Blog For Arizona

FEC Complaint Against Bee Ad Certain To Languish

by Michael Bryan

I am reminded by the Bee complaint (and legal eagles with whom I consult on these matters) that the FEC currently only has two members, which means it does not have a quorum and cannot conduct any official business.

This is why the DNC complaint against McCain for promising to take public funds to secure a multi-million-dollar loan and then exceeding the FEC primary caps has not been acted on, either.  The appointments to the FEC are tied up over a dispute between Republicans who want their entire slate of appointees approved in a single vote (because some of them are just too atrocious even for Republicans to be seen voting for), and Democrats who want individual up or down votes on each nominee.

If this dispute is not resolved, the FEC will not be able to issue checks for public  financing of the fall campaign, and the FEC also will not be able to address the complaint against Bee (though it may be assigned to an investigative staff member).

Tim Bee's campaign may have legal liability if there is evidence to show that his campaign coordinated this ad with the Educational Financial Reform Group (EFRG). Proof of such co-ordination could possibly be contained in the b-roll of the footage shot to produce the ad, which may be why Cox Communications and Public Policy Partners who created the ad have so far proven unwilling to release that material to the media. We'll see if they are more cooperative with the FEC investigators when they demand access to that material. Wouldn't it be convenient if that material were somehow destroyed or lost in an administrative SNAFU in the interim?

The fines, if any, against the EFRG and/or the school districts will likely not be too severe; probably 100-200% of the amount in violation ($16K, we know of so far). But in extreme cases, the fines can start with a base of $10K and add as much as 1000% of the amount in violation. So there are potential fines of approaching $200K involved, but such fines would not be applied to Bee's campaign unless he coordinated with the maker of the ad.

There is also the issue of just who the heck the EFRG actually is. Who are it's board of directors and officers? How are they organized and how do they report their activities? What is its budget and how is has it been spent? What is the organization's charter and does it actually provide for lobbying expenditures? Who actually made the decision to spend public funds in this manner? There needs to be much more transparency about these questions if public funds are to be spent to influence public policy. So far, none of those questions have been answered to my satisfaction.

There are really two issues here, however: a legal issue, and a moral issue.  It is not clear at this point whether the Bee campaign did anything legally wrong themselves. But it appears that the EFRG organization may have broken both federal and Arizona elections laws. Will they be held to account for it? Whoever 'they' may be?

But even if this instance of electioneering were perfectly legal, which I doubt, the school districts' spending district tax dollars in support of a candidate rather than on the education of our children is just wrong. Considering the the base funding rate for a pupil in Arizona is just over $6K, a year's worth of education for two children was spent on this silly "Thank You" to Bee.

Giffords Nixes Impeachment

DFATucson has been pressing Gabby Giffords for awhile now to get off the dime on impeachment and, as a very minimal sign that she's willing to fulfill the Constitutional role for which we hired her, perhaps sign a letter being circulated by Rep. Wexler calling for investigations of possible criminal acts by the Bush Administration (which could lead to an impeachment).

To that end, DFATucson has been demonstrating with a "Honk to Impeach" rally outside Gabby's office every Monday from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. (drive time). The rallies have been very well-received by the public and have brought a lot of awareness to members of Gabby's staff how much sentiment in favor of impeachment there is among the public, as well as some press coverage.

One good thing the Gabby did was direct her Chief of Staff, Maura Policelli and much of the rest of her local staff to meet with DFATucson regarding impeachment. Video of that meeting will be available online very soon.

DFATucson recently got an email from Policelli recently outlining the Congesswoman's position on impeachment:

"The bottom line is that Congresswoman Giffords will not be signing on to impeachment legislation, resolutions or letters.  I know that is a disappointment to your group, but assure you that Gabrielle is working tirelessly on many local problems and national issues of great significance."

In other words, Gabby's not willing to lift a finger to protect the Constitution from the criminals inhabiting our White House.

What I find most mystifying about Giffords' attitude is her apparent blindness (though, admittedly it isn't just her, but the entire gang of "Shrumian" consultants that she and Democrats like her are wont to heed) to the strategic politics of impeachment.

The standard Democratic defense of sitting on our thumbs regarding impeachment goes like this: we are winning the debate, so don't change the terms. We are headed toward an easy victory in 2008 with a Democratic President and larger margins in Congress (maybe even a filibuster-proof majority), so why allow the Republicans to stir up a mess over impeachment, accusing us of using it as a political ploy (which they would certainly be able to recognize from experience, I guess...). You are just playing into their hands and walking our Democratic candidates into a political buzz saw with no benefit. These guys are lame ducks and out of there in less than a year anyhow...

This is kind of political deep thought that gives us Democrats consultants with win-loss records like Bob Shrum, hence my derision for these political Solons as "Shrumians." This line of thought might seem like prudent wisdom to you, but in fact it is just an example of how Democratic strategists have so consistently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory so frequently in recent years.

It can be summed up in a single word: timidity.

The voters don't much care for it, and politics isn't very kind to those who are characterized by it. Timidity is the reason why Congress' polling is in the toilet no matter how much good and useful legislation they manage to pass. People can smell it in their leaders—and Americans don't respect the timid. Americans would much rather you be bold and wrong than timid and right. They worship you and put you on our money if your happen to be lucky and wise enough to be bold and right.

Let's take Gabby's race against Tim Bee as an exemplar for a tight contest in a swing state, which it really is, and think about the political consequences of impeachment rearing it's "game changing," "suck the air out of the room," "playing into the GOP's hands" head.

What is the first thing that would happen if Gabby in some way advocated impeachment? Why the GOP would attack her as a loon, and accuse her of playing politics. Great. She gets a few news cycles to lay out all the very specific and well-documented ways in which this Administration has broken the law and violated the public trust. Her cred with the Democractic base and at least 2/3rds of independents goes through the roof.

Now, Tim Bee gets a choice. Does he join in the baying from the GOP, or does he lay low? From what I know of Tim, he may lie low and try to say little. Why? Because the last thing he wants to spend his slice of the public's attention on is defending the record of the Bush Administration's excesses and policy failures. He wants to run as some other kind of Republican... preferably one that isn't from the Republican Party that contains Bush and Cheney and their menagerie of chuckleheads, NeoCons, and religious maniacs.

Which is why the worst possible thing for the GOP is to make this election about Bush's record. Which is why we should make it about Bush's record. He's a lame duck, so the only way to do that with any political potency is by injecting the issue of impeachment into the election.

Gabby and her "Shrumians" hope that by trying to appear moderate and prudent and vewy, vewy qwiet, she can eek out a victory over Tim in November. Tim hopes pretty much the same thing. Either of them could be right about the outcome with that strategy. More likely Gabby will be proven right—but it's no sure thing.

How to turn that into a landslide? By hanging Bush around Bee's neck like a rotting albatross, and making Tim try to convince voters it smells good. Defending Bush against the threat of impeachment is the only way to get Bee to stand up for the Bush legacy.

Once Bee is forced into that corner, he's done. No squeaky margins—we have a landslide. Independents and Democrats will deliver hard and enthusiastic margins and even a lot of Republicans won't be able to stomach Bee defending wiretapping, torture, politicizing our justice system, outing our intelligence assets for political revenge, and unconstitutional signing statements, just to name of few of the acts Bee could be forced to answer for or publicly repudiate.

Many in Gabby's camp think they need moderate Republican votes to beat Bee. They are only going to get them if Bee cannot be seen as any sort of moderate Republican. Nor does Gabby need them if she fully engages the ire of the independents against the last 6 years of Republican rule. Only by luring the Bee into the Bush, as it were, will independent produce the huge Democratic margins that they will when the issue is the Bush record.

By making this election only about the future, and failing to acknowledge and make strategic political use of the history we just suffered through by taking impeachment "off the table," Gabby and Democrats like her are giving their Republican rivals a chance to redefine themselves and distance themselves from the Bush legacy that is rightfully theirs to bear.

By running solely on how she and the rest of the Democratic Congress are "working tirelessly on many local problems and national issues of great significance," Gabby is ensuring the kind of tight race that impels her to such contemptible timidity in the face of outrageous assaults on the rule of law and our constitutional order.

Bee's Stealth Campaign Ad

David Safier made some excellent points, which I had clearly overlooked, about the clear intent of the ad cut by The Educational Reform Group and paid for with public funds. It's content clearly reveals an intent to aid Bee's Congressional campaign, which makes the denials by the lobbying firm responsible for the ad ring hollow:

"It's not actually a political ad," said Meghaen Duger, a Phoenix-based lobbyist who helped create the campaign. "It's not an advocacy for support of a candidate. It's just thanking (Bee)."

Riiight. Don't try to tell me that Ms. Duger isn't a good Republican, doing her part to elect Bee. Nor that her specific intent was anything other than supporting the candidacy of Tim Bee.

At least two people involved with making the ad had no illusions about its purpose:

"I don't know who arranged it, but I know someone must have, because it was kind of on the agenda," said Richard Connet, president of the Vail Education Association teachers union and a Republican who supports Bee for Congress.

"We all knew it was going to be used also for his run against Giffords," Connet said.

Sahuarita parent Kris Ham, who has known Bee since childhood, said, "My intent is to support the bill and to support Senator Bee."

You don't say?

Ironically, as former candidate and state Senator Slade Mead points out, the Bee version of Careers Ladder isn't actually such a swift a deal after all.

I haven't had the time to sort the legalities of the ad, and its airing without an attribution, or its being paid for with public funds, but trust me when I say, "I will."

This is not an issue of pure free speech, as some of my Republican readers might suggest. This is an issue of bought and paid for electioneering advertising on the public's dime.

Allow me a hypothetical. Suppose that the Arizona National Guard had a lobbying arm. They don't, but let's suppose. The purpose of that lobbying arm was to promote the interests and funding of the Guard and its members. That mightn't be problematic, though some may question the use of public funds for that purpose.

But now let us suppose that due to Gabby Giffords' strong support for the benefits and working conditions of the Guards in Congress, they wanted to thank her for a bill she had sponsored or supported. So they hire a lobbying firm, run by a Democrat, to create an ad showing Guardsmen thanking Gabby for her great work. And the ad claimed that Gabby was working hard to protect the security of southern Arizona by supporting the Guard. There was no attribution about who paid for or sponsored the ad, and it ran on local cable television.

Just how long, exactly, do you think it would take Bee's campaign and Arizona Republican Party leaders like Bruce Ash and Randy Pullen to be screaming foul and filing complaints with the FEC, the Governess, and anyone else who might listen? Can you tell me with a straight face that this wouldn't be a scandal?

Now, I chose the Guard quite purposefully for this example. Because the military is generally considered a Republican-inclined constituency, one could safely infer that there is a definite political stratagem afoot to undercut Republican support among their base. Well, I seem to recall many Republicans in recent years attacking the educational community, teacher's unions in particular, with being overtly and predominantly Democratic. Kinda makes me wonder if Bee's campaign had in mind an effort to undermine Democratic support in a traditional Democratic base constituency by bringing forth this message of "Thanks" from the educational community?

This also connects back to Arizona's resign-run-laws and Tim Bee's Schrödinger's candidate act to stay in office during his run for Congress. Could Tim have "earned" this spontaneous encomium from the educators if he were not in the state Senate to sponsor such legislation? Of course not. Which is why his skirting of Arizona's Constitution and laws in order to remain in office was not, and is not a small matter. It is a central strategy of his campaign, and he was willing and able to bend the law in order to preserve that strategic asset.

When you add it all up, this reminds me of the Bush Administration's questionable maneuvers to manipulate public opinion by creating the news through unlabeled video news releases and secret payments to media figures. Surely, Bee's campaign hasn't actually purchased favorable media coverage with favorable legislation—I doubt if anyone will ever find such a smoking gun of a quid pro quo, in any case—but it certainly makes you wonder whether electioneering like this should be an acceptable use of public funds, whether or not it conforms to current law (which I question...).

Bee the Recidivist?

I see it all the time. Someone skirts the law, cuts a corner, and gets away with it. Next time it's just a little bit easier to make the choice to ignore what he knows is right, and what he knows to be the law. He took 'advice' from his lawyer. He got away with it. Nobody really cares if he just fudges a little, right? It's so much easier than obeying all those pesky laws. Why not just push the envelope a little further. He has to admit, to himself, at least, getting away with it is a bit of a thrill. It can become sort of... addictive.

Having managed to slide on campaigning for Congress more than a year out from the end of his Senate term in violation of Arizona's Constitution and statutes by playing Schroedinger's candidate for a few months, it seems now Tim may be embarking on a new flirtation with lawlessness. The following ad is buzzing around the internet:

It doesn't speak to Tim's candidacy for Congress, nor does it have any sort of disclaimer as to who paid for and sponsored the ad, which is required by the federal campaign finance laws that govern congressional campaigns, even though this clip is obviously a tv capture. I imagine it might have been some fluffery from Tim's "exploratory" period.

But it really makes you wonder who paid for it. Shouldn't Bee at least be responsible for telling us that much? Bee's campaign claims no affiliation with the creators. I have no reason not to believe them; but I also have no reason to believe them, either.

It could be just an honest bit of internet-based fandom for Tim's work in the Senate, or some innocent legislative flackery that's been re-purposed by Bee boosters having no coordination with the Bee campaign, as they claim. But it makes me wonder if Tim is savoring another taste of skirting the rules while claiming clean hands?

The whole thing rather smacks of this little jewel from fellow blogger Tom Dunn, who created a YouTube channel to distribute this and one other pro-Bee video (which was much more clearly journalistic in terms of content, being just a public speech by Bee):

Tom claims at the end of the video to not be affiliated with the Tim Bee Exploratory Committee (which, keep in mind, was registered as a candidate's primary committee with the FEC at the time, and was thus subject to federal campaign spending regulations), and that was certainly true... until Tom became a principal member of Tim's campaign.

Illegal? Not strictly speaking, no. A little too convenient to be strictly legal? Perhaps. When one looks at these incidents of legal corner-cutting by Tim's campaign in isolation, they really aren't that big a deal. But when they are looked at as a pattern of behavior, they make you wonder whether Tim is just negligent about how his campaign is run or if he actively supports cutting these legal corners by his campaign.

Grijalva Endorses Howard Shanker in CD 1 Race

Link: U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva Endorses First Congressional Candidate Howard Shanker | Politicker AZ.

Grijalva has endorsed Howard Shanker, which is a huge break for Shanker and gives him a needed boost against Ann Kirkpatrick.

But wait... Ann Kirkpatrick was endorsed by Gabby Giffords.

And Gabby Giffords was endorsed in her primary by... Raul Grijalva.

So putative allies Grijalva and Giffords are backing different horses in the CD 1 race? Awkward! And likely to provide grist to the Republican candidates in CD 1, and maybe even form the basis for possible friction in future relations within the delegation.

It just demonstrates yet again why these primary endorsements by elected officials are bad idea. A guilty pleasure that elected officials ought to refrain from whenever possible. I think it's mildly unethical, and is most certainly unwise and profits only the endorser and endorsee while weakening the Party.

Besides knowing the candidates personally and having worked with them in the past, what legitimate interest do Gabby and Raul really have in the CD 1 race? Who are they to try to determine who the Democrats of CD 1 choose as their nominee. They should just say what they know about the candidates and leave it at that—no endorsements are needed.

My advice to Gabby and Raul: just butt out, fer Christsake!

Tim Bee Working to Limit Impact Fees on New Construction

Link: Home builders push to limit impact fee increases - The Business Journal of Phoenix

What ever happened to Republicans being in favor of local control and smaller, less-intrusive government?

Now, it seems that they are only in favor of doing the bidding of big business in whatever way they can, by whatever means they can, with no philosophical justification whatever.

Tim Bee is now carrying water for Home Builder's Association of Central Arizona, forcing a two year delay before any new impact fees on new construction takes effect. These fees are far too low currently, not nearly recapturing the costs of infrastructure and services to new development. But Big Stucco doesn't like these fees, especially during a new home starts and sales downturn like we're now seeing. So Timmy is riding to the rescue by sponsoring a this new bill.

Is it because he feels that new growth in Tucson is already actually paying for itself with impact fees—in which case, he needs some schoolin'—or because he really, really badly needs to raise some major money, and the construction industry is one of the biggest sugar tits around for Arizona pols—in which case, isn't he putting the needs of McMansion builders ahead of the needs of his hometown?

Meet Sydney Hay, Republican Lobbyist and Ideologue Seeking to Fill Tricky Dick Renzi's Purloined Shoes

Mining industry lobbyist and candidate for Congress in CD 1, Sydney Hay put together a very nice introductory video for her campaign. It illustrates very clearly why the GOP won't manage to hang on to CD 1: they are absolutely bereft of ideas.

Hay's campaign looks like it was cobbled together out of most extreme rantings and wacky policies of the Right over the past 20 years, the dissicated corpses of Reagan and Goldwater, and the most disingenuous and empty rhetoric the Right has fallen back on in defense of the massive failures of the Bush years, all held together by a 'values' appeal that already passé among evangelicals and fundamentalists, let alone the general public.

You can always tell when a social movement is effectively dead by how nostalgic its members become about a claimed Golden Age. In the case of the Conservative Movement, their necromantic rites centering around Reagan and Goldwater are increasingly elaborate, central to their religion, and frankly pitiful.

Sure, we Democrats have our culture heroes—FDR, JRK, RFK, MLK—but we aren't nearly so strident about hearkening back to their particular strain of liberalism as a lost Golden Age that we must return to, and to which our politicians must pay obsequious obescience.

That's because Liberalism is alive and kicking and growing. Conservatism is a dead and discredited credo, destroyed by Bush and the Republican Congress of 1994-2006, now seeking a leader who can revivify it with a fresh perspective and newly invigorated values. That leader doesn't seem to be Sydney Hay—she's too ideologically rigid to acknowledge any new ideas.

I was really amused by the enthusiastic and detailed endorsement by Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks. Since the incumbent is in the dock, Renzi can't exactly pass the establishment torch, so Trent from next door is pinch-hitting. It should prove amusing to watch the Republican candidates in CD 1 madly scramble to avoid any association with Renzi.

Trent credits Sydney with a number of key accomplishments. He indicates she lead the campaign to require a super-majority for any tax increase in Arizona. The result has been to ratchet down tax rates permanently, destroying the Arizona state government's ability to fund essential services. Trent tells us that Sydney, a former teacher, also was largely responsible for the failed experiment of charter schools, and for diverting taxes to private and parochial schools.

Polices Sydney claims credit for have over the last two decades been largely responsible for Arizona's free-fall to nearly the bottom among U.S. states in almost every educational metric. With accomplishments like these in her past, electing her to office is sure to result in policies that will make us even more backward, poor, and uncompetitive.

Let's take a quick look at some of the 'ideas' Sydney wants to take to Congress...

Konopnicki Stands Down

Bill Konopnicki will run for a fourth term in his state legislative seat. By implication, he won't be running for Congress in CD 1.

Bill's ability to self-finance (he made a pile off fast food) and his strong political base in CD 1 would have been great assets to the troubled effort to hold on to the district of indicted GOP Rep. Dick Renzi for Republicans.

Looks like Bill has allowed prudence to overcome ambition and decided that it's just not the GOP's year. Good call, Bill.

Giffords and Mitchell: The New Center? Let's Hope Not... UPDATED!

NATIONAL JOURNAL: "The New Center"

National Journal is getting a lot of ink locally (e.g., here and here) due to their ranking the ideology of many of 2006's frosh congresscritters, including Arizona's Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell, smack dab near the center of the political spectrum.

When you take a closer look at the actual votes on which National Journal based their ratings, however, what they actually seem to be measuring is mostly how two key issues - Iraq and immigration - are causing some Democrats to throw out their principles in the name of expediency and poorly-judged pragmatism.

Note: The headings stand for Economy, Social,  and Foreign policy.

A closer analysis of the fairly small sample of bills upon which the rankings are based indicates that in most respects Giffords and Mitchell both generally hew closely to the party line on most issues other than immigration and Iraq. The moderate nature of both candidates is largely a feature of their shared (and mistaken, in my view) hands-off approach to the war in Iraq, and their perceived need to armor themselves against the immigration fire-fight in Arizona.

Giffords is not ranked as notably more "economically moderate" than, say, Rep. Ed Pastor - at least in terms of her actual votes. She has not been nearly as much of an economic conservative in her votes to date as her overall centrist ranking, and her membership in the Blue Dogs, might suggest.

What Mitchell champions, however, is clearly out of step with most of his caucus - not surprising considering he too made a bid to join the Blue Dogs. What is surprising is that his rhetoric, and to a lesser extent his votes, actually indicates that he is much more in tune with conservative tax philosophy (coddle the rich and soak the middle class), yet it was Giffords who got the nod from the Blue Dogs. Maybe Mitchell's tax rhetoric put him too far to the right even for the Blue Dog's comfort. In the end, I think that Mitchell's ranking as a 'moderate' on economic matters, is rather too generous. He actually deserves to be in amongst the Republicans proper when you take into account his advocacy, as well as his votes.

UPDATE 3/14/08: Mitchell has made it two years in a row now that he has voted against his own party's budget. If he's trying to establish his fiscal conservative credentials, I think he's more than done the job.

Despite their fairly middle-of-the-road rankings in social policy, neither member is sending many overt signals to the 'values voters'. They do score considerably more conservative than other Dems in the Arizona delegation and the Caucus overall, but that is almost entirely down to votes having to do with immigration and immigrant rights.

The big difference between 'social centrists' like Gabby and Harry and the rest of the caucus is how terrified they are of creating a record that can be characterized as 'pro-immigrant.' The callousness and pettiness that these 'centrists' will stoop to in order to avoid giving racists and xenophobes any ammunition is often farcical.

On foreign policy, both members score more conservatively than their Arizona Democratic delegation-mates, but that is predominantly down to their votes on Iraq. Their score also includes a few instances when their urge to throw money at a military system outstripped any fiscal restraint or desire to look deeper at our actual strategic needs - a common and unfortunate Democratic habit that our members default to in order to forestall being labeled as anti-military, but that results in massive pork and a flabby, wasteful military.

I will take a closer look at the particular votes that earned Giffords and Mitchell their milquetoasty middle-of-the-herd street cred after the flip, and consider how well-deserved are their carefully-crafted, centrist images...

 

Foster Upset Victory Something for Super-Delegate Giffords to Consider

With Gabby Giffords holding an uncommitted vote for our next Democratic Presidential nominee, it would be wise of her to consider what that nominee can bring to her own race for re-election.

Rookie scientist-citizen candidate Bill Foster's 53-47 upset victory in former Speaker Dennis Hastert's old district demonstrates that Obama, who endorsed and campaigned for Foster, has the ability to provide strong cross-partisan coattails and heavy favorable turn-out in a Republican district, even before his nomination. The 14th District historically has been very Republican, re-electing Hastert with 60 percent of the vote in 2006 and giving President Bush 55 percent of the vote in 2004.

Gabby faces a similar challenge as a freshman Member in a formerly Repubulican-held, and still Republican-plurality district. Whose endorsement would serve her re-election chances better? Who does she want cutting ads for her as the Presidential nominee? Who does she want stumping for her in her district?

Many viewed the Foster-Oberweis contest as a proxy fight of sorts between Obama (backing Foster) and McCain (backing Oberweis). Clearly Obama had the home-state advantage, but McCain had the numbers in the district.

Come November, with McCain certain to be the nominee, he'll have a home-state advantage in Arizona's CD 8 that Tim Bee is hoping to parlay into a victory in this plurality-Republican district.

Gabby would be best served by the backing of a nominee who has a proven ability to provide coat-tails in even in a much more Republican district—IL's 14th—than AZ's 8th. At this point, the only alternative to Sen. Obama for Gabby is a nominee who has long-entrenched negatives among Republicans, and who—at least in comparison to Sen. Obama—leaves Independents cold. And Independents will decide the Congressional race in CD 8.

Gabby would do well to ponder deeply the miracle that Bill Foster pulled off with Obama's help when she decides who should get her vote for Democratic nominee at the convention.

RenziGate Roundup 2/27

Governor Napolitano says Dick is depriving CD 1 voters of effective representation by not resigning • "Arizona Gov. Napolitano Urges Indicted Rep. Renzi to Resign"

The Tucson Citizen editorial staff agrees that Dick cannot effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances and should resign • "Indicted Renzi Should Resign"

Notable Quotes:

• Ann Kirkpatrick, former state legislator and Democratic candidate for the 1st District U.S. House seat, says, "We, the people of this district, have witnessed firsthand the declining leadership and representation Renzi has provided over the past year and we cannot have another eight months pass without our voice being heard in Congress. It is time for Rep. Renzi to do what is right and to do what is in the best interest of this great district - resign and resign immediately."
• House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio called the charges against Renzi "completely unacceptable for a member of Congress," and said Renzi should "seriously consider whether he can continue to effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances."
• "Can he do his job now? I don't think so," said Jan Smith, Yavapai County Republican Party chair. "There's no way under the circumstances that anyone could concentrate on their job."
• One of the candidates running for Renzi's seat, Democrat Howard Shanker also said the congressman should leave office. "It is unfortunate that we can hold so little faith or trust in our elected representatives."
• Congressional Scholar and Historian at the American Enterprise Institute, Norman Ornstein says Dick's indictment "... is an equaling compelling indictment against a Congressional ethics process that once again proves its utter impotence." He goes on to urged Congress to reexaimne the idea of an independent ethics body (Note that Ornstein is too sanguine about Congresscritters' willingness to entertain such reforms, even now, as the bill was just pulled from the floor because it failed to get enough support):

  "All of this is prelude to the critical choice facing the House this week. At long last (and I mean long--some of us have been working for nearly 30 years to create a meaningful reform here) the House is going to take up a plan to create an independent office for preliminary ethics investigations...

  "The panel would consist of six members jointly appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader, with staggered four-year terms (a limit of two for any members.) It has reasonable standards and thresholds for the group to consider potential ethical violations, with reports sent to the ethics committee laying out the facts of the group's investigation alongside the relevant rules and/or laws. There are reasonable time limits for the ethics committee to act on the report--and importantly, provisions that would eventually require release of the independent panel's report to the public if the ethics committee simply sat on the report."

Public interest groups such as Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the the Project on Government Oversight are following Dick's case closely.

Local press homing in on scandal as the Yavapai County Daily Courier, the Kingman Daily Miner cover the story.

My View:
The Hill is hedged in its headline, pointing out some possible weak points in the indictment. "The indictment does not detail when or if Renzi crafted that bill and a review of Renzi’s bills in 2005 and 2006 shows that no such measure was introduced."  The article opines, "The Renzi case on allegations of quid pro quo legislative maneuvers is more nuanced than Ney’s and Cunningham’s cases where gifts and money were linked to congressional activities such as statements that were put in the Congressional Record and earmarks."

This is a sharp observation by The Hill, but very likely all the evidence the feds have has not been alleged or alluded in the indictment alone. There is likely a ton more evidence against Dick; especially very credible witness evidence, not to mention the likely testimony Dick's co-conspirators will cough up in exchange for a deal.

However, the absence of an introduced bill would be a major problem in proving at least some of the first 27 counts of the indictment. If The Hill's observation turned out to be true, it could be problematic for the prosecution. However, The Hill's concern is not an issue at all for Dick's earlier embezzlement of $400K to fund his 2002 campaign alleged in counts 28 - 35, which has nothing to do with his legislative actions.

I don't think The Hill did nearly enough diligence to conclude that the 'smoking bill' doesn't exist just because Renzi doesn't seem to have filed it; this sort of legislation gets lodged in omnibus bills all the time, and I'm sure Dick did his level best to keep his prints off it.

Although Dick's lawyers are currently only making implausible generic and blanket denials, Dick will eventually have to get much more specific and credible in order to justify his staying in office. This could be a huge problem for his defense.

It is never a good idea to lock yourself into a theory of defense before you know what evidence the prosecution has got and is likely to be able to present at trial. This is why high-profile cases are such a bear to defend: the public wants answers more compelling than merely telling them that the charges are baseless: the public isn't stupid.

They know that 35 count indictments don't get cooked up whole and that there is always some factual basis for such charges, even if the authorities may have misinterpreted events and acts that are perfectly legal - especially when the charges are against a man as powerful and well-connected as Dick, who has the power to defend himself vigorously and to do damage to careers and government departments should there have been any impropriety in bringing the indictment.

The voters will want to hear Dick's explanation of what looks quite damning, indeed. If he and his lawyers can't start to produce a narrative explaining why the charges are mistaken without tying Dick's hands in his eventual defense in court, forget about his staying in office, the issue becomes solely keeping him out of jail. When it comes right down to it, if I were more concerned about the rest of my client's life than preserving his job, and the GOP's electoral chances in CD 1, I would be pushing Dick to resign in order to avoid the need to go on the record with more specific denials and explanations that could possibly compromise his defense later.

Politico points out the GOP would be seriously disadvantaged in their efforts to hold CD 1 by an early Dick departure. They would fare much better, though they are likely still in deep trouble, if the seat were up for grabs in November, instead. They cite the large funding advantage held by both the DCCC over the RNCC, and between the parties' candidates on the ground.

Interestingly, Politico also compared Sydney Hay to Randy Graf - poison to her national fund-raising potential. Personally, because of Hays' ties to charter and home-school advocates, I think a better political parallel would be to Gov. Mike Huckabee, who home-schoolers did yeoman's work for in making his Presidential bid viable.

The Raw Story echoes Washinton Post reporter Ben Pershing's comments on RenziGate that indicate the formation of a conventional wisdom that the GOP is considerably better off running in a November election, rather than a quick special election, because of McCain's presence at the top of the ticket:

"If Renzi hangs around the rest of the year, he may generate some more bad publicity, but the race to replace him in Arizona's 1st District should at least be manageable for the GOP in November, especially with home state Sen. John McCain at the top of the ballot."

I've entertained this thought myself a for a while, but I'm increasing dubious about McCain's coattails in light recent polling by Bruce Merrill indicating a narrowing margin for McCain in Arizona, and the finding that most Arizonans don't expect McCain to actually win the Presidency, even if they plan to vote for him.

With softening support, a surging Democratic ticket, and pessimism even among Republican voters about McCain's chances, he may not have the coattails in this state that so many, including myself, have expected.

Dick's stench being dragged around Arizona for an extended period of time could even pox McClean's image as he battles his own allegations of campaign finance shenanigans.

McCain is rightly viewed as the real leader and paterfamilias of the Arizona Republican party, now that he's practically the GOP's nominee. It says something to voters that McCain sits on his hands and says nothing about Dick's troubles and his refusal to step down.

Considering the robocall McCain left CD 1 voters, it may be hard for his to put day-light between himself and Renzi at all:

"This is Senator John McCain. I'm calling to urge you to support my friend, Representative Rick Renzi for Congress. Rick has represented the first district of Arizona with tenacity, honesty and integrity beyond reproach. I work with Rick every day and can report to you his total dedication to the people of Arizona and the United States. Please join me in supporting rural Arizona's workhorse Congressman on November 7."

 

The longer Dick and John are easily associated in the public's mind by the nature of the their ethical troubles and their party affiliation, and the longer McCain tacitly condones Dick's behavior by not overtly condemning him and calling for his resignation, the more McClean's own shine may tarnish.

In the end, Renzi may wind up doing much more damage to McCain than any benefit the GOP may get from a November election rather than a special election to replace Arizona's own Tricky Dick.

McCain, Bee and Mayes: There They Go Again

Many of you will have seen coverage of McCain's use of federal matching funds to secure a loan for his campaign prior to his win in New Hampshire. He promised the originating bank that if he didn't come within 10% of winning, he would re-enter the federal finance system, giving them a secured interest in those funds as collateral for the million-dollar loan. The FEC says that McCain's use of those funds to secure other financing binds him to the program, and that he must obey the restrictions that come with that money.

McCain's response to the FEC was basically, "Meh. Try and make me." The DNC is filing a complaint with the FEC, and you can help. Here's what Chairman Howard Dean had to say:

"There was a lot of talk last week about John McCain's blatant hypocrisy on ethics and integrity in Washington.

Here we go again.

McCain is now breaking the law by ignoring the campaign spending restrictions for the Republican primary that came when he asked for federal matching funds -- funds he used as collateral on a loan that helped keep his campaign going.

But now that the lobbyist and special interest money has started pouring into his campaign, he's trying to back out of the promise he made just a few months ago. They're feeding so much cash into his bank account, this "reformer" wants nothing to do with federal campaign finance laws anymore.

That's why today, we're filing a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission demanding that John McCain be held to the campaign finance laws. Trying to back out shows a total lack of integrity and honesty -- he made a deal with the American people to to abide by the law, and in return, he was guaranteed taxpayer money that he used to back a loan."

            

Good luck with that, Howard.

I'm beginning to see a pattern of disrespect for campaign finance laws among Republican candidates. I know, I know. I must be slow on the uptake, or have a very trusting nature not to have seen it before this.

I complained about Tim Bee's Schrödinger's campaign (in September, and October, and finally in January when he got around to announcing - conveniently within a year of the end of his term, so he didn't have to resign under Arizona law) and asked the Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard to look into the matter, to no avail.

Now McCain has his own novel theory of how to skirt the law to get his piece of cake on loan and and eat it, too.

These Republicans are eroding respect for campaign finance laws by finding any ambiguity or unanticipated maneuver and using such blind spots to their own political advantage. And the lesson seems to be sinking in.

Now Kris Mayes, the ACC member who is 'exploring' a bid to replace Dick Renzi when he finally perp walks, seems to be heading down the same Schrödinger's campaign trail that Tim Bee blazed. Certainly, the Arizona Democratic Party suspects so. But you can justifiably ignore what one party says about the other... can't you?

She is going all out in organizing, putting in place her team, fund-raising, and pressing the flesh, yet still claims she is just exploring a bid. You can practically hear the words, "...just like Tim" hovering over her campaign. With Renzi heading for the dock, I can't fault her strategic choice to ensure that any Republican is viable in that district following Renzi's criminal enterprises before giving up the plum appointment that her old boss, Governor Janet Napolitano, secured for her - but I can, and will, question her fidelity to Arizona's constitution and election laws.

Ultimately she's going to have to say 'in' or 'out' and it needs to be soon. If she hits the next FEC reporting period and forms a Tim-Bee-style qualified candidate committee (i.e. "I am forming a candidate's committee, but I'm really just exploring. And I'll be obeying the FEC rules that only candidates have to follow, but I'm not yet a candidate. Really. I'm not.") and reports her finances for that candidate committee, as only a candidate (but not a water-testing citizen) is obligated to do - again, like Tim did - but she still hasn't resigned her ACC seat, then she's making campaign finance chicanery official Republican policy, if it's not already.

And who can fault her, really? She's only following the example of our esteemed Arizona Senate President, Tim Bee, and now the distinguished presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, Senator John McCain. Surely one can safely emulate the behavior of such eminent men, who are entrusted with enormous legal power and discretion, and who set the tone and norms of political life in Arizona and beyond?

When those who make the laws are themselves lawless, what hope is there for our Republic, or for the rule of law on which our democracy rests?

Shadegg's Retirement

Most of you will have heard by now that John Shadegg, the Republican incumbent Congressman for CD 3 is retiring. The news is everywhere, but, so far, I have found far more heat than light on the subject. I didn't think that there would be a shake-up of this magnitude in Arizona's political order resulting from McCain's all-but-nomination, but many are suggesting that Shadegg's move presages the likely retirement of McCain from the Senate and Shadegg's preparation to grab that brass ring. That may be, but I'm not so sure.

I think all this speculation is fairly useless. Either Shadegg is prepping for a crack at McCain's Senate seat, or he's prepping for a post in a McCain administration, or he's sick of being a pipsqueek when he's used to being a big wheel, or he's jumping ship in response to criticism of his fund-raising methods, or he's ready to cash in his markers for some serious dough in the 'private' sector, or none of the above. Who knows? Probably John Shadegg, and don't exactly have good sources in Shadegg's brain. If there were actually any reasons for his retirement in his press release, I would be inclined to simply accept them. But as he doesn't really provide any explanation, the result is all the speculation.

Personally, I couldn't really care less for the reason - I'm just glad he's going. His brand of Republicanism is a failed experiment which it is long past time to terminate.

As to the immediate effect of Shadegg's resignation, there are some clear implications. Bob Lord has just been handed a gift: he will face a newbie who is likely to be in financial parity with him, at best, instead of an entrenched incumbent. Dems shouldn't fool themselves though, it will still take a hell of a good campaign for Lord to win in that district - it's doable, but it won't be a cakewalk, even against a new Republican aspirant fresh off a contentious primary (if that even happens). Bob Lord's task is now merely Herculean, instead of Sisyphean.

There is a lot of speculation as to who that Republican aspirant is likely to be. Whomever it ends up being will likely be determined by motivated local donors, not the state GOP (which is fractured and strapped), and probably not the RNCC either. The RNCC is having a terrible time with fund-raising and is focused almost exclusively on defending incumbents. Shadegg's retirement actually makes CD 3 a lower priority for the RNCC, as it is now an open seat leaning GOP instead of a Republican hold.

Any strong GOP candidate for CD 3 will have a proven fund-raising track record and/or the ability to self-finance in addition to an established network in the district. There has been, and will continue to be a spate of aspirants running their flags up to see if major donors salute. The one who sets off the most sustained volley of cash will stay in the race and the others will quietly disavow any interest or just drop out; my guess is that there won't be a real GOP primary in CD 3, only a money race, and it will be well over far before any September primary. Sean Noble, Shadegg's Chief of Staff, seems well-positioned to step into his mentor's shoes, and State Senator Jim Waring seems to be well-positioned in the district, but we'll just have to see who attracts the Benjis.

There is even some speculation that new Democrats will be drawn into the race now that CD 3 is an open seat. I don't think that will happen. Lord has worked hard to create some momentum for Democrats in CD 3 where none at all had existed. No one who wants to retain the respect of the Democratic base is going to try to muscle Lord out of his wack at that seat now that the incumbent is history. There may be more established names who could run, but this race is Lord's to win or lose.

This whole situation just highlights the wisdom of always running a candidate, even in seemingly marginal or difficult races, in case the unexpected occurs. We are fortunate to have a candidate in place who is running a strong campaign. Bob isn't nearly liberal enough for my taste (which is probably a good thing considering his district), but his heart's in the right place on the major issues and he'll be caucusing with a Democratic majority - that's 90% of everything I want from a Congressman, and he's sure to be hearing from me about the other 10% if he gets elected.

For all his avowals that he never intended to become a professional politician, Shadegg is one of the few remaining examples of the band of small-government Republicans that led the 1994 revolution. I doubt that he's going to be retiring to tend his farm like Cincinnatus. I doubt we've heard the last of John Shadegg.

Two Hundred Questions for Congressional Candidates

NOTE: For a while, new posts will appear below this bulletin. Please scroll down for the latest from BlogForArizona.

When did it become acceptable for candidates for public office to refuse to answer questions? Or, as is more common, to answer without responding?

When did we become so complacent that the people who want to represent us feel free to stone-wall and obfuscate their views on vital matters of public policy, their values and philosophy?

When did having well-thought-out views on difficult issues stop being the primary qualification for holding public office, replaced, by all the evidence, by the ability to talk without communicating anything?

When did public officials seize the right to make vital decisions about public affairs in private without explaining themselves to anyone?

It seems to be the rule rather than the exceptions that major candidates blow off questionnaires from public interest groups like Project Vote-Smart. That's just a shame. I've frankly had enough of that non-sense. I'm just one guy with a blog, but I'm fortunate that a fairly large number of people who together can exert a lot more influence than me actually take the time to read what I have to say. What I'm saying now is that I've had enough.

I want some answers. Two hundred of them to be exact.

With your help, I seek to craft 20 pointed, well-framed questions on each of 10 topics. These questions will be asked of the candidates in CD 8, incrementally, 20 at a time, until the project dies a well-deserved death because nobody can be arsed to participate and make this experiment work, or until all 200 questions have been fully and responsively answered by the candidates over the course of the campaign.

I don't think that I am the only one who can frame a good question. Nor are good questions limited to a particular political viewpoint; just the opposite, in fact. So I am asking for everyone's help in creating the questions, too. That includes my bloggity pals on the red end of the spectrum.

Whether we'll get any answers is pretty much up to you. If you want answers as much as I do, and you make just the slightest effort to ensure that adequate answers are given, then I'm confident that answers are what we'll get. I am more than willing to share those answers with anyone and everyone in the media willing to listen. I don't want a scoop, or exclusivity, or credit; I just want the answers.

I have created a wiki for collaborative work on this project. Anyone can read and comment on the pages. If you want to actually edit the wiki, you need to be added to the group by me. To be added, send me an email expressing your interest and listing any group or groups you are associated with that may be interested in co-sponsoring the questions.

Read more about the 200Q project and the 10 topics after the click...

Ask Bee, "Where's the Pork?"

Bee has an interesting theory about Arizona's finances. He thinks we can solve our budget woes by eliminating 'pork' from the budget.

Link: Nogales International.

Bee said that he disagrees with Congress wanting to raise taxes in order to take care of the budget. "We're going to solve our budget problem here in Arizona by reducing government spending and cutting more pork out of our budget," he said.

Recalling the famous ad that crossed over into our political discourse in the 1980's, I ask our Senate President, "Where's the pork?"

Arizona is nearly dead last (49 out of 50) in per pupil funding of education, which is by far the state's largest expense. Nor do we spend money at all lavishly on anything else: in fact, Arizona is 48 out of 50 in per capita state expenditures, and is dead last among our the regional Western group of states. It stands to reason, therefore that we also have one of the lowest per capita tax burdens in the United States. There may be flesh on this pig, but it's all muscle, and very little fat.

For a comprehensive overview of Arizona's fiscal performance download GradingAZ.pdf by the Eller School.

What fat there was, we should thank Governor Napolitano for eliminating. The Governess instituted an efficiency review process her first year in office and every year since. The first year alone, $38 million in excess spending was identified, and more has been eliminated every year. We've already wrung as much waste out of the system under the Governess' critical eye as we're likely to find. If there is more (and I'll conceed there certainly is likely to be some) it is an order of magnitude less than the billion dollars we need to balance the budget.

Despite our penny-pinching and penury, or perhaps because of it, our state still has over $400 million in deferred infrastructural maintenance costs. That means, quite simply, that the Republican legislature has been systematically raiding our future to pay for our needs today. Our roads, bridges, and other public infrastructure are crumbling because the GOP majority has been too cheap and short-sighted to maintain it properly. They are slum lords whose ghetto is the whole state.

Where is your billion dollars of pork President Bee? Show us the pork.

Bee seems committed to leadership by content-free sound bites and aphorism. If he can't respond to the challenge of Arizona's budget crisis with anything but hoary conservative buzz-words that aren't even on speaking terms with reality, how can anyone expect to look to him for leadership in Congress?

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to BlogForArizona.com with your favorite RSS reader, or get posts delivered to your email.

Shadegg Begins Refering to Himself in Third-Person

It's never a good sign when politicians begin referring to themselves in the third-person. Everyone remembers Dole taking about Dole. It's creepy, and sure sign that a politician is beginning to decompensate psychologically: perhaps seeing himself from a historical perspective as a noble figure in a classical tragedy.

So it should be of no little concern that John Shadegg began referring to himself this way when talking about the fund-raising improprieties that his Democratic opponent Bob Lord caught him in recently. “What the Democrats want out of this is a news story. They want to muddy this up. They want to make Shadegg look bad.”

Well, when Shadegg has major donors, who are barred by law from giving Shadegg's campaign any more money, give to Shadegg's PAC instead, and then Shadegg's PAC passes the funds over to Shadegg's own campaign, Democrats don't really have to try terribly hard to make Shadegg look bad.

Though Shadegg initially claimed that Shadegg did nothing wrong, Shadegg recently decided to give the questioned funds back to Shadegg's PAC. The FEC is investigating the Democratic Party's complaint against Shadegg.

Shadegg was last seen wandering around mumbling to Shadegg about "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," sighing the name Ophelia over and over, and talking to a human skull Shadegg carries around with Shadegg.

Children's Health Care One Clear Contrast Between Giffords and Bee

Let me make this clear: Gabby is superior in every way to Timby for anyone who shares my values and philosophy of government. I'll frequently needle Gabby for not being progressive or vocal enough, that's my job as a citizen, but I believe that almost any Democrat in Congress is better for America than almost any Republican.

One clear illustration is the recent SCHIP veto override vote, which Democrats lost 260 - 152. Gabby voted for the override; Timby has criticized Gabby frequently for her support of the SCHIP expansion, so it seems quite unlikely he would have voted for the override.

Regardless of both Gabby's and Timby's predisposition to gravitate toward the middle ground, on many issues Republican dogma simply won't allow a candidate like Timby to espouse common-sensical and forward-thinking policies that make America and Americans healthier, wealthier and happier. Their philosophy is innately hostile to governance, so why allow them to govern? That is why Republicans are going to continue losing elections, and richly deserve to do so.

The Questions Timby and Gabby Are Afraid to Answer

Once Timby made his intention to challenge Gabby for her office official, the Democratic Party issued 10 pointed, and sometimes snarky (not that I'm in any position to cast stones on the subject of snarkiness...), questions for him to answer.

Less well reported, Gabby was asked 9 pointed questions by Democracy For America's Tucson chapter, an organization born of the Dean campaign of 2003-4 that has become a central organizing force in the populist progressive wing of the Democratic party. She sent a blanket reply that DFA members judged to be essentially non-responsive to their questions and unacceptable.

So, we have the interesting situation of the candidates of both parties refusing to engage the questions of Democrats. I guess Timby and Gabby at least have in common contempt for the questions of uppity Democrats.

See the 19 questions after the flip...

Tim Bee's Big Surprise

Tim Bee stunned the Arizona political scene with a completely unexpected announcement that he is challenging Gabby Giffords for the CD 8 Congressional seat.

Seriously, though, Tim made it official -- he's in. I know, I was there. And, no, I didn't get tazed, Bro.

It was the kind of non-news news event one expects in the kabuki dance of American politics. But there were a few interesting bits.

Much more after the flip...

Sponsors Back-Pedalling on Employer Sanctions

Link: Employer sanctions law challenged by sponsors.

Looks like a number of Republicans are getting crosswise on the employer sanctions law now that it has taken effect and real enforcement actions seem imminent, threatening to put good, upstanding (and possibly Republican) businessmen on skid row.

This issue just screams DEMOCRATIC WEDGE ISSUE FOR 2008 STATE LEGISLATIVE RACES at the top of its lungs. I hope it's not too much longer before every other word coming out of the Arizona Democratic Party's mouth-piece is "employer sanctions." You don't get monumental political fuck-ups like this dropped in your lap every day, you know.

Much more after the flip...

Gabby Giffords Endorses Ann Kirkpatrick

There was some buzzing around Ann Kirkpatrick's camp, who's running for the Democratic nomination to Congress in CD 1, about an upcoming endorsement from a major Arizona political figure. Looks like that muckety-muck is Gabby Giffords.

Taking a page from Grijalva's early primary endorsement play book, Giffords seeks to be King... er, QueenMaker in CD 1, as Grijalva was in CD 8.

I don't like any of this. In my view, it is unethical and unwise for office-holders to be endorsing during primaries. And yes, that includes the Governess' endorsement of Obama.

It is unethical in the same way that party officials aren't supposed to take a position on candidates during the primary. The Party is not supposed to be in the business of choosing nominees; that's the voter's business. To put the imprimatur of the Party on a primary candidate is unacceptable.

Why should we tolerate an even more public face of the Party - the office-holders - being partial? Most people couldn't name their county or even state party chair, but many more know who their Governor or Congress Member is.

The practice is unwise because of the alienation it causes among the out-groups, the supporters of the candidates that didn't get the nod. It causes intra-party strains that simply outweigh any benefits there may be from such endorsements to the party.

Clearly, there are benefits to the office-holder if they back a winner. And there are benefits to the recipient of the endorsement: a dollop of media, supporters of the endorser may make up their minds or send a check, and some who don't follow politics too closely may see it as as the approval of the Party -- and that's the problem.

When office-holders presume to speak, or are perceived to speak for the Party on who is an acceptable candidate, it gives even more power to incumbents than they already have. They become gatekeepers not only of their own offices, but of other offices as well.

Frankly, what the hell does Gabby have to do with CD 1 that she would presume to tell them who the best nominee for their district would be? What business did Grijalva have telling CD 8 who they should choose?

What benefit does the public and Party get from such endorsements? I'm asking you. What benefit do we get? I can't think of any. The only benefits I see are to the egos of all involved, the political favor pile of the incumbent, and to the recipient of the endorsement. The average voter and the Party get nothing.

Bloggers should draw a line in the sand on both sides of the aisle and condemn these early primary endorsements by officeholders as unethical and unwise.

Arizona 8th Nails The Bee 'Poll'

Link: Arizona 8th: Very early polling.

I was going to write a little post excoriating the 'poll' that the Bee campaign has been shopping to the media to demonstrate Bee's viability.

But then I read one the most intellectually honest posts I've seen on any conservative blog over at Arizona 8th, by Kelly, and I suddenly didn't need to write that post.

However, the majority of my readers probably don't get over the 8th that often, so I thought I would just drop a link. It didn't get any comments, because it may have been a little uncomfortably candid for the crowd over there. How about some of us go and give the author some commentary love?

Great job, Kelly.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to BlogForArizona.com with your favorite RSS reader, or get posts delivered to your email.

ProtectAZBorder.com Launches: Helping Us Keep an Eye on the Right

State Rep. John Kavanagh (R - LD8) launched his anti-immigration website to support the employer sanctions law: ProtectAZBorder.com. One of the first things you will read on his site is the following:

"Arizona businesses are firing Hispanic immigrants, moving operations to Mexico and freezing expansion plans ahead of a new law that cracks down on employers who hire undocumented workers."

I guess in some universe this is good news.

The anti-immigration crowd have fashioned a stake which they have plunged through the heart of Arizona's business climate, and they call it employer sanctions.

12% of Arizona's workforce is undocumented labor. These anti-immigration radicals want to put the businesses that rely on that labor pool out of business. They have a naive and ideological belief that this law will cause undocumented workers to give up and return home because they can't find a job in Arizona. Most will merely go deeper underground, ensuring that they are exploited and abused by employers at greater rates. At best, some may move to other states. None will return to Mexico or other nations of origin as a result of this law. Not one.

The belief that this bill can address the immigration issue is as faith-based as the idea that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators. The mindset that complex and systemic problems can be fixed by simple and brute-force solutions is endemic to the radical authoritarian mind-set. Unfortunately, their fantasies of omnipotence don't map to reality with any success. This bill does nothing for America, and nothing for Arizona except ensure a recession; the only benefit is to the electoral hopes of the radical authoritarians.

The formation of new businesses in Arizona has ground to a virtual stand-still over the legal uncertainty that the employer sanctions law has created. The radical authoritarian immigration-haters point to this fact proudly. Why would you expand into or move a business to Arizona when you might face the loss of your license to operate, or even your corporate charter, should you be found negligent in hiring an illegal alien?

The sponsors of this bill are the enemies of our economy. Their obsession with taking the reins of a contentious political issue for purely political gain has made them ignore the very real costs and dangers this bill poses to all our financial futures. In the midst of a billion dollar budget shortfall, one might hope that the legislative leaders of our state would be interested in more than scoring political points with the most radical elements of their political constituencies. Such hope would be in vain.

One primary sponsor of this terrible bill was Senate President Tim Bee. Tim has already proven he has no respect for Arizona's laws with his not-so-stealth campaign masquerading as an "exploratory committee," so his lack of concern for Arizona's economy should come as no surprise. But consider that this darling of the business right, for whom the royal road to nomination has been cleared by financial threats against any potential challengers by men such as Don Diamond and Jim Click, is one of the very economic assassins who is trying to kill Arizona's economy as a sop to the racist and nativist groundlings of his party. Ironic, no?

Those who voted for this mess, and there are many Democrats who did so out of fear, ignorance, or whatever motivation, should apologize to their constituents. Employer sanctions by a single state is a suicidal move. It's like swatting a fly on your nose with a round fired from a .357 magnum. There might be some benefit from a well-coordinated national employer sanction law if combined with well-policed labor standards and a new legal status for currently undocumented workers already in this county, but there is no advantage to the unilateral economic seppuku that is Arizona's employer sanctions bill.

My Complaint Against Senator Tim Bee for Violation of Arizona's Resign-To-Run Laws

On November 20th I sent the following letter to the Arizona Attorney General's office, and today I sent it to major media throughout Arizona.

The readers of BlogForArizona can help by calling the Attorney General's Office and your local media to inquire about what is being done about my complaint.

"Dear Mr. Goddard:

I wish to register a formal complaint against Tim Bee, State Senator for Arizona Legislative District 30 and current President of the Arizona Senate. By all appearances, he has violated the Arizona Constitution's Articl