Democratic Attorney General Debate: competent professionals, a few sparks

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Democratic candidates for Attorney General held their Citizens Clean Elections debate on Wednesday evening, and it was far different from the mudslinging slug-fest their Republican counterparts engaged in the previous evening.

The media, of course, sounded almost disappointed — the media loves the theater of conflict politics. So the media spices it up with adjectives to conflate a minor disagreement into a brouhaha for their own entertainment value.

The Arizona Republic reports Arizona Democrats stress experience in attorney general debate. "Democratic candidates for attorney general had their most pointed debate to date Wednesday night, with each claiming to have the most relevant experience for the job."

Boring! Let's spice up the headlines with some punchy adjectives, shall we?

"Outside of a late sparring match between Vince Rabago and Felecia Rotellini, the first televised debate among the three Democrats vying for the attorney general's seat lacked the fireworks and animosity of their Republican counterparts." Rabago, Rotellini spar as Dem AG hopefuls outline experience Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required).

Howard Fischer writes at the Arizona Guardian, "A Few Sparks Fly in Televised Dem AG Debate" (subscription required), the East Valley Tribune Democratic attorney general candidates debate (boring!), and the Arizona Daily Star Attorney-general debate sees charges fly between Democrats (ah, the Star's creative headline writer must be back from vacation):

The former state banking chief accused a foe in the attorney general's race of filing a lawsuit against a payday lender to get some publicity and then abandoning the case.

Felecia Rotellini said Wednesday night that Vince Rabago, then an assistant attorney general, filed suit in December against Quik Cash charging the payday lending firm with deceptive debt-collection practices. A month later he resigned to run for attorney general.

"That lawsuit has never made it out of the starting gate,'' Rotellini charged during the televised debate among the three Democrats running to be the next attorney general. She said he "walked out'' on the victims.

Rotellini made this same curious allegation on Monday night during a debate in Tucson. The Office of Attorney General is the counsel of record for "victims," not any one particular assistant attorney general. Case files are often reassigned and substitution of counsel occurs, in particular, when an attorney leaves the employ of the Office of Attorney General. There is nothing unusual, unprofessional or unethical about this as this accusatory claim is intended to suggest. The "victims" were not "abandoned" by the Office of Attorney General.

"Abandonment of litigation" by an attorney is a serious ethical violation and constitutes malpractice. Rotellini is making an unfounded allegation using loaded language (for attorneys) bordering on defamation. Rotellini should know better. Knock off this shit.

Rabago responded that he managed to obtain an injunction against the company before he left.

"That's a lie,'' Rotellini responded. "There's no injunction on the books.''

That, however, is not true: An examination of court records by Capitol Media Services shows there not only is an injunction but attorneys for the company actually agreed to let a judge sign it, without a fight.

And the case has been on hold since March, by mutual consent, as both sides told Pima County Superior Court Judge Richard Gordon they were "engaged in settlement discussions.''

The lawsuit filed by the attorney general's office charges Quik Cash engaged in "a widespread deceptive pattern'' of filing suit against those who default on their payday loans in Pima County justice courts, "far from where the consumers lived or where the loans occurred.''

According to the lawsuit, this practice does more than make it more expensive for borrowers to fight the lawsuit. It makes it more likely that a borrower will not respond to the lawsuit because the cost of fighting it in Pima County — or even hiring an attorney to ask that the case be moved locally — makes no sense given that the amounts of money involved are so small, "effectively depriving consumers of having their day in local court.''

Rotellini overplayed her hand with her unfounded allegation and got fact-checked to reveal that it is she who wrongly accused her opponent of a "lie," when in fact it is she who made a baseless allegation, apparently without checking the case file record (she does know how to do case file searches, doesn't she?) Oops! Egg all over her face.

Rabago got in a few shots of his own during the 25-minute debate televised on KAET-TV, blasting Rotellini for going to work for a law firm that represents banks right after she had been superintendent of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions, the agency that oversees state-chartered banks.

On air, Rotellini said she did regulate "the small community banks that are in our communities that support our small businesses that are run by independent-spirited entrepreneurs.'' But rather than address the question of the conflict, she instead charged that Rabago does not understand the difference between these banks and the big nationally regulated banks.

After the show, though, she denied there was anything improper. Rotellini said none of the banks her firm represents ever got in trouble with her agency while she was in charge.

The Arizona Republic adds more detail Arizona Democrats stress experience in attorney general debate:

Rabago criticized Rotellini for leaving the Department of Financial Institutions to work for a law firm that represents banks, saying she was too cozy with the institutions she had regulated.

"She went straight to the industry that she regulated," Rabago said. "It's a revolving door. The question that needs to be asked is, are you a friend of the industry or not?"

After the debate, Rotellini said she had never represented a bank that was in trouble with regulators.

"There's nothing inappropriate about going to work for a law firm," Rotellini said. "They hired me because of my expertise in mortgage and escrow and my expertise in going after mortgage companies."

The point Rabago is making here is a fair one. He is referring to the "revolving door" syndrome whereby government regulators go to work for the very companies (or lobbyists for the companies) that they regulated before leaving government employment. The reason that companies or their lobbyists hire regulators is not so much for their specialized knowledge or skills (that's a bonus) but for access and their personal relationships within the regulatory agency to smooth over any "disagreements." Let's not bullshit ourselves. The fact that "none of the banks her firm represents ever got in trouble with her agency while she was in charge" is entirely beside the point.

I almost feel sorry for David Lujan. He is a quiet-spoken decent guy whom the media is ignoring because he was not part of this squabble. Maybe you are going to have to mix it up a little, David, so the feckless news media has something they consider "newsworthy" to report.

David Lujan, the third contender, who said his six years in the Arizona House of Representatives makes him more qualified than the other two.

He said all three of the contenders have courtroom experience in one form or another. But he said being the state attorney general requires "a different set of skills'' to understand the policies at issue.

"Say what you will about the Legislature, being a legislator give you an incredible education on all of the policy issues that impact the state of Arizona,'' Lujan said, including not just criminal matters but everything from aiding the mentally ill to the environment.

And he touted his two years as House minority leader.

Yeah, Howard, and he is also a former assistant Attorney General and a lawyer representing the nonprofit organization Defenders of Children when he is not serving in the legislature. Relevant facts you should have mentioned in your report.

All three Democratic candidates for Attorney General are infinitely more qualified than their Republican challengers, who are unfit for office.

UPDATE: The Arizona Guardian (subscription required) reports that "Democratic Leader Misspeaks During TV Debate":

House Minority Leader David Lujan told a statewide television audience Wednesday he was out of town for the final House vote on Arizona's new immigration law.

But the statement is untrue. Lujan was at the Capitol on April 13, just hours before the vote on SB 1070 was taken. And later that evening, Lujan attended a political function at a church in east Phoenix.

I believe this was a Legislative District 11 meeting. If you were in attendance, confirm in the comments.