This will cover certain federal-level candidates.
Commentary:
This covers the races that I believe are even the least bit competitive.
CD5 (Lamb (R) v. Lee (D) ) shouldn't be on this list as it's an overwhelmingly red district, but he's so morally-challenged that he may be abandoned by LDS voters.
From AZMirror, written by Jerod MacDonald-Evoy, dated 9/15 (emphasis added by me) -
Criminal probe targets PAC funded by charter school management company
A political action committee founded by the head of one of Arizona’s largest charter school networks is facing a criminal investigation for allegedly violating campaign finance law by using funds from his company to donate directly to Republican candidates.
Glenn Way is the CEO of Charter One LLC and the chairman of the Educational Freedom Fund PAC, which contributed $25,500 to Republican candidates for the Arizona House of Representatives and Senate in the 2022 and 2024 elections.
[snip]
The Attorney General’s Office said its investigation into the Educational Freedom Fund is ongoing and declined to comment.
Way's largesse doesn't benefit legislative candidates.
From an FEC filing from candidate Feely -
I don't recommend that anyone holds their breath while waiting for Feely and his campaign to return this particular contribution.
Basically, a duplicate of last week - there's nothing on the schedule.
However, schedules can and do change, especially late in the week.
So pay attention to things.
This will cover certain state-level candidates
Some commentary:
- R candidate for treasurer Elijah Norton is still trying to buy the office.
In Q3, he reported loaning his own campaign $1.225 million (that was from the report's summary page, but the loans he itemized for the report totaled $1.425 million.)
His total 3Q contributions are from that summary page, but they may not be accurate, hence the asterisk next to the total (*); the loans total is added up by me. The loan total that I added up exceeds the total contributions reported.
Norton has other problems, too. In Q3, he raised less than $30K from individuals while his Democratic opponent, Nick Mansour, raised over $200K from individuals.
In addition, he reports having less than 1/12 of the cash on hand than Mansour has (not a huge problem given Norton's personal deep pockets.
- A significant chunk of R nominee for governor Andy Biggs' money came from the committee of his Lt. Governor pick, Sine Kerr. I'm not going to speculate on whether that affected the decision to add her to the ticket.
For those who don't know any Latin, "chant 'Ave Maria' " is another way of saying "throw a Hail Mary".
Saw an email today from the Arizona Republican Party.
On Wednesday, October 14, Cheeto will visit uber-red Bullhead City, Arizona, which is part of the equally red Mohave County.
From the email:
I do *not* recommend going (actually, I heartily recommend avoiding the area completely - it's not going to safe for normal people there).
If one does go, I recommend blending in - wear a certain red baseball cap indicating both a low IQ and EQ or simply dress up as an empty seat.
Actually, I'm not sure this should really be considered as campaign lit as it's not pro- or con- a specific candidate.
Found this, from the LD8 Republicans, in my door after I went shopping yesterday.
It was a list of candidates supported, and judges opposed, by them. They favor all statewide props and opposed the local props that they mentioned. They did not mention the county prop or any school district props.
(Not) Breaking news: all of the candidates they support are Republicans.
There was one surprise, however (OK, it was more surprising for its brazenness than for anything else) -
There three candidates for the seat on the Phoenix City Council representing my district, district 8.
Two of them, the incumbent Hodge Washington, and one of her MAGA challengers, Maupin, are Black.
Her other MAGA challenger, Abasciano, is White.
So, naturally, the LD8 Republicans ignored the Black MAGA candidate and supported the White one -
They *are* Republicans, after all.
And the "iron pyrite" reference in the title?
Iron pyrite is better known as "fool's gold".
While all of the reporting periods end on 9/30, some of the reporting periods start on 7/5 while others start on 7/22.
All of the reports are due on 10/15, it's possible that some will be filed before then. However, most will be filed on the 15th to minimize the amount of time opponents have to examine
From the website of the Arizona Secretary of State -
Basically, a duplicate of last week - there's nothing on the schedule.
Note: Both pieces were addressed to people who don't currently live here, though one included "Or Current Resident" on the addressee line.
...The first piece of PAC-sent lit was paid for by "Reproductive Freedom for All Freedom Fund". It was a pro-Amish Shah piece for the CD1 race in Arizona.
Pluses:
It actually names Shah's opponent, Jay Feely
It has a pic of Feely with the person who he will actually work for, if elected, Cheeto.
Minuses:
It doesn't have have a pic of Shah on a pro-Shah piece.
...The other one, a pro-Feely piece, was sent by Elon Musk's America PAC -
Pluses:
The pic of Feely is much larger than on previous pieces sent by America PAC.
Minuses:
It's more than a little generic in saying what Feely will do, if elected - stand up, safeguard, balance, and strengthen? Really? "Walk and chew gum at the same time" wasn't available?
The brazenness of the hypocrisy demonstrated here is stunning. Rs *hate* voting by mail, but here they're encouraging their supporters to, wait for it, "vote by mail."
Not sure if it's a plus or a minus:
Nowhere does the piece mention Amish Shah, Feely's opponent.
This one is pretty mundane as it sent out by the candidate. So mundane that I have no snark at the ready. Candidates are boring; PACs are much more fun. Trust me. 😀
The next post will be far more interesting.
The lit piece is for the City Council race is Phoenix-
Note: Washington is my representative on the Phoenix City Council
Prop 320 started out as the brainchild of MAGA Sen. and grifter Jake Hoffman, starting life as SCR1032.
A debate on the topic of Prop 320 took place. I don't know either participant personally.
The ballot language, for all props, from the Arizona Secretary of State, is here.
As written, if approved by the voters, Prop 320 would all school districts in Maricopa and Pima counties, as well as larger districts outside of those counties to spend at least 60% of their budgets on "direct instructional expenses".
The problem is that term is never defined.
The penalties for school districts that don't comply are well-defined, though,
As is the fact that compliance or noncompliance is determined by the legislatively-controlled Auditor General's office.
I've urged people to vote against *all* of the statewide propositions, but this might be made more palatable with two minor changes -
1. List specific definitions/meanings for "direct instructional expenses".
2. Apply it to *all* schools that receive public funding in any way, shape, or form.
I'd still vote "no", as blanket, "one size fits all" solutions for nonexistent problems never work, but it might be more palatable to voters who are less discerning than me.
Actually, all of the ballot questions show that vague, stereotypes, and fear are on the ballot.
Prop 144 started out as the MAGA rep and attorney Alexander Kolodin-crafted HCR2001.
Note: AZPM has the video of a debate on Prop 144 here.
Caveat: There were two people speaking at the debate, and I know one of them. Randy Keating, a member of the Tempe City Council, spoke in opposition to the proposition. I've known Councilman Keating for many years. However, I thought Prop 144 was a bad idea *long* before I was aware that he was part of the organized opposition to the measure.
Kolodin is running for Secretary of State, a position that he can use to turn his anti-democracy ideas into public policy without the rest of the legislature, the governor, or even the Arizona Bar Association getting in his way.
Note2: There was a debate between incumbent AZ Secretary of State, Adrian Fontes and Kolodin. Two things were obvious from that debate:
1. Kolodin is woefully unqualified for the job. Watch the debate.
2. Fontes and Kolodin *really* don't like each other. Watch the debate.
Anyway, back to Prop 144. Not only is it aimed very specifically at people who vote by mail (which includes me, and has for over 20 years), at no point does it explain how voters will comply with its provisions, if it is approved by voters.
Nor does it establish a way for it to pay for the requirements it seeks to impose on county recorders.
Also, I thought constitutions (state and national) were about restricting governments. Kolodin (et. al.) wishes to use the Arizona Constitution to restrict the people of Arizona.
Edit to add:
Apparently, Cheeto now likes mail-in voting...at least when it's done by his adherents -
end edit
The coming week will see a return to normal, as in there is nothing on the schedule at the AZ legislature. And I expect that there won't be until after the election. Unless a really pressing matter comes up.
At the beginning of September, I wrote a post urging all voters to vote "No" on all statewide ballot questions.
However, the statewide questions won't be the only ones considered by voters.
Many counties and municipalities will also have questions on the ballot; and unless they're related to Flock cameras (and similar technology) and/or data centers, I almost certainly won't cover the ones that aren't on my particular ballot.
Also on the ballot will be many questions from school districts across the state.
Note: I generally support school district ballot questions. The Republicans in the state legislature are well-known for woefully and maliciously underfunding public education. It's incumbent on the residents of those districts to adequately fund their schools (and to stop giving the Rs a majority in the lege, but that may be a topic for another post).
Note2: I live in the Balsz school district and will vote "Yes" on my ballot, but not all districts are as well-run. I recommend that all voters make their own choices.
From the website of the Maricopa County School Superintendent -
There are 27 districts in Maricopa County with questions on the ballot (some districts will have more than one question).
From the website of the Pima County School Superintendent -
From the website of the Yavapai County School Superintendent -
From the website of the Pinal County School Superintendent -
The website of the Mohave County School Superintendent doesn't list any school district ballot questions.
The above counties are the five most populous counties in AZ; there are 10 other counties here. If you live in one of them, or anywhere in the state of Arizona for that matter, do your due diligence on school district elections in your area.
Not really a surprise, but it seems that Elon Musk is prepping for 2028 even before the 2026 midterms.
Got a pro Jay Feely lit piece in the mail on Friday -
Like the previous one, it didn't mention Feely's opponent in CD1, Amish Shah.
Also like the previous one, Feely's picture was very small.
Lastly, as with the previous one, it was paid for by America PAC.
America PAC was formed by Elon Musk and some of his techbro pals in 2024 to spend money on electing Republicans...and it's still active, and not just in AZ.
It's pretty mundane stuff...in a shameless "fear the other" way.
The interesting parts are the pics on both sides of the piece.
On one side is a pic of notable progressive Democrats California governor Gavin Newsom, US Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani, and US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
On the other side is a pic of Newsom, AOC, and Sanders.
I don't believe that AOC or Mamdani will run for the Democratic nomination for POTUS in 2028; it *could* happen, but I think their focuses will be elsewhere then.
Though I also both will look at it in future cycles.
While Sanders has run for the nomination before but he's 85 years old. He's probably aged out of another run.
Newsom, on the other hand, hasn't been shy about letting folks know that he's *very* interested in becoming POTUS in 2028.
On the other have, while many words can be used to describe Newsom, "progressive" isn't one of them.
In a weird way, Musk's diatribes may actually help Newsom in the Democratic primary.
Most Democratic voters (including me) do not see him as progressive enough to support; Musk equating him to actual progressives can only help to burnish his image with us.
