No wonder John McCain is running for Prez -

He needs the pay raise to cover some new credit card debts.

From The Hill:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reported three small new charge-card debts and one American Express Platinum debt of $100,001-$250,000, all in his wife’s name.

There's a lot of potential punchlines here, but I've exited wiseass mode for the day, so someone else can pick it up.

Thanks to AZCongresswatch for the heads up on the story.

G'night everyone!

'Clean Elections Monster 2: Back To The Lege'?

Or maybe 'Bad News Burnell in Breaking Training'...

From AZCentral.com:

The first lawmaker in the nation removed from office for violating a public campaign funding system will try to win back his seat in the Sept. 12 primary.

Ousted state Rep. David Burnell Smith, R-Carefree, officially filed to win back his seat as a representative of Legislative District 7, which includes Carefree, Cave Creek and parts of Phoenix and Scottsdale.

From later in the article:

Smith got into trouble during his 2004 primary election campaign for overspending Clean Elections public funds by $6,000, or more than 10 percent. That was an amount large enough to trigger a provision in state law requiring Smith's ouster.

In March 2005, the state's Clean Election Commission voted 5-0 to order Smith to leave office as well as pay a $10,000 fine and pay back $34,625 in public campaign funds.

And even further down...

"I'm a winner, not a quitter," said Smith, who plans on financing his new campaign in part with assistance from friends, and without public funds.

Hope he knows that there are rules for candidates that aren't Clean Elections candidates. If he reads this (ok, that's something other than likely, but so what? lol) here's some that he may find very pertinent:

ARS, Title 16, Chapter 6, from the Secretary of State's website:

§ 16-905. Contribution limitations*; civil penalty; complaint

A. For an election other than for a statewide office, a contributor shall not give and
an exploratory committee, a candidate or a candidate's campaign
committee shall not accept contributions of more than:

1. Three hundred dollars from an individual.

2. Three hundred dollars from a single political committee, excluding a political party, not certified under subsection I of this section to make contributions at the higher limits prescribed by paragraph 3 of this subsection and subsection B, paragraph 3
of this section.

3. One thousand five hundred ten dollars from a single political committee, excluding a political party, certified pursuant to subsection I of thissection.

Later on in the SOS's pamphlet (page 31) there is a list of updated (as of January 2005) contribution limits.

These include, for legislative offices:

• Individual limit - $296
  
  Political Committee limit - $296
  
  Super PAC - $1512
  
  Combined total from all Political Committees other than political parties -
  $7568
  
  Nominee's total from political party and all political organizations
  combined - $7568
  

In short Mr. Smith, even though you are not running as a Clean Elections candidate this time (shocking, that :) ) you still have to pay attention to the rules. So do these "friends" who will be "assisting" you.

Or you could get tossed out again, which, while very entertaining, would be another political embarrassment for Arizona (see: Mecham, Evan; Symington, Fife). An embarrassment that we don't need.

On the other hand, why worry? Marilyn Fox will knock you off if your own party doesn't do it first.

In other news, the AZRep has a story about the legislative district races in the Scottsdale area (LD7, LD8, and LD17), including the heat in the LD8 Republican primary (which the East Valley Tribune, and me :)) , had yesterday. )

On edit: Note to self - work on post formatting skills. Sheesh.

Gotta love typos, especially by the Hayworth campaign

From the Washington Post column 'The Reliable Source':

Let's Move Along, Folks. It's Just a Little Typoe.

A campaign breakfast or presidential launch? A recent e-mail from Rep. J.D. Hayworth 's reelection campaign invited supporters to join the Arizona Republican, his wife and "The Honorable Dan Quayle , 44th President of the United States."

Whoa! How did we miss this? Mr. Potatoe Head running in 2008?

Well . . . no. Quayle was actually the 44th vice president, but a typo dropped the "vice" and started a buzz among startled GOPers who thought Quayle wanted to be the next -- that would be 44th -- president.

"We did have a couple people wondering if this was his big announcement," said Todd Sommers , Hayworth's campaign manager. A correction was quickly issued; at press time, the only heart-pounding element at the June 24 event will be the coffee.

I do have one question.

I miss all of the good stuff and I signed up for JD's email list a long time ago. So far, I have received squat.

I'm feeling really unappreciated here. You'd think that all of the times I have put his name out in the blogosphere would rate an automated 'howdy' once in a while.


:)))

Reps ripping each other in LD8

On Edit: There's an update (and an apology) at the bottom of the post. While in my original post I wrote that there were no Dems running for LD8 Senate, that info was wrong. Correction at the bottom.

I generally don't post about LD8 (Scottsdale and Fountain Hills), and almost never write a post expressing support for a Republican candidate, but since the Dems aren't running anyone in the LD8 Senate race, I will this once.

The East Valley Tribune has an article on how the Republican primary race between Carolyn Allen and Collette Rosati is heating up, and seems to have the potential to get nasty.

From the article:

“They do not personally care for each other very much,” said Rep. Michele Reagan, a Republican who also represents District 8. “There’s been a lot of bomb throwing from one side to the other and there’s bound to be hurt feelings.”

Because Scottsdale and Fountain Hills are made up mostly of Republican voters, the primary races often decide the winner of District 8. Much of the campaigning at this early stage is delivered in biting comments passed through supporters.

Rosati has expressed doubts about Allen’s health, Reagan said, as the senator battles with severe arthritis that has noticeably contorted her hands.

In turn, Allen has openly questioned Rosati’s intellectual capacity.

In regard to Carolyn Allen, while I don't agree with her on most, or even many, issues, she goes about her duties professionally and conscientiously, and she is the closest thing to a sane Republican as there is in the lege. She understands that sanity could cost her, though.

On one hand, "she [Allen] acknowledged being a centrist, but the two-term senator dismissed the idea that such a label warrants her excommunication from the GOP."

On the other, though, she adds “The drift to the fringe is very, very harmful. People like my husband and my friends are becoming independents because they are unhappy that the party has gone so far to the right."

I'm still a newbie to a lot of this, but have already learned primary challenges to a successful incumbent are generally considered bad etiquette unless there is some issue involved. These days it's corruption.

Yet, while Allen has no such issues, the Reps keep running someone at her. She's not extreme enough for the wall-builders and book-burners that are trying to take over the soul of the Republican Party.

If they keep this crap up, the Reps run the risk of causing a major schism in the party; a purge of their moderates might make the social conservative ideologues happy, but it will destroy their party.

It all kind of makes me wish that the Dems were running someone for Senate in LD8. After Rosati and Allen shred each other in the primary, a strong Dem candidate might be able to slide in to a general election victory.

Since that's not happening, here's hoping that the voters of N. Scottsdale and Fountain Hills recognize when they have a good thing, and support Allen.

UPDATE (and thanks to Stanforstudentcouncil for the correct info): Dems Dan Oseran and Stuart Turnansky (no website) are running for Senate in LD8.

I apologize to both of them for the error, and hope that whichever wins the September primary kicks butt in November.

A quick post on John Shadegg

From The Hill:

A leading fiscal conservative in the House has stoked debate over pork by circulating a newspaper story linking Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) to “the inherent risk of corruption at the heart of the congressional earmark process.”Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), who ran for the majority leadership on a platform of fiscal retrenchment, sent reelection supporters an opinion piece on the federal investigation surrounding the House Appropriations Committee chairman.

The cynic in me wonders if this is real, that some of the Republicans are fed up with the corruption and the feeding trough mentality that permeates Congress, or if this is just election-year posturing.

Hollingsworth drops out of CD5 Dem race

Not really surprising news - sigs are due and I haven't seen ANY coverage or publicity for him.

The announcement from his website:

Being a single father of three children and helping to take care of my ailing father I must regretfully step aside and in doing this it will help booster Harry Mitchell's nomination in September. Furthermore I wish to thank all my volunteers and supporters, for I know I have made it hard with my grassroots stance, but we will prevail when I return to run for a federal office again.

Thank You All for reading my articles and giving me feedback. This is one way that I will be able to be the candidate For the People, By the People, and Of the People. I will be publishing more articles in the near future.

Lee

In other AZ election news...

From the Phoenix Business Journal, attorney and Gilbert Republican Bill Montgomery turned in the sigs and paperwork to run as a Clean Elections candidate for Arizona Attorney General against incumbent Terry Goddard.

Looking at the list of endorsers from his website, and the fact that he hosted a houseparty for Len Munsil, I'm guessing that he isn't one of those famous but elusive "compassionate conservatives" from the mythical moderate wing of the Republican Party.

More national attention for the CD5 race

The Washington Post had an article today about the CD5 race (with a mention of CD8 and Pederson vs. Kyl for US Senate). While it was a rehash of what most people here already know, it's nice to us getting some attention for something other than the hottest daily temp in the country.

The article did a pretty even-handed job of outlining the differences between JD Hayworth and Harry Mitchell. While they think JD has an advantage (and as an incumbent, he does), they think the district is very much in play.

The race for Arizona's Republican-dominated 5th District is considered competitive for the first time in a decade. Analysts point to troubles in the White House and Congress, as well as Hayworth's outsize profile on immigration. It all makes for an intriguing contest in an unpredictable state where pollsters see a shift to the center.

and...

"Right now, it looks as though the playing field is leveling off," said analyst Earl de Burgh, research director for the independent Rocky Mountain Poll.

I do have one comment, on the whole "shift to the center" thing: Someone needs to clue in AZ House Speaker Jim "I don' need no stinkin' Democrats" Weiers. Ken Bennett, and the rest of the Repubs in the state lege. They keep trying to move AZ back to the Dark Ages.

On edit: the article did get one thing wrong - the article said

"But because Tempe forms only about one-third of the House district, he must win converts among Republicans and independents in Scottsdale, Mesa and parts of Phoenix and its environs."

Mesa isn't part of CD5.

Gotta go collect sigs...more later!

Eminent Domain and Gov. Napolitano

This week, Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed House Bill 2675, a bill that, if it became law, would have severely restricted the use of eminent domain by municipalities. Her letter explaining the veto is here.

From the AZ Republic -

Its supporters argued that it protected property owners from having their property unfairly taken by a municipality and given to a private developer;

Opponents (aka - cities and developers) argued that the bill removes the best tool that cities have for dealing with blighted areas, or at least made the process overly onerous. They took to calling the bill "The Slumlord Protection Act."

More background on the bill, from the East Valley Tribune.

With the veto, the legislature may put the question on the fall ballot as a referendum; failing that, there is a petition drive underway to gather enough signatures to place a somewhat different question on the ballot. Lori Klein of the Arizona HomeOwners Protection Effort (AZHOPE) is leading that effort. The initiative petition they are pushing is actually even more restrictive than the recently vetoed bill. Among other things, it would allow property owners to sue municipalities if a zoning change negatively impacts the value of their property.

The issue, and the Governor's veto, are very controversial. Many of the Governor's detractors are painting her as the friend of greedy developers and amoral city governments; as noted above, the bill's detractors see it as a tool to keep cities from redeveloping. Check out the comments on Jon Talton's azcentral.com blog.

How about a compromise? Try this:

1. Don't restrict the use of eminent domain any more than it is currently restricted by law. There are legitimate uses of eminent domain, and there's no reason to restrict those uses. However, add language to ensure that municipalities pay true fair market value for seized property. Disputes to be settled by jury.

2. Instead, restrict what municipalities can do with seized property. Once property is seized, the municipality cannot transfer the property or control of the property to a private entity for 99 years. No selling, giving, leasing, renting, licensing, etc. the property out. Once seized, it must remain under direct city control for 99 years. I see lots of parks and schools in our future.

3. Leave an out. Leave a complicated, difficult way for cities to get around #2. I suggest allowing seized property to be transferable to a private entity for a project if authorized by the passage of a city-wide referendum with the additional restriction that the referendum must also pass in the specific precinct of the proposed project. This little restriction is rooted in an interesting pattern that occurred in a referendum here in Scottsdale a few years ago. The question concerned authorizing the use of eminent domain to clear land around a dead mall (Los Arcos) to give to a developer (Steve Ellman) to put up a hockey arena.

The interesting pattern was that while the referendum passed in all precincts but one, on a precinct-by-precinct basis, the vote split trended closer to 50/50 as you got nearer to the project site, until you reached the precinct that contained the proposed project. Where it thoroughly failed.

This would keep one part of a city, say, the more affluent (and hence more influential) part from imposing something on a less affluent (and less influential) part.

This idea at least has the benefit of giving neither side what they want yet addressing their concerns; the cities don't get to use eminent domain as a reverse Robin Hood operation, taking property from the poor and fencing it to the highest bidder. By the same token, actual slumlords can choose to clean up their properties, to sell them at a fair price, or to take the chance that their property will be seized and turned into a park or something.

The kicker about all this: this is being painted as a Democrat/Republican conflict, when in reality it's a socioeconomic class conflict.

"How's that?" you ask.

Have you ever heard of some high end condos being seized and torn down to make room for a garage, because there just aren't enough good mechanics in town?

Or heard of a mall getting torn down to make way for much-needed low-income housing?

Neither have I.

Kicker2: It sort of pains me to admit this, but on the one, the Reps are closer to being right on the issue (on an ethical basis) than the Dems; stealing from the poor to give to the rich is wrong, and that's how eminent domain is used in AZ cities. If the Repubs weren't so arrogantly ham-handed about the whole thing, this really could have turned into a political hot potato for the Governor. All they had to do was send her a reasonable bill. Instead, they sent her a crap bill that she had no choice but to veto, and anyone who reads the actual bill will agree.

Well, except for the slumlords. :)

I'm a geek. A scared geek, but a geek nonetheless.

[This is mostly a rant, and covers material that has been covered more eloquently elsewhere (the Bush admin's contempt for the rule of law and for the people of the United States) so feel free to skip this one. Not that I can stop anyone from skipping any of my entries :) .]

I spent part of my Friday night watching the replay of a hearing of the House Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations from Tuesday. (That's the geek part :) )

The scary part? The content of the hearing, specifically the testimony of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the White House Privacy and Civil liberties Oversight Board. Or perhaps I should say, the "non-specific" testimony of the chair and vice-chair. Whenever they were asked specific questions (mostly by Chris Van Hollen D-MD and Carolyn Maloney D-NY), they gave a non-answer. They didn't refuse to answer; that would have been too obvious, and given that they were under oath, probably opened up a legal can of worms that none present wanted opened.

The Chair of the Oversight Board, Carol Dinkins, was especially good at this. When she was pointedly asked if she thought granting subpoena power to the Board would help the Board perform its duties, she made it clear that the Board, while answerable to Congress, was part of the executive branch.

She went on to add "the executive branch does not subpoena itself" leading many in the audience (including me!) to believe that even if the Board has the authority to issue subpoenas, it would not be used.

It was also made clear the the US Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) each have veto power over any investigations conducted by the oversight board; they also made it clear that if the Board requests information of an agency, and that agency refuses to give them that information, nothing will be done.

In addition, the probing questions brought out the fact that the Board has been VERY slow to start operations. Initially recommended by the 9/11 Commission in 1994, the Board first met this year and currently has all of two (yup, count 'em, 2) employees - the Director and an Administrative Assistant.

In essence, it's a completely non-functioning government board that wouldn't do anything even if it was functioning.

The transcript of her testimony is here, but not her answers to the questions.

It should be noted that Ms. Dinkins is a long-time Republican water-carrier/Bush crony, with stints in the Reagan-era DOJ and on various boards and committees from the same era, as well as serving on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission during W's term as governor of Texas.

The professional background of this champion and overseer of "privacy and civil liberties"? She has spent most of her professional career as a corporate environmental attorney, assisting large corporations in their efforts to skirt environmental rules.

Her Vice Chair, Alan Charles Raul, has a similar resume, though he is more of a GOP D.C. insider than a Texas insider like Ms. Dinkins.

Simply put, the testimony of Ms. Dinkins and Mr. Raul was a strokejob. It was done politely, but obviously. They, and their employers in the Bush admin, have no intent of allowing ANY oversight of their acts, not even the most rudimentary.

ARRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!

OK, I feel better. LOL.

On a mildly more positive note, I was impressed by the way the subcommittee chair, Chris Shays D-CT, handled the guests before his committee, particularly a group of relatives of 9/11 victims. He was both civil and respectful. If there were more Republicans like him, the Congress and the country would be infinitely better off.

On a less positive note, wherethehell was the rest of the subcommittee? There are 20 members listed on the roster (11 Reps, 9 Dems) and only 3 showed up! Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems that most of the members of Congress have as much respect for civil liberties as does the White House.

End rant. Thanks for listening.

Republican wins in CA CD50; both sides declare victory

Story idea and quotes from the Business Journal of Phoenix:

In the tightly contested race to replace indicted, convicted, and imprisoned (whooo hoooo!) "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), Republican Brian Bilbray narrowly defeated Democrat Francine Busby with 60,319 (49%) votes to his opponent's 55,587 (45%).

Here in AZ, both Reps and Dems are claiming to be buoyed by the results.

The Reps are drawing confidence from the fact that Bilbray's positions, particularly on immigration, are close to Senator Jon Kyl's and Rep. JD Hayworth, and also from the fact that the socio-economic demographics of CA CD50 are similar to Hayworth's AZ CD5.

"In California's 50th District, a district with similar demographics to District 5, voters soundly rejected a candidate espousing beliefs similar to [Harry] Mitchell," said Garrick Taylor, communications director for the Arizona Republican Party, referring to Busby.

On the other hand, the Dems are claiming a boost from the results, also. The vote differential was slightly less than 5% in a district where the percentage of Republican voter registrations outnumber those of Dems by 12 - 15% (depending on the source you use).

"I think it shows that voters are tired of the Republican culture of corruption. The Jack Abramoff corruption scandal hung like a cloud over the race. As a result, Bilbray only narrowly defeated Busby, in a district that is so overwhelmingly Republican, the New York Times said 'it shouldbe one of the safest Republican districts in the country,'" said Matt Weisman, communications director for the Arizona Democratic Party.

Personally, I think the results in CA might be something that the Kyl and Pederson campaigns (for U.S. Senate) will take note of, if only because the main issue of contention between them is immigration. Kyl is probably going to pound on it; Pederson needs to stop letting the Kyl campaign frame the debate.

However, the CA results are less meaningful in the AZ5 race between Hayworth and Mitchell. While J.D also is a very vocal hardliner against immigrants, he is seen as a corrupt blowhard with ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramhoff. Even many Republicans are uncomfortable with him, yet Harry Mitchell is well-liked by almost everyone. Except, perhaps, by those who have lost elections to him. :)

While corruption was an issue in the CA50 race, Bilbray wasn't tied to it.

Ultimately, the campaign that receives the biggest boost from Bilbray's win is (surprise, surprise!) the Bilbray for Congress campaign. He may have won the special election, but only to serve out the remainder of Cunningham's term. He still has to run in the November election to win a term of his own. This week's victory means that he gets to run (and raise money) as an incumbent.

Jon Kyl is arranging

(from the Phoenix Business Journal) a meeting between federal DHS staff and City of Phoenix staff "to discuss why the Valley is getting a smaller share of anti-terrorism dollars. "

Let me simplify it for you Senator. Repeat after me.

"The Administration has realized that it will reap great political benefits from using the funds to reward cities and states that support him. New York City and Washington, D.C. did not, do not, and will not support him. Omaha, Nebraska and as for Phoenix, you folks elected a pain-in-the-ass Democrat as Governor. Can't reward that. I tried to talk the President into giving Phoenix more money. But since I want to be VP when Dick Cheney is indicted...errr...resigns for health reasons, I didn't push it for fear of pissing off my boss. Well, ummm, future boss, that is."

End of meeting. Out inside of 5 minutes.

The D17 meeting was tonight

It was a little raucous, but lots of fun.

Not in any particular order (I wasn't taking notes...oops. File this under "live and learn" :) ):

Because a lot of us (including me) didn't know, Governor Napolitano's veto of House Bill 2577 (the immigration bill) was announced (to a round of cheers). The letter with her reasons for the veto is here.

Harry Mitchell was there talking about how things are going with his campaign, also to a round of cheers (a rousing one actually).

Many candidates were there, to speak, network, collect signatures, or turn in petitions. Again, as noted earlier, I wasn't taking notes, so I can't give you names for all of them. I apologize for any that I forget to list.

The Dem candidates for State Representative were there to talk about the state budget. As would be expected, they mostly agreed on funding priorities (KidsCare, investing in the future, responsible revenue management regarding the temporary surplus, etc.) The candidates included Ed Ableser, Angie Crouse, David Schapira, and Rhett Wilson. They actually all did solid jobs speaking. Picking just 2 to vote for will be tough.

Also present was a candidate for the MCCD Governing Board. His name is Doyle Burke and he is a long-time instructor at MCC who is retiring in December. No website, but I found a bit about him here and here and here.
He has been involved for many years working with the MCCD board but was obviously a first-time candidate more used to speaking to students (a captive, respectful audience, more or less) than to voters (umm...most definitely NOT like his students, LOL). However, he did ok for all that. He will make a fine addition to the governing board.

Also there tonight was U.S. Senate candidate John Verkamp. He is not an electrifying speaker by any stretch, and to be realistic, has a snowball's chance in Phoenix of getting the nomination. He may not even get on the ballot, and that would be a shame. He made a great point about the U.S. Senate.

Thousands of American servicemen and women have died or been injured in Iraq, and tens of thousands (maybe more than 100,000!) Iraqis too, based on a lie (remember WMDs?). Yet what did the Senate consider the most vital issue threatening Americans today, worthy of debating over all day?

Yes, they put it all on the rhetorical line over same-sex marriage.

Mr. Verkamp took Jon Kyl to task for his fervent, almost reverent, support of the war, and criticized Jim Pederson for not having a plan to get U.S. forces out of Iraq.

His time was running short but he also expressed support for universal health care and raising the minimum wage. His positions on both issues, as well as others, can be found on his website.

As I stated earlier, I don't think he has any real chance of winning the nomination, much less the seat in the Senate, but his presence in the race could force the other campaigns to focus on issues that most people are concerned about, not the ones that have been cherry-picked by the Republicans (same-sex marriage and immigrants) to polarize and motivate their base.

On the social side, there will be a get-together on Friday, June 9th at 7:00 p.m. in Stupid's Pub on University in Tempe to commemorate Tom Delay's last day in the U.S. House of Representatives. If you plan on attending, in keeping with the respectful, even mournful, tone of the proceedings...who am I kidding? Bring a friend and share the joy! 2 down (Duke Cunningham was first), 229 to go!

Not a good sports weekend for teams with "Sun" in their name.

From the AZ Republic...

ASU Golf finishes 11th in the NCAA Championships...

ASU baseball out of the NCAA's Houston Regional...

ASU softball out of the NCAA's Women's College World Series...

and, of course, the Phoenix Suns were ousted from the NBA playoffs...

While it was a disappointing weekend (though we were all grateful for the excuses to sit in air-conditioned comfort in front of the TV, watching the games), well-earned congrats go out to all on GREAT seasons.

Later!

Well, my LTTE wasn't published (12 May 2006)

but I did get a reply via snail-mail from Senator Kyl's office (I sent it to him through his website).
Here's the post of my original letter.

Here the reply I received:

May 23, 2006

Dear Mr. McDermott:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the recent news reports about the National Security Agency collecting phone records.

USA Today did not accurately describe the intelligence-collection program targeted at terrorists. The program compiles information on phone calls, stripped of personal information such as names and addresses, and looks for patterns to locate terrorist networks within that data. This program does not monitor or collect the content of any communications.

The Supreme Court, in the 1979 case of Smith v. Maryland, held that there is no expectation of privacy in the telephone numbers one calls. In fact, they are part of our phone bills, and law enforcement often looks at phone records during criminal investigations. I believe we should be able to investigate terrorists with the same tools we use against ordinary criminals.

Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Jon Kyl

United States Senator

JK:MMM

It totally ignored my point that while the police can access phone records during criminal investigations, they need a court order/warrant. The NSA does not.

Good night!

A lot has changed in 30 years...

Investigative reporting: Investigative journalism is a kind of journalism in which reporters deeply investigate a topic of interest, often involving crime, political corruption, or some other scandal. (I hate using Wikipedia, but they had the most understandable definition that I could find.)

You decide if investigative reporting in metro Phoenix is still a vital part of the journalistic culture here.

Or not.

1976 - Don Bolles is assassinated after a series of articles about organized crime and corrupt businessmen.

1976 - Investigative journalists from all over the country respond with The Arizona Project. A trend starts with the Arizona Republic all but ignoring the results.

2006 - Phoenix's state of investigative journalism, culled from the websites of the major media outlets in metro Phoenix (with my very subjective grade in parentheses):

• The Arizona Republic: No specific investigative reporting links, but there is a page for "Special Reports" that doesn't contain any investigative reporting. (D-)
• The East Valley Tribune: As with the AZRep, only a "Special Reports" page with no investigative journalism. (D-)
• The Phoenix New Times: Much better. No specific links for an investigative reporting page, but that's because most editions have something in them. This week it's a piece about how contracts are awarded at ADOT. But in spite of the record of good work at the New Times (John Dougherty's work alone makes the New Times the best at investigative reporting in Phoenix right now) the paper doesn't have the circulation or the journalistic cred (it's your basic music and entertainment weekly) to have much of an impact outside of its market (college and high school students looking for club/band/movie times). (B+)
• The State Press (ASU): I don't know enough about the paper to comment, but ASU Prez Crow is a big proponent of the ideal of the Stepford Student Body; the State Press (and anybody who isn't a star athlete on scholarship) is kept on as tight a leash as possible. (INC)
• The Arizona Capitol Times and The Business Journal of Phoenix are non-entities in the investigative journalism world due to their market focus. Their intended markets have absolutely no interest in 'rocking the boat'; something which good investigative journalism most certainly does. (N/A)

On the TV side,

• NBC-affiliate KPNX-12 is owned by the same company that owns the AZRep and features investigative reporting as much as its printed sibling. In other words, it doesn't feature it. There is a link for something called the "I-Cast", but that is just a video summary of top news; nothing investigative. The website for the station does have some incisive pieces about a sheltie on a diet and litter bugs. (D)
• ABC-affiliate KNXV-15 does have a link for "The Investigators." There is some good work there, but the vast majority of it really belongs in the Consumer Affairs category. Stories about "the dark side of tattoos and body piercing in Arizona" and about which stores' "checkout aisle scanners overcharg[e] you" are interesting, even useful, but not really the investigative legacy of Don Bolles. (C+)
• CBS-affiliate KPHO-5 has its "5i-Team". Again, a lot of consumer affairs work ("Company Makes Money off Mold Fears") but not any significant muckraking. The closest was a feature about how difficult it can be to file a complaint about a police officer. Not a feature documenting the activities of a bad police officer, just about the red tape involved in complaining once you actually have to deal with one. KPHO does get credit for doing a piece on JD Hayworth's links to Jack Abramoff. (B)
• Independent KTVK-3 has a "Special Reports" link, but while there are some decent, in-depth pieces ("Lewis Prison Standoff" and "Polycystic ovarian syndrome" for example," again, most are consumer affairs-related, not investigative journalism-related. (D)
• Fox-affiliate KSAZ-10 has a link for "Fox10 Investigates." There isn't much info at the link, but that may be because their investigative reporters are hot on the trail of the story most vitally important to Arizonans. From their website...

FOX10 Investigates

Married to a Gay Man - posted 04.19.06

If you are gay and married, or married to a gay man, and willing
to talk about it to FOX-10 News about your home life, please contact the FOX-10
investigators at 602 262 0410.

Now there's a station where they live and breathe the legacy of Don Bolles. Or maybe Jerry Springer.

Edit on 5 June 2006... BIG NEWS!! Fox10 has updated its website.

Now it reads

FOX10 InvestigatesSmart Camera -

posted 06.01.06 camera -

that can make subjects look thinner - go to www.hp.com

Now they're using their "Fox10 Investigates" space to hawk cameras. Whoooo Hoooo! I smell a Rocky Mountain Emmy in the air.

....end edit.

(F)

Overall evaluation for metro Phoenix: D+.

It would really have been nice to find someone other than the New Times consistently doing actual investigative reporting, the kind that makes corrupt public officials and mob bosses nervous. Instead, we get "Certified Used Cars: Smart Buys or Rip-offs?" (KPHO)

Note about the grading: The evaluations are based material available on the outlets' websites; it was the fairest way that I could think of to take print and video reporting and compare apples to apples.