FOLLOWING MONEY IN 2016 PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

Thursday, October 24, 2013

WATCH HERE, LIVE: News Conference Announcing Major Settlement Between Arizona-Based Conservative Money Groups and California (FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS)

California's Fair Political Practices Commission is announcing a major settlement regarding its grand jury inquiry into the $11 million in campaign contributions from Arizona-based conservative money groups "Americans for Responsible Leadership" and the "Center to Protect Patients' Rights".

ARL also pumped $1.5 million into defeating two initiatives on the 2012 Arizona ballot.

Ready to go at the news conference is a poster titled "The Dark Money Trail."

Below is the livestream of the news conference.



We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.

6 comments:

Tyler said...

This doesn't apply here, since no money was specifically earmarked for a specific campaign, and all funding was provided by the general funds of these public advocacy organizations.

But think of this: Given the extreme witch hunts carried out by the political left against those on the political right who would speak out for their beliefs, it's no wonder that some donors would wish to speak out anonymously. Think of what happened in Prop 8.

Also, consider the case of opposing a corrupt politician, especially one with the ability to prosecute or otherwise punish his/her political opponents. How would we fight against such people under threat of being destroyed.

Mitch M. said...

Thanks, Tyler. I think what you're referring to is what Barrett Marson just referred to on Twitter. If I understand you correctly, it sounds like Ravel acknowledged that deficiency in disclosure requirements, and said they are seeking to close such gaps.

I don't think your arguments against disclosure outweigh one of the cornerstones of campaign finance law (even according to current Supreme Court): being able to know that there is not a corruptive influence in the free speech contributions.

I think there are those on both sides of the political spectrum who will use disclosure to intimidate those whom they disagree with. But, we cannot have a government in which unlimited money can flow anonymously. Not without citizens' perceptions becoming (even moreso) that our elected officials are corruptible and/or corrupt.

Anonymous said...

This is not my quote but bears repeating, "I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag". Since Citizens United will not be overturned the least the voter can hope for is full disclosure of campaign funds.

Anonymous said...

It's good to see these victims of the California witchhunt vindicated - all along this seemed like politicized prosecutorial overreach and now we know that it was. The group said all along that the problem was a minor technicality and lo and behold that's exactly what it was ....

Anonymous said...

She's just mad that she couldn't destroy poeples lives over their free speech rights just as her leftist lynch mobs did to supporters of Prop 8 a few years ago. If California were its own country it would be one of the world's most corrupt and uncivilized.

Mitch M. said...

Hmmm, since we're talking about disclosure here, maybe I should change the comment settings for the next 24 hours! (We can't even tell whether we have one, two or three Anons here.)

Seriously, though,