Southern Arizona Legislative candidates arranged by the total amount they raised by June 1, 2016. The percentage of PAC funds is given at the top of each column. Green bars are Clean Elections candidates. (Source data: SOS Campaign Finance system.)
June 30 was the deadline for statewide and legislative candidates to file their campaign finance reports. Data nerds like me love slogging through the Secretary of State’s website for Ah-Ha moments of discovery. And there are some.
Remaining funds for each Southern Arizona Legislative candidate, after reported expenses have been subtracted. Green bars are Clean Elections candidates. (Source data: SOS Campaign Finance system.)
My primary reason for looking at these data was, of course, to gauge my campaign against others in Southern Arizona. For nearly a year, people have been telling me not to run as a Clean Elections (CE) candidate because “it’s just not enough money.” These two graphics show a somewhat different picture.
The top graphic shows that Daniel Hernandez (D-LD2) blew the doors off the fundraising barn by gathering $60,437, but Hernandez spent $25,489 to get there, leaving him with $34,948 on July 1. (Yes, of course, he can keep dialing for dollars every day from now until November 8, but that is a lot of time and manpower.) Ana Henderson (R-LD9) with $21,345 is the Clean Elections candidate with the most funds on July 1; she has spent only $1,367. You can see how the difference between these two candidates flattened out when you take into consideration the money Hernandez had to spend to raise $60,000. (Since Clean Elections has strict rules on how much we can collect in seed money and family money and how we receive once we have qualified for public funds, all of the candidates who have qualified for CE have roughly the same amount. Note the green bars on both graphs. (Fun fact: all of the qualified CE candidates in Southern Arizona are women.)
Let’s compare Hernandez to the other two candidates in the LD2 Democratic Party primary.
Posted in Arizona State Legislature, Campaigns, Economics, Elections, Pamela Powers Hannley, Primaries
Tagged Andrea Dalessandro, Arizona Clean Elections, campaign finance, Corin Hammond, Courtney Frogge, Daniel Hernandez Jr., Dr. Randy Friese, Kirsten Engel, Mark Finchem, pamela powers hannley, Rosanna Gabaldon, Steve Farley
The Arizona Legislature is working “under the influence”… under the influence of wealthy donors, clever lobbyists and dark money.
The Republican-controlled Legislature has passed, and Governor Doug Ducey has happily signed multiple bills that limit the rights of citizens, overturn citizens’ initiatives, suppress voting, consolidate the power in the Legislature, decimate long-standing campaign finance laws, line the pockets of “lawmakers”, mortgage our future, and keep the lobbyists happy. Republican legislators are serving their big money masters– not the citizens of Arizona.
Arizona’s government is one of the most corrupt in the country. (See article here.)
We need reform! It’s time for change in the Arizona Legislature. Many progressives have stepped up to run as Clean Elections candidates,and many are running in underdog races against well-funded Republicans. As progressives, we value Clean Elections, stand against dark money, and believe that Citizens United has corrupted our elections.
34 Democratic Candidates are running as Clean Elections candidates for the Legislature or the Corporation Commission. As such, they all must collect a specific number of petition signatures and $5 Clean Elections Contributions from people in their districts. In addition, they can collect up to $160/person in seed money from anyone eligible to vote in the US.
After the jump is a list of all Arizona Clean Elections candidates and links to their websites. Please consider signing their petitions, donating a Clean Elections $5, and/or donating seed money. If we want to get money out of politics, we must show that Clean Elections can work. This is not an endorsement of any candidate; this is an endorsement of the Clean Elections process.
If we want reform in the Arizona Legislature, we must elect reformers.
Pamela Powers Hannley, MPH
Yes, indeed, as has been hinted on this blog, I am running for the Arizona House to serve Legislative District 9.
No, I don’t need a psychiatric evaluation.
I’m running because I’m tired of government against the people. I am running for the Arizona Legislature because I want to bring back government of the people, by the people and for the people. Republican Party policies have starved the Arizona economy and thrown many citizens into financial ruin.
GOP leaders bow to dark money donors and ignore the needs of Arizona workers. They have repeatedly cut taxes for the 1% and for corporations, while allowing the people of Arizona to toil away for chronically low wages, that are well below national standards. Their policies have hindered Arizona’s competitiveness by allowing our roads and bridges to crumble and by whittling away k-12 education, vocational education, community colleges, and universities.
Arizona has been stuck in a ditch since the Tea Party took over in 2010. It’s time to take back our government, end austerity policies that are hurting Arizona families, and get back on the road to prosperity.
My slogan is “Powers for the People” because I will work for you… real people… not for corporate people. I am proud to run as a Clean Elections candidate because I believe voters– not money– should decide who runs our country.
I am running on a platform that focuses on ending wasteful spending, raising revenue, and saving money to fund jobs, infrastructure, and education. Learn more after the jump.
Posted in Arizona State Legislature, Budgets, Campaigns, Civil Rights, Crime, Drug Policy, Economics, Elections, Infrastructure, Labor, Pamela Powers Hannley, Taxes, Transportation, Tucson
Tagged Arizona Clean Elections, Arizona Legislature, equal pay, Equal Rights Amendment, marijuana, pamela powers hannley, progressive, Tucson, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Women
Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com
It looks like the GOP majority in the AZ Legislature has figured out what the real “dark money” problem in our state is. Apparently, it’s with the $5 qualifying contributions to Clean Elections candidates made in cash. Lord only knows where that money has been! Continue reading
Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com
I haven’t gotten around to addressing it, what with the marriage equality hoopla and teenage abortion explosions taking place at this very hectic pre-election time, but last week the Clean Elections Commission allowed GOP Corp Comm candidates to walk with an insultingly low fine of $1K each after they admitted to violating Clean Elections law.
Per the AZ Capitol Times:
The commission voted 4-1 to adopt the a settlement, which the candidates proposed just before the commissioners met to discuss commission executive director Tom Collins’ recommendation for a full investigation into the candidates. Tom Collins reported that a staff analysis showed there was reason to believe the two broke campaign finance laws while investigating two complaints filed with the commission by the state Democratic Party.
Posted in Campaigns, Corruption, Crime, Donna Gratehouse, Election Integrity, Elections, Energy, Ethics, IOKIYAR, Legislation
Tagged Arizona Clean Elections, Arizona Corporation Commission, Doug Little, Tom Forese
Andrew Prokop of Vox interviewed Michael G. Miller of Barnard college about his research on public campaign financing in the states that have enacted it. Conventional wisdom in Arizona’s elite circles holds that Arizona’s Clean Election system is largely to blame for the election of radical right wing legislators and laws such as SB1070. Miller tried to find the connection and couldn’t:
Andrew Prokop: Arizona’s legislature last made national news for adopting a tough anti-illegal immigration law in 2010. Would you say that the public financing system made that more likely to pass? Support for loosening immigration laws is more widespread among business interests, and under public financing, the support of business may be less important to candidates. Continue reading