Federal committees update

From the website of the Federal Election Commission -

Republican Olson is a former state legislator and a current member of the Arizona Corporation Commission.  He's also a full-on Trumpkin.

No committee formed as yet, but the latest news is that the (alleged) "Q" in "QAnon" will be running for the AZ1 Congressional seat, currently held by Tom O'Halleran.

From CBSNews -

QAnon promoter Ron Watkins is running for Congress in Arizona

Ron Watkins, long-suspected of being "Q", the mysterious figure behind the QAnon conspiracy theory and one of the leading purveyors of the "Big Lie" that the 2020 election was stolen from President Trump, announced his candidacy for Congress in Arizona this week.

In a video posted to the social media platform Telegram, Watkins said that he was running for the Republican nomination in Arizona's 1st Congressional District to defeat the "dirtiest Democrat in the D.C. swamp," incumbent Congressman Tom O'Halleran, who has held the seat for four years.

AZBlueMeanie of Blog for Arizona offers his take here; in it, he characterizes Watkins as a "carpetbagger" in that he may not actually live in AZ.

Residency is a minor detail to Arizona Republicans. 

Just ask elected, disgraced, indicted, convicted, imprisoned, and now pardoned former AZ1 Congressman Rick Renzi.

While he district-shopped and ended up running (and winning) in AZ, there are questions about whether he ever actually moved out of VA.

Maybe Watkins will beat the curve set by Renzi and be indicted even before the election.

Rick Renzi: From the US House to the Big House

...It was a long and winding road, but the destination is in sight now...

From the Phoenix New Times, written by Ray Stern -

Former Arizona U.S. Congressman Rick Renzi was sentenced today to three years in prison following his June conviction on fraud and corruption charges.

The sentence was a long time coming in this classic case of congressional corruption, but Renzi, a Republican, will finally be doing some hard time. New Times was the first to expose Renzi's disgusting dealings in a 2006 article that preceded his 2008 indictment.

Arizona U.S. District Judge David C. Bury sentenced Renzi in a Tucson courtroom Monday, October 28. Renzi's buddy, real-estate investor James Sandlin, also found out today he'll be serving 18 months in the Big House himself.

While there may be a few political luminaries in Arizona who are as deserving of prison as Renzi, I can't think of any who are *more* deserving.

Anyway, in a just world, he would do his time in the federal correctional institution in Safford, AZ - so far as I can tell, it's the only federal corrections facility located in Renzi's former Congressional district.

In 2008, in preparation for this day, I published a post with the contact information for FCI-Safford; the information still seems to be current.

Now, maybe I'm being a little cynical here, but I don't truly expect him to serve his time in AZ, especially since his current residence is in Fairfax County, VA, just outside of D.C.

However, there's actually a dearth of federal correctional facilities in the D.C. area (Bureau of Prisons map here).

The closest facilities seem to be more than 120 miles away (SW VA, metro Richmond, VA, Cumberland, MD).

So that means the USBOP will probably get a little flexibility on where they house Renzi.

While Renzi has a bit of violence in his history, his history, and the charges he was convicted of, probably don't merit incarceration in places like Leavenworth (KS), Marion (IL), Atlanta (GA) or the Supermax facility in Florence (CO), places that house the most hardened prisoners in the federal prison system.

So what would be the most appropriate place to keep Renzi, someone who is used to being in the middle of luxury, in the middle of "the action", in the middle of *everything*?

Well, while there are some isolated outposts in the federal corrections system, I'd like to nominate FCI-Berlin (NH).

Berlin, NH, is a town located along the Androscoggin River in the White Mountains.

It is a beautiful area.

It is a storied area.

It is an "ass end of nowhere" area.


In other words, a perfect choice for the people looking for a place for Renzi to roost for three years.

Has anybody noticed...

...that despite Russell Pearce's claims of massive support for him in LD18, his campaign finance reports from the 2010 election cycle show that he received a grand total of 7 contributions from LD18 residents, amounting to less than 2.5% of his total for the cycle?  He actually received more money from Fiesta Bowl-affiliated contributors.

Even more telling was the fact that, as far as I can tell, he didn't receive any contributions from his neighbors in his home precinct, Mesa 16.

Hmmm...

...that Arizona is lagging behind most other areas in the country economically, even in this rather tepid national recovery?   The folks at Brookings Mountain West, a joint effort from the DC think tank Brookings Institute and UNLV have in the most recent edition of the Mountain Monitor (Phoenix snapshot here; Tucson snapshot here; snapshots of 100 metropolitan areas available here).

Some Arizona-specific numbers, courtesy the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, dated today, here.

Simple summary of both:  Arizona's economy, while showing occasional signs of growth, is basically stagnant, and it is stagnant at the bottom of the trough.


...that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R-Half term) has ended/suspended (depending on who you ask) her (in)famous national bus tour...brace yourselves...about halfway through?

Insert your own punchline here.


...that (allegedly) corrupt Republican former Congressman Rick Renzi (R-Mantech) failed in his gambit to block a trial on corruption charges?  He argued that his corrupt activities were Constitutionally-protected and he can't be prosecuted for them.  A federal appeals court disagreed.

...Not really a political topic, at least not to the average Arizonan, but the holder of the number one spot on the FBI's most wanted list (ascending there upon the death of Osama bin Laden), James J. "Whitey" Bulger was finally captured in Santa Monica, California on Wednesday night.

Bulger has numerous bodies on his tally sheet, as well as being the main force behind the near-complete corrupting of the Boston office of the FBI in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Even though by all accounts he had been maintaining a low-profile in Santa Monica, society is a safer place tonight.

Later...

Press Release of the Day

And amazingly enough, it doesn't involve Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, or any of Arizona's other nativists masquerading as public officials.

From the website of PR Newswire, a press release from the "Campaign for Working Families" -

Former presidential candidate Gary L. Bauer on Tuesday endorsed former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton in the GOP Senate primary in Colorado, calling her a "committed conservative who will unapologetically defend the commonsense values of the American people."

In and of itself, there's nothing particularly newsworthy there - Bauer is a far-right GOPer endorsing another far-right GOPer in a race that doesn't even involve Arizona (though Colorado is a "four corners" state, so it's one of our neighbors).

The biggest item of interest was the "Campaign for Working Families" part.  It made me wonder if the GOP has finally caught on to the fact that their ideology/policy of striving to protect and serve only large corporations and the wealthiest Americans is limiting their long-term viability as a political force in this country.

Then there is this line later in the press release (emphasis mine) -

The Campaign for Working Families (CWF) exists for the express purpose of supporting candidates who will proudly promote conservative values, such as the defense of the traditional family, the sanctity of human life and the promotion of individual liberty and free enterprise.

Turns out that the only place CWF expresses any concern for "working families" is in its name.

Among the many beneficiaries of its largesse over the years (according to FEC records):

Michele Bachmann, current Congresswoman and noted loon - $16K
Trent Franks, current Congressman and embarrassment to Arizona - almost $20K
Sydney Hay, industry lobbyist and Congresscritter wannabe - $6500
James Inhofe, current Senator and climate change denier - $10K
Rick Renzi, former Congressman and current indictee - $7500
Tom Tancredo - former Congressman and hardcore nativist - $13500

Not a lot of support for working families on that list, or among the hundreds of other candidates/officials that CWF has supported.

I'd call CWF an "astroturf" group, but other than the name, there is relatively little deception going on here - they've made it clear that they only support "working" families that are rich, white, conservative, Christian and don't actually need to work.


CBS News coverage of the Norton race in Colorado here.

Renzi and his lawyers object...

...to a federal judge ruling that the Constitution doesn't protect criminal conspiracies...

From AP via KTAR.com -

Lawyers for former U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi are objecting to a federal magistrate's denial of their motion to dismiss the public corruption case against him on constitutional grounds.

Renzi's lawyers contend that the government violated the U.S. Constitution's speech and debate clause in wiretapping his conversations with aides concerning a failed land swap deal in which he's been accused of conspiracy.

Yup - Renzi and his lawyers want to exclude recordings of conversations concerning legislation by claiming that those conversations are protected under the "speech and debate" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

That clause is in Article 1, section 6 of the Constitution (emphasis mine) -

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

The most obvious problems with Renzi's arguement?


The "speech" wasn't in the House, and it concerned legislation that was the "quo" in a "quid pro quo" conspiracy that involved Renzi using his office for the personal financial benefit of himself and a business associate.


I *really* wish Renzi's trial was going to be held here in the Valley. It's going to be in Tucson, and that is too far for me to travel for what is certain to be a long (as in more than one day) trial.

Guess I'll just have to settle for John Huppenthal's assault trial (two weeks! July 29, San Tan Justice Court in Chandler...unless they put it off again due to the special session).

Later...

Renzi co-conspirator sentenced to prison

From a US Department of Justice press release -

Texas Businessman Sentenced to Prison for False Statements to Federally Insured Bank

WASHINGTON – A Sherman, Texas, businessman was sentenced today to three years in prison for each of two counts of submitting a false statement to a federally insured financial institution, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division Matthew Friedrich announced. The prison terms will run concurrently.

James W. Sandlin, 57, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Richard A. Schell in the Eastern District of Texas. In addition, Judge Schell ordered Sandlin to serve three years of supervised release following his prison term and imposed fines totaling $20,000. Sandlin was indicted on Nov. 15, 2007, and convicted by a federal jury in June 2008.

{snip}

Sandlin is also under indictment along with Congressman Richard G. Renzi on conspiracy, honest services mail and wire fraud, and extortion counts in the District of Arizona. The trial in that case is scheduled to begin on March 24, 2009, in Tucson, Ariz.

I'm not sure what impact, if any, that Sandlin's current conviction will have on the Renzi trial. I'm sure that Mike Bryan at Blog for AZ, lawyer that he is, will have some insight into that aspect.

More on the Renzi/Sandlin indictment from the Washington Post here and The Sunlight Foundation here.

BTW - I don't know about you, but I was hoping that Renzi's trial would be in Phoenix. Just for the sake of being able to be in attendance when he is brought down.

Oh well. Us denizens of Maricopa (and CD1) will just have to read the snarky and insightful reports of Mike Bryan (insightful), Tedski (snarkily insightful), and the other Sonoran bloggers.


Later...

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans rate members of Congress...AZ results

Heads up on this courtesy Ron Pies' AZCentral.com blog...

The grades of AZ's Congressional delegation, from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund -

Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) - A+ - comment: "13 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"

Note: Mitchell has just been endorsed by the VFW Political Action Committee.

Gabrelle Giffords (D-CD8) - A+ - comment: "13 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"

Ed Pastor (D-CD4) - A - comment: "11 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"

Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) - A - comment: "12 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"

Rick Renzi (R-CD1) - A - comment: "11 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"

Trent Franks (R-CD2) - C - comment: "8 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"

John Shadegg (R-CD3) - B - comment: "10 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"

Jeff Flake (R-CD6) - C - comment: "7 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"

John McCain, U.S. Senator and Republican presidential nominee - D - comment: "3 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"

Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator - C - comment: "5 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"


The average grade for the Democratic members of AZ's delegation? 4.25 (A = 4 points, B = 3, etc., with "+" = an additional .5)

The average grade for the Republican members of AZ's delegation? 2.33; without the soon-to-be gone Renzi inflating their grade? 2, barely a C.

OK, so it's not much of a surprise that AZ's Republicans did so poorly on veterans' issues when compared to AZ's Democrats - it's long been common knowledge that Republican 'support our veterans' rhetoric is just that, *rhetoric.*

Not substance.

However, who would have guessed that the biggest drag on the Reps' grade would be John McCain, the former naval aviator who touts his status as a former POW at every turn?

It seems that Rudy Giuliani's "noun, verb, 9-11" meaningless spiel has been replaced by John McCain's "noun, verb, "POW" standard stump speech as the biggest snow job in American politics.

The only veterans McCain is concerned about are himself and those that support him with money or Swift Boat-style ad appearances; the rest mean nothing to him.

Access the entire report card here.

Later!

Congressman Mitchell's response to the letter on the bailout

A few days ago, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell concerning the Wall Street bailout proposal floated by the Bush Administration.

Congressman Mitchell voted against the original proposal (which failed) and voted in favor of the revised bill.

The Congressman's response, via email -

Dear [cpmaz]:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1424, the economic recovery package.

The current economic crisis extends far beyond Wall Street or Washington. It affects us all. If the credit market freezes, then it is going to become dramatically more difficult for anyone to borrow money to purchase a home or a car, or to send their kids to college. Businesses, large and small, will be cut off from the credit they need to stock their shelves and make payroll.

Throughout consideration of this rescue package, I believed that both parties needed to come together to forge a compromise that would protect taxpayers and promote investor confidence. For this reason, I opposed the blank check proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson. And, with less than 24 hours for deliberation and public comment, I voted against H.R. 3997, a modified proposal that House Leaders rushed to the floor on September 29, 2008, and failed by a vote of 205 to 228.

After the House of Representatives rejected these hasty proposals, members of both parties worked together to make significant improvements to this legislation.

H.R. 1424 authorizes the U.S. Department of Treasury to begin an aggressive program to restore liquidity to our nation's credit market. Specifically, it authorizes the Department Treasury to begin buying and re-selling certain mortgage backed securities that are currently preventing lenders from issuing credit. Unlike the lump sum $700 billion pay out in the Paulson plan, the legislation provides the Secretary with an initial $250 billion, followed by another $100 billion upon a Treasury Department report to Congress. The Secretary could then request up to an additional $350 billion, however, Congress will be given 15 days to vote to stop this from happening if it does not approve of how the Secretary is managing the rescue plan, or does not want to commit additional taxpayer funds to it.

I am not happy with everything in the new bill, especially the earmarks that the Senate snuck into the bill at the last-minute. This is precisely the kind of legislating that makes the public so distrustful of Congress and so suspicious when they are asked to support an important economic rescue package. This is disappointing on many fronts, particularly because I spent nearly three decades teaching government at Tempe High School, and I am certain that this is not how our political process was intended to function.

However, inaction would cripple our economy.

To its credit, the new package includes improvements to protect taxpayers and promote investor confidence.

It increases Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and National Credit Union Administration ("NCUA") insurance limits to $250,000. This is not only important protection to individual depositors, but also to small businesses that keep payrolls in banks and credit unions and need to know these funds are secure. This provision was not included in the Paulson plan or the first bill brought to the House on September 29.

In addition, unlike the Paulson plan, H.R. 1424 puts a stop to so-called "golden parachutes" - extravagant exit bonuses to executives who leave companies that may have had a hand in creating the current crisis.

Also, unlike the Paulson plan, H.R. 1424 will protect taxpayers by making sure that the recovery program is subject to oversight and judicial review. Four separate entities will provide constant oversight to ensure efficiency and fairness in the Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP"). This program will buy and re-sell assets from distressed companies, and new provisions for recoupment ensure that costs from the program are not passed on to taxpayers.

The new package will also help many homeowners in danger of foreclosure by allowing the government to work with loan servicers to re-structure mortgages.

Significantly, the new package includes a recoupment provision, which requires the President to submit legislation to Congress in five years to begin recouping any losses incurred by the federal government as a result of TARP from the financial industry in order to make taxpayers whole.

Finally, the new package will extend key tax credits to encourage investments in alternative energies like solar. Right here in Arizona, APS and Abengoa are planning to build the world's largest solar power plant - big enough to power 70,000 homes. Without these tax credits, it will not happen. These investments will be taken overseas. Now, the investments spawned by these tax breaks will help drive our economy forward by creating thousands of jobs and producing more than $4 billion worth of energy over the next 30 years.

I am disappointed that the final package did not extend important cuts to capital gains and estate taxes. These cuts are set to expire and I think the last thing we want to do is have investors worried about a tax increase. Last year, Representative Christopher Shays and I introduced H.R. 3170, Capital Gains and Estate Tax Relief Act, to make these cuts permanent, and I believe that the inclusion of this legislation would have encouraged investment and provided important certainty to our tax code.

However, with an economic disaster looming, I believe we had a responsibility to act. The final package was approved by the U.S. Senate on October 1, 2008 by a 74-25 vote. I voted for, and the House passed the economic package two days later by a bipartisan vote of 263 to 171. The President signed the legislation into law the same day.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about our economy and the government's economic recovery package. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you have additional comments or concerns.

If you would like to receive e-mail updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona's 5th Congressional District, I invite you to sign up for my newsletter at www.mitchell.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

HEM/jw

I haven't actually looked at the revised bailout package, but while it sounds to be a much better package than the original one, I'm still hesitant about anything with a price tag in excess of $700 billion dollars.

Especially when the primary beneficiaries (though not the *only* beneficiaries) are Wall Street CEOs/inveterate gamblers with other people's money.

...As for the rest of the AZ delegation in addition to Harry Mitchell, Democrats Gabrielle Giffords and Ed Pastor, and Republican John Shadegg voted in favor; Democrat Raul Grijalva and Republicans Jeff Flake and Trent Franks voted against.

Later!

Wow! The AZ Congressional delegation can agree on something besides postal facility namings...

Of course, even on those rare occasions when AZ's federal legislators are on the same page, it's for very different reasons...

As has been reported in many places, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the $700 billion bailout bill for Wall Street investment firms, and the entire Arizona delegation voted against it.

Note: more info on the bailout is available from the House Financial Services Committee here.

Their reasons were varied - from the Dems hating it because it didn't contain enough protections for taxpayers to the Reps hating it because it contained some protections.

A number of MSM pundits and writers have opined that the measure was defeated by members of the House who are facing tough reelection battles (AP via TriValleyCentral.com). There may be an element of truth in that idea, but an examination of even just the AZ delegation's situations belies that the notion is universally accurate -

Ed Pastor (D-CD4), Raul Grijalva (D-CD7), and Jeff Flake (R-CD6) are totally safe in their races.

Trent Franks (R-CD2) is close to safe in his, too.

Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) is facing a solid challenger in Tim Bee, but she is solidly positioned herself, and should retain her seat.

Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) is facing a tough fight because of his district's demographics (40K more registered Republicans) and John Shadegg (R-CD3) is facing the fight of his political career (a super-strong challenger in Bob Lord and his retire/unretire two-step earlier this year).

Rick Renzi (R-CD1) isn't even running (something about a federal indictment and upcoming trial).

So only two of the eight AZ Congresscritters who voted against the bailout are facing serious election threats (apologies to supporters of Tim Bee and John Thrasher, but that's the way I see it), yet all eight voted against it.

Simply put, the Bush Administration's bailout proposal was just a bad idea, even for people who believe that a government response to the turmoil in the markets is appropriate.

After all of the finger-pointing dies down (publicly, anyway), look for some sort of bailout proposal to come out of the House, probably with a price tag that's much lower than the Administration's desired $700 billion blank check, and also with some serious safeguards for the taxpayers' money.

At this point though, any changes will probably appeal more to Democrats looking to protect taxpayers' interests than appeal to Republicans looking to use this crisis as an excuse to further deregulate the financial markets.

Don't expect the AZ delegation to be in so much agreement next time.


On the Democratic side, the AZ Star on the reasons that Reps. Grijlava and Giffords voted against the bill here; the Ahwatukee Foothills News on Rep. Harry Mitchell's objections here. Bob Lord's (D challenger in CD3) press release here.

On the Republican side, Rep. Shadegg's op-ed in USA Today is here; a Rep. Flake quote is here (Phoenix Business Journal).

Note2: I'd have linked to the websites of Reps. Giffords and Pastor, but the House website is still experiencing problems related to its heavy site traffic on Monday, and couldn't access those pages.

Note3: ever-loyal (and perceptive!) reader and frequent commenter Elizabeth noted in an email that after the failure of the bailout on Monday, followed by the stock market's precipitous drop, the Washington Post ran this story on the front page of their website.

It chronicles what is truly the greatest crisis facing American society today - the decline in home run totals in Major League Baseball.

Later...

Those Republicans, working to protect America from those darn lawyers*

*well, except for the lawyers who are working for the Republicans as they try to undermine the Constitution...

On Thursday, the House passed H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill passed on a nearly-party line vote of 247 - 178. Every Democrat present supported the bill, as did 14 Republicans.

It should be noted that all four Democratic members of AZ's delegation - Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Mitchell, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - were present and voted in favor of he bill, and all four Republican members of AZ's delegation - Rick Renzi, John Shadegg, Trent Franks, and Jeff Flake - were present and voted in opposition to the bill.

As predicted last week, the Republicans, led by Buck McKeon (R - CA), trotted out the straw man of "oil drilling" and the boogeyman of "trial lawyers" as their rationalizations for opposing the bill.

"Trial lawyers" was the big club during the floor debate, though when the bill went through the House Rules Committee on Wednesday, the Reps proposed seven amendments related to energy (most were to open protected federal lands to oil drilling), however, none of those were made in order by the Committee (that darn 'relevancy' requirement! :) ).

On the floor, however, they kept stressing the point that while of course they opposed pay discrimination against women in the workforce, they had to oppose this bill because it "lines the pockets of the trial lawyers".

Funny, but while they objected to the enforcement provisions in the bill (i.e. - lawsuits), they couldn't be bothered to propose an alternative enforcement scheme; they just wanted to kill the bill (that darn 'protect big business at all costs' plank of the Republican Party platform! :) ).

Their anti-trial lawyer screeds might have had more credibility if they had proposed added gender-based pay discrimination to the list of predicate acts under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 96 of the U.S. Code.

For those of you who aren't Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona, that section of federal law contains the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Just ignore the sound of popping blood vessels coming from the corporate types and their myriad lobbyists and water carriers on Capitol Hill (that darn 'forfeiture of assets' provision :)) ).

OK, OK, so I know that would never happen, even though it would certainly be appropriate in some of the more egregious cases. However, the point is a simple one, and it is a valid one.

The Republicans, who proclaimed very piously their support for equal pay for equal work and for laws guaranteeing such, gave lie to their protestations by working to ensure that current equal pay laws border on unenforceable.

It seems that the "law and order" Republicans only favor enforcing the laws of the land only against poor people and immigrants, not against corporate bigwigs.


Anyway, a press release on this subject from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can be found here; a release from Republican leader John Boehner is here. President George Bush has threatened to veto the bill, though anything can happen during an election year.


The best news for an Arizona Republican, related to this bill, is that Jeff Flake finally had one of his "anti-earmark" amendments pass (by voice vote, of all things).

The addition of that provision didn't stop him from voting against the underlying bill though.

Anyway, have a good night...

FEC reports starting to trickle in

There's only two days until the deadline (July 15), but during an election year, most campaigns wait until the last possible minute to reveal how they're doing financially. It's a tactical thing - they're trying to deny any advantage to their opponents.

So far, only a few candidates have submitted their reports. I'll update with a more complete post later this week.

Because the candidate report pickings are slim, I'll include some info from other committees.

From July reports, unless otherwise noted:

Arizona Libertarian Party - Received $35.00, spent $1.62, cash on hand $5067.56

Arizona Republican Party (June report) - Received $98148.51, spent $96082.28, cash on hand $112626.81. Pretty good month there.

Arizona State Democratic Central Executive Committee (June report) - Received $207242.03, spent $109015.08. cash on hand $117746.50. Hmmmm....better than 'pretty good' month there. Much better. :)


Arizona Cotton Growers Association - Received $550.00, spent $2960.53, cash on hand $5246.92. Interesting contributions by the ACGA - $500 each to John Shadegg, Ed Pastor, and Susan Bitter Smith (all running for Congress); $390 to Kevin Gibbons, running for LD18 state senate.

CVS/Caremark Corporation Employees PAC (June report) - Received $19365.00, spent $82000.00, cash on hand $-16983.00. This particular PAC made this list because it has a Scottsdale mailing address. And it spent over $35K in May alone on contributions to races for the Texas legislature. Be interesting to see what they are trying to buy next session.

AgPAC of the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation - Received $10229.26, spent $1007.00, cash on hand $9222.26. Interesting contributions by AgPAC - $500 to John Shadegg, $250 each to Kevin Gibbons (LD18) and Steve Pierce (LD1), Republican candidates for state senate.


Bob Lord, CD3 challenger (Democrat) - No report yet, but his campaign is claiming a very successful quarter. It wouldn't be surprising if the claim is true - John Shadegg has been out shaking every money tree that he can find; there's probably a reason that he's running scared..


Trent Franks, CD2 incumbent (Republican) - Received $57377.44 ($32084.37 from PACs), spent $32800.56, cash on hand $147351.71.

Rick Renzi, CD1 incumbent, not running for reelection (Republican) - Received nada, spent $141.44, cash on hand $3825.02. Campaign committee debt of $456089.91 (candidate loads to his own election committee and legal fees.)

I just like putting up the Renzi numbers. :))


More later this week!

How do you split 30 pieces of silver 105 ways?

On Friday, the House passed an update of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by a vote of 293 -129. The bill includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush Administration in their efforts to spy on Americans.

In addition to the immunity provision (Title II of the bill) it allows the government to "initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost." (AP)

AZ delegation votes: Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Mitchell, Giffords, Flake - yea; Pastor, Grijalva - nay.

I suppose I could expound at length on why this was a horrible move, but it's late, I'm tired, and work starts early tomorrow, so let me sum up -

To Congressman Harry Mitchell, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the 103 other Democrats who joined the entire Republican caucus (excepting Rep. Tim Johnson of Illinois, who, for some unknown reason, voted against the measure) in supporting the bill that George Bush wanted:

1. One of the rationalizations given to support this bill was that it was "necessary" in order to ensure the safety of Americans. The only problem with that story is that it is put forth by the President and his lackeys, who, as evidenced by the testimony on Friday by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, lie the way that normal people breathe, and have been doing so for nearly eight years.

2. Some of you might say that it was necessary to compromise to get the FISA update passed. Perhaps it was, but when the President gets everything that he wanted, it isn't "compromise," it's "surrender."

3. Each and every one of you should remember that you were elected to work for your constituents' best interests, not the President's. In no way does retroactive immunity for telecoms or decreased judicial oversight of Administration activities benefit your constituents.

'Nuff said.

For those who wonder why the Republicans seem to be getting a free pass on this one, they're just receiving the benefit of *really* low expectations here - expecting them to start showing concern for their constituents or respect for the Bill of Rights at this point would be the height of foolishness and an utter waste of time.


Daniel Patterson at Daniel's News & Views offers his far more succinct take on the situation here.

ACLU press release here.

Good night.

Could Renzi take down both McCain and Kyl with him?

From The Hill -

Federal agents interviewed staffers for likely Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as part of their corruption case against Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.).
U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona Diane J. Humetewa and fellow prosecutors disclosed the interviews with aides for McCain and fellow Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl in a written response to Renzi’s attorneys, who asked for the contents of the interview to help prepare for Renzi’s upcoming trial, which is scheduled for October.

OK, so given that Renzi's trial isn't starting until October, any "taking down" probably won't happen until after the fall elections, if at all. However, it *is* fun to watch how the Renzi scandal just keeps expanding to include some of the most senior members of the GOP members of the AZ delegation to D.C.

With this report, the public count is at four out of the six GOPers - Renzi himself (of course), Kyl, McCain (of course, McCain has land deal and lobbyist issues of his own to deal with), and John Shadegg (those darn wiretaps!)

Wonder if he is going to go for a clean sweep and drag down Trent Franks and Jeff Flake too?

We can only hope...

Stay tuned on this one...

Whew - got scared there for a minute

Here I was, all prepared to write a post criticizing the Democrats in Congress for passing H.R. 6074, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008. The bill passed by a 324 - 84 margin (Giffords, Mitchell, Pastor, Grijalva - yea; Franks, Flake, Renzi, Shadegg - nay).

The reason for my intended criticism was not based on the language in the bill, but on some of the press coverage, which calls the bill a move to allow the U.S. to sue OPEC over high gas prices.

AP coverage here; TimesOnline coverage here; AFR coverage here.

The coverage gives the impression that in an era of record-breaking oil prices, and equally record-breaking oil company profits, that Congress has determined that the best solution is to take foreign nations to court.

Assuming that those nations would even bother to face the U.S. in court, given the low regard for international law that is typically exhibited by the U.S. government.

The U.S. government only participates in that process when it suits them - why should any other country behave any differently when it is the U.S. initiating the proceedings?

Based on the MSM coverage, I thought that the bill was pointless and insipid, and reeked of a little election year pandering, and that's always worthy of criticism.

I was sitting at my keyboard, profoundly disappointed in my fellow Democrats, and when the White House threatened a veto of the legislation, I was worried that my agreement with that position might indicate that I'd hit my head, come down with some sort of mental illness, or just plain had my soul sucked out of me.

Then I read the actual language of the bill, and was greatly relieved to find the real teeth of the measure.

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ANTITRUST TASK FORCE.

The section goes on to delineate some of the areas of interest of the Task Force, including looking for price gouging, market manipulation, anti-competitive behavior, collusive behavior and more.

And it isn't restricted to international cartels and the like. Specifically included are petroleum refiners and wholesalers of gasoline and petroleum products.

In short, the oil companies themselves are in the crosshairs of this bill.

Which thoroughly explains why the White House and the four Republican members of Arizona's delegation so thoroughly oppose the bill.

The "I'm not totally naive" caveats -

It *is* an election year, and I'm fully aware that many of the Democratic supporters of this bill did so to take advantage of the anti-OPEC nature (aka - the "anti-foreigner" nature) of the bill. It's always easier to blame an amorphous "them" for our problems than to tell voters that they might bear some of the responsibility for the creation of and the ultimate solution for the current mess.

In addition, I'm fully aware of the fact that many of the Republicans who supported the bill did so with the full knowledge that it will never become law, either because of a veto they won't vote to override, or because it will die in the Senate.

While this move has some merit (holding Big Oil's feet to the fire is always a good thing), how about an effort to not just wean the U.S. off of *foreign* oil (which is just Republican-speak for "let's destroy ANWR"), but to wean us off of petroleum in general.

Supporting efforts to create something other than the internal combustion engine to power our transportation infrastructure would be a good start, no matter how much Big Oil and Big Auto scream about it.

House Republicans abdicate their professional responsibilities

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass part of H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2008. The part that they failed to pass was the part provided supplemental funding for Bush's occupation of Iraq.

I call today's move a "failure" not because I support continuing to pay for Bush's war, but because the bill wasn't defeated (though much of the MSM coverage will paint it as such), but because the Republicans basically didn't show up.

The final vote - 141 in favor, 149 opposed, 132 present.

All 132 members of the House refusing to take a stand on one of the biggest issues facing our nation today by voting present were Republicans.

As evidenced by the split in the Democratic caucus (85 yeas, 147 nays), this is an issue that deeply divides the country; the Republicans' refusal to take a stand, any stand (even one I disagree with!) nearly constitutes en masse job abandonment.

And 'job abandonment' is grounds for termination of employment.

See you in November.

By the way - the part of the measure that they failed to take a stand on is the part of the bill that would have ensured that there is money to continue paying the troops after June 15.

Can't wait to see how they spin that into "support for the troops."

Other details of today's votes -

The vote split among the Democratic members of Arizona's Congressional delegation reflected the split among the whole caucus - Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) and Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) voted yea; Ed Pastor (D-AZ4) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) voted nay,

Among the Republicans from Arizona, only Rick Renzi (R-AZ1) took a stand, voting yea. John Shadegg (R-AZ3), Trent Franks (R-AZ2), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) all sat on their hands.

A second part of the bill that establishes a timeline for withdrawal passed 227 - 196, with Arizona's delegation splitting along party line - Democrats in favor, Republicans opposed.

The third and final section of the bill, containing some domestic spending such as the new G.I. Bill and unemployment relief, passed 256 - 166, with Democrats Grijalva, Giffords, Mitchell and Pastor, and Republican Renzi supporting, and Republicans Flake, Franks, and Shadegg opposing.

Note: there is an expectation that the Senate will restore the funding portion of the bill and return it to the House for another vote.

Note2: Bush has threatened to veto any supplemental bill that includes any restrictions or timelines (he's not too fond of education benefits for veterans, either.)


The Hill's coverage here.

AP coverage here.

Later!

Small (Shady) World Time - Shadegg, McCain, Myanmar, and TCE

By now, most people have heard how Douglas Goodyear, the man that John McCain and his campaign picked to coordinate his coronation at this fall's Republican convention, had to step aside after word got out of his lobbying ties to Myanmar's repressive regime.

From Newsweek -

...[I]nvestigative ace Michael Isikoff reported that the man chosen by John McCain's presidential campaign to run this summer's GOP convention--Arizonan Doug Goodyear--was causing some headaches within the ranks. The problem? Goodyear is CEO of DCI Group, a consulting firm that earned $3 million last year lobbying for ExxonMobil, General Motors and other clients...DCI was paid $348,000 in 2002 to represent Burma's military junta, leading "a PR campaign to burnish the junta's image, drafting releases praising Burma's efforts to curb the drug trade and denouncing 'falsehoods' by the Bush administration that the regime engaged in rape and other abuses."

Mr. Goodyear doesn't just have shady ties to John McCain and Myanmar's brutal government. In addition to the thousands of dollars that he has given to McCain's various campaigns, he's supported the candidacies of a virtual post office wall-ful of some of the most ethically-challenged (and in many cases, criminally-challenged) politicos to ever run for a term, whether in office or in prison.

The 'who's who' list includes luminaries like indicted Texas Congressman Tom Delay, facing jail over his money laundering indictment, AZ State Treasurer Dean Martin, renowned for his creative use of campaign funds, Congressman Jerry Lewis, who, like McCain, has his own shady lobbyist problems, indicted Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi (R-Mantech), who, like McCain, has his own shady land deal problems, and McCain BFF and CD3 Congressman John Shadegg, who like Delay, has money laundering problems of his own.

What I found interesting, in a "gee, isn't it a small world" sort of way, is that Goodyear's DCI Group is a paid lobbyist for Iowa American Water, a subsidiary of American Water, which also owns Arizona American Water, the company that at least twice in last 7 months has pumped TCE-contaminated water into the homes of some of Shadegg's constituents in Paradise Valley, threatening the health of those constituents and their families.

A threat that Shadegg conspicuously ignored, in favor of campaigning for his BFF, John McCain.

Maybe somebody should tell Shadegg that while giving a free pass to the clients of major campaign contributors isn't necessarily indictable, it's still not a good idea to do so during an election year.

Particularly when facing a strong challenger.


Financial notes -

Goodyear gave $256 to Martin for his state senate run in 2000; $500 to Renzi in 2003; $2000 to Delay in 2004; $3500 to Lewis, via DCI's PAC, in 2006 and 2007; and $6600 to Shadegg, both personally and via DCI's PAC, in 2006 and 2007. Info courtesy the campaign finance websites of the FEC and the Arizona Secretary of State.

Note: This may be the first blog post ever to have a Dean Martin/Jerry Lewis reference that neither harkens back to the great comedy team nor is trying to force a lame Martin/Lewis joke on readers.

I'm rather proud of my self-restraint.

Enjoy the moment, but don't get used to it. :))

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.

Renzi creating problems for his colleagues

From The Hill -

FBI wiretaps picked up the voices of several members of Congress in their conversations with Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.).

The House General Counsel’s office recently notified those members after the Department of Justice (DOJ) told the House lawyers that the lawmakers’ voices had been intercepted during the FBI’s investigation of Renzi’s land deal, according to three GOP sources.

The article did not identify any of members of Congress that were recorded during the FBI's surveillance of Renzi.


Hmmm...it seems that soon, I won't be able to refer to Renzi as "(R-Mantech)."

Nope, soon he will be Rick Renzi (R-Pariah).

Of course, if there is any justice in the world, his "R-Pariah" designation won't last long.

After his trial (and conviction!), he'll become "Rick Renzi (R-FCI Safford).

Sunday Morning Crappie (belated)

My apologies to DB and other faithful readers for the even-more-infrequent-than-I-expected awarding of this dubious (and rather malodorous) honor. Between my work schedule and other demands (the presidential delegate selection caucus - more on that on Tuesday), it's been tough to stay on schedule with these posts.

The first nominee for this week's award has already been mentioned in an earlier post. George W. Bush didn't even wait to be hooked and reeled in - he flip-flopped his way into the boat with his cautions against helping out struggling homeowners at the same time the government was bailing out an investment bank. The only question is was the bailout to help Bear Stearns or was it intended to subsidize JP Morgan's bargain-basement purchase of the now-stabilized Bear Stearns.

The second nominee is...the ever-conscientious George W. Bush, who, after saying that he doesn't think that measures to help those affected by the looming recession and the mortgage crisis should be too strong, turned around and urged Congress to do something about the economy.

Of course, what he wants Congress to do is make his tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, enacting 'free-trade' deals to ease the offshoring of American jobs, cutting pork spending (leaving more money in the budget for Halliburton and other beneficiaries of no-bid contracts.

I suppose it could be argued that there's no flip-flop here - he doesn't want anything done to help the average American, whether by him or by Congress.

However, as strong a case as Bush has presented this week (OK, presents *every* week :) ), the third nominee and winner is Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party.

On the flip side in his blog, he criticized AZ Governor Janet Napolitano by associating her with the travails of soon-to-be-former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer. He excoriated Spitzer for cheating on his wife with a prostitute.

However, on the flop side, he has yet to call for the resignation of indicted Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi, saying only that he thinks that Renzi "will do what is best for his family, constituents and party."

A couple of minor points here - Spitzer's behavior, while utterly deplorable, involved consenting adults; the only betrayal was his betrayal of his wife and marriage; Renzi's behavior, however, has involved betraying his entire Congressional district and his oath of office (as well as assorted fraud, extortion, and money laundering statutes.)

He hurt many thousands of people with his misdeeds; arguably, Spitzer hurt only his family and himself.

For spewing a shameless double standard like Bush, but doing so in a down-home, Arizona-centered way, Randy Pullen is this week's "winner" of the Sunday Morning Crappie.


Thanks to Emily Bittner of the Arizona Democratic Party for noticing Pullen's flip, wiggle and flop. She deserves a raise - anyone who has to read Pullen's tripe as part of their job isn't getting paid enough. :))

Thank you Harry...

Earlier today, in spite of Republican tactics that reeked of hysteria, grandstanding, and attempts to baldly intimidate them, Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) and 212 other Democrats approved the House version of H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

The House version did not include the main clause that the President and the other Republicans in D.C. wanted, the one that retroactively granted immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping in the past.

The final vote was 213 - 197, 1 voting 'present.' The voting in the Arizona delegation fell along party lines - Democrats Giffords, Grijalva, Pastor, and Mitchell voting 'yea'; Republicans Flake, Franks, Renzi, and Shadegg voting 'nay.'

Last August, I criticized Harry Mitchell and the Blue Dogs for voting for a very bad bill, one that didn't require judicial oversight of electronic surveillance; it's only fair that I compliment him and them (mostly, anyway - 12 Dems crossed over today) now.


They've earned it.


Washington Post coverage of today's vote here.

WaPo coverage of President Bush's remarks on the topic yesterday here (summary: he says that he will veto any bill without immunity.)

White House statement on today's vote here.

ACLU statement on today's vote here.

Later!