Saturday, June 24th, 2006...10:56 am
Exploding. Plastic. Inevitable.
Patty Weiss’s campaign released one of their internal polls this week, showing that Weiss has a lead over Gabrielle Giffords, 32% to 22%. The poll also showed that Weiss has a 63% favorability rating among primary voters.
This brings up something interesting for political geeks like me. During this phase of the campaign, while most voters aren’t yet paying attention, candidates try to build credibility with the political intelligencia by making their nomination or election seem inevitable, “Better get on the bus now before it’s too late,” or, more sinisterly, “You don’t want to be left out after I win this.” Both campaigns can make good cases for this. Jeff Latas’s campaign is playing by a different set of rules, not counting on high-profile endorsements or mounds of Washington money.
Giffords can make the case based on the fact that she has run for office before and understands the political process. She will win this because she knows how to win. Weiss, on the other hand, can make the case based on her popularity in the district. She will win this because she is well known.
Weiss’s campaign has been putting this out there for a long time, people know who she is, so she is the front runner. Maybe too many people asked about whether or not this is true, so they finally put out some numbers confirming this is the case. Weiss’s ten point lead in this poll is being spun as confirmation that Giffords just can’t compete for the public’s heart with the connection that Weiss has built up over decades on our TV screens. Greg Patterson over at Espresso Pundit is ready to declare the primary over. I don’t know if I want Phoenix Republicans declaring Baja Arizona Democratic primaries over.
The counterspin is, what, only ten points?
What you hear from the Giffords camp is that despite her rather impressive name ID (75%), that isn’t translating to people actually wanting to vote for Weiss. This seems to be an opinion shared by some in the press. On the “Political Roundtable” on yesterday’s Arizona Illustrated, Ernesto Portillo Jr. said that the numbers looked pretty good for Giffords given how little public campaigning there has been so far and how well known Weiss is.
The point, some would say, is that Weiss is still leading. This doesn’t seem to be having an effect on the way that national political pros are seeing the race. This is from Friday’s Fix column in the Washington Post:
After meeting former newswoman Patty Weiss (D) recently, we are convinced that former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords (D) is the stronger general-election candidate for Democrats in this southern Arizona open seat. EMILY’s List, a group that provides financial support to Democratic women candidates who support abortion rights, apparently agrees, as it endorsed Giffords over Weiss last week.
People that met Weiss early in the race were willing to give her a chance because she demonstrated a suprising grasp of the issues and a passionate defense of liberal values. I’m not sure what bad impression she had made with the Post that caused her to deserve this sort of dis (or even if she deserved the dis), or if despite her knowledge, she paled in comparison to the more politically savvy Giffords.
So, the big question is, does this poll solidify Weiss’s position as a “front runner,” or is it just a demonstration that we have a long race to run here?
45 Comments
June 24th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
I think you explained everything quite well Ted. As a Giffords supporter, I am actually happy about the poll, although, I’d of course be happier if Weiss’ own poll had Gabby in the lead.
A few things you didn’t say. Why would Patty release such a poll to her audience and not more broadly? Well, one answer is that Giffords has been getting all the news with her endorsements and continued success building supporters and donors in the campaign. The June 30th fundraising FEC deadline is approaching and I wonder if the poll was designed to give her supporters some breathing room and to stop the avalanche that has hit her over the last few months. It does give a place for her supporters to hang their hats and it may help her raise some much needed funds before the reporting deadline, which will be viewed by the media as another way to get at support. I wonder how the Weiss campaign is doing with building on those much needed funds? I wonder how Giffords is doing?
The other issue here is that while Patty has 75% name rec. and 63% favorability, she still only has 32% that are actually, in her poll, saying they will vote for her…and with 33ish percent undecided.
She is a strong candidate and it will be a hard race, but I am seeing all signs still pointing towards a lot of real hard support for Giffords in terms of party support, from groups, etc. and less so for Weiss.
Everyone knows this, but primaries are different. They do not attract a lot of independents or average voters. They attract the more liberal wing of the party and party regulars. I think Giffords is doing everything right here and the best the other canpaigns can do here is to pick and choose questionable votes from a record that is strongly progressive, liberal, and favorable to Democrats.
Next…(smile)….
Rog
June 24th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Oh…to add…the 10% lead figure places a “mark” for support for Weiss. If the race tightens and tightens, won’t it be translated into momentum for Giffords by media and by bandwagon jumpers.
I can’t think of a better place to be in right now. Strong organization, most endorsements, most money, and an actual record of work for progressive and Democratic issues. If the race tightens…add momentum…and questions by the press about why Weiss’ numbers are slipping.
Of course, the race might not tighten and Patty may be the frontrunner for good.
June 24th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
It comes down to those undecideds.
To me, 32% is a surprisingly small number of undecideds this far away from election day. It means 68% of primary voters are already picking sides two months out.
Gabby would need to pick off a huge chunk of those undecideds to close a 10 point gap.
Can $400,000 of TV buy 3/4ths of the undecideds? It’s not impossible, but that’s what I call a buckstretcher.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Well…El Campo is the buckstretchers…
June 25th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Hey Ted,
Let me know if anyone down your way is interested in participating in the “Arizona Kos” project. I sent you an E-mail about this. We hope to have it up and running soon.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:53 am
We have to also remember that all of these results, asyoulikeit, are based on 400 voters only…a very very small group in district as large as this one and with such great diversity.
A poll is a snapshot in time…not a video. It looks at support at the moment the person answered. It means that 400 voters…at this time…at that moment they answered the phone…answered this way.
Lots to do yet for all campaigns…and I am still surprised at Latas being 7%. I think that he is Patty’s worst nightmare. No one has talked about the potential of vote splitting on this side of the fence. Two strong anti-Gabby candidates who claim the mantal of the progressives…can only split them.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:20 am
This second Weiss poll is even more suspect than the first.
First, I find the release of such ‘extremely’ limited findings very curious. I can only conclude that these represent the poll’s most favorable results relative to Patty, though even these are arguably not too good in the larger context of this primary race.
Second, this second poll is substantially different from the first in that it appears to have polled likely democratic primary voters, and there’s no indication that independents were included in the sample. Meaning this poll is in no way comparable to the first in which likely general election voters (i.e., all registered voters) were polled.
Third, based on the population of active registered democrats in CD 8 (132,894) and a sample size of 400, that results in a confidence level of only 0.95 (95%) and a margin of error of 4.89% for this second poll. Meaning that Patty’s ‘lead’ falls just above this poll’s margin of error (i.e., these results are not very accurate). An accurate poll would have used a confidence level of 0.99 (99%) with a margin of error not great than plus or minus 2.5%, which would have required a sample of 2,501 voters.
June 25th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Then Gabby must welcome the news all of these polls have.
Her donors must love the numbers too.
And her staff still hasn’t been told about her own internal poll numbers.
Bliss is very subjective.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:50 am
It will be a hard fought campaign anon…no one is taking Patty Weiss or Jeff Latas for granted. That Patty has more name recognition than Giffords is indeed a hurdle. But we elect smart, effective, public servants over famous people all the time in America. Especially, when the public servant has a real record of voting for the values of Arizonans and the others pop on the scene, without party credentials, out of nowhere, to run.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Kramajalas, You just keep asking us to point out the bad in your candidate.
Some of us don’t agree with you analysis at all. The values you refer are not those of Arizonans at all. Oil refineries, nukes, Wal-Mart, Bashas, no blue collar connection, stay in Iraq-get out of Iraq, political weather vane.
Some of us like conviction, truth, honesty, integrity, LEADERSHIP over questionable record, a façade of inactive board membership, and the questionable endorsements of political hacks.
Your comments only open the floor for us to come out and OUT your candidate. You want us to stress the virtues of our candidate and we do, but you don’t listen. I think Latas has done a great job in changing the Democratic party to what it use to be, long before Giffords was a Democrat or Republican. Back in the sixties, Democrats were strong in the working class. This is the direction Latas is going in a modern and progressive way. His activity has done more in one year then you have done. He has done more to straighten out the party than Giffords has done in her short 6 years in the party. What change did she make in making the party stronger? What activities did she do to get voters to the booth? This is not her motivation, hers is self centered and many of us see this.
The DLC is the problem and she takes her marching orders from them. They forgot about them and now the Republicans have used wedge issues to rally them to their side. Latas is very effective in reaching them and they are coming over to him. He comes from them and they recognize this. Giffords is “society” and will never have the working class. The DLC will never get this either because they are the problem, elitists, wealth class that maintains the hold on the political power of this party. They are threatened by Latas and his strong progressive message of returning the power back to the people by taking from those who stole it, the rich. She’s part of the problem and not part of the solution. Her votes trend toward this philosophy, but you must not get this. Some never will because they’ve never been there, in the working class.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
There is a definite disconnect between the Giffords camp and the other candidates regarding middle class values, lower class poverty, and the tension that comes from not knowing whether to eat or buy gasoline for work.
Alex Rodriguez, Jeff Latas, and Patty Weiss all worked hard to go from working class to having stellar careers that extoll their struggles.
Not the same narrative from the CEO Buckstretcher that went to Maricopa County to fight for all and everyone, including special interests.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Boohoo:
“questionable endorsements of political hacks”
…like the unions, environmental groups, teachers groups, police and fire, right?
Man I appreciate outsiders too, but what you are suggesting are candidates that are FAR outside any kind of mainstream that I can imagine…candidates that would be virtually unelectable without the support of these so called “political hacks.”
Anon, sometimes we should take a look at what a person has done and not what position they were born in life. The big deal here appears to be that she was born into money for you. That standard tends to push aways a lot of damn good candidates…and some like Gabrielle Giffords who have actually gotten her sleaves dirty fighting for the very interests that some of the other candidates speak so highly of and have done very little concretely for…until this election. There are a host of people who have money that have fought and worked hard on behalf of the interests of the sick, tired, and poor…and yeah, some of them are rich.
There is no one here that can tell me that Giffords hasn’t in her time in office done more for these interests than Latas or Weiss have. I’m still waiting for some confirmation that anyone had seen them working for the party or in progressive circles.
I get that some here don’t like the DLC and the moderate wing of the Democratic party. The problem is that not all people who are affiliated with the DLC vote the same or do the same things as a Joe Lieberman or a Hillary Clinton.
As I have said, you will find votes you dislike and disagree with. I will find some too as time goes along, but that does not change the fact that she has voted hundreds of times for the very issues some here champion…and that you champion.
You just like other candidates and that is cool. Quit sullying the candidate I am backing…especially when the patterns and generalizations you construct are unfounded and when the candidate you back have no record or service on these issues at all.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Roger, you don’t get it at all.
Gabby is perceived to be a person of privilege, and you guys continue to underscore this fact in red lines.
This suggests that her most avid bloggers don’t have a clue about not having money for the next meal, not being able to go to college or campaign for a political seat… or go to law school.
The Gabby bloggers have arguments and excuses that only lawyers could love.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Outlander-
You sure do think you know a lot about how I grew up, eh?
June 25th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
boohoo, anonymous, and outlander please keep it up. Patty and her kooky ideas would be a gift to the Republican. In a Graf / Weiss match the GOP wins because Patty will be in na-na land with her strange proposals.
Huffman / Giffords is a Democrat win because she is more personable and passionate and will have as much or more money. Huffman also does not excite his own base.
Huffman / Weiss is a toss-up.
Graf / Giffords is too close to call.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Ted, you’re a good kid from a good family who grew up in a multicultural world that is full of wonder and splendor.
We’ve worked and shared victories and defeats in many a past campaign.
I doubt that you speak Spanish with the same fluency but we probably like lots of music.
I won’t support some of the conservative Democrats you help, but I hold my breath and vote for them in November. Gabby will get the same, if she survives her advisors and the primary.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
The problem with this class argument is that it eventually falls super duper flat. It especially falls flat when we look at not just what people have but the decisions they make as they live. Giffords I guess could have stayed with a corporate accounting firm or the family business. Instead, she chose public service, chose the right party and has worked for the right values.
Both Patty and Jeff are to be commended for wanting to give back to our community as well. But when I hear these attacks on Giffords and look at their records, I still see Giffords as coming out ahead. Both Weiss and Latas live in far nicer homes and neighborhoods than I do. They are by no means poor either. Would their children be fit for public office? Of course, if they are good people, intelligent, work hard for people, and are dedicated to public service.
Should we just vote for the person that has the least income? Bring out those tax statements.
By the way, hope we meet someday so we can tell each other the stories of our backgrounds. The word “professor” makes me sound pretty elitist to Republicans, but my background sure isn’t.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Latas is not exactly hanging out with regular folk. Not only does he live up in an exclusive part of Oro Valley, a few homes on large lots with amazing views but the subdivision is also gated. That is fine; he can live wherever he wants. It’s just hard to take this humble beginnings story seriously when he holds up in some gated community as soon as he gets his piece of the pie. It’s not like the rest of Oro Valley or the Northwest is crime ridden. The gated thing seems just so, so … Republican.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
The rather ferocious vetting of Gabrielle Giffords will be good for her as the campaign goes along. However, I still see it for what it is…desperation and the oldest campaign tactic in the book.
You send attack dogs after the front runner to create some kind of a pattern of evil doing. At some point, if the frontrunner doesn’t respond, the labels stick. If they do respond, they give legitimacy to the one doing the attacking. If the attack dogs don’t work, then the candidate does the attacking…still hoping for that attack back to gain legitimacy.
What is strange here is that I can see why Latas would do it, but why Patty? She is leading in the polls it appears, has the name recognition, what makes her need to attack?
The answer is pretty clear. Lack of volunteers, lack of endorsements, and a lack of money for the campaign ahead.
And…as I said before, she had really better hope she keeps that lead in the polls throught July and August. If not, her momentum dies and Giffords or Latas’ increases.
Question again…does a strong Latas hurt Weiss or Giffords? What would the split look like on this side of the fence given the concern by Huffman supporters about Hellon on the other side of the fence?
June 25th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
The problem with the class argument is that the working class has less money than the upper class to get their message out and less leisure time to join the clubs and organizations that Gabby is now ringing for cash.
The rich are different from the rest of us, they are expensive, while labor is free, as in free market.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Patty Weiss’s campaign space has more than doubled, and operations are ongoing at locations other than the Broadway location.
If you think you are seeing the entire volunteer campaign by looking in at the headquarters, then you are mistaken.
The Patty Weiss Staff has them adding both volunteers and others to the effort on a weekly basis.
Maybe they are desperate. Maybe they are winning.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Y’know, I’m getting really tired of the convoluted logic coming from the anti-Giffords crowd.
First, you call twist a vote in which she helped Wal-Mart employees obtain health coverage into some anti-union vote???? Excuse me???
Then you accuse Gabrielle of being rich. Her parents live well, but candidly she’s lived on her own resources, even though that meant - yes - she had to stretch a buck.
Oh, and that self-righteous effluent about clean elections would be funny if it weren’t so self-serving.
Patty Weiss is a good woman who is being goaded into desperate attacks by the Costanzo hard-ballers.
Anyone who knew the old District 13 knew it was a swing district that elected many a Republican - do the names Greg Lunn, Patti Noland and Kathleen Dunbar ring a few bells?
And then, in her first Senate race, she faced a competitive primary challenger who decided not to run, but not before she ratcheted up the pressure and threatened to make it a rough campaign.
So yes, she did not run clean. But she CONSISTENTLY voted to defend Clean Elections against attacks from the far-right Republicans who have gotten fat and prosperous by taking the public money, and then whining about how they’d rather be beholden to their fat-cat supporters than the public at large.
Oh, and while I like and admire Patty Weiss, I’d take her more seriously if she wasn’t shaking down colleagues of her husband the pyschiatrist for every dollar she can get. I don’t begrudge her pleas for support from them, but don’t condemn Giffords just because you’re not as successful at playing the same game.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
I’m getting really tired of the Giffords-bashers.
First, you take her votes and distort reality and impugn her motives. She voted to provide AHCCCS coverage (spell the acronym right, please)IN SUPPORT OF WAL-MART EMPLOYEES WHO WERE GETTING SCRWED BY THEIR EMPLOYER. Calling that a pro-Basha vote is absurd. How does it help Basha’s if it allows Wal-Mart to continue passing its health care on to the public? It doesn’t. It hurts Basha’s by allowing Wal-Mart to undercut their labor costs.
But it does provide health care to working families, so it was a devil’s bargain, and Giffords voted in favor of families.
Then you try to allege that she opposes clean elections because she raised money the old-fashioned way for competitive races.
Anyone who says the old District 13 wasn’t competitive is delusional. Plenty of Rs were elected from that district. Anyone remember Greg Lunn? Patti Noland? Kathleen Dunbar? The list goes on.
And then, when Giffords ran for the Sente, she faced a potential well-funded opponent in the primary who pulled out only because she discovered the district lines had changed, and she no longer lived in the district.
Gabrielle Giffords consistently voted to defend Clean Elections against repeated attacks from Republican hypocrites in Phoenix who take the money and then whine about how they’d rather be beholden to the fat-cat lobbyists than the people who pay their salaries.
And finally, I’d be more sympathetic to Patty Weiss, who is complaining that Giffords is raising money the traditional way for Congress, if Weiss wasn’t shaking down all her husband’s colleagues in the health-care industry.
That’s Patty’s right, but her only problem is that people in that industry are giving more to Giffords than they are to Weiss.
Patty is a good woman, but she’s succumbing to nasty attacks because she’s floundering - her self-funded polls show 73 percent of people know her, but less than half of them will vote for her.
Too bad. If Patty somehow were to win I’d sure support her, but I hope to God that my fellow Dems see the light make Giffords their CD8 nominee.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
So Patty is floundering and Gabby’s numbers haven’t moved even in her home district. That means Gabby must be winning. That is flawed logic.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Gabby’s supporters are running from her record and votes faster than she is.
And that makes it look like Team Gabby has some work to get back on message.
Patty Weiss is not pliable when it comes to bending principles for dubious votes. Gabby is transactional and proud to be on the winning edge of the Free Market (where there are winners and losers, but mostly losers).
June 25th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
What is a Costanzo hardballer? That is a curiosity coming from these passionate, vocal parsers for Gabby. Few if any of the readers here understand this insight.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Excuse me, Roger. The frontrunner happens to be Patty Weiss.
YOU send out attack dogs on the Democrats, sounding like an inside analyst, when you’re either working for Gabby or supporting her as an Independent.
The Democratic Party is in real trouble when they start taking advice from pretend Democrats like kralmajales.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Sonoran Sam:
Gabby voted for families by voting against the other Democrats in that committee?
How did all of those Democrats end up on the wrong side of the SB1065 bill, while the reasonable pro-family vote happened to be Gabby and the Republicans?
Why did Walmart oppose this bill?
What am I missing? Please clarify.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
If I may add. Sen. Carolyn Allen voted against SB 1065 (the 2004 bill in question), before the same committee (Senate Commerce Committee), and she was a cosponsor.
And gee, did anyone look at SB 1166, covering the subject as well as others.
SB 1166 was approved, with Giffords voting yes, and received approval from the Arizona House and signed into law.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
SAOL,
Not sure if people listen to me here or not. I have been clear about who I support and where I am coming from. That is it. Take my thoughts, ideas, and advice for what they are.
I will say this though…if you think that it has been me calling out attack dogs on Weiss or Latas, just remember what you all started with your sleazy inferences and distortions of Giffords record. It doesn’t fall too far from the other candidates I am sure.
Anyone who has followed my comments here knows one thing…that is that I have defended the person I am supporting from these attacks and now that they are getting out of hand, I am raising some questions that no one here has dared to ask against the “frontrunner”…a simple one…where is her record on these so called progressive issues if she is holier than Giffords in this respect?-
June 25th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Patty has the same clean slate that Mo Udall had on his first run.
Jeff Latas also is without the dicotomies that define Gabby’s image.
One thing is certain. Gabby’s record is an issue and it has liabilities that have yet to be explored.
She has picked these fights with the same grace that has fueled one controversy after another.
Lots of people who once supported Gabby are actively correcting their mistake.
Alas, I am one of them also. I apologize for ever giving her credibility or support and I beg forgiveness.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
I am really beginning to wonder if the attacks now are indeed orchestrated by the Weiss and Latas camps and not just us bloggers. Patty went after Gabby on Clean elections in Wilcox and she has done so on the Daily Kos…along with her campaign manager. The stuff on the committee vote also appeared pretty conveniently staged throughout progressive circles.
But all is fair in love and politics I guess.
On the Clean elections charge, and someone will correct me, Gabby has supported the program and helped fight for it when the Republicans have tried to take it down in the legislature. As to her not taking them or running clean…charges that Weiss is trumpeting. She faced a pretty competitive race in her first run and did not accept Clean monies. In her latter runs she did not run clean mainly because she faced minimal opposition at best. No need to waste the public’s money and take the election dough when you are well liked and going to win anyway.
I think she would have been charged with pilfering public dough to boost her own name rec. if she had taken it…especially by this crowd. Kind of like Steve Leal was busted on it and decided not to run clean this last time in the city elections.
Oh…and yeah…I’m getting it stuck to me as an independent who is fighting for Gabby. Was called a pretend Democrat on one blog. I should tell you that, oh god, I was a Republican once until I saw the light about what the party was all about…many years ago. I am against the Iraq war, support gay marriage, support civil and human rights and liberties and am amazed that we can spend Billions on wars and corporations but a little money for student loans or public welfare is a waste of public dollars. I volunteered for Karin Uhlich and now for Gabby Giffords in my short time here in Tucson (5 years). I am a professor, love art, music, literature and well yeah politics. Finally, since someone tried to say we Gabby supporters are “richies”. My mom is a secretary, my dad was a pipefitter, neither finished college, I was raised in industrial WV, and took more student loans than I can count to get through college. I had a lot of help and I do everything I can to help my students in the same way some helped me.
I ain’t perfect…but I hope I will be welcome as I vote Democrat, work for candidates I believe in, and even consider joining this rather sometimes rabid party that appears to like to eat its own.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:17 am
In re: to the request for information.
http://www.azcleanelections.gov/
ccecweb/ccecays/elections/
candList2004.asp
This is the link to the participating candidates in the last election. Note, none of the state Senate candidates for LD 28 were listed, as well as David Bradley, who ran for the House (D), in the district).
http://www.azcleanelections.gov/
ccecweb/ccecays/elections/
candList2002.asp
This is the link for the 2002 election, for which Giffords opponent, Libertarian Kimberly Swanson was a “Clean” candidate, going against the party doctrine.
http://www.azcleanelections.gov/ccecweb/
ccecays/elections/candidates00.asp
This is the list of the 2000 candidates, especially in lieu of the court case.
Here is the Arizona Daily Star article on the court case with particulars, for your review.
State justices uphold vote to limit campaign money -
A blow for business interests
The Arizona Daily Star
June 17, 2000
Author: Howard Fischer, CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
Estimated printed pages: 3
Arizona’s *elections* this year will proceed with new laws that limit the influence of cash.
In a unanimous ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court yesterday upheld the legality of the *Clean* *Elections* Act, approved by voters nearly two years ago.
The measure sets up a voluntary system of public financing of *elections* and limits the money that can be given to those who choose to rely on private contributions.
Three of the five justices said two provisions of the act are unconstitutional. They concluded, however, that these illegal sections can be severed from the rest of the law without disturbing voters’ underlying desire to change how campaigns are financed.
The decision is a major defeat for business interests, led by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, which are major contributors to legislative and gubernatorial races. Chamber lawyers had argued that the act, complete with a special tax on lobbyists, is illegal.
Yesterday’s ruling, however, may not be the last word. A separate lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court here, charges that the *Clean* *Elections* Act violates the free-speech rights of those forced to contribute.
That case, however, will not be argued until October - far too late for even an adverse ruling to affect this year’s *election*.
In the interim, the new funding plan could have a profound impact.
As of yesterday, three candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission, four for the state Senate and 15 for the House of Representatives had applied for public financing. The new ruling could sway others to join. The deadline for applying is Aug. 24.
And all others will find they can’t take as much from contributors as they have in the past.
The 1998 initiative sets up an optional public-financing system for candidates for statewide offices and the Legislature. To qualify, candidates must get a set number of $5 contributions, take no other funds once the campaign starts and limit the use of their own money.
For example, a candidate for governor must get at least 4,000 $5 contributions. That qualifies that person for $380,000 for a primary battle - if there is one - and $540,000 for the general *election*.
There are different limits for other state offices. Legislative candidates who get 200 $5 contributions within their district can get $10,000 for a primary and $15,000 for a general-*election* race.
The plan is financed by voluntary, tax-deductible donations, lobbyist registration fees and a surcharge on criminal fines and traffic tickets.
Candidates who choose not to accept public funding are limited in how much they can take from any one person or political action committee.
The legal attack by VotePAC, the political arm of the Chamber of Commerce, centered around the new role of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.
The constitutional job of that group is to screen applicants for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The law expanded its duties to include nominating members of the *Clean* *Elections* Commission - something the majority of the justices found unconstitutional.
But Justice Frederick Martone, writing the majority ruling, said the law still can work without the appellate commission. The only difference, he said, is that the elected state officials who under the law had to choose their appointments from a list from the appellate commission now will be free to choose whomever they please.
Justice Stanley Feldman, writing the dissent, said he found nothing wrong with expanding the powers of the appellate court commission.
The court unanimously concluded that it is unconstitutional to have its own chief justice appointing a member of the *Clean* *Elections* Commission, but said that provision, too, can be severed from the rest of the law.
Other legal arguments advanced by VotePAC were dismissed.
Farrell Quinlan, spokesman for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, said his organization challenged only those provisions of the law that could be resolved quickly. He said the federal lawsuit, in which the chamber’s executive director also is involved, may lead to a different conclusion.
That lawsuit contends it is illegal coercion to charge lobbyists for for-profit groups $100 to do business at the Capitol while non-profit organizations need not pay any fee.
Rep. Steve May, R-Phoenix, also is a plaintiff, challenging the surcharge on fines.
May got a parking ticket in Tempe, which included an additional $2.70 for public financing. The lawmaker said it violates his First Amendment rights to be forced to subsidize the political campaign of another whose view he may find offensive - or who even may be running against him.
The outcome of that case could end up setting nationwide precedent.
In prior rulings the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that there is a constitutional right to contribute to political campaigns. But the justices also have upheld some limits on how much people can give to the campaigns of others.
Participants
Several Southern Arizona candidates for office already have said they will accept public financing and eschew donations from individuals and special interests.
The list includes Democrat Hugh Smith in legislative District 7, Republican Kerry Clawson in District 9, Democrat Carmine Cardamone in District 11, Democrat Ted Downing in District 13 and Democrat Dimitri Downing in District 14.
In addition, state Rep. Herschella Horton, D-Tucson, is pursuing public funds in her bid for the Arizona Corporation Commission.
This list is far from final, with candidates having until Aug. 24 to apply and Aug. 31 to submit the requisite number of $5 contributions to qualify.
Section: NEWS
Page: A1
Index Terms: ARIZONA STATE GOVERNMENT*; **ELECTION*
Dateline: PHOENIX
Copyright 2000 The Arizona Daily Star
Record Number: 000617.17nuclean
What follows are stories pertaining to the Clean Elections Program and Giffords:
Paper: The Arizona Daily Star
Title: District 28 Senate: Gabrielle Giffords
Date: October 21, 2002
The legislative District 28 Senate race features two candidates - Democrat Gabrielle Giffords faces Libertarian Kimberly Swanson. No Republican appears on the ballot for this race. Giffords, who has served a term in the Arizona House, is by far the most qualified candidate and the more moderate. Swanson is a property manager and an artist. She is a UA graduate in speech communication and also has a law degree from the UA but does not practice. Giffords considers herself a full-time legislator. She formerly was president of El Campo Tire and Auto Service. She is a graduate of Scripps College and has a master’s degree in planning from Cornell University. She also was a Fulbright scholar in Mexico. Giffords represented the old District 13, which with redistricting was transformed into District 28.
Giffords opposes school vouchers and argues that some charter schools are a failure. Swanson contends vouchers should be used and would value them at $6,000 per student. She toes the Libertarian line that the key to the state’s budget shortfall is to severely curtail spending. Giffords argues, much more wisely, that tax credits and exemptions are problematic and should be reconsidered.
Giffords favors Proposition 202 on Indian gaming, which is sponsored by 17 tribes. Swanson opposes all three gaming propositions, arguing the tribes are sovereign and federal and state governments have no business meddling in Indian affairs.
Swanson, despite being a Libertarian, is a Clean Elections candidate. Giffords, who says she supports public campaign financing, is not. Giffords has demonstrated a strong commitment to public service and has served her district and Southern Arizona well in the Legislature. The Star endorses her for Senate in District 28.
Copyright 2002 The Arizona Daily Star
Section: EDITORIALS
Clean Elections warts
Arizona Daily Star, The (Tucson, AZ)
November 10, 2002
Estimated printed pages: 2
For all its good points, the state’s campaign funding system was found in the election of 2002 to have some major warts. Namely, third-party candidates received more public money, and in turn more public exposure, than their political ideas deserved. Moreover, the money gave some no-hope candidates funds with which to conduct vicious, strange, ineffective or false attacks on the viable, major-party candidates.
For example, in the governor’s race, Independent Richard Mahoney used public financing to redefine the meaning of attack politics. First, he attacked Janet Napolitano for being soft on child molesting. Not true. Then he took off after Matt Salmon in the weirdest campaign tactic so far. Because Salmon is Mormon, according to Mahoney logic, he could not be trusted to end polygamous practices in the once-Mormon areas along the border between Utah and Northern Arizona. For those outrageous charges, and for having never been in the running, Mahoney drew more than $1 million in public money.
A Libertarian candidate who qualified for Clean Elections funds illustrated another egregious failure of public campaign financing. Libertarian Kimberly Swanson ran against Democrat Gabrielle Giffords for state Senate. You, the Arizona taxpayer, paid for her signs and her bikini-over-A-Mountain campaign buttons - to the tune of almost $38,000. Why? So she could push her campaign to legalize marijuana.
Giffords ran without the aid of Clean Elections money in her slam-dunk win. Even so, a serious glitch in the Clean Elections rules ensured that Swanson always would have $11,000 more than Giffords. Neither Swanson nor Mahoney were viable candidates. Yet between them, they received more than $1 million in public funds.
Clearly, there is some Clean Elections tightening that has to take place. First of all, increasing the number of $5 donations that a candidate must collect should be considered. That probably won’t eliminate the marginal candidates, but it couldn’t hurt. Another change to consider is to toughen sanctions for non-participating candidates who file late reports. Late finance reports delay funding for their “clean” opponents. This newspaper has always supported the idea of public financing as a way to diversify the elected officials at the state capital and as a way to ensure that special interests are minimized. Indeed, we believe Clean Elections funding provided voters better choices in several races by giving an opportunity to excellent candidates who otherwise would not have been on the ballot. We understand that a one-size fits all funding formula automatically lets in the marginal candidates. But we don’t have to like the idea that some marginal candidates have learned to exploit the public financing system - at great cost and to no good end.
Section: EDITORIALS
Page: B12
Index Terms: ARIZONA STATE GOVERNMENT ELECTION EDITORIAL
Copyright 2002, 2005 The Arizona Daily Star
Record Number: MERLIN_1105498
ELECTION PRIMARY 2000
Tucson Citizen (AZ)
September 5, 2000
Author: Tom CollinsTucson Citizen
Estimated printed pages: 5
Dist. 13 candidates all newcomers to politics, all back tax hike for education
By TOM COLLINS
Citizen Phoenix Bureau
If you think professional politicians corrupt democracy, you’ll applaud the Democratic primary race for two District 13 House seats. None of the four candidates has held elected office. And none sees that as a disadvantage. Instead, the candidates are touting their ability to bring fresh ideas to the Legislature through their experiences in the private sector. The contest features a child psychologist, a real estate broker, an anthropology professor and a land planner-turned-tire company-owner-turned-commercial-property manager.
For instance, jokes aside about the Legislature being fertile ground for a child psychologist, Howard Shore says his clinical skills would serve voters two ways. He says child psychologists are consensus builders by necessity and that they are used to advocating the party with the least power. In the Legislature, that would be Pima County in its perennial struggles with Maricopa County, Shore says. The candidates share similar views on public schools: They need to get better. All four back Proposition 301, which would boost the state sales tax by 0.6 cent on the dollar to raise $450 million a year for the state’s education system. And all the candidates want improved access to health care. But they also disagree on some major issues, including how to manage the state’s growth.
The four are vying to replace Democrat Andy Nichols and Republican Kathleen Dunbar. Both are running for the state Senate. The two candidates with the most votes in the Sept. 12 primary will face Republicans Jonathan Paton and Carol Somers in the Nov. 7 general election.
District 13 runs roughly from Broadway on the south to the Catalina foothills on the north, and from the University of Arizona on the west to the Coronado National Forest. Here’s a look at where the candidates stand on the issues.
Colette Barajas: Better education is the key to maintaining the state’s robust economy, said Barajas, a real estate broker and co-owner of Centra Realty. But more money isn’t the only answer, she said. Increased parental involvement also is crucial, as is better control of how the money flowing to schools is spent. “We have not had good planning. We really need to look at the structure of how the money is spent,” she said. On growth, Barajas said she wants a compromise between the Growing Smarter legislation advocated by the Legislature and Gov. Jane Hull, and Proposition 202, the Citizens Growth Management Initiative backed by the Sierra Club.
Barajas, an activist in Tucson’s gay and lesbian community, said she is wary of being pegged as a single-issue candidate but wants the Legislature to improve its record on civil rights for gays and lesbians. “They spoon-feed us crumbs and they want us to be satisfied,” she said.
Ted Downing: The biggest issue facing Arizona is to improve its government, says Downing, a University of Arizona anthropology professor. Downing was the first southern Arizona candidate to receive money under the state’s Clean Elections campaign financing system. And public campaign finance is just one of many steps needed to make the Legislature more responsive to voters, he said. Efforts to reform state government should also include an audit of state revenue to see who is paying taxes on what, Downing said. Ultimately, Tucson and the state need to position themselves for the new economy, said Downing, who has served as a consultant for the Mexican government, the World Bank and other organizations. “This town has a chance of not making it in the global economy,” Downing said. Downing also wants to ensure that the powerless receive the benefits of economic growth. “Rather than focusing on how we’re growing, I want to focus on increasing the size of the pie,” Downing said. Downing is an unabashed supporter of Proposition 202, which would require cities to set growth boundaries. He says it would keep land-use planning under local control.
Gabrielle Giffords: The former owner of El Campo Tires said she would bring much-needed business skills to the Legislature. And because of her private sector experience, Giffords said she understands how important improving public education is to the state’s economy. Giffords, who returned to Tucson several years ago to take over the family tire business, then sold it last year, said many company job applicants lacked rudimentary math and reading skills. The need for an educated work force drew her into the District 13 race, she said. Higher wages for teachers and smaller classes, especially from kindergarten through third grade, are her top priorities. In large classes, “It’s crowd control much more than it is teaching,” said Giffords, who manages a commercial property business.
Giffords, who was trained as a land planner, says Proposition 202 “goes too far,” but she’s not entirely pleased with Proposition 100, the Growing Smarter initiative sent to the ballot by lawmakers. She sees it as placing a cap on the amount of state land that can be preserved. Giffords is the only District 13 Democratic candidate not running under Clean Elections. She said she wanted to participate, but that unresolved court action made it unfeasible. . . .
June 26th, 2006 at 3:33 am
Tucsonmark (that was a really long post to read through).
The contest features a child psychologist,
I don’t know. After accessing the lobbyist report out yesterday (link here) one thing that I noticed is that quite a few of our legislators have been wined and dined by representatives of a group calling itself the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. That group is actually a front for the Church of Scientology, which believes (stemming from their religious dogma) that mental health practitioners are all united in some plot to enslave people (I went into it much deeper on my blog) but suffice to say that with these wackos apparently getting a serious ear from our legislators (who may not know who they are), an actual mental health professional (of any description) might be a good addition to the legislature.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:43 am
Good morning Everyone! Have an incredible day!
Rog
June 26th, 2006 at 9:00 am
My apologies to you all for the long post. I am still new to blogging and unfamiliar about links, plus some of these items don’t have those. It is to put this information out there for everyone to consume.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
To summarize on the long post:
Gabby could have run on three out of her three elections as a Clean Elections candidate and she chose not to.
She was threatened by a libertarian, so she refused public money, and ran with special interest money instead.
She does not trust the process of Clean Elections, but she supports clean elections.
At Willcox, she absolutely supports clean elections, but she did not absolutely support them in the past, or she would have run as a clean elections candidate.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
boohoo says, “The DLC is the problem.”
Yeah, I can see that. After all, they only produced the only Democratic president in the last 26 years. Those bastards are totally destroying the party.
We’ve been so much more successful and effective with “real” liberals like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. If only we had more East Coast liberal elites running the party….
Oh, but wait. We’re supposed to be the party of the blue collar worker, so I guess we’re against scions of rich and powerful families like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy who come from “society.”
So, never mind. We want more candidates that have picked themselves up by their bootstraps, like Bill Clinton who came from a place called Hope!
Oh, but wait. He’s from the evil DLC. They’re the problem.
Hmm…….
June 26th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Typical response.
Clinton, the only thing the DLC can hang their hat on.
DLC has lost so many elections that the Dems left the party by the thousands. The working class was pushed aside for big money, just like Giffords is doing (Wal-Mart/Basha).
The union membership doesn’t want Giffords, by the way Kral. Go ask a real blue collar worker.
By the way Kral, why don’t you go change your registration anyway?
June 26th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I’m so tired of DLC Dems with their talking points that have been focused-grouped to death… they take all the life out of politics!
Gabby came across in Wilcox as just another politician. That’s not a good thing or a bad thing… just what happens when you run your campaign straight from the DLC playbook.
At least Latas and Patty seem to really believe what they’re saying. They’re not just spouting rhetoric that their consultants typed up for them based on the latest polling data. (Case-in-point: Gabby’s “absolute” support for Clean Elections…)
June 26th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
That’s a hell of a standard for choosing a candidate, ‘zona. The crazy guy who hangs out in front of my office building and preaches the coming of the end of the world seems to really believe what he’s saying too. Maybe I should vote for him instead of Jim Pederson for Senate.
boohoo,
I notice you had no answer for my class argument. It’s okay to support the richies when they pander to your liberal point of view, I suppose. But anything less than absolute adherence to the orthodoxy renders them dilettantes. Does the same go for the blue collar folks who don’t worship at the alter of Springsteen?
Your classism is quite convenient.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
If Gabby had a record helping the underclass at a ratio of 2:1 over the business class, then she would be limosine liberal like Ted Kennedy.
Rich folks helping the poor, like Ted Turner, now Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are working to mediate the damage that their class has caused the world at large.
They are aware of the problem of poverty, in ways that the Buckstretcher has yet to understand.
Like the difference between access to healthcare and actually having universal healthcare.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:12 am
It is not customary to relese your poll numbers to your staff. At least in my experience. Also, the numbers really depend on who is doing the polling and how the questions are worded.
Leave a Reply