UPDATE: DISMISSED.....100 Days Too Late, $100M Short: Saying Michael Cohen's "Too Late" & That There's No Malice, Fusion GPS Moves To Dismiss Cohen's Steele Dossier Defamation Suit (READ, OFF-TOPIC)

UPDATE, 4/19, 10:30am: Facing a deadline next week to respond to Fusion GPS' Motion to Dismiss, Cohen yesterday voluntarily dismissed his $100M defamation suit. (below) He also dismissed the separate action against Buzzfeed. Following the FBI raid of Cohen's offices, there were reports that they had evidence that Cohen had traveled to the Czech Republic during the campaign; Cohen's defamation suits were based on his claims that that part of the dossier was false.

   Cohen v Bean Notice of Dismissal by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

Fusion GPS moved to dismiss  Michael Cohen's $100M defamation suit yesterday, claiming the embattled Trump attorney filed the action well after the one-year statute of limitations, and that Cohen does not have any facts to indicate that the research firm had "actual malice" in turning over the infamous opposition research dossier to authorities.

(AP)

Cohen filed the suit against Fusion GPS' parent company in January, saying that the dossier falsely reported that he had traveled to the Czech Republic during the Presidential campaign on behalf of then-candidate Trump. The dossier made its way to federal authorities in 2016, and Buzzfeed News published it in January 2017. (Cohen filed a separate action against Buzzfeed.)

The complaint was filed one day before a year had passed from the Buzzfeed publication. In the new Motion to Dismiss, Fusion GPS says that Cohen's suit acknowledged that the publication was out of the control of Fusion GPS, and also that Fusion GPS had not taken any actions after November 2016. Citing case law, Fusion GPS thus argues that the one-year deadline to file the case passed in November 2017.

U.S. District Court Judge J. Paul Oetken today gave Cohen's attorneys until April 27 to respond.*

   Fusion GPS' Motion To Dismiss Michael Cohen Defamation Claim by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

*Fusion GPS attempted to file the Motion to Dismiss on March 30, however some filing problems with the Court prompted them to re-file it April 11.

(Occasionally, Arizona's Politics comes across interesting items that are not directly related to Arizona politics, but warrant publishing. This is one of those items.)

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. 

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.

UPDATE: National Republicans Drop Another $270K On #AZ08 Special Election, Total Hits $889,327; Democrats Start To Answer

The National Republican Congressional Committee ("NRCC") dropped $270,000 for a new ad touting Debbie Lesko for the April 24 Special Election in Arizona's 8th Congressional District.  National GOP groups have now spent $889,327 in the past month to ensure that the solid Republican district stays in GOP hands.

The NRCC ad - which has not been posted online - likely attacks Democratic nominee Hiral Tipirneni. Tipirneni's campaign is airing its own attack ad against Lesko.

The national Republicans have also invested heavily in so-called ground game activities, such as door-to-door canvassing, phone calls, etc.  The candidates' next campaign finance reports are due next week.

A fairly new national Democratic group - the Progressive Turnout Project - filed an independent expenditure report this week, noting they have spent $14,117 in airlines tickets and other expenses. It is the first report of national groups trying to help Tipirneni tip the seat to the Democrats.

The Progressive Turnout Project told Arizona's Politics that they are sending approximately 30 staffers to Arizona's West Valley "in the final weekend leading up to Election Day" to help get out the vote. Spokesperson Priyal Amin says the PTP is "grassroots funded", and a check of their FEC reports does back it up.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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: 3 AZ Reps Cross Party Lines As Balanced Budget Amendment FAILS, 233-184

Three of Arizona's 8 Representatives crossed party lines on today's vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. The resolution failed to garner the required 2/3 vote, and failed 233-184.

Only 7 Democrats voted in favor of sending the proposed Constitutional Amendment to be considered by the states. (178 voted against.) Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-CD9) voted "aye". She has not yet commented publicly on her vote.

Sinema is running for the Senate seat opened up  by the impending retirement of Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Not coincidentally, her leading Republican opponent - Rep. Martha McSally (R-CD2) also voted aye, and trumpeted that she was one of the (65) co-sponsors of the measure.*

Republican House Members supported referring the Amendment to the state by a count of 226-6. Arizona Reps. Paul Gosar (R-CD4) and Andy Biggs (R-CD5).

In a tweet and a  column posted on FoxNews.com, Biggs said "the so-called balanced budget amendmennt...may be the most cynical (proposal) in my short time in Congress."  His point was that it "incentivizes Congress to raise taxes" because it would be easier than slashing spending.

I voted “no” on the so-called balanced budget amendment. This amendment was a cynical attempt to deceive the American people. I simply want a BBA that will actually force Congress to do its job of passing a balanced budget.

MORE in my @FoxNews op-ed: https://t.co/0Q85Dt3qnh

— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) April 12, 2018

Gosar's explanation brought Biggs' point into sharper focus by tying it to the omnibus deal** that was passed last month. 

Two weeks after blowing through spending caps by passing without reading the 2,300 page, $1.3 trillion omnibus spending deal, Congress seems to have conveniently found religion and suddenly cares about spending limits. My vote against the Balanced Budget Act reflects my frustration with the spending hypocrisy of this Congress. I am committed to using tools provided to Congress by the Constitution to ensure that we do not tie our country's future to the debts of our past. In previous years, I've supported legislation that provided a path toward fiscal responsibility like the Cut, Cap And Balance Act. Unfortunately, this amendment is filled with loopholes and doesn't get us any closer to fixing Washington's out of control spending. This bill was nothing more than a CYA charade and the American people see right through it. (Emphasis added)

*McSally's initial news release after the vote indicated that the resolution had passed. A corrected release soon followed.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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.

UPDATE/BREAKING: APS' Parent Leads Nation In SuperPAC Political Contributions (FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS)

(UPDATE, 4/12/18: APS responded to Arizona's Politics' emails after hours last night. Though they didn't answer the specific questions, their statement is incorporated at the end of this article.)

Arizona Public Service continues ramping up for both state and federal elections this year, with the new news that Pinnacle West (APS' parent) has given $1.2M to federal SuperPACs in this election cycle - more than any other public corporation in the nation.

Arizona's Politics earlier reported that PinnWest had re-started its elections money machine by contributing $150,000 to groups who will be supporting Gov. Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich in their re-election campaigns. And, there has been widespread reporting on APS's spending money to oppose an initiative effort related to renewable energy.

However, the $1,160,000 which PinnWest has already contributed to Arizona Grassroots Action PAC since the last election is large in its own right. This nearly doubles its contribution to AGA in all of 2016, which was used to support the re-election of Sen. John McCain (both in the primary and in the general).

It is not clear who controls where the AGA PAC spends its money, and which campaign(s) it might get involved in. Significantly, though, APS/PinnWest has contributed about half of the $1.2M before Sen. Jeff Flake announced he would not seek re-election, and slightly more than half after the (Oct. 24) announcement.

In a pattern of APS now going the early money route, its AGA support is stronger and earlier than it was in previous election cycles.  (AGA has had an interesting record of both contributors and disbursements.)

Pinnacle West's activity put it at the pinnacle of publicly-owned corporations* contributing to federal SuperPACs in this campaign cycle, according to research by the Washington Post. (The article notes billionaires Sheldon and Miriam Adelson are conspicuously absent; that couple has been a key Arizona Grassroots Action contributor in the past.)

Arizona's Politics' articles about the stepped-up APS/PinnWest activity come even as the court battle over forcing the utility to divulge details about its prodigious - and, largely dark** - 2014 political spending continues. In February, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Kiley dismissed Corporation Commissioner Robert Burns' lawsuit to enforce his subpoenas; the parties are wrangling over the form of judgment and a motion to amend the complaint.

Arizona's Politics has reached out to PinnWest for responses, and will supplement this article as warranted.   In response to detailed questions from Arizona's Politics, APS' Media Relations Manager Jenna Powell issued the following company statement:

As Arizona’s largest and longest-serving energy company, a major employer and the state’s largest taxpayer, we are heavily invested in and dedicated to Arizona’s success. The policies set by our lawmakers and regulators have significant implications for our customers, employees and shareholders, and that is why we participate in the political process and advocate for pro-business policies that support a responsible and sustainable energy future for Arizona. We are fully transparent about our participation; in fact, we voluntarily go beyond what disclosure laws require by annually publishing a comprehensive list of our political contributions, funded by Pinnacle West shareholders – not APS customers.

APS declined to comment on its #1 in the nation status or the extent of its involvement with AGA PAC, and why it chose to put so many eggs in AGA's basket. APS also did not voluntarily disclose any political contributions it made in the 1st quarter of this calendar year, or its political budget for the rest of this year.

PinnWest's political participation web page does disclose the AGA contributions. It also discloses the $3.2M spent to oppose the renewable energy initiative spearheaded by billionaire Tom Steyer (first reported on by Arizona Capital Media's Howie Fischer). The $750,000 given to the Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association was APS' 3rd largest contribution last year.


*APS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pinnacle West. It is the largest government-regulated utility in Arizona.
**APS was admittedly a player in the flood of dark money in the 2014 campaign, as frequently documented in Arizona's Politics' #50ShadesOfDarkMoney series.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. 

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: Gov. Ducey's Office Has Spent $700k Defending Prop. 123 School Funding; President Trump Can't Get Ted Olson, But Arizona Has Him (UPDATED)

(UPDATE, 5:30pm: The Governor's Office responded following publication, telling Arizona's Politics that $695,077.49 has been spent on attorneys' fees for the case. No supporting documentation or list of other cases has yet been provided. Nevertheless, the headline and article have been updated)

The legal challenge to Arizona's Prop. 123 on education funding is still (technically*) in its early stages, but Arizona Governor Doug Ducey's office has apparently already spent approximately $700,000 in legal fees defending it. Nearly 3/5 of that has been paid to retain high-powered attorney Ted Olson (and others at the firm) - the same Olson who last month rejected President Trump's efforts to hire him.


On March 26, U.S. District Court Judge Neil V. Wake denied the Governor's Motions To Dismiss the challenge to the voter-approved Propositions in 2012 and 2016. Those measures allowed the state to invade the principal of the state's land trust. Judge Wake is now asking the parties to argue the effect of a provision in the omnibus spending measure which blessed the Propositions retroactively; that blessing was approved by Congress and signed by the President in March.**

The Governor's Office has retained partners Theresa Dwyer and Tim Berg at Arizona law firm Fennemore Craig, and former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson and Matthew McGill from mega-firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. In the less than two years since the case was filed, the two firms have billed the Governor's Office

Arizona's Politics compiled the paid invoices from the state's website and confirmed them with the Governor's Office. However, the Governor's Office indicated to Arizona's Politics - on the day the Judge's ruling was reported on - that the law firms may be representing it in other matters. Therefore, They Governor's Spokesman Patrick Ptak has now confirmed to Arizona's Politics that $695,077.49 has been paid to the two firms  have not confirmed the $753,575 is only for the Props. 118 & 123 case... while also not providing a list of the other legal matters that may be included in the bills. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher has been paid $406,093.59, while Fennemore Craig has received $288,983.90. The difference would indicate that Fennemore Craig has received at least $68,000 for other matters in which it represents the Governor's Office.

Arizona's Politics will update this article once further information from the Governor's Office is received.


*No answer has yet been filed by the Governor's Office, because the Motions To Dismiss were pending.**Sidenote: Interestingly, most of Arizona's Congressional delegation voted against the omnibus package - though for different reasons. Only Reps. Tom O'Halleran (D-CD1), Martha McSally (R-CD2), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-CD9) voted aye.


If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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: Arizona Supreme Court Unanimously Rules DREAMers Not Entitled To In-State Tuition (READ)

The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously upheld a lower court opinion finding that DACA recipients (aka DREAMers) are not entitled to in-state tuition at Arizona colleges and universities.

The Supreme Court's announced their decision today, one week after holding oral argument on the matter. Their written opinion will be drafted and released within the next five weeks.

However, in the 2+ page order, the Court advises that the Legislature could pass a law that would permit the state's colleges and universities to grant in-state tuition to DACA recipients who graduated high school here. The Order notes that three of Arizona's neighbors - California, Colorado and New Mexico have done so.

HOWEVER, the Court warned that such an effort "may be subject to the Voter Protection Act"; that is to say, in 2006, Arizona voters approved Prop. 300, which banned state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition to "non-qualified aliens."

Here, also, is the lower court's unanimous opinion, which the Supreme Court upheld today. It overturned the trial judge's decision that the students are statutorily entitled to in-state tuition because they became "lawfully present" after President Obama instituted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA").

President Trump has rescinded the DACA Executive Order. However, that action is also tied up in federal courts.

   Arizona Ct App Decision on DREAMers and in State Tuition by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

 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.

UPDATE: Should State/Schools Have To Return Money To Trust Fund - Judge Gives Plaintiff 10 Days To Decide On #Prop123 Education Funding Lawsuit

U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake has set a status conference for April 16 on the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's Prop. 123 to increase school funding, and has ordered the Plaintiff to decide whether he thinks the state and/or schools should have to return millions of dollars to the land trust set up by the U.S. when Arizona became a state. The hearing comes after he declared the voter-approved Propositions improper.

In his decision on March 26, Judge Wake asked the parties to come up with a schedule to brief the issues presented by Congress' after-the-fact blessing of both Props. 118 and 123. They did, while noting that the Plaintiff had not yet "decided whether to dispute the retroactive effects of the 2018 Act."

On the other hand, Governor Doug Ducey, who was the primary proponent of both Propositions - in 2012 as State Treasurer and in 2016 as Governor - strongly states that Congress gave complete absolution:

Congress expressly consented to the annual distributions made from the permanent funds under Proposition 118 (through fiscal year 2014-2015), and the annual distributions made from the permanent funds under Proposition 123 (from fiscal years 2015-2016 through 2024-2025).

The Plaintiff's uncertainty likely led Judge Wake to decide that he now wants the attorneys to come into Court at 1:30 on the 16th to discuss the briefing schedule. "Plaintiff shall
be prepared to address whether he now seeks any remedy, and if so, what remedy," the Order concludes.

   Pierce Ducey CV 16-1538 Status Hearing by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

   Pierce v. Ducey, proposed briefing by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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/WATCH: New Tipirneni Ad Goes After Lesko's Campaign Money Shuffle, Quotes Primary Opponent: "Illegal Money Laundering"

Hiral Tipirneni has unleashed a tough new 30-second ad in this month's special election for Trent Franks' open Congressional seat. In it, she leads with "a federal investigation into illegal money laundering" by  Republican opponent Debbie Lesko. (The ad is below.)

Of course, that is a quote from Lesko's vanquished primary election opponent, Phil Lovas, after he filed complaints with the state and the Federal Election Commission. Lesko moved $50,000 from her state Senate campaign committee to a newly-created federal SuperPAC that then spent the money in the federal Congressional primary campaign. SuperPACs are supposed to operate independently from any candidate they are supporting.  The FEC has not made any public statements about how seriously they will investigate the complaint.

Tipirneni has been airing TV ads at the cost of approximately $20,000/week for the past few weeks. Lesko also has spots airing in conjunction with the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Arizona's Politics has been reporting on the assistance that the national Republicans have been providing Lesko's campaign in the strongly-Republican district. Today, Politico reported that House Speaker Paul Ryan is holding a D.C. fundraiser for her 6 days before the April 24 election day.

Politico also reported on the first (small) indication that national Democrats are getting behind Tipirneni in this special election, as EMILY's List announced its endorsement.




(8:28: This article was edited to reflect that Phil Lovas - not Steve Montenegro - filed the FEC complaint and called the money move "illegal money laundering", as quoted in the Arizona Republic.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

 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.