Earlier today, Arizona's Politics reported that the Arizona Republican party had just spent $47,000 producing and sending out a direct mail piece attacking certain Democratic nominee Ron Barber in the special election to replace the now-retired Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8-turning-into-CD2). While waiting for a copy of the mailer and responses from various parties, Arizona's Politics decided to revisit the financial fortunes of the Arizona Republican Party.
The Arizona Republican Party has had its financial problems in the past, and as recently as three months ago, (12/31/11) was reporting being in the red (defined as debts owed greater than cash on hand). Two months later (2/29/12), the most recent report filed with the FEC showed that cash on hand was $113,768.08, with debts of $88,840.53. By that simple calculation, that shows the AZ GOP in the black by $24,927.55.
If the party had treaded water (contributions matching expenditures) between then and now, the party is once again in the red. Now, certainly, a lot could have changed between February 29 and April 4. Many donations could have come in, some of the debts could have been resolved. The party is required to file monthly reports with the FEC and another one should be coming out shortly.
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.
Monday, April 9, 2012
And, Could You Please Backdate That Check? Antenori Sends E-mail, But Asking FOR Money, Not DISCLOSING It
What the heck is going on at the Frank Antenori For Congress (CD8-turning-into-CD2) campaign? He promises (the Star) to e-mail out his AWOL campaign finance report, but does not. Then - at least in Arizona's Politics' e-mail inbox - comes an e-mail this afternoon. However, it is ASKING FOR money, not telling us HOW MUCH HE RAISED AND SPENT ALREADY. (e-mail text below the jump)
Maybe, he is hoping to bolster the totals that he needed to report to the FEC by last Thursday (April 5).
Not only has he failed to file ANY paperwork with the FEC, but he has not even been able to keep his own campaign website updated. His fundraising e-mail this afternoon features several links to his "donate" page. The "donate" page tells the reader that the special primary election "is expected to be in late April or early May." (Perhaps therein lies his timing problems.) Even one of his Twitter pages - used several times this week - notes that he is "EXPLORING A POSSIBLE RUN".
For the most experienced candidate in the Republican primary for the special election (which is scheduled for next Tuesday, by the way), one would think Sen. Antenori - and his spokesman, (fmr. Exec. Dir. of AZ GOP) Brett Mecum - would know the importance of filing paperwork on time and keeping things up-to-date.
(click below for e-mail text)
Maybe, he is hoping to bolster the totals that he needed to report to the FEC by last Thursday (April 5).
Not only has he failed to file ANY paperwork with the FEC, but he has not even been able to keep his own campaign website updated. His fundraising e-mail this afternoon features several links to his "donate" page. The "donate" page tells the reader that the special primary election "is expected to be in late April or early May." (Perhaps therein lies his timing problems.) Even one of his Twitter pages - used several times this week - notes that he is "EXPLORING A POSSIBLE RUN".
For the most experienced candidate in the Republican primary for the special election (which is scheduled for next Tuesday, by the way), one would think Sen. Antenori - and his spokesman, (fmr. Exec. Dir. of AZ GOP) Brett Mecum - would know the importance of filing paperwork on time and keeping things up-to-date.
(click below for e-mail text)
APPROVED: Justice Department Approves Arizona's New Congressional Districts (link to map)
Two days ahead of its deadline, the U.S. Department of Justice has approved the new Congressional district maps for Arizona. The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission announced the approval today in a short news release (the Department of Justice does not yet have it up on its website).
The controversial maps, which raised the ire of many Republicans, were submitted to the Justice Department for approval, required because of Arizona voting rights history. (Arizona appears to be the 7th state to have its new Congressional maps approved by the DOJ.) The maps can be viewed in many different ways and formats at the IRC's website - here is the statewide map, in pdf form.
Next up for the Department of Justice - Arizona's state legislative districts. The deadline is April 30.
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.
The controversial maps, which raised the ire of many Republicans, were submitted to the Justice Department for approval, required because of Arizona voting rights history. (Arizona appears to be the 7th state to have its new Congressional maps approved by the DOJ.) The maps can be viewed in many different ways and formats at the IRC's website - here is the statewide map, in pdf form.
Next up for the Department of Justice - Arizona's state legislative districts. The deadline is April 30.
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.
BREAKING NEWS: AZ GOP Sends Out Pre-Primary Mailer Opposing Ron Barber (FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS)
While the four Republicans hammer each other in advance of next week's special primary election to replace the retired Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8), the Arizona Republican Party is going on the offensive for the June general. Last week, the state party launched an independent expenditure campaign direct mailer targeting certain Democratic nominee, Ron Barber.
The AZ GOP spent a total of $47,000 (actually, $46,966.56) last week producing and mailing the piece opposing Barber - who used to be Giffords' Chief of Staff. Nearly $35,000 was spent on postage alone on April 3rd and 4th.
Candidates had to file their pre-primary financial reports on April 5, and Barber had vastly out-raised (and under-spent) the Republicans engaged in a primary battle. This IE mailer goes a little of the way towards evening that out, but also ensures that Barber does not completely coast into the two-month general election battle without any arrows being shot at him.
Arizona's Politics has requested a copy of the mailer from the party, but if you have received a copy, you may e-mail it to info@ArizonasPolitics.com.
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.
The AZ GOP spent a total of $47,000 (actually, $46,966.56) last week producing and mailing the piece opposing Barber - who used to be Giffords' Chief of Staff. Nearly $35,000 was spent on postage alone on April 3rd and 4th.
Candidates had to file their pre-primary financial reports on April 5, and Barber had vastly out-raised (and under-spent) the Republicans engaged in a primary battle. This IE mailer goes a little of the way towards evening that out, but also ensures that Barber does not completely coast into the two-month general election battle without any arrows being shot at him.
Arizona's Politics has requested a copy of the mailer from the party, but if you have received a copy, you may e-mail it to info@ArizonasPolitics.com.
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.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
READ: AG Holder Responds To 5th Circuit: Yes, Marbury v. Madison Stands. But, So Does...; Holder Makes An "Oops"
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed his three page, single-spaced homework assignment into the 5th Circuit panel today, digital hat in hand, defending the President's Monday remarks that it would be "unprecedented" for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the healthcare insurance reform law.
Well, he did not really grovel and he did not strike a defensive tone, and he did not even write a full three pages. (Students everywhere, take note.) Instead, he utilized the opportunity of guaranteed news coverage and thousands more people reading his short letter to make the argument that the courts should presume - and have long presumed - that laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are constitutional.
constitutional." The reason that that is a weak cite is found in the next sentence: "As such, it “should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits by this Court.” In other words, that case (Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993)) was where the parties (TBS and other cable operators) were asking Rehnquist alone - as Circuit Justice for the D.C. Circuit - for an injunction; Rehnquist was just saying it deserved the presumption until the Supreme Court was determining the constitutionality. Oops!
Though it is short enough, other tasks beckon and Arizona's Politics cannot pull up the rest of the citations to analyze. But, the point made in the previous post ("WATCH: Sen. McCain Pretends Pres. Obama Doesn't Know Supreme Court's Role; Plus, He Cracks Himself Up On Romney Choosing Palin For VP")
and, yes, the underlying point made by the AG today, is still valid: the President was NOT stating - explicitly or implicitly - that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to invalidate all or part of the so-called "Obamacare".
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.
Well, he did not really grovel and he did not strike a defensive tone, and he did not even write a full three pages. (Students everywhere, take note.) Instead, he utilized the opportunity of guaranteed news coverage and thousands more people reading his short letter to make the argument that the courts should presume - and have long presumed - that laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are constitutional.
And, to emphasize that point, the first opinion he weakly cites is one that was written by recent, conservative
Chief Justice William Rehnquist. "The 1992 Cable Act, like all Acts of Congress, is presumptively
constitutional." The reason that that is a weak cite is found in the next sentence: "As such, it “should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits by this Court.” In other words, that case (Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993)) was where the parties (TBS and other cable operators) were asking Rehnquist alone - as Circuit Justice for the D.C. Circuit - for an injunction; Rehnquist was just saying it deserved the presumption until the Supreme Court was determining the constitutionality. Oops!
Though it is short enough, other tasks beckon and Arizona's Politics cannot pull up the rest of the citations to analyze. But, the point made in the previous post ("WATCH: Sen. McCain Pretends Pres. Obama Doesn't Know Supreme Court's Role; Plus, He Cracks Himself Up On Romney Choosing Palin For VP")
and, yes, the underlying point made by the AG today, is still valid: the President was NOT stating - explicitly or implicitly - that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to invalidate all or part of the so-called "Obamacare".
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.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
WATCH: Sen. McCain Pretends Pres. Obama Doesn't Know Supreme Court's Role; Plus, He Cracks Himself Up On Romney Choosing Palin For VP
Sen. John McCain's appearance this morning with Charlie Rose on the CBS This Morning show was interesting. He talked a tougher-than-usual line on President Obama, though it was hard to believe that he actually thinks that the President really does not understand the role of the Supreme Court in our three branches of government. He delivered his desired message to former colleague Rick Santorum to get out now, and he cracked himself up (more than usual ) when he joked that Mitt Romney should pick McCain's former running mate Sarah Palin for the number two spot on the ticket.
McCain can be good at delivering attack lines based on out of context quotes or semi-truths, but the Supreme Court one that he spent the first part of the interview on is quite the stretch. The Senator did try to preface it by saying, "As usual, he is backing off some from his initial, utter, remarkable statement....Clearly, the President - a quote, teacher of constitutional law - doesn't have the same fundamental understanding that most of us do."
So, Sen. McCain is trying to indicate that he is aware of both the initial statement and the subsequent "backing off some." In case neither he nor his staff (nor perhaps, other readers of this blog) had the opportunity to review that initial statement, Arizona's Politics presents the full question and answer with the money quote highlighted.
On to the fun part of the interview. Sen. McCain was asked the Mitt Romney/VP question in the context of Sarah Palin suggesting Romney "go rogue". That prompted the wise-cracking Senator to shoot back that he thought Romney's pick should be "Sarah Palin". Though he pulled himself together enough to run down the list of real short listers, he obviously still had his joke on his mind when he concluded "obviously, it's a tough decision." (CBS' text report accompanying the video noted he chuckled when he delivered that line, making it appear that McCain was demeaning those potential running mates; he was not.)
(McCain gave a much different, interesting interview a few weeks ago that aired this weekend, and Arizona's Politics will post that audio shortly.)
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.
McCain can be good at delivering attack lines based on out of context quotes or semi-truths, but the Supreme Court one that he spent the first part of the interview on is quite the stretch. The Senator did try to preface it by saying, "As usual, he is backing off some from his initial, utter, remarkable statement....Clearly, the President - a quote, teacher of constitutional law - doesn't have the same fundamental understanding that most of us do."
So, Sen. McCain is trying to indicate that he is aware of both the initial statement and the subsequent "backing off some." In case neither he nor his staff (nor perhaps, other readers of this blog) had the opportunity to review that initial statement, Arizona's Politics presents the full question and answer with the money quote highlighted.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. After last week’s arguments at the Supreme Court, many experts believe that there could be a majority, a five-member majority, to strike down the individual mandate. And if that were to happen, if it were to be ruled unconstitutional, how would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those Americans who've become insured as a result of the law?Sen. McCain could not have any serious doubt that his former opponent understands that the Supreme Court justices have the constitutional authority to overturn the act of Congress. It is just that Obama's "confident" that they will not because he thinks there are precedents supporting its constitutionality and it would be a huge decision if they knocked it out. (Here are his extending and revising remarks from the next day.)
And then a President for President Calderón and Prime Minister Harper. Over the weekend, Governor Mitt Romney said that the U.S. used to promote free enterprise around the world, and he said, “Our President doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do, and I think over the last three or four years, some people around the world have begun to question that.” My question to the both of you is whether you think that American influence has declined over the last three to four years.
And, President Obama, if you’d like to respond to that, too.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, on the second part of your question, it’s still primary season for the Republican Party. They're going to make a decision about who their candidate will be.
It’s worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic Convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism, and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism. But I will cut folks some slack for now because they're still trying to get their nomination.
With respect to health care, I’m actually -- continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That's not just my opinion, by the way; that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.
I think it’s important -- because I watched some of the commentary last week -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions.
The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can't be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That's part of this law.
Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.
So that’s just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.
And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.
Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.
Q You say it's not an abstract conversation. Do you have contingency plans?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm sorry. As I said, we are confident that this will be over -- that this will be upheld. I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And, again, that’s not just my opinion; that’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency. (emphasis added)
On to the fun part of the interview. Sen. McCain was asked the Mitt Romney/VP question in the context of Sarah Palin suggesting Romney "go rogue". That prompted the wise-cracking Senator to shoot back that he thought Romney's pick should be "Sarah Palin". Though he pulled himself together enough to run down the list of real short listers, he obviously still had his joke on his mind when he concluded "obviously, it's a tough decision." (CBS' text report accompanying the video noted he chuckled when he delivered that line, making it appear that McCain was demeaning those potential running mates; he was not.)
(McCain gave a much different, interesting interview a few weeks ago that aired this weekend, and Arizona's Politics will post that audio shortly.)
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.
Arpaio, Dept. of Justice At Impasse Because of Confusion Between Two Similar Words
"Astrology" vs. "astronomy". "Compliment" vs. "complement". We all have pairs of words that are so similar - or, sound so similar - that they can confuse us. "Precede" vs. "proceed". "Loose" vs. "lose". Sometimes, the confusion can lead us into trouble... especially when our attorney does not correct us. "Monitor" vs. "master". There can be no other sane explanation. Can there?
Earlier today (Tuesday), the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced that negotiations between it and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office "MCSO") had broken down because the MCSO walked back from previous acceptances that an "independent monitor" would be appointed as part of any settlement of allegations of racial profiling and other missteps by the MCSO.
The DOJ released a letter it sent to the MCSO's private counsel earlier The Sheriff promptly issued a responsive press release provocatively (read: tabloid-esque) headlined:
Reading this left me surprised. I thought a monitor was more of a watchdog than the master, more a set of eyes looking over your shoulder than the brains of the operation. So, some research was in order.
Sure enough, it was not hard to find other situations where law enforcement agencies had agreed with the Department of Justice to permit an independent monitor. Here is one where Prince George's County P.D. (Maryland) and the DOJ together picked an independent monitor because the P.D. had been investigated for use of force and excessive force issues. Note that the monitor was to "evaluate" the implementation of reforms, "provide technical assistance", and "issue regular reports" in order to ensure compliance with the parties' agreement.
Here is another one where the parties chose two former law enforcement officers to monitor the New Jersey State Police after they were investigated for racially discriminatory traffic stops. Again, the monitor was to "ensure that the state is implementing the terms of the decree." How? They "
The agreement between the DOJ and New Jersey State P.D. was in 2000. How did it turn out? Well, they were able to dissolve the consent decree in 2004 and a 2006 expert opinion found that the independent monitors and the NJSP both worked together and great improvements were made. At that point, the NJSP was considering voluntarily retaining its own outside monitor to audit its progress. (The report also runs through several other police agencies and their monitor situations.)
It would seem that an "independent monitor" does not quite fit the descriptions used in the MCSO press release. But, the problem becomes crystal clear when reading this article about recent court hearings about the ongoing consent decree battles in federal court regarding the Oakland (CA) Police Department. The consent decree was entered into in 2003, and there has been an independent monitor since. However, the monitoring team has noted in its most recent quarterly audits that not only has there not been progress but there has been backsliding in some areas. Therefore, the judge is considering beginning proceedings to place the police department into "receivership". Now, THAT sounds like control!
Read a bit further and you see that two civil rights attorneys who have been active in the case for many years are now pushing the judge to appoint a federal MASTER to take control of the department. That would - or, could, depending on conflicts with constitutions and laws, such as Arpaio hinted at - remove significant decision-making from the Oakland Police Chief, City Manager, etc. Which is another reason why it is obviously more complex than what the DOJ was apparently asking the MCSO to agree to.
It is understandable that Arpaio and his close staff (e.g. "Deputy Director and Attorney" MacIntyre) might confuse "monitor" and "master". It is less understandable that their highly paid Jones, Skelton & Hochuli attorney, Joseph Popolizio, would be unclear. And, any attorney trying to best represent his client - as opposed to one permitting a disagreement to be stretched out for as long as possible - would make sure that their client clearly understands the distinctions.
"Surrender" vs. "Comply". "Master" vs. "monitor". It seems clear to most of us in Maricopa County, doesn't it? You know, the ones who are really paying the bill for the squabbles, the private attorneys and impending litigation.
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.
Earlier today (Tuesday), the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced that negotiations between it and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office "MCSO") had broken down because the MCSO walked back from previous acceptances that an "independent monitor" would be appointed as part of any settlement of allegations of racial profiling and other missteps by the MCSO.
The DOJ released a letter it sent to the MCSO's private counsel earlier The Sheriff promptly issued a responsive press release provocatively (read: tabloid-esque) headlined:
DOJ TO SHERIFF ARPAIO:The release claims that the DOJ is incorrect and that it first insisted upon a monitor yesterday. But, it then (repeatedly) defines the monitor as making decisions, taking authority, usurping. Here are the complete paragraphs, with the attempts at defining the independent monitor's role highlighted:
“MONITOR ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY”
ARPAIO TO DOJ:
“I WILL NOT SURRENDER MY OFFICE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT”
Appointment of an outside monitor essentially usurps the powers and duties of
an elected Sheriff and transfers them to a person or group of persons selected by
the federal government. Every policy decision, every operation, every new
program in the jails and in enforcement, virtually everything would have to be
approved by the monitor, nullifying the authority of the elected Sheriff and
eviscerating the will of the citizens of Maricopa County.
“I am the constitutionally and legitimately elected Sheriff and I absolutely refuse
to surrender my responsibility to the federal government. And so to the Obama
administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its
political gain, I say, ‘This will not happen, not on my watch!’”
Sheriff's Deputy Director and Attorney Jack MacIntyre says a federal monitor is
the most extreme proposal, particularly in light of the fact that the federal
government has refused to provide any details or proof as to how they came to
the conclusion that Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office employees engage in
patterns and practices of racial profiling as well as other unsupported claims that
the DOJ has widely publicized.
Reading this left me surprised. I thought a monitor was more of a watchdog than the master, more a set of eyes looking over your shoulder than the brains of the operation. So, some research was in order.
Sure enough, it was not hard to find other situations where law enforcement agencies had agreed with the Department of Justice to permit an independent monitor. Here is one where Prince George's County P.D. (Maryland) and the DOJ together picked an independent monitor because the P.D. had been investigated for use of force and excessive force issues. Note that the monitor was to "evaluate" the implementation of reforms, "provide technical assistance", and "issue regular reports" in order to ensure compliance with the parties' agreement.
Here is another one where the parties chose two former law enforcement officers to monitor the New Jersey State Police after they were investigated for racially discriminatory traffic stops. Again, the monitor was to "ensure that the state is implementing the terms of the decree." How? They "
The agreement between the DOJ and New Jersey State P.D. was in 2000. How did it turn out? Well, they were able to dissolve the consent decree in 2004 and a 2006 expert opinion found that the independent monitors and the NJSP both worked together and great improvements were made. At that point, the NJSP was considering voluntarily retaining its own outside monitor to audit its progress. (The report also runs through several other police agencies and their monitor situations.)
It would seem that an "independent monitor" does not quite fit the descriptions used in the MCSO press release. But, the problem becomes crystal clear when reading this article about recent court hearings about the ongoing consent decree battles in federal court regarding the Oakland (CA) Police Department. The consent decree was entered into in 2003, and there has been an independent monitor since. However, the monitoring team has noted in its most recent quarterly audits that not only has there not been progress but there has been backsliding in some areas. Therefore, the judge is considering beginning proceedings to place the police department into "receivership". Now, THAT sounds like control!
Read a bit further and you see that two civil rights attorneys who have been active in the case for many years are now pushing the judge to appoint a federal MASTER to take control of the department. That would - or, could, depending on conflicts with constitutions and laws, such as Arpaio hinted at - remove significant decision-making from the Oakland Police Chief, City Manager, etc. Which is another reason why it is obviously more complex than what the DOJ was apparently asking the MCSO to agree to.
It is understandable that Arpaio and his close staff (e.g. "Deputy Director and Attorney" MacIntyre) might confuse "monitor" and "master". It is less understandable that their highly paid Jones, Skelton & Hochuli attorney, Joseph Popolizio, would be unclear. And, any attorney trying to best represent his client - as opposed to one permitting a disagreement to be stretched out for as long as possible - would make sure that their client clearly understands the distinctions.
"Surrender" vs. "Comply". "Master" vs. "monitor". It seems clear to most of us in Maricopa County, doesn't it? You know, the ones who are really paying the bill for the squabbles, the private attorneys and impending litigation.
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.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
COUNTERSTRIKE: AG Horne Uses "My Opponent and Her Friends Were Worse Than Me and My Friends" Defense
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne leveled accusations in the media against his 2010 general election opponent, Felecia Rotellini, that should have been made to the same FBI agents who are investigating the actions of him and his associates.
In his three page response given to and published today by the Arizona Republic, Horne concludes by contrasting the allegations against him and his associates with a nasty independent expenditure campaign that targeted him in the weeks leading up to the election. The ad blitz apparently violated a number of election laws, and was funded by the national Democratic Attorneys General Association ("DAGA").
Although Horne did not publicly whine about the DAGA after the election (he did use it for fundraising purposes), he apparently was holding it in reserve for just the right time. That time arrived yesterday when it became apparent that the Capitol Times and the Republic were about to go to press on the FBI investigation.
He let loose with the below the radar ALJ hearing against the Committee for Justice and Fairness, comparing the CFJF's lack of filing and disclosures with his associate's actual filings and disclosures. Then, he adds his piece de resistance, contrasting his personal efforts to avoid coordination with any IE campaigns (real or fictional) with NEW EVIDENCE that his opponent attended a meeting of the DAGA the month before it funded the IE campaign! "The irony of the present inquiry is that I went much further than many other candidates to stay far away from the line that separates campaigns from independent campaigns," Horne writes. (Of course, the statutes and cases go much farther than just requiring the candidate to maintain separation.)
As evidence of this meeting, he cites a Rotellini campaign committee finance report showing in-kind contributions from Tim and Julie Nelson totaling $380, dated September 14, 2010 and labeled "DAGA Conference". (There likely is additional information that would prompt Horne to conclude that that contribution was to pay for Rotellini's attendance, especially considering that the entry lists that Tim Nelson was working in the AG's office at the time.)
If true, Rotellini's actions do merit similar investigation, along with the other apparent violations by CFJF and DAGA that have not yet been resolved. But, for Horne to pass the Rotellini allegations along to the media in such fashion without any indication that he has also submitted them to an investigatory agency reflects poorly and sounds like the worst kind of schoolyard defense as to why he and the other boys thought it was okay to throw mud in the girls' faces during recess.
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.
In his three page response given to and published today by the Arizona Republic, Horne concludes by contrasting the allegations against him and his associates with a nasty independent expenditure campaign that targeted him in the weeks leading up to the election. The ad blitz apparently violated a number of election laws, and was funded by the national Democratic Attorneys General Association ("DAGA").
Although Horne did not publicly whine about the DAGA after the election (he did use it for fundraising purposes), he apparently was holding it in reserve for just the right time. That time arrived yesterday when it became apparent that the Capitol Times and the Republic were about to go to press on the FBI investigation.
He let loose with the below the radar ALJ hearing against the Committee for Justice and Fairness, comparing the CFJF's lack of filing and disclosures with his associate's actual filings and disclosures. Then, he adds his piece de resistance, contrasting his personal efforts to avoid coordination with any IE campaigns (real or fictional) with NEW EVIDENCE that his opponent attended a meeting of the DAGA the month before it funded the IE campaign! "The irony of the present inquiry is that I went much further than many other candidates to stay far away from the line that separates campaigns from independent campaigns," Horne writes. (Of course, the statutes and cases go much farther than just requiring the candidate to maintain separation.)
As evidence of this meeting, he cites a Rotellini campaign committee finance report showing in-kind contributions from Tim and Julie Nelson totaling $380, dated September 14, 2010 and labeled "DAGA Conference". (There likely is additional information that would prompt Horne to conclude that that contribution was to pay for Rotellini's attendance, especially considering that the entry lists that Tim Nelson was working in the AG's office at the time.)
If true, Rotellini's actions do merit similar investigation, along with the other apparent violations by CFJF and DAGA that have not yet been resolved. But, for Horne to pass the Rotellini allegations along to the media in such fashion without any indication that he has also submitted them to an investigatory agency reflects poorly and sounds like the worst kind of schoolyard defense as to why he and the other boys thought it was okay to throw mud in the girls' faces during recess.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)