With polls, both formal and informal, it's all in how the questions are worded

In scientific polls, say, by a professional and unaffiliated pollster, the questions tend to be neutrally worded, to ensure that the responses are as informative as possible.

In less scientific polls, say, by a campaign or a pollster working for a campaign, the questions tend to be less neutral, either to garner a specific response or to test "messaging".

In unscientific polls, say, an online question, the questions tend to serve as clickbait or something designed to a specific response to support a specific argument.

Not surprisingly, anti-voter Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan seems to favor the latter, especially when looking to protect the corrupting influence of dark money from the disinfecting sunlight of disclosure.


Reagan is in a tizzy* over the moves of the voter-created Citizens Clean Elections Commission to update its rules regarding campaign finance disclosure, changes that would clarify that entities that are "created within the six months immediately preceding the beginning of a legislative election cycle or that is formed or created during the election cycle and knowingly makes expenditures or takes contributions of $500 or more for any election in this state in a calendar year..." as political committees subject to disclosure requirements.

* - Probably more "cold and calculating fury" than "tizzy", but I believe that the word tizzy isn't used enough these days, so "tizzy" it is. :)

To that end, she has published a "statement" criticizing the CCEC's "power grab".

At the end of that statement, she has appended a poll.

That question, coming at the end of her statement excoriating the CCEC, looks to be crafted to rouse the ire of "small government" partisans, the kind that voted for her for SOS last year.

Apparently, I am not one of her "kind of people" (the kind of partisans who voted for her).

So I voted "Yes" (of course :) ).

Apparently2, the majority of other people voting in this poll aren't exactly her kind of people, either.

After my vote, the following screen appeared -

Hmmm...

Probably not the sort of result that Reagan was looking for when she posted the poll.

On the other hand, she shouldn't be surprised - in scientific poll after scientific poll, the majority of Americans supports more oversight of campaign finance.

If, as I believe she has, she has aspirations to higher office (like the governor's office, which is both higher on the ballot and higher in the Executive Tower than her office), it might behoove her to take the poll results (both scientific and unscientific) into consideration before doubling down on her support of dark money and the anonymous purchase of elections and elected officials.

By the time the Doug Ducey era comes to a close, even the voters of Arizona may be tired of corruption in politics.

And its enablers.

Ken Bennett: The man who would be governor already on the Koch brothers' payroll

Turns out that AZ Secretary of State Ken Bennett, a likely candidate for governor in 2014, is already "supplementing" his income like someone who is ready for the 9th floor.

...For the record, to the best of my knowledge, everything Bennett is doing is allowed under Arizona law.

...For the record2, everything Bennett is doing is definitive evidence supporting the idea that the last people who should be allowed to write or enforce ethics laws covering public officials are the public officials themselves.  That's kind of like trusting the Mob with the writing and enforcement of racketeering laws.

From AZFamily.com (Phoenix channel 3), written by Dennis Welch (emphasis added) -

He's the state's top election official, but Secretary of State Ken Bennett is on the payroll of a political activist who spent millions of dollars last year trying to influence campaigns throughout the country.

Since taking office in 2009, Bennett has been paid tens of thousands of dollars by Richard Stephenson, a wealthy businessman and a key player for the political group, FreedomWorks.

Bennett, who had worked for his family owned oil business in the past, draws a monthly $2,000 salary for his work as a board member for the Cancer Treatment Centers of America, a for-profit company Stephenson started in the 1980s.

FreedomWorks is closely tied to the Koch brothers.  FreedomWorks is the result of a merger of two right wing groups, one of which was founded by the Kochs.

Bennett isn't the first candidate for governor paid off by the Kochs and/or their allies - witness Scott Walker (R-WI),  John Kasich (R-OH), Rick Snyder (R-MI) and Rick Scott (R-FL).

Bennett disclosed the directorship on his most recent financial disclosure forms (for years 2010, 2011, and 2012) without disclosing the amount of his compensation.  Which isn't required under the ethics laws that cover the behavior of elected officials in Arizona.

Additionally, on his 2012 form, he disclosed a gift from Stephenson that was greater than $500.  Which is as specific as he was required to be under the ethics laws that cover the behavior of elected officials in Arizona.

Which begs the question -

Why do we have ethics laws for public officials when they are watered down to the point of ineffectiveness by public officials?


Anyway, this may go a long way toward helping Bennett secure the Republican nomination for governor next year - he's now shown that he can be bought, and that his benefactors have even deeper pockets than Chuck Coughlin, the current governor's "benefactor".

Update on 5/8:  Regular reader Thane added a comment suggesting that I add the word "ally" to the title of this post.  I won't do that, but I will acknowledge the possibility of what I think Thane is trying to point out.  

Stephenson, who is clearly a Koch ally, may be trying to form his own herd of pet governors to supplement the herd of Koch bought-and-paid-for governors.

Either way, Bennett (and the others) are clearly on the payroll of people who place their personal interests before those of the interests of the people of the United States.

Which isn't a big deal, except that Bennett (and the others) all took oaths of office, picking up the burden of public trust.

Arizona politics is like New England weather - don't blink or you might miss something

Damn.  Miss a few days due to technical difficulties, and all kinds of crazy-@$$ $#!t goes down in Arizona's political realm...OK, so it wasn't all that crazy, by AZ standards anyway.  I just wanted to use the phrase.  :)


Oh, and the "technical difficulties" weren't all bad - I finally finished the Gabby Giffords book (finally!), read Cannery Row by John Steinbeck (pretty good.  That Steinbeck guy has some potential. :) ), watched the final season of the Battlestar Galactica reboot on DVD (good, but a little too mystical for this fan of hard SF), and re-read Pearls Sells Out, a Pearls Before Swine treasury (not quite as literary as Steinbeck, but more likely to induce audible laughter.  :) )

...On Thursday, Russell Pearce, Arizona's leading nativist demogogue, experienced a PR and fundraising nightmare.

First, a Pearce campaign fundraising event was booted from one Mexican restaurant, Macayo's, after the corporate office found out that there were going to be protests of the event and that efforts were underway to organize a boycott of the chain by Latino customers.

Second, the Pearce campaign tried to move the event to another Mexican restaurant, Oaxaca Restaurante y Cantina, which also put the kibosh on the event, for much the same reasons.

Third, when the Pearce campaign tried to move his event to the library of a public high school with a heavily Latino student population, they (and he) were rebuffed by the school district .because of the short notice.

...On Friday, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio showed both his solidarity with his fellow traveler on the nativist railroad AND his peevish self-righteous outrage at President Obama's new DREAM-like policy on immigration by arresting a six-year old girl.  Wonder how that helps his self-publicized rep as "America's Toughest Sheriff"?

...Speaking of the new policy, Arizona Congressmen David Schweikert and Ben Quayle, Republicans both and facing each other in the August primary in CD6, responded to the new policy by trying to out-redneck each other with duelling bills to overturn the policy.

...News broke that a grand jury is looking into alleged campaign finance violations committed by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne.  I don't expect it to go far though. 

The FBI is handling the investigation, but the Maricopa County Attorney's Office is shepherding the grand jury itself.


...Candidate challenges have been dropped or adjudicated or candidates have withdrawn.  The list from the AZ Secretary of State is here.  Highlights:

- Jonathan Paton had to drop his challenge to the candidacy of one of his opponents in the CD1 Republican primary.  He had filed suit, to great fanfare, challenging the signatures of Gaither Martin.  It must have been embarrassing to Paton to have to back off, so the Arizona Democratic Party did its part to help Paton move past the pain of his humiliation over the failed challenge by launching a website to help publicize Paton's past.  Awfully considerate of them, doncha' think? :)

- Jean Cheuvront-McDermott was removed from the Democratic primary ballot in LD24 because "Cheuvront-McDermott" isn't the name she has been using, just "McDermott."  She's the mother of former state senator Ken Cheuvront, who is running for a return to the senate.  Rumor has it that because the current electeds in LD24 wouldn't step aside for him, Ken got his mom to run as payback.  That plan seems to have gone by the wayside.


...Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, not coincidentally Arizona co-chair for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, is continuing to ramp up his 2014 campaign for governor.  First, he threatened to keep President Obama off of the November ballot unless the state of Hawaii provided a copy of Obama's birth certificate that met Bennett's standards.  He backed off of that after bringing a load of national ridicule down upon Arizona.

Now he has taken the next step to sew up the wingnut vote in the R primary.  Now he is saying that the President was actually born in Hawaii, but lied and said he was born in Kenya to help him get into college.


...And finally, in response to a poll that shows Democrat Richard Carmona within 2 points of him in the race for US Senate, Republican Jeff Flake went to Facebook to brag about his "real world" experience as a lobbyist for foreign corporations and the Goldwater Institute.

Flake is almost as out of touch with the "real world" as Mitt Romney.  Probably not a coincidence there.

New AZ campaign contribution limits

The Arizona Secretary of State's office has formulated new campaign contribution limits for statewide, legislative and local campaigns.  These are valid for the 2011 - 2012 election cycle for Arizona races.  Races for Federal offices have their own limits, published by the Federal Election Commission.

The limits are set under ARS 16-905.  While the limits were specifically set in the statute initially, paragraph H of the statute creates a mechanism for biennial adjustments.

The new AZ limits -

Individual contributions to a candidate:

Local - $430
Legislative - $424
Statewide -  $872

Political committee contributions to a candidate:

Local - $430
Legislative - $424
Statewide - $872

Committees certified by the AZSOS as "SuperPACs":

Local - $2170
Legislative - $1736
Statewide - $4352

Combined total from all political committees other than political parties:

Local - $10880
Legislative - $14032
Statewide - $86952

Nominee's total from political party and all political organizations combined:

Local - $10880
Legislative - $8704
Statewide - $86952

Total contributed by an individual to candidates and committees who give to candidates:

$6100 per calendar year


The new federal limits are here.

While I won't list them all, the important one for most readers is the individual contribution limit to a candidate - $2500, for each of the primary election and for the general election ($5000 total).

Later...

Early Ballot Time - 2010 General Election

All over Arizona, early ballots are reaching mail boxes (the ballot for my area is here).  Here are my picks (and there isn't anything here that will surprise any regular readers :) ):

U.S. Senate - Rodney Glassman.  He's got the energy and focus on the needs of Arizonans (and Arizona) that John McCain hasn't had for decades (if ever).

U.S. Representative in Congress (District 5) - Harry Mitchell.  He's got the energy and focus on the needs of his constituents, and has had it for nearly 40 years.  If the Rs in CD5 had any appreciation for public service and public servants, they'd have nominated him, too.  (Not an unheard-of happenstance.  In Massachusetts in 1982, Republican Silvio Conte won both the Democratic and Republican nominations for Congress in MA-CD1.  He went on to win the general. Back in a time when public service was valued instead of vilified. [page 18 of the linked .pdf] :) )

Governor - Terry Goddard.  He's got the intelligence, experience, and wisdom to move Arizona out of the economic abyss that it's in.  And he's got the quiet fire necessary for dealing with the R extremists in the legislature who are less interested in serving Arizona than in adhering to a nihilist ideology.

State Senator (District 17) - David Schapira.  Focused on Tempe and Arizona's education system.  He has an established track record.  Will work "across the aisle" when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students.  Will fight like hell when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students.

State Representative (District 17) - Ed Ableser and P. Ben Arredondo.  Both have been teachers and community activists in Tempe/South Scottsdale, Ed for most of a decade and Ben for *many* decades.  Ed is the more liberal of the two (Ben being a reformed former Republican), but both are totally focused on their constituents (Yes, there is definitely a pattern in my picks, and it isn't just the partisan affiliation.)

Secretary of State - Chris Deschene.  Will fight for the rights of all voters, not just his party's.  That fact alone puts him head and shoulders above his opponent, but he also brings an educational background that includes mechanical engineering and a law degree. 

Attorney General - Felecia Rotellini.  She's got the smarts, the integrity, and the tenacity to protect Arizonans from predators of all stripes, whether they are smuggling cartels or Wall Street fraudsters.

State Treasurer - Andrei Cherny.  A former assistant AG and an economics policy wonk extraordinaire, he is eminently qualified for the job of safeguarding Arizona's public monies.  The fact that, unlike his opponent, he isn't an indictment for financial fraud waiting to happen is just gravy.

Superintendent of Public Instruction - Penny Kotterman.  Career teacher, teacher trainer, school administrator, education policy advocate, for over 30 years.  Her opponent has spent most of the last two decades trying to destroy public education in Arizona.  'Nuff said.

Mine Inspector - Manuel Cruz.  He has the educational and professional background in mine safety that a job that is supposed to ensure the safety of miners *should* have.  Not in the pocket of industry lobbyists, unlike his opponent.

Corporation Commissioner - David Bradley and Jorge Luis Garcia.  Two former legislators with long and distinguished track records of fighting for their constituents.  Their opponents have long and not-so-distinguished track records of fighting for Big Business, no matter what state it is based in.  The Arizona Corporation Commission is meant to protect the interests of Arizonans by regulating and overseeing utilities, railroads, and securities in the state.  Bradley and Garcia are easy choices here.

Maricopa County Attorney - Michael Kielsky. He's a Libertarian, someone I would normally never vote for, but I always vote for the better candidate.  There's no Democrat on the ballot for this brief term (2 years instead of the normal 4) and the Republican on the ballot is openly allied with Joe Arpaio.  I've been told by some people who are more familiar than I am with Bill Montgomery (the Republican in question) that they think he will probably at least try to appear as neutral, but Arpaio spent hundreds of thousands on ads in the primary race, and incurred thousands more in fines for violating campaign finance laws for doing so.  Can you say "quid pro quo"?

I don't think Kielsky will win, but a strong showing could send a message to the Democrats who have all but given Montgomery a free pass.

Maricopa County Clerk of Courts - Sherry Williams.  Smart and energetic, with a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Information Systems.  She will bring the background and integrity that the clerk of *any* court should have, and that Maricopa County so desperately needs (a Maricopa County official elected countywide with some integrity?  Be still my beating heart...)

University Lakes Justice of the Peace - Meg Burton Cahill (no website available).  The retiring state senator has a master's degree in Public Administration and a strong background in the law from her time on the Senate's Judiciary Committee.  She will make a fine addition to the Maricopa County bench, where her wisdom and experience will stand her in good stead against the pressures that can/will be brought to bear on folks in that position.  Ask the current holder of the office - he was Joe Arpaio's "go-to guy" when he needed some sketchy warrants signed for his jihad against the county supes.

University Lakes Constable - No race, so no vote.  Joe Arredondo (R) will win.

Central Arizona Water Conservation District (aka - the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project) - Arif Kazmi and Jim Holway.  Both have strong academic, professional and personal backgrounds in water resources management.  Both were among the five candidates endorsed by the Arizona Republic, and while the other endorsees of the AZRep are strong, these two are stronger and should be "double-shotted" in order to maximize their chances of election.  There is a slate of "Tea Party" candidates running to try to put the management of a major part of Arizona's water delivery system on an ideological basis, not a professional basis.  They should be completely shunned.  In a desert like central Arizona, water literally is life.

School Governing Board member, Scottsdale Unified #48 - I have absolutely no clue.  Decision by elimination time (and I may be doing the eliminated candidate a disservice, but this is the best I've got in this race):  Denny Brown (newby) and Dieter Schaefer (incumbent).  There is limited info available on the candidates that I could find in a quick search, but while I have some reservations (i.e. - Schaefer was the only candidate who responded to a questionnaire from the extreme RW organization The Center for Arizona Policy), but the third candidate, Pam Kirby. touts a resume that looks good (lots of PTO involvement) but seems to be more purely ideological than the others.  Plus the endorsement of Scottsdale City Council member Bob Littlefield didn't help.

Bond question, Scottsdale Unified #48 - Yes.  Over the short-term, the legislature cannot be counted on the fund the state's education system, whether for classroom needs or infrastructure needs.  Long-term, there could be legal ramifications because while relatively affluent districts like SUSD can use bonding to fund an adequate education system for their students, many poorer districts cannot.

City of Scottsdale Council Member - Ned O'Hearn, Linda Milhaven, and Wayne Ecton.  All three care deeply about Scottsdale and its future, and aren't tied to any particular ideology beyond that.  Dennis Robbins would have received my fourth vote if a fourth seat was up for election this time around, but he wasn't quite strong enough a candidate to make it into the top three.  Bob Littlefield...I like Bob personally, but I'd never vote for him.  He definitely is tied to that certain nihilist ideology that permeates the AZGOP, he just covers it with a "good ol' boy" facade.  Guy Philips is definitely not ready for prime time.  He doesn't hide his obeisance to ideological orthodoxy, but he doesn't even have the redeeming value of knowing that ideology well.  If he were elected to the Council, he'd need a staffer with cue cards set up in the back of the City Hall Kiva to tell him how to vote on issues.

The next set of issues concern City of Scottsdale ballot questions, info here.

City of Scottsdale Bond Questions 1 and 2 - Yes.  They're for infrastructure, and I'm a big fan of infrastructure.

Proposition 411 - NO.  A charter amendment further restricting the City's ability to use condemnation to acquire property.  Looks harmless on the surface (must adhere to state law, which is already required), but includes vague language like "all reasonable options have been exhausted."  A recipe for frivolous lawsuits.

Proposition 412 - NO.  A charter amendment intended to prevent the City from ever paying to participate in organizations like the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce.  Part of Mayor Jim Lane's ongoing tiff with the CofC, possibly related to the fact that they didn't endorse him in 2008.  The charter is a document to define the structure of the City's government, not a tool for petty political retribution.

Proposition 413 - Close, but NO.  Currently, the City's charter allows citizens to petition the Council and requires the Council to consider any matters brought to its attention within 30 days, which can be difficult considering the timing (right before summer break) or complexity of some of the issues.  This charter amendment would remove the thirty day limit entirely.  My problem is with that.  Make it 45 or 60 days, but don't remove the obligation to hear matters in a timely manner.

Proposition 414 - Probable YES.  This charter amendment would clarify the duties of and separate the offices of the various City Charter Officers.  This one stems from the tendency in recent years to combine the offices of the City Manager and City Treasurer.  God help me for agreeing with the Lane/Littlefield clique on *anything*, but they're right on this one - the treasurer of any organization should be an independent officer, one whose oversight is as far up the org chart as is practicable.

It's not perfect, and it's a powerplay by the Lane/Littlefield clique, but when Lane installs a campaign contributor into the office of treasurer (and he will!), there will be a movement to put specific experience requirements into the charter for that particular job.

Proposition 415 - Probable YES.  A charter amendment to clarify that the Mayor and Council shall not have direct control of a City employee's hiring/firing, except for those who work directly for the Mayor and Council.

Proposition 416 - Probable YES.  A charter amendment that looks like a "housekeeping" measure clarifying how the Council may act/enact under specific circumstances.

Proposition 417 - Probable YES.  A charter amendment that looks to be a "housekeeping" measure related to the appointment and terms of judges on the City Court.

Judges for the Arizona Supreme Court, Court of Appeals - Division One, and Maricopa County Superior Court - I haven't heard of any of them, which is a characteristic that I want in judges.  Court judges are like baseball umpires - if you've heard of them, then they probably messed up big-time.  I won't be voting to retain/not retain any of them.

Statewide ballot propositions - Previously covered here.  Summary: NO on all measures proposed by the legislature, and YES on the one (Prop. 203, Medical Marijuana) sent to the ballot by the citizens.

Whew!

Later...

Republican Secretary of State sued over business practices

From the Arizona Republic -

A small building-insulation company whose chairman is Secretary of State Ken Bennett is facing two suits that allege it engaged in securities fraud and breach of contract and failed to pay six employees more than $143,000.

Ummm...would it be reasonable to point out here fraud is *not* part of the SOS' job description? Just sayin'

Later...