Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Self-Promotion and Unethical Electioneering

Andrew Thomas, who is up for re-election this November, is again doing what he seems to be best at (other than blatantly harassing the media should they criticize him): pushing the ethical envelope to serve his political ambitions and ideological viewpoint.

He distributed a crime prevention booklet to Maricopa residents (Download the booklet) through the distribution networks of local newspapers (at an as-yet undisclosed cost to taxpayers) without any notice to, or specific funding from the Maricopa Board of Supervisors.

Deanne Poulos, the communications director for the board of
supervisors, said the members were not told about the project and only
found out after the booklets were distributed Friday morning. “At this
time we’re still searching for a funding source,” she said. [E.V. Tribune]

Nor is this the first time that Thomas has blatantly used taxpayer money to get his name prominently before the voters of Maricopa. "Recently, Thomas has been criticized for spending $2.5 million in
public money since he took office in 2005 to pay for public service
advertisements that promote his name." [E.V. Tribune]

Most recently, Thomas kicked off an anti-DUI billboard campaign where
his name is splashed in a broad red strip with large lettering across
the bottom. The letters used for Thomas’ name are nearly as large as
the letters in the board’s message.[E.V. Tribune]

Let me make perfectly clear that I think the idea of a County Attorney issuing a crime prevention guide is laudable and forward-thinking. To the extent that the purpose and effect of this publication is to reduce crime, I applaud and credit CA Thomas for publishing it.

But the devil lies in the details, as always…

Electioneering through Public Service Campaigns

I’m not overly fond of incumbents using their status to campaign by
stealth on the public dime by prominently placing their names and faces
on public interest advertising. I don’t care for the practice no matter
the party of the incumbent. I is simply another corrupt and damaging
perq of incumbency that we would be much better off without.

State Senator Jim Waring (R – Phoenix) has introduced very even-handed and useful legislation, SB1061,
to combat the practice. The language is, in my opinion, a bit too
simplistic at this point and it clearly needs some work in committee,
but it is a solid start on a problem that too few office-holders (being
incumbents by definition) are willing to back.

Whither the Money?

Board members say they didn’t authorize funding for the 45 page
booklet, nor were they aware of plans to distribute it, even though the
booklet clearly claims just that.

So where did the money to write, print, and distribute this work
come from? Were funds diverted from other sources? Was that diversion
lawful or unauthorized? Thomas needs to make this clear. He undoubtedly
has done a mitzvah for the community with the publication of this handbook, but has he done it in his normal, autocratic, high-handed fashion?

Public Domain or Thomas’ Domain?

So if the handbook was produced by a public officer, using public
money to write, print, and distribute it, it belongs to the public,
right? Wrong. It belongs to the County Attorney’s office exclusively,
apparently. There are public commons copyright licenses available
that protect legitimate commercial interests, yet would place this work
firmly into the public commons, where it belongs. Instead, Thomas has
chosen to restrict the use of the publication so that reprinting, and
even excerpts, require his permission.

Why would Thomas seek to deprive the public of free use of something
that they clearly own? Is my posting of the booklet for download a
publication? I wonder if maybe even the use of excerpts that I am going
to present here in discussing the work (used quite specifically without
the permission of the Maricopa County Attorney’s office) might violate
Thomas’ view of his rights to the work. What I am doing is quite
clearly fair use for the purpose of criticism. But I’ll be interested
to see if I, or my ISP, get a take-down notice.

As Always With Thomas, IMMIGRANTS ARE THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL!

Perhaps the worst abuse of the public’s money I see here is the inclusion of Thomas’ anti-immigration clipping service website
and newsletter under the ‘Illegal Immigration and Crime" section. I am
deeply troubled by the ethics of a public official maintaining what is
essentially a partisan ideological organ of propaganda with public
money. I think that this site, and it’s inclusion in this booklet,
deserves very close examination as to its propriety, ethics, and
legality.

There is nothing non-partisan or merely informational about the
IllegalImmigrationJournal.com. It is hardcore anti-immigration and the
site makes no disclaimers as to the content not being the official
position or opinion of the Maricopa County Attorney’s office. It merely
presents some of the most extreme voices on the immigration issue in a
fashion which seems calculated to lead readers to conclude that Thomas
endorses the material presented – which, I suppose, is the whole point
of this official digital propaganda bullhorn.

Let’s take a look at just a few of the items I found on the site:

Though it is marked ‘Commentary’ the clear implication is that the
Maricopa County Attorney’s office approves of calling John McCain,
"Amnesty John". That’s fine I suppose from Thomas to say himself, but
doing so on an officially sponsored web site of the Maricopa County
Attorney’s office seems perhaps a touch too close to the Maricopa CA’s
office actually electioneering in the Republican primary.

More electioneering against McCain, this time from Human Events, one
of the most extreme Right Wing partisan propaganda outlets in the
county. Again, I don’t personally care about McCain at all (though full
disclosure compels me to admit I gave him a contribution after NH in
1999 in hopes of staving off a W Presidency), but I don’t think many
Maricopa residents would appreciate their tax dollars being used to
electioneer in this way.

This clipping seems perfectly non-partisan, just a study saying that
all states need to be prepared for emergencies. Well, yeah, until you
look at the by-line. This is put out by Family Security Matters, the same folks who published the infamous peice "Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy"
about how Bush should just scrap the Constitution, become President for life, and genocide the Iraqis, which
was so toxic and repellent that it got rammed so hard down the memory
hole it is hard to find it anymore. The same organization advocated
invading Mexico and simply enslaving the population for cheap labor
here in the U.S.. Nice folks…

Here’s just a few more examples of clear electioneering, issue
advocacy, and naked immigrant baiting that really has no place on a
publicly funded website:

 

Townhall, Newsmax: some of the most partisan and vitriolic Right
Wing sites on the net being presented, endorsed, and paid for by
Maricopa’s taxpayers.

I can’t say if it’s actually rotten, but sure doesn’t smell like anything I’d be willing to swallow.