Saturday, May 27th, 2006...8:08 pm
Goddard Is In; Montgomery Struggles?
Terry Goddard filed his petition signatures this week, and also turned his his “$5 Forms” for Clean Elections qualification. Many of the Clean Elections contributions came from members of the SEIU, newly established in this state and flexing its political muscle.
Word has come through the transom (Radio Free Europe…) that his opponent, Bill Montgomery, has been having trouble collecting his “fives.” The talk is that gubernatorial hopeful Len Munsil, whose organization has already been praised for how quickly it got signatures and raised money, has pledged to help Montgomery.
CORRECTION: I added the words “members of” to the SEIU paragraph to avoid insinuating that the SEIU itself plowed money into Goddard’s campaign. One poster noted this would be illegal, but didn’t see that Munsil’s campaign could be accused of the same thing if my post was read that literally.
16 Comments
May 27th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Tedski I know this story is not about your party but Montgomery endorsed Munsil back on April 24th. You don’t need a transom to figure out what is going on here.
Since Goddard and Montgomery are both clean elections they will be limited to spending the same amount. So once Bill gets his $5 forms in Goddard looses the advantage in fundraising potential that an incumbent like him would normally have.
“Many of the Clean Elections contributions came from the SEIU” Someone should let the CCEC know about this since only individuals are suppose to donate the $5.
May 28th, 2006 at 2:36 am
sigh … yes and I guess the CCEC should be told that the religious right got Munsil his $5 forms… “since only individuals are supposed to donate the $5s”
don’t be so dense
May 28th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Of course that’s what I meant…I guess the Republicans all of a sudden like the Clean Elections Commission these days.
May 28th, 2006 at 6:59 am
We love it! Just look at the composition of the state legislature.
May 28th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Ok, phx kid, here’s the phrase Tedski wrote:
Many of the Clean Elections contributions came from members of the SEIU
and here’s how you quoted it:
“Many of the Clean Elections contributions came from the SEIU”
And Republicans wonder why liberals think they’re stupid and dishonest…
May 28th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Actually Jeff…he did quote it right, then I fixed it to avoid further confusion.
I’ve done this before, but I usually have noted it on the post. I neglected to do that this time. I will add a note.
May 28th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Munsil has been sending out requests to his supporters to send in $5 contributions to Montgomery in his weekly emails for a little while now. We’ll see how well it works.
On a purely positive note (from me? is it possible??), here’s a quote from the most recent CAP email sent out Friday:
Several weeks ago, I wrote that the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment could fail to make the November ballot for lack of signatures. Well, today, the amendment remains in trouble. With only one month left to collect signatures, we are at a very critical stage in the effort to place an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman on the November ballot. The Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition still needs 80,000 signatures to reach our goal. That averages out to more than 13,000 signatures per week. If we don’t reach this number, then the amendment could fail to make the ballot simply because we didn’t get enough valid signatures of registered voters.
I am so happy, I do the dance of joy!
May 28th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Bored-
Before you get too happy, the alarmist messages from the PMA folks claiming a lack of signatures could be a way to motivate volunteers, that’s a method they’ve used to organize in other states.
But if it’s true…yeah, I’m all about that.
May 28th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
May 29th, 2006 at 12:02 am
hey slim
I knew exactly what Ted meant in his original post. That is why I did not make a personal attach against him or his party but wrote a lighthearted reference to CCEC.
I could reply to your “stupid and dishonest” comment at this point but I am just going to wait until Kyl beats Pederson by 8%. Then I will simply gloat.
May 29th, 2006 at 6:38 am
Mayhap, but even so, shouldn’t a 12 year incumbent running against someone so “inexperienced” beat him by more? Just curious.
May 29th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Interesting, tedski. I didn’t know lying was a family value that needed protecting from the gays. Live and learn.
May 29th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Tedski maybe he should beat him by more. But if Kyl wins by just one vote the effect is the same, he goes to DC and Pederson doesn’t.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:43 am
I just think it’s really interesting seeing Kyl on TV. When’s the last time he even bothered to run? And seeing him suddenly spending time in AZ makes me chuckle. If a knucklehead like Pederson gives him this much trouble, imagine what a genuinely charismatic candidate would do to him. If I were a Republican, I wouldn’t be quite so sanguine.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:59 am
It will be interesting to see if Munsil has any coattails to help Montgomery gather his $5 contributions.
A recent mailing from the Montgomery campaign contained a letter from Len Munsil asking recipients to send their $5 to Bill Montgomery.
Unfortunately, I don’t know what list was used or if it will help.
May 31st, 2006 at 8:11 am
Boredinaz,
Good news about the signature campaign. If anyone is interested in helping to fight it go to the Arizona Together site to see what is being done and contribute.
I think Munsil is a real factor in the Republican race for Governor…and what Phxkid says appears to be quite true. Clean elections gives more extreme candidates (right and left) the adequate funds to run for office. It also benefits those who have a strong grass-roots presence, like Munsil. I wont be at all suprised if his organization gets Montomery his $5 donations.
Leave a Reply