While national political campaigns and politicians are regularly
featured in the news for their accomplishments on the right, one small
state-based think tank is quietly grinding away victory after victory.
The Goldwater Institute was already a leading state-based think tank
when libertarian lawyer Clint Bolick came on board five years ago to
launch a litigation division. Since then, Bolick has greatly expanded
the reach of the right-leaning think tank, filing lawsuits against all
levels of government to protect taxpayers and businesses from government
overreach. Bolick's favorite line, which he says with a grin, is, “I
get paid to sue government bureaucrats.”
Bolick's litigation against government dates back to his days at The
Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest litigation firm
he co-founded with Chip Mellor in 1991. Between his tenure at the
Institute for Justice and the Goldwater Institute, Bolick served as
President and General Counsel of the Alliance for School Choice, where
he became a hero of the school choice movement, aggressively defending
tuition voucher programs around the country. Bolick has successfully won
landmark precedents defending school choice, freedom of enterprise,
private property rights and challenging corporate subsidies and racial
classifications.
Phoenix Magazine calls the Goldwater Institute “a ninja-lawyer
squad.” Conservative writer George Will wrote in 2010, "Pound for
pound, the Goldwater Institute is the best (state-level) think tank in
the country.” The Goldwater Institute was launched in 1988,
appropriately named after Arizona's famous conservative, the late Barry
Goldwater. Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was the Executive Director, and
left a few years later to run for Congress. The Institute built up a
respected reputation as a public policy think tank, issuing exhaustively
researched policy reports about local government. Darcy Olsen, a bright
young visionary, became President and CEO in 2001 and wisely expanded
the organization by bringing in Bolick to start a litigation center, the
first of its kind for a state-based policy group.
One of the Goldwater Institute's first most notable victories was
taking down Arizona's publicly-funded political campaign system, Clean
Elections. Clean Elections is funded by traffic tickets and taxpayers
who choose to contribute $5 on their taxes, which reduces their taxes by
$5. Implemented by voters through a ballot initiative in 2000, the
agency immediately began aggressively targeting conservative candidates.
In 2002, Matt Salmon, the Republican candidate for governor, was
harshly penalized
by Clean Elections through its “matching funds” provision. Salmon was
the only major gubernatorial candidate who declined to run using Clean
Elections funding. Anytime he raised private funds, Clean Elections
would award a matching amount to his opponents, including Democratic
candidate Janet Napolitano.
Even more grossly unfair was that Salmon was essentially penalized by
Clean Elections for his expenses. When President Bush came to Arizona
and raised $750,000 for Salmon, Salmon only received $500,000, since
$250,000 went to expense the fundraiser. Yet Napolitano and another
opponent were each awarded a full $750,000 in matching funds. Another
way Salmon was penalized was by matching independent expenditures. When
Republicans spent $330,000 to help Salmon, Clean Elections wrote checks
for that amount to both of Salmon's opponents. Yet when the Democrats
spent $1 million to help Napolitano, no such matching check went to
Salmon. Napolitano narrowly won the race, no doubt aided by Clean
Elections.
The Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit in January 2004 spearheaded
by its other top litigator, Nick Dranias, against the state, alleging
that the matching-funds provision was unconstitutional. In June 2011,
the Supreme Court struck down that provision, significantly dismantling
the program. Now, what remains of Clean Elections has been reduced to
mostly voter education and outreach.
The Institute has aggressively started going after unions in Arizona,
which are bankrupting the state. Bolick filed a lawsuit against the
City of Phoenix last year over its practice of paying police officers
“release time,” which allows officers to spend thousands of hours
performing union work while getting paid by the taxpayers. The trial
court has issued an injunction prohibiting the practice while the case
winds its way through the legal system.
In 2010, the Goldwater Institute championed the Save Our Secret
Ballot constitutional amendment, and it was subsequently voted into law
in four states. That same year, the Institute sued the City of Phoenix
over a $97.4 million subsidy to the real estate developer CityNorth to
build a high-end retail development. Bolick argued in front of the U.S.
Supreme Court that the subsidy violated the state constitution's gift
clause, and although the court did not disallow the incentive, it ruled
that in the future there must be additional considerations when
providing subsidies to private entities. CityNorth proved to be an
unsuccessful venture, and today stands mostly vacant.
The Institute has not been shy about taking on powerful, moderate
Republican politicians. It successfully sued Republican Tom Horne,
Arizona's Attorney General, when he tried to restrict the ability of
charter schools to choose their own curriculum. Bolick stood up to
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) when McCain backed the City of Glendale's
attempt to subsidize the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team with government
bonds, in order to entice the team not to leave the state.
One of the Institute's biggest lawsuits currently is against
Obamacare. challenging the creation of an Independent Payment Advisory
Board—the all-powerful healthcare rationing agency that is set to launch
in 2014. Concurrently, the Goldwater Institute drafted the Healthcare
Freedom Act, which has been adopted by 10 states and will be on the
ballot in four more this fall.
The Goldwater Institute has successfully sued over government
transparency. When a school board in the little town of Congress, AZ,
tried to prohibit taxpayers from filing public records requests, the
Institute sued on behalf of taxpayers and won, setting a precedent
around the state ensuring this would never happen again. The Institute
filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Corporation Commission in June 2008
challenging its efforts to require renewable-energy standards. The
Institute stood up for free speech and won a lawsuit to allow voters to
wear a Tea Party shirt into a polling place.
Bolick goes around the country helping similar public policy groups
start litigation divisions modeled after the Goldwater Institute's
model. Local governments in Arizona now turn to the Institute first when
planning new funding schemes, in order to avoid lawsuits later. While
some on the right are critical of using the courts to effect policy,
labeling it “judicial activism,” Bolick would argue that we don't have a
choice. These kinds of issues are ultimately being decided by the
courts whether we like it or not, so why not choose the best cases now
for the maximum advantage, instead of being blindsided by them later?
The number of people whose lives have been touched by the Institute
keeps increasing. One mother discovered the Educational Savings Accounts
advocated by the Institute, and was able to put her special needs child
in a private school that could properly educate him. Parent Katherine
Visser said, “It allows parents to have a choice they wouldn’t have had
otherwise. It’s been a Godsend.”
The Goldwater Institute may not receive the media coverage that
Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker does when he takes on the unions, nor
is it a favorite juicy target of the unions, but perhaps that is why it
is so successful. Respected by everyone on the right, with an impressive
record of raising funding, Bolick and Olsen have developed the
Institute to a level that should be emulated by right-leaning
organizations everywhere.
Reprinted from Townhall