David Schapira - the positive candidate in CD9

Two negatives don't make a positive...but two overwhelmingly negative candidates may help propel the positive candidate in a race to a win.

The CD9 Democratic primary has become very negative.  Not as negative as the Rs in CD6 (Schweikert v. Quayle) where they are gay-baiting, or as the negative as the Rs in CD4 (Gosar v. Gould v. Murphy) where during their debate on KAET's Horizon one was left with the impression that if Gosar and Gould had knives, there would have been blood on the floor.

Still, in CD9, the half-truths and outright lies have been flying about with increasing frequency.

Kyrsten Sinema put out a mailer that attacks both of her opponents, Andrei Cherny and David Schapira, claiming that both Schapira and Cherny support public education-destroying school vouchers.  I can't speak for Cherny (don't know him that well), but in the six years that David Schapira has been representing me in the Arizona Legislature, he has always been a staunch defender of public education.

There is also a PAC/independent expenditure group named "Restoring Arizona's Integrity" that has spent more than $50K attacking Cherny.  That group has ties to the Sinema camp - the organizers of the committee are long-time lobbyists in AZ and the head of the lobbying firm has contributed to Sinema's campaign.

Another group, "Progressive Independent Committee" has begun weighing in with "hit pieces" (aka - negative mailers) against Sinema, against Sinema and Schapira, and robocalls (against Sinema, I think; not sure because I didn't get one of those).  The combo hit piece compared Schapira and Sinema to Republicans Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio. 

Like many Democrats in the district, I have formed opinions of all three Ds in the CD9 race.  While most of us now support one candidate over the other two, that doesn't mean we believe that the other two are stupid and/or evil.  This particular mailer isn't just nasty, it may border on libel (and that's tough to pull off when talking about politicians).

That group is more shadowy.  Its organizer, Matthew D. Langley, is a political operative based in Tennessee.  His firm, MD Langley & Associates, has been administratively dissolved by the Tennessee Secretary of State for failure to file annual reports -

The filing problems continue with Langley, as he has been lax in filing Independent Expenditure reports for the committee, filing only one report (for the initial anti-Sinema mailers) but not doing so for his/the committee's other activity (the mailer that railed against both Sinema and Schapira and the robocalls).

Anyway, this committee seems to be the Cherny committee.  If the targets of its vitriol don't make that clear enough, how about this -

Langley used to work for a firm called Patton Technologies as Director of Compliance, and early in his campaign for Arizona Treasurer, Andrei Cherny hired, you guessed it, Patton Technologies.

Note to Mr. Langley if he bothers to read this: A "Director of Compliance" shouldn't have filing issues on his resume.  Just sayin'...


The negative blasts from from the Cherny and Sinema camps seem to be working against them and boosting Schapira, who has been running an unfailingly positive campaign - a recent poll (published in the Yellow Sheet, so I cannot link to it) shows Schapira with a small lead in the race, and a reception with former Congressman Harry Mitchell on Saturday night was just packed.

Next Wednesday,  the Arizona Democratic Party will hold the 2012 Forward Together unity rally in Phoenix. 

I have no doubt that regardless of the outcome of Tuesday's primary, David Schapira will be there to support all Democratic candidates.  I can't say I believe the same about the others.

And that fact, combined with his relentlessly positive campaign and the fact that he is the candidate most concerned with the people of the Ninth Congressional District, is why David Schapira is the best candidate in the race.

With a move calculated to stave off imminent lame-duck status, Jan Brewer only gets lamer

The Obama Administration is rolling out a "deferred action" policy, affecting undocumented immigrants.  Under the policy, eligible undocumented immigrants can apply for a deferral of removal proceedings (aka - deportation) for a renewable two-year period.

Approval for the program will not confer "legal" status upon the affected immigrants, though they may receive authorization to legally work in the US during the deferral period.

Naturally, the nativists have wigged out.

Arizona's highest-ranking nativist, Governor Jan Brewer (in comparison to Arizona's rankest nativist, Russell Pearce) weighed in with her two cents' worth, issuing an executive order to make sure that undocument immigrants can't get any public benefits, something which they *aren't* granted by the President's new policy.

Yes, this means that Brewer issued a meaningless executive order to counter President Obama's meaningful one.

Now, it could be that Chuck Coughlin (aka - the person who really controls the Ninth Floor) may have taken a day off, and this is completely the product of Brewer's intellect, but it seems likely that this order is really intended to remind legislative Republicans that she is still the governor. 

A reminder that she hopes finds its mark, because she is rapidly approaching political irrelevance.

Once the new legislature is seated, she will be viewed mostly as a bystander by the Rs in the lege, as they jockey for position for the 2014 race for the office she currently holds.  Each and every one of them will be focused on throwing elbows as they position themselves for a run at the office or to ally themselves with the person they consider to be the strongest candidate.  Since she's term-limited, she cannot be that person, hence she is totally meaningless in their world (this part isn't a dig at Brewer, it just *is*.  She's not the first officeholder this could be said about, and she won't be the last).

So, Jan Brewer thinks that her path to continued relevance is to issue an irrelevant order?


Personally, I actually hope that Coughlin was out of town or getting a root canal or something, anything, that left a Nurse Ratched wanna-be in charge of the asylum for a day.

And only a day.

Arizona is in bad enough shape with Brewer as the titular head of Arizona's government; if she actually runs things (say...if Coughlin moves on to the next puppet "client" before the 2014 election), there may not be much of an Arizona left for the winner of the 2014 election to govern.

OK, this last part *is* a dig at Brewer.  As if you couldn't tell. :)

NY Times coverage of the deferral program here.
CBS News coverage of Brewer here.

The Ryan pick: It ain't over 'til it's over

By now, pretty much everybody who follows American politics has heard the news:  Mitt Romney has selected Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential candidate.

And *Democrats* are overjoyed. 

Ryan is the architect of the infamous Ryan Budget Plan that would, if enacted, basically end Medicare for America's seniors (among many other programs) and massively increase spending on defense (aka - funnel even more taxpayer to defense contractors).

Democrats view Ryan as "low-hanging fruit", somebody who will be easy to campaign against as an Ayn Rand-worshipping would-be Galtian superman who wants to dismantle all parts of government and society that don't directly support the wealthy.

While most observers expect Romney to receive a post-announcement "bump" in public opinion polls (that are currently favoring President Obama by a solid margin), continuing through the Republican convention in Tampa, they expect the numbers to return to "normal" once the Democratic convention in Charlotte begins.

Which is all well and good, but just a reminder - Jimmy Carter, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and even John McCain all had leads, sometimes significant ones, in their presidential races, but still lost.

At this point, it's all about follow-through, about entering the final few months of the campaign with as much focus and energy as the last few months and finishing strong.

This one is a long way from over.


Having said all that, I've got a few thoughts on the Ryan pick -

1.   Ryan could be this year's version of Sarah Palin.  No, not in the "crash and burn on the campaign trail as preparation for a reality TV gig" sort of way, but in the "like McCain before him, instead of trying to reach for the middle to gain new votes, Romney chose a VP candidate meant to solidify his support among the far-right of his own party, aka people who were never going to vote for Obama anyway" sort of way.  Maybe that will work out for Romney; history says not.

2.  As happy as Democrats are over this pick, that's got to be nothing compared to the ecstasy that John Boehner, the R Speaker of the US House, is feeling right now.  One of the biggest threats to Boehner's position as leader (and a strong ally of the biggest threat, Eric Cantor) of the Republican caucus in Congress is either a) going to be out of Congress (if Romney pulls out a win) or b) going to be saddled with a hefty chunk of the blame for the Rs' failure to take the White House (if Romney loses).  Either way, a W for Boehner.

3.  Of course, the selection of Ryan as the VP candidate also anoints him as the "next big thing" and presumptive R nominee in 2016 (if Romney loses) or 2020 (if Romney wins).  Former VPs and VP candidates haven't fared too well in their runs for the top spot, but being a former VP/VP candidate beats *not* being a former VP/VP candidate.

4.  However the national election turns out, the Ryan pick may be beneficial to downballot Democrats in Arizona, and maybe even increase the chances of President Obama to carry Arizona.  While the presence of Romney on the ballot will elevate the turnout of the Mormon community looking to support one of their own in his run for the White House, the presence of Ryan on the ballot will elevate the turnout of the retiree community looking to protect Medicare and Social Security.


I'm sure that there will be more to come on this subject...

More victories in '12

The second post in a series from Jerry Gettinger, a friend and a delegate to the 2012 Democratic Convention in Charlotte...

In the last communique I promised to explain why it was important that I declare my representation as a delegate for a particular candidate. Since there is an incumbent, it is assumed that the president would be candidate and the VP would also run. However, if there was no one in office, then my declaration of candidacy would mean that I was obligated to vote for the candidate that I stipulated in my application. The vote would be binding on the first tally. After that I could vote for whomever I chose.

However that is only important if there is a convention where there is more than one candidate. At any rate, I declared for the president and the VP. By the rules there would be only a certain number of voting delegates. As I mentioned before, the number of delegates was based on the number of Democrats in the state. So, the race was on! The contest was between a relatively large number of candidates vying for the positions. There would be a total of 46 elected delegates, of which I was fortunate to be one. The 46 was in addition to the PLELO delegates.(party leaders). This year was more desirable because of the president. There would be no contest as to who would be the candidate. Just fun.

It is August 6^th. The time is rapidly approaching when I would leave. It will be very exciting to see democracy in action. I can’t say that I will write again until the start of the convention. If anything of interest and/or importance comes about, then I will make certain it will be conveyed. If not, I’ll see you from Charlotte.

Later...

Campaign and committees update

...Damn!  Stop paying attention to committee formations after the deadline for filing for August's primary election and you can miss some developments involving familiar names.  I know I did.


Perused the Maricopa County Recorder's list of candidates for offices that go directly to the November ballot, and a few names ring a bell.  Loudly.

- Terry Goddard, former AZ Attorney General and the Democratic nominee for governor in 2010, is running for a spot on the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), better known as the governing board of the Central Arizona Project (CAP).  They oversee the delivery of Arizona's share of water from the Colorado River to central and southern Arizona.

- Also running for CAWCD:  Brett Mecum.  The scandal-plagued former executive director of the AZGOP (speeding tickets, stalking women, etc.) was last seen "helping" southern AZ's favorite bully, State Sen. Frank Antenori, run for Congress.  Apparently, that campaign crashed and burned didn't work out as well as Antenori hoped (OK, he got his butt kicked).

- Jean McGrath.  She is currently on the board, but she is waging a primary challenge against Max Wilson for the District 4 seat on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.  Given that she has roughly 1/10 of the money for her campaign that Wilson has, maybe she's read the writing on the wall and set her sights a little lower.

- Because of the late date of the removal of Phillip Woolbright from the office of Arrowhead Justice of the Peace, the candidates to replace him have to run as write-ins.  There are currently six registered candidates - Debra Boehlke, Melanie Deforest, David Hickman, Francisco Meneses, Patrick Montgomery, and George Mothershed.

Don't know much about any of them, but there was a "Francisco Meneses Jr." who was a candidate for JP in the Maryvale Precinct who withdrew from that race after submitting his nominating petitions  Hmmm...

...Sasha Glassman, wife of 2010 Democratic nominee for US Senate Rodney Glassman, is running for a seat on the Madison Elementary SD.  OK - four candidates for four seats - she's going to win.

...Don Hawker, perhaps the one person in Arizona who can make the folks at the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy seem reasonable on the right of women to control their own bodies (he blames everything that he considers "bad" in America, and that is a very long list, on his God's displeasure with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision) is running for a seat on the board of the Tempe Union High School District.  He ran for the lege from Tempe in 2010, and got thumped in a Republican wave year.  Three seats, five candidates; he may find a way to come in sixth.

- In a quick update to a post I wrote on the lack of school board candidates, by Wednesday's filing deadline, 207 people had filed for 170 seats up for election.  However, that number means that many of the seats will be uncontested, or at least under-contested (i.e. - fewer than two candidates for each of the seats on the ballot).

For example...

...only two candidates filed for the three seats on the ballot for the Agua Fria SD board.

...only four candidates filed for the three seats on the ballot for the Mesa Unified board.  Meaning that there is a 3/4 chance that winger Jerry Walker will be given access to the futures of Mesa's schoolchildren.

Later...

Democrats: Beware Republican front groups bearing endorsements

This being a year in which Democrats are expected to make some serious gains (yes, even in Arizona), many groups noted for their slavish, even monomaniacal, support of all things and candidates Republican are wading into the Democratic side of the ballot.  They've been issuing endorsements and spending money in D primaries.

Generally speaking, there are just to "primary" reasons to do so (yes, pun intended :) ) -

1.  They're trying to give a boost to a candidate they consider to be weaker in a general election.  The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) tends to go this route (note: their "Endorsements" page is blank for some reason, but they have issued endorsements in the past and in the current election cycle).

2.  They think that the candidate in question will be receptive to their entreaties if/when the candidate wins the election.

AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has noticed such activity in a race in southern AZ, and now there is evidence of it here in Maricopa County.

A assemblage of "independent" expenditure groups has paid for and released a mail piece supporting Ken Cheuvront in the LD24 race for state senate against current State Representative Katie Hobbs.

A quick look at some of the listed sponsors of the piece:

The Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce?  Headed by Todd Sanders?  Endorsed Jan Brewer for Governor in 2010.  And Sanders worked for the Republican caucus in the AZ House until a few years ago.

The Arizona Cattlemen's Association?  Headed by Bas Aja?  The last time I looked, there wasn't any ranch land in LD24, which covers a swath stretching across south Scottsdale and central and eastern Phoenix.  And Aja?  He's a Republican PC in Buckeye.


A mailer from Cheuvront's campaign touts another "special" endorsement -

The Arizona Multi Housing Association (AZ MHA)?  This one may actually be about the *next* election.  One of the most persistent rumors in AZ's political circles is that Cheuvront is going to run for Justice of the Peace in two years because a term as JP will quadruple his elected official pension.

The Multi Housing Association's members tend to be involved in evictions.  Lots of evictions.

And JPs?  They adjudicate evictions.  Lots of evictions.

Think the AZ MHA would like a JP who's inclined to turn a blind eye when they cut a few corners in the eviction actions?

Bonus endorsement quibble:  The endorsement that's implied, but not directly claimed.  Mostly because the endorser actually supports another candidate.

Check out the quote from former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.

It makes it seem as if he has endorsed Cheuvront, yet doesn't directly state that as fact.

Which is good for Cheuvront, because Gordon actually endorsed Katie Hobbs.

Oopsie.


Note:  In the interests of full disclosure, not that I've tried to hide it, I support and have already voted for Hobbs.

Dear NRA: What's the magic number?

We have the "small" numbers -

- Six people killed and three wounded by a white supremacist at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.

- At least 12 killed and 30 wounded at a movie theater in Colorado.

- Six killed and another dozen injured at a supermarket in Tucson.

- Four people killed by another white supremacist in AZ.

- A 16-year old boy killed in northern California.

- A 30-year old man killed in Nevada.

- And on...and on...and on...and on...

All leading to a *BIG* number - 30,000+ gun-related deaths per year (per the Centers for Disease Control).

Firearms enthusiasts/fetishists (use whichever term you prefer) will claim that more people die as a result of car accidents every year, and based on the CDC data linked above, that's true.  By approximately 3000 victims.

They can make that claim, but it's a false equivalency, for a couple of reasons.

- As these USDOJ statistics of non-fatal gun incidents show, the number of victims of gun incidents is always larger than the number of incidents.

In short, if there is an "incident" involving a firearm, it is more likely than not that someone will be injured or killed in each *incident*.

However, there are billions of motor-vehicle person-trips per year with literally *trillions* of passenger miles-driven each to reach ~35K motor vehicle deaths per year (2009 number).  Even adding in non-fatal injuries to the total, there were ~9.5 million motor vehicle accidents in the US in 2009 that resulted in slightly less than 2.3 million injuries or deaths.

In short, if there is an "accident" involving a motor vehicle, there is less than one chance in four that it will result in a death or injury (US Census Bureau statistics).

- In addition, when someone is injured or killed by a motor vehicle, it is almost always an accident or the result of the use of that motor vehicle in a manner for which it wasn't designed; when someone is killed by a firearm, it is frequently deliberate and a result of using said firearm for the exact purpose for which it was designed.

Yet the NRA and other gun enthusiasts/fetishists (again, your choice) are implacably opposed to even discussing ways to reduce gun violence in the US.

They've made a value judgement - their ability to obtain, carry, and use firearms, virtually unfettered by any constraints from civil or criminal law is more important than the lives of thousands of innocents.

As harsh as that sounds, I could have accused them of making a crasser, and far more cynical, value judgement, one where they actually welcome the litany of "firearms incidents" in the country because they lead to more revenue and profits for firearms manufacturers.

I don't know if anyone from the NRA/gun lobby will read this, or would dare to admit it if they did, but if they happen to do so, I have a couple of questions for them -


How many guns have to be sold before your benefactors in the firearms industry find that even their unbridled avarice is met?

How many innocent people have to die before your bloodlust is satiated?

What's the magic number?

Maricopa County school board candidates: time is running short

School board candidates have until Wednesday at 5 p.m to turn in their signatures, so there is still time, but it doesn't look like there will even be enough candidates to fill all of the seats up for election, much less enough for the elections to be contested.

Note: The Arizona School Boards Association has information on school boards and members here.

Per the Maricopa County Education Service Agency (a watered-down name for the county school department, much like public education has been watered in Arizona), there are 170 school board seats up for election in Maricopa County this year.

However, as of Friday, only 74 candidates had even submitted nominating petitions.

One race worth keeping an eye on is that for Mesa Unified #4.  It has three seats up for election and only two people have submitted sigs.

And one of them is Jerry Walker.

Walker was once a member of the governing board of the Maricopa County Community College District, where he was most noted for his use of his office to at a platform for pushing his bigotry upon the College community, and for using his office to intimidate and harass any student, staff, or faculty member who dared to disagree with him.

He makes Russell Pearce look like a cuddly "puddy tat". 

I haven't had a chance to look at the other candidates yet and won't do so until the ballots are set, but some of the candidates/potential candidates in the southeast valley area of Maricopa County look to be more than a little sketchy.

Later...

Primary Ballot Time - 2012

Well, for those who vote by mail, this week was a big week - ballots for the August primary election have started hitting mailboxes across the state.

Here's mine -

In the contested races that are visible in the pic, I voted for David Schapira for Congress (more on that below), Katie Hobbs for State Senate, and Chad Campbell and Lela Alston for State House.  On the other side of the ballot, it was Paul Penzone for Maricopa County Sheriff, John Washington for Mayor of Scottsdale, and Denny Brown for Scottsdale City Council (so far, I'm single-shotting Brown, but we can vote for up to three candidates in that race.)

As for the race for Congress -

While all three candidates have their good points, and all are basically on the right side of the "big issues", only one will do the best job of representing the Ninth Congressional District. That one is David Schapira. He is a "what you see is what you get" kind of candidate - honest, direct, and straightforward. His primary concern is working to make this a better community, by supporting education, health care opportunity, small business, and all of the things that help make a community a *home*. I'm proud to call him my state senator and prouder still to call him a friend.

He will be Arizona's next great Congressman.

The Pearce emails: the deeper you dig, the more nuggets you find

I know it's been a few weeks since they came out, and this is a bit of "old news", but the hundreds of pages of Russell Pearce's bigoted emails are still turning up nuggets.  In this case, he is thoroughly willing to misuse quotes and science to serve his bigoted ends.

To whit:  on page 20 of the linked .pdf file, Pearce quotes a Democrat, President Harry S. Truman -

I think that the line was actually first used in the 1948 presidential campaign, but to be fair to Pearce, that issue of Look magazine may have contained an interview or quote from Truman.  Given that Pearce was born in 1947 (or so says his Wikipedia bio), he was probably too young in 1948 to pay attention to presidential candidates, and by 1956, if he was soaking up wisdom at the (metphorical) knee of any "Democrat", it was probably Bull Connor.

But whether it was 1948 or 1956, either way, Truman wasn't talking about immigration or immigrants.

To whit2:  On page 45 of the same file, Pearce forwarded material that admits the reality of global warming and other environmental concerns, matters that Republican orthodoxy either minimizes or calls an outright hoax -

Now, it seems as if the phenomena cited were meant to serve as points arguing against all immigration (not just the undocumented variety that Pearce claims is all that he is concerned with), but hey, it's a start.  :)

Andy Tobin: AZ House Hypocrite-In-Chief

Laurie Roberts, a columnist for the Arizona Republic has mounted a public awareness campaign/series of columns called "De-kookify the Capitol".  In it, she shines a light on some of the looniest members of the lege.

And being a pretty honest person, Roberts' had to select Republicans as the kookiest members of the lege (one of the downsides of having a supermajority is that the kooks get to run wild.  And run they did...)

Naturally, House Speaker Andy Tobin had to weigh in on the matter, even though he wasn't named as one of the "kooks" (and trust me, if I had written the list, it would have had 61 names on it, including his).

He responded with an op-ed piece published in the Republic, excoriating Roberts for daring to criticize the members of the lege, and the Republic for publishing that criticism.

Most All of it is utterly hypocritical BS, and Tobin sets the tone for his piece in the opening sentence (emphasis mine) -

Only The Arizona Republic would allow one of its employees to disrespect public servants...

Tobin and his cohorts have spent years disrespecting teachers, police officers, firefighters, highway workers, and any other people who serve the public by working to make society a more educated, safer, and smoother-functioning place.

Tobin et. al. have mounted repeated attacks on teachers (union busting bills), all state employees (turning the state's merit protection employment system into a winner-takes-all spoils system controlled by politicians), public safety (guns on campus), democracy (birther bills, interfering in municipal elections), women's rights to control their own bodies (anti-choice and anti-contraception bills), Arizona's future fiscal stability (massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy) and Arizona's Latino population (creating a state-sponsored militia force to target Mexican immigrants, among *many* other bills).

What they haven't done is pass any bills that actually *help* the public, even refusing to change a couple of words in Arizona law that would have allowed long-term unemployed Arizonans to receive a few more weeks of federal unemployment benefits.  A change that would have cost the state absolutely nothing.

However, Tobin tries to wrap himself and his gang caucus in some sort of mythical "public servant" cloak that he apparently believes immunizes him (and the rest of the wingnuts in his caucus) from criticism.

Such immunity from criticism doesn't exist, even for actual public servants.  If it did, much of the time, the lege would have nothing to spout off about.  OK, other than women, Latinos, members of the LGBT community, other racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities, people who disagree with them, black helicopters, UFOs...

And the only way that Tobin et. al. can be considered "public servants" is if "public" is defined as "lobbyists ranging from Cathi Herrod to Chuck Coughlin and all of the wingnuts and corporate stooges in between".

Last Day To Register To Vote In The August Primary

Pic courtesy Mi Familia Vota - Arizona

Today, July 30, is the deadline to register to vote in the August primary election in Arizona.  One can register online here at ServiceArizona.com.

In Maricopa County, an early/mail-in ballot can be requested here.
In Pima County, an early/mail-in ballot can be requested here.
In Pinal County, an early/mail-in ballot can be requested here.
In Coconino County, an early/mail-in ballot can be requested here.
In Yuma County, an early/mail-in ballot must be requested in writing.  The form for that can be downloaded here.

For the other counties in AZ, contact your county's Elections Department (hint:  the search terms should be your county's name, the word "county", and the word "elections") and follow the procedures laid out.  In all cases, you should be registered to vote before you request and early ballot.


Later...

It should be an active third party expenditure year

...I don't mean that the Libertarians, Greens, or some other party will experience significant electoral success, but that there will be a *lot* of "third party" spending to influence elections (meaning spending from non-candidate and non-political party groups).  And not just at the federal level, either (which is what this post is about).

There have been a large number of new state-level committees formed this year to serve as conduits for election-influencing money.  A sampling, with filer ID number (for now, I'm only looking at committees with filer IDs issued in 2012, and leaning toward those that have reported accepting/expending money, though there will be exceptions to that) -

PACs -

Arizona Entrepreneurs, 201200147, chaired by Meredith Munger, who appears to be an operative for the AZGOP.  No candidate-focused expenditures reported as yet.    

Arizona Leadership Fund, 201200486, chaired by Doug Ducey, Arizona's state treasurer.  Just speculating here, but it looks like something set up to provide cover for him to dole out money to GOP candidates/buy supporters for a 2014 reelection run/possible run for governor.  Not illegal (so far as I know); not even terribly unethical.  Just not terribly subtle, either.  No non-operational expenditures/disbursements reported as yet.

Arizona Liberty Project LLC, 201200104, chaired by Mark Spinks, a former Congressional candidate and indecent exposer.  Has already given money to candidates Steve Smith, Steve Montenegro, and Russell Pearce, R wingers one and all.

Arizona Project PC, 201200242, chaired by Debra McGrew, who appears to be a tea party-type.  No non-operational expenditures/disbursements reported as yet.

arizona teachers association, 201200416, chaired by John Jay Hedgepath.  No expenditures reported as yet, but already infamous - it turns out this "teachers association" doesn't include people who are "teachers" by the normal definition of the word (you know, the definition that includes a classroom).  Possibly formed to serve as a front group for Russell Pearce.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Arizona PAC, 201200148.  It's a law firm's PAC, chaired by Janna Day, an attorney with the firm, and "treasurered" (is that even a word?  :) ) by Michael Preston Green, a widely-known AZ lobbyist/legal hired gun.  They've already doled out thousands of dollars in contributions to office holders and candidates.  The recipients of their largesse are mostly Republicans, though a few corpora-Dems are on the list, too.

Healthcare Professionals for American Rights, 201200415.  No expenditures reported as yet, but it was created on the same day as the "arizona teachers association" above, by the same two people.  Don't expect authentic "healthcare professionals" to be involved with this; do expect pro-Russell Pearce snipes and press releases.

People's Rights, 201200459, chaired by Peter Bayardi, who apparently is a tea-party type.  No expenditures reported as yet.

Southern Arizona Conservative PAC, 201200522, chaired by Donald Woolley.  Some activity, but the most interesting is a two-step where the committee accepted money from State Sen. Frank Antenori's constituent services account and then turned around and made contributions to Antenori's failed campaign for Congress (June 30th report).  There was also a transfer from Antenori's federal committee to the state-level PAC.

There may be a couple of "oopsies" here.

1.  None of the available reports from Antenori's constituent services account shows the expenditures.  They should.  If a nickel is spent on a piece of penny candy (what can I say?  Inflation has taken its toll :), it must be tracked and reported.

2.  State law covering officeholder accounts.

From ARS 41-133 -

F. An officeholder shall not transfer officeholder account monies to any other account or committee except for another officeholder account for that same officeholder.

Not a lot of wiggle room with "shall not transfer".

There are also questions about the transfers of funds between a state-level PAC and a federal campaign committee.  It is allowable under certain, limited, circumstances, but I'm not sure if this is one of them or not.  I have an email out to the FEC, and will update when/if they reply.

Update on 30 July -

Christian Hilland, a spokesperson for the FEC, replied to my emailed inquiry by pointing out some possibly applicable areas of the FEC's rules:

Page 52 of the FEC's Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf

Non-Campaign Related Expenses
Campaign funds may be used for the following purposes that are not related to the candidate’s campaign for federal office:

• Unlimited transfers to any national, state or local party committee. 113.2(c).

• Donations to state and local candidates, subject to the provisions of state law.


Page 61 of the FEC's Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf

Transfers from Candidate’s Nonfederal Committee Are Prohibited
A candidate’s authorized (federal) committee may not accept funds or assets transferred from a committee established by the same candidate for a nonfederal election campaign. At its option, however, a nonfederal committee of the same candidate may refund its leftover funds to its contributors and may coordinate arrangements with the federal campaign for a solicitation of those same persons. The full cost of this solicitation must be paid by the federal committee. 110.3(d). See also AO 1996-33.

I'm not sure, and perhaps one of the attorneys in the AZ blogosphere, will add their knowledge and experience to this discussion, but these sections don't seem to apply directly to the situation here, at least not entirely.  They do seem to allow the transfer of federal money to state-level committees under certain circumstances, but I don't think that this situation is quite covered by these sections.

However, the transfer of $295.44, with a memo "date of contribution" of March 6, 2012, was not reported on his Congressional committee's "pre-special election" report which covered that period of time, or in the "July Quarterly" report, which covered the period including May 17, 2012, the date of the entry in the receiving PAC's report.  The two contributions *from* the state-level PAC *to* the Congressional campaign were reported, however.

This stuff doesn't actually clear up much, but it's a start.

In the event the above two links don't work to bring up the reports, go to this FEC search page, and input the name "Antenori".  On the next page, select C00500926.  After that, select the appropriate report.

End update...

Southwest Solutions, 201200457, formed by the same people on the same as "People's Rights", above.  No expenditures reported as yet.

Veterans Against Losing Our Republic (V.A.L.O.R.), 201200538.  The organizers are a tea-party type and a Republican former candidate for the lege.  No expenditures reported as yet.

Vote No Arizona, 201200392.  Not sure what they want us to vote "no" on, but since one of the organizers is a tea-party type, they're probably against anything that would benefit Arizona.  No expenditures reported as yet.



Independent expenditure committees -

Arizona Deserves The Best, 201200063.  This one was formed by GOP "consultant" Constantin Querard to funnel money to Russell Pearce during the recall election last year.  Through May 31 of this year, they don't report any expenditures on 2012 races, but it's still early.  And Pearce is in some desperate straits in his campaign to return to the legislature.

Arizona Voter Education Fund, 201200584.  Chaired by Max Fose, a GOP operative/former McCain staffer.  Just guessing here, but something tells me that this would be better named the "Arizona Voter Mis-education Fund".  The committee is so new that no reports have been filed yet.

Arizonans for An Honest Government, 201200583. Chaired by one Floyd Brown, who the guiding light behind a faux journalism (and stridently anti-Obama and anti-Democratic) website.  No reports filed as yet.

Coalition for Freedom and Prosperity, 201200152.  Chaired by one Jeff Smith of Gilbert, who I think is the same Jeff Smith who has tried to mount a primary challenge to Jeff Flake, attacking Flake from the right (not exact a lot of room to work with to the right of Flake).  I'm not sure because his name serves as spectacularly poor search terms.  :)


Look for many more such committees to spring up between now and the elections.

Later...

Fun with campaign signs, part 2

Spotted in Scottsdale on July 28 -

Three of the candidates in Scottsdale; not going to vote for any of them, but those are some sharp looking signs - simple, colorful, and eye-catching.

The signs are two-sided, which isn't unusual, but they have different candidates on the opposite sides of the signs.  Which is very unusual.

A bit of an explanation for the similarity of the signs - all three signs have the same "paid for by" line on them.

Interestingly, the PAC that paid for the signs formed on July 24, filed the paperwork on July 27, and had signs designed, printed, and up by July 28?  Even saying that the committee was OK to operate on the 24th (a point in the law that I couldn't get clarification on today, being a Sunday and all :) ), four days to design the signs, contract with a printer, get the signs printed, accept delivery of the signs, and actually put some up, well, that is incredibly fast.

Either they were paying for some serious OT at the printer (which is OK) or they accepted and expended funds on election-influencing activities before the committee was formed, legally speaking (not so OK).

One of the other campaigns may find this something worth looking into.

Of course, the signs may not last long during the Arizona monsoon season -

 No grommets.  The first strong breeze will cause the wires holding up the signs to slice through the signs.

Later...

AZ Secretary of State's website down

Update: as of approximately 10:30 a.m, the website is back up.  However, getting into the campaign finance reporting database is problematical.  Other parts of the website may be difficult/impossible to access.  End update...

Early ballots for the August primary election drop on Thursday, and the voter registration deadline for that election is tomorrow, and since sometime Saturday afternoon, the AZSOS' website has looked like this -

I'm not sure when it went down, not exactly.  I've seen estimates that it went down around 3 p.m. Saturday.  I know that at approximately 2:30 p.m. it was still working, because I was doing some research and took a break.  A few hours later, there were some posts on FB from friends noting that it was down.  A quick check confirmed their posts, and as of this writing, the SOS' website is still down.

I'm not the first, or only, person to notice this, as David Safier at Blog for Arizona noted here.

Nor will I be the only one to question the timing of the outage, or the length of it.