* - $354,638.52; $140,470.52; $214,168.00

Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25

JD Hayworth, Republican - $0; $0; $0, $20,279.70

Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0

CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.

CD6

Jeff Flake, Republican - $225,765.78; $22,500.00; $203,265.78; $749,738.38

CD7

Raul Grijalva, Democrat* - $63,122.02; $0; $63,122.02; $94,425.00

CD8

Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80

Tim Bee, Republican - $134,620.00; $0; $134,620.00; $119,316.25

Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat* - $257,800.05; $96,548.41; $161,251.64; $1,126,838.82
Note: Giffords' info has been corrected by an update; a previous "October" report that was filed in September is NOT the October quarterly report. Oops - I should've caught that in my original post. :(

CD8 note: With a cash on hand total that is slightly more than 10% of Gabrielle Giffords', the fundraising effort of sitting State Senate President Bee can only be termed as "disappointing" for the Republicans.

Of course, I'm a Democrat. :)))))


Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.

The FEC numbers count more. :))

A Sonoran Alliance post on the significance of the numbers in CD5 and CD8 here.

A Sustainablity, Equity, Development post on CD8 is here.

Later!

Quarterly FEC filings are rolling in...

from the various Congressional campaigns. The list isn't complete (the due date is the 15th) but here's a partial summary of reports from active committees (not necessarily active candidates) -

Key: Candidate name, affiliation - total contributions, PAC $, individual contributions, cash on hand

CD1

CD2

Trent Franks, Republican - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87
John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87

CD3

Annie Loyd, Independent - $12139.24; 0; $12139.24; $5001.16

CD4

Ed Pastor, Democrat - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71


CD5

Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25
Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0

CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.

CD6

CD7

CD8

Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80

Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat - $663,297.91; $228,891.49; $434,406.42; $407,041.71

Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.

The FEC numbers count more. :))

Yes, it's a little early for this post, but I work weekends and won't have the time to do a more complete post until early next week.

A third challenger for Harry Mitchell

Note to readers: Much of this post will be familiar material for anybody who has followed LD17 politics.

The following article says that she is "expected" to form a campaign committee, but a quick check of the FEC's website confirms that her organizational paperwork has been filed as of 9/10/2007, just not uploaded to the site.

In other words, she may not have "announced" as yet, but it's official.

From the Business Journal of Phoenix -

Former state lawmaker and conservative newspaper columnist Laura Knaperek is expected to announce that she will challenge U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., in next year's election.

Knaperek has been discussing a possible run with leading Republicans and business advocates and is expected to form a campaign committee, sources say.

Knaperek joins former congressional staffer and business lobbyist Jim Ogsbury and state Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa, as possible candidates.

Brief background on Laura Knaperek:

She has been a regular candidate in what is currently Arizona's Legislative District 17 (formerly District 27). She won seats in the State House of Representatives from 1994 - 2000, lost to Harry Mitchell in the 2002 race for State Senate from the district, returned to the AZ House in 2004, and lost last year during a Democratic sweep of the races in the district.

A sweep that was led by Harry Mitchell's victory in the CD5 contest.

In addition to the columns that she has written for the East Valley Tribune, since her loss in last year's election, she has been working as the Executive Director of an organization called United Families International. The organization, among other things, opposes UN efforts to outlaw forced marriage and gender-selective infanticide.

Note: Her association with UFI was not noted in the Business Journal article.

In a Republican primary, she will stake out the 'pro-life, hardcore social conservative' territory.

Evaluation: She is a seasoned campaigner with name recognition among the Republican voters in the LD17 part of the congressional district (approx. 35% of the total district). However, she has lost two general elections in the district in the last 6 years, one to Harry Mitchell directly and one indirectly.

More importantly, she has low name recognition outside of her base district in Tempe, and some of the rumored candidates who have yet to announce are from the district (LD8) that makes up the largest part of CD5.

That deficit can be changed with a lot of schmoozing, but she is far more socially conservative than the average "Chamber of Commerce" Republican that is the norm in LD8.

In addition, she burned some bridges within her party during the contest for AZ Rep State Party Chair early this year.

She will have a tough time getting out of the primary.


A PDF of her statement of organization will be available at the link once the FEC has it available.

Her 2003/4 legislator financial disclosure form can be found here; 2005 form here; 2001 form here. Note - she didn't have to file a form for the years that she wasn't in the legislature.

Later!