 |
| Clip from Mayday ad (below), with remarkably-good cartoon likeness |
The Mayday PAC filed its independent expenditure report with the FEC (Federal Election Commission) today, detailing that it spent $6,666 putting together the 30-second spot (below) and $74,731 for online views.
The Mayday PAC has received a lot of national intention for the apparent irony of raising money for a Super PAC to support elected officials and candidates who support changing the campaign finance to get rid of Super PACs*. So far, they have raised $7.9 Million.
Gallego is facing a close race for the Democratic nomination, with the winner next week being the overwhelming favorite to replace Pastor. He is battling former Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, who is described by Mayday's Larry Lessig as “what some are calling a more corporate Democrat.”
Mayday cites Gallego's support for the Government By the People Act as basis for choosing him as one of the first candidates they are fighting for. Gallego's issues page does not mention campaign finance reform as a key plank, but it did post this position paper a couple of days before receiving Mayday's blessing (which went unnoticed by Arizona media).
Because of the impending primary, the Time article notes that the Arizona race will be "the first test of Mayday PAC's mettle."
* Mayday "embraces the irony" and uses the asterisk to say "yes, including ourselves."
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.
Why would a PAC committed to clean elections support for a candidate like Gallego, who actually voted against Clean Elections while in the State Legislature. In 2011, Gallego voted to support SCR1025 to ask voters to effectively gut Arizona’s Public Campaign Finance System, which Gallego called “harmful.”
ReplyDeleteAs reported in the Arizona Capitol Times in April 2011, the Arizona Advocacy Network's executive director, Linda Brown, circulated emails decrying Ruben Gallego for turning his back on the system that is supported by key party figures for its role in helping Democrats. In Gallego's case, the email campaign contained a detailed breakdown of the sources of Gallego's 2010 financial contributors for his legislative race. ‘Very little of his nearly $100K in campaign cash came from within his district,’ Brown wrote. ‘Those business PACs and lobbyists do not give money without expecting something in return. Killing Clean Elections is at the top of their priority list.’ Gallego's response: 'Because I'm questioning a system that I think has been harmful, suddenly I'm a bad guy.'
Thanks for the informative and interesting comment, Anon. To provide a link on the 2011 SCR1025, here is the text (http://1.usa.gov/1uUTUSt), and here's the vote (http://1.usa.gov/YxM2cb). The text is short and clear and as stated in the comment. (The measure was removed from the 2012 ballot pursuant to a successful challenge by the Arizona Advocacy Network.)
ReplyDeleteAnon, if you could please provide me with the rest of the documentation, I would like to further investigate.
Of course, his position on Clean Elections is not necessarily contradictory with his new support for the Government By the People Act, but it certainly should raise questions with Mayday PAC supporters.
I am concerned; it appears MaydayPAC is supporting the idea of integrity of principle. Politicians have principles that seem to bend under the weight of campaign donations. Flip-flopping is an example of the issue and steady funding over time will solidify the "politician's" demeanor. I regard the expansion of MaydayPAC's support to eight candidacies a tactical error. It should proceed with pointed military precision to be effective.
ReplyDelete