Goldwater Institute: Obama’s school choice hypocrisy

by Dan Lips

President-elect Barack Obama belongs to a growing club of elected officials who oppose school vouchers for poor families while sending their own children to private school.

In the final presidential debate, the Illinois senator criticized Sen. John McCain's plan to award tuition scholarships to low-income families living in Washington, D.C. He said the same to the American Federation of Teachers this summer: "What I do oppose is spending public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools, not throwing our hands up and walking away from them."

But Obama did walk away from public schools when the time came to enroll his own daughters. He enrolled them in the private University of Chicago lab school, where elementary school tuition costs more than $18,000 per year.

Elected officials often try to demonstrate their support for improving public education by pledging to spend more tax dollars on more programs aimed at fixing schools. But these promises should be of little comfort to poor families who have no choice but to enroll their children in bad public schools today. Furthermore, years of rising school budgets have yielded little improvement in the nation's worst school districts.

President-elect Obama and many of his colleagues understand how important school choice is, at least when it comes to their own children. Do disadvantaged children deserve less?

Dan Lip is a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation and a Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow.

Goldwater Institute Challenges Corporation Commission Rules

GOLDWATER INSTITUTE CHALLENGES CORPORATION COMMISSION RULES ESTIMATED TO ADD $2.4 BILLION TO UTILITY RATES

Phoenix--The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation today filed a special action in the Arizona Court of Appeals challenging the Arizona Corporation Commission's Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff Rules and the accompanying initial rate surcharges.

The rules lock in energy policy for most of the next two decades, forcing utility companies to provide specific percentages of power from renewable resources regardless of cost or reliability. The Commission estimates that over the life of the rules, the energy will cost $2.4 billion more than conventional energy sources. The first surcharges to utility bills were approved this year.

The Goldwater Institute represents three residential utility customers, Roy Miller, Thomas F. Husband, and Jennifer Bryson, along with Corpus Communications, Inc. The lawsuit alleges that the Corporation Commission exceeded its limited constitutional authority, which is limited to ratemaking. The Legislature, which has taken numerous steps to promote renewable energy, has authority over energy policy.

"This massive power grab will cost Arizona consumers billions of dollars at a time when we cannot afford it," declared Clint Bolick, Goldwater Institute's litigation director.

The Institute filed the action in the Court of Appeals because the case presents urgent legal issues and there are no disputed facts. Previously, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to exercise special-action jurisdiction.

"This lawsuit could not be more important to the real lives of Arizonans, so we hope this court will accept jurisdiction to resolve the issue as quickly as possible," Bolick stated.

The Court of Appeals will decide whether to take the case by December 2. The Court also ordered the Arizona Corporation Commission to respond to the brief by November 24.

For more information, visit http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation/millervacc.aspx.

The Goldwater Institute is a nonprofit public policy research and litigation organization whose work is made possible by the generosity of its supporters.

AFP: Will 2009 be a great year for conservatives in Arizona?

2009 could be a great year for conservatives in Arizona. There are at least three good reasons to think so:

1) Thanks to Arizona voters and grassroots activists, the Arizona House and Senate in January will (finally!) have majorities of legislators who either scored very well on last year’s AFP Arizona Legislative Scorecard, or who have pledged to not raise taxes.

2) AFP Arizona has a Reform Arizona plan to reduce the gigantic state deficit, prevent any tax increases, avoid taking on debt that will hurt future taxpayers, and implement reforms to bring government spending under control for the long term. (See below for AFP Arizona’s Reform Arizona Plan.)

3) You are part of a hardworking grassroots movement in Arizona that can accomplish amazing things—IF YOU STAY MOTIVATED AND MOBILIZED. The best way to stay motivated and mobilized on fiscal policy issues is to come to our Defending the American Dream Summit, sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, on Saturday, December 6^th.

Please REGISTER TODAY, if you have not already:

http://www.defendingthedream.org/AZ/

--Chad & Tom, AFP Arizona

Reform Arizona Plan—AFP Arizona’s Top Ten Budget Reforms for 2009

1) Short-Term Budget Reform. The Legislature should send a winter or spring referendum to the voters to get permission to temporarily suspend voter-mandated automatic spending increases during the declared fiscal emergencies in Fiscal Years 2009, 2010, and 2011. (Model bill: HCR 2044 from 2008.)

2) No Tax Increases. Most important: prevent the return of the state equalization property tax. If the Legislature and Governor do nothing, there will be an automatic property tax increase of $100 per household.

3) No Federal Borrowing or General-Obligation Bonding. Those are recipes for long-term, California-style fiscal distress. Federal “help” will come with dangerous policy strings attached.

4) Spending Reductions. Save $1.5 billion by enacting immediate 15% reductions to all government agencies other than law enforcement. 15% reductions will take Arizona back to FY 2007 spending levels, with per-recipient amounts reduced to FY 2005 or FY 2006 amounts. That means a reduction in government benefits to 2005 levels. For the last five years, government has spent money at unrealistic levels, and it is now time to get back to reality. The size of the Napolitano deficit is now over $1,000 per Arizona household. We must not force Arizona taxpayers (now, or in the future) to pay for the cost of the government’s spending problem.

5) Long-Term Budget Reform. Send to the 2010 ballot a referendum changing the personal income spending limit in the AZ Constitution from 7 percent to 6.4 percent (model bill: HCR 2038 from 2008), with two new additions: a taxpayer standing clause for judicial enforcement, and a provision for immediate refund of excess monies to taxpayers. This spending limit is not as stringent as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, but it would keep the government from growing faster than the economy.

6) Local Government Transparency. By 2010, taxpayers should be able to go online and review every disbursement made by every political entity in the state of Arizona. We passed a state-level transparency bill back in June, but we must now ensure that every government in Arizona has open books. (As an example of how opaque local governments are now, Apache County and Youngtown have told us that we need to fill out a FOIA request to read their budgets, even though state law requires them to publish their budgets and property tax levies!)

7) Treasurer Certification of the Arizona Budget. Enact legislation requiring the Arizona Treasurer to certify whether the state budgets are in legal compliance with the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget and with the state spending limit. (A great idea we got from the Goldwater Institute.)

8) Move Forward with School Choice. Every child who leaves a government district school and goes to a charter school or a private school (via scholarship tax credits or choice grants) saves the state money—and greatly improves his or her odds of getting a good education.

9) Increase the Affordability of Private Health Insurance. We must allow Arizona consumers to have access to cheaper insurance plans available in other states. You can buy shoes, automobiles, and life insurance plans produced in other states. Why not health insurance plans?

10) Use Private Financing for Future Statewide Transportation Projects. For Arizona’s transportation infrastructure, the only viable alternative to a massive tax increase (which would mean billions wasted on light rail and other transit boondoggles) is to allow private companies to finance, construct, operate and maintain new road capacity. For privatization in other areas of state government, we should create a Florida-style Council on Efficient Government to identify privatization opportunities and assist government agencies in developing business plans for privatization. (Thanks to the Reason Foundation for suggesting this idea to us.)

Chad Kirkpatrick, Arizona Chairman

Tom Jenney, Arizona Director

Americans for Prosperity

www.aztaxpayers.org

Local blogger heading up SW #dontgo movement - response to moveon.org

The guys at Voice of Liberty Podcast will be heading up the southwest portion of #dontgo, the right's new equivalent to moveon.org. You think the right isn't as adept technically as the left when it comes to internet technology? Not true. If you'd like to work for the movement, click here. They're looking for people to help with several positions. Although they're voluntary, the longterm networking benefits will make them worth it if you have the time.

Goldwater Institute: Rumors of Conservatism's demise have been greatly exaggerated

by Darcy Olsen

In the aftermath of the 1964 presidential election, the American media was quick to interpret Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory as not just a defeat for Barry Goldwater, but as the end of a movement.

"Barry Goldwater not only lost the presidential election yesterday," New York Times Washington Bureau Chief James Reston declared, "but the conservative cause as well."

We should not be surprised to read similar stories today. Even before the election, news outlets were publishing articles declaring R.I.P. Reagan Revolution, The End of the Reagan Era, and even, The End of Conservatism as we Know It.

Whoa Nellie! Many candidates faced tough elections this year, not because they stood for limited government and fiscal responsibility, but because once in government, they abandoned the very principles they professed to believe in.

The press, however, may neglect this fact in favor of a narrative suggesting the American people have repudiated the free enterprise system and embraced big government.

This narrative will get plenty of airtime, but history suggests that a different lesson may be in order. Two years after Reston's declaration that the conservative cause was lost, America elected two dozen new Congressmen and ten new Governors on limited government platforms- and a Goldwater man named Ronald Reagan was elected Governor of California. Reston, so it seems, had got it wrong.

Commentators who suggest this year's election results mark the death of limited government principles are as wrong today as Reston was in 1964.

In this election, voters overwhelmingly rejected what they viewed as the big-government conservatism of the Bush administration in hopes of putting an end to a dismal era. While Senator McCain may have lost this race, the first principles of conservatism remain deeply held in the hearts of the American people and their time will come again.

Darcy Olsen is President & CEO of the Goldwater Institute. A longer version of this email appeared in the Arizona Republic and can be viewed here.

Austin Hill: Liberals calling conservatives racist for criticizing Obama

Austin Hill is a radio talk show host and points out a disturbing new trend on the left

Message To Conservatives: You Are Racists And Should Be Silenced

For a while I thought it was just me. But in the final days leading up to the national election, I began to notice it on both local and national talk shows around the country.

And now that we are a few days past Mr. Obama’s election night victory, it seems quite clear: things have gotten more intense, not less.

I’m writing here about the attacks that are being telephoned-in to conservative talk radio hosts around the country. I’ve noticed a consistent increase of people that I’ll call “Obama enthusiasts” popping-up as callers on conservative talk shows, and no matter what the topic on the show may be, the assertions from the callers follow a predictable pattern.

The precise choice of words that the caller uses in their line of attack may vary, but the pattern essentially goes like this: A) The caller asserts to the host that “all you ever do is attack Barack Obama;” B) The caller then comes around to asserting to the host that “you are obviously a “racist” (or “you are a bigot,” or “you think Black people are inferior to White people,” or something of that sort); and then the caller concludes with C) “you should be removed from the ‘public airwaves’” (or some variation of the general sentiment that “you should just be silenced” or “you should shut-up”).

Now let me be clear: I’m not complaining about this, not at all. In fact, I welcome it on my talk show at 630 WMAL radio in Washington, D.C. It’s no secret that talk radio thrives in controversy, and conversely, a talk show can become boring if everyone is “in agreement” with the host.

But entertaining talk show content is one thing. And the broader implications of people’s words outside of a talk show can be something different (I’m reminded here of the many times over the years that I’ve heard Rush say “words mean things”). And the implications, the “meaning,” of the pattern that I’ve identified above, seems to be this: If you so much as question the President-elect, you are necessarily a “racist,” and your voice should, therefore, be removed from the public square.

I must also add that, while the hostility I’m hearing on conservative talk radio is mostly directed at white, male hosts, it’s not necessarily a “black against white” phenomena. For example, on my show last Friday while I was discussing Mr. Obama’s remarks about the economy at his recent press conference, I received a call from “Roberto,” a man with a Hispanic sounding accent in Arlington, VA. Roberto’s opening salvo was to say that I was being “patronizing” by pronouncing his name with the traditional, Spanish “rolling R” sound.

Now, I grew up in Southern California surrounded by Spanish speakers, and I was taught by my “white Mom” that, as a matter of respect, I should speak Spanish as it was intended to be spoken, and NOT like a “gringo.”

To read the rest of this article click here

Goldwater Institute: 'White House pressures banks': It's déjà vu all over again

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.

The Arizona Republic's front page headline on October 29 read "White House Pressures Banks." The article went on to describe how bankers were being accused of hoarding bailout cash and told to get out there and loan money.

The problem is, it was politicians pushing bankers to loan money who got us into this mess in the first place. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed in 1977 to help end racial discrimination in home loans, among other things. Until the Clinton Administration, it had not been rigidly enforced because banks generally had objective standards to determine when to loan money for a home. The main criterion was that there had to be evidence a borrower would and could pay back the loan.

Then, in the 1990s, banks were pressured by the federal government through the CRA to make more home loans to low-income borrowers. The way banks made the math work was with no-down, zero-interest, and balloon loans. It was a sure recipe for a bubble and, therefore, a sure recipe for a collapse.

Luckily, banks have learned their lesson and are tightening credit standards in defiance of the politicians. The real lesson of the mortgage meltdown is not that markets can be imprudent; it's that politicians routinely are.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D, is director of economic policy at the Goldwater Institute.

ADF: Free Preach!

While the initial success of the Alliance Defense Fund Pulpit Initiative is worth rejoicing over; there is still a long road ahead.

In case you have not heard, the Pulpit Initiative is a major effort launched by ADF in cooperation with dozens of courageous pastors. On Sunday, September 28th, pastors across the country participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday. They gave sermons to their congregations applying Scriptural context to the platforms of those running for public office.

The intent of these sermons is to restore the right of all pastors to speak freely from their pulpits without fear of censorship or punishment by the U.S. Government. We are now a step closer to making that reality.

Curious about why we're doing this?

Click "learn more" to find out how the Pulpit Initiative will ultimately help protect your religious freedom.

---

Signs of the Times - November 4, 2008 Defending marriage in California these days takes a lot of spunk. Those supporting Proposition 8 – the measure on this week's ballot that called for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman – have been facing everything from media blitzes to their opponents' almost insurmountable financial advantage. An Election Prayer - October 28, 2008 A Victory for "Vanity" - October 21, 2008

Goldwater Institute: How high will utility rates go with new Corporation Commission?

by Clint Bolick Business interests who supported the Arizona Corporation Commission's power grab over energy policy may be having second thoughts after the election of at least two self-described liberals to the five-member body. Combined with holdover Commissioner Kris Mayes, they will give the Commission a solid majority favoring more government control in the energy business. The Commission last year approved rules that will lock in renewable energy mandates for most of the next two decades. In an unprecedented intrusion into legislative prerogatives and private business decision-making, the rules force utility companies, regardless of cost, efficiency, or reliability, to generate specific percentages of energy from renewable resources. The extra costs-which the Commission conservatively estimates at $2.4 billion-will be passed along to residential and commercial consumers. Under the Arizona Constitution, the Commission's authority is limited to ratemaking and related procedural issues, along with whatever additional powers the Legislature might delegate. The Legislature has taken steps to promote renewable energy, but in a less prescriptive and more flexible manner, given the uncertainties surrounding renewable energy technology and gyrations in the cost of conventional fuel. The Commission's rules throw caution to the wind (no pun intended) and leave the consumer with a hefty tab. The Goldwater Institute filed a special action on behalf of consumers challenging the rules as exceeding the Commission's limited authority and violating separation of powers. The Arizona Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction, so we will re-file the case shortly in a different court. By asserting unconstitutional authority, the current Commission has handed its successors a blank check to pursue even more draconian energy policy, making the Institute's lawsuit all the more important. As the court case moves forward, the Legislature should reclaim its authority over energy policy from an agency that has proven too susceptible to special-interest pressures. Clint Bolick is the director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

AFP: Join Dinesh D'Souza and Steve Moore at AZ Summit

How are you going to make your voice
heard after this week's election?

In Arizona, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests. The result: policies that are threatening to destroy the American Dream – higher property taxes and out-of-control government spending, job-killing regulations, and endless red-tape. But you can do something about it. You can send a powerful message to the politicians, special interests, and the mainstream media by taking part in the Arizona’s Defending the American Dream Summit.

On Saturday, December 6th at the El Zaribah Shriner Auditorium in Phoenix, AZ, you can join America’s foremost free-market voices, top experts on grassroots mobilization, and Arizona’s largest gathering of grassroots leaders from across the state in a massive show of force for our shared belief in lower taxes and more limited government. Confirmed speakers include bestselling author of Ronald Reagan, Dinesh D’Souza and The Wall Street Journal columnist Steve Moore to name a few. REGISTER TODAY and help send a powerful message to the politicians, the special interest, and the media that we’ve have had enough of out-of-control government spending and taxation which threatens our prosperity. The cost is only $20 for individuals and $30 for families and includes lunch! The first 100 individuals or families to register will receive a FREE leather Americans for Prosperity Foundation portfolio at the event. Now more than ever, it is important that you let your voice be heard. Sincerely, Tom Jenney Director Americans for Prosperity Foundation – Arizona

Russell Pearce's Legislative Workshop: Sherriff Arpaio & Andrew Thomas to speak

I am excited to share with you that Sherriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas will be speaking at the Legislative Workshop. There are still a few tickets left for this event and now that Sherriff Joe and Andrew Thomas have stated that they will be attending you really don’t won’t to miss this event.

My good friends, there is a battle raging in this nation of good and of evil and it will only be won with the citizens of this great Republic getting more involved. You, the good citizens of this state, in order to be effective you first must stay informed, in order to effect good legislation you must be involved. We hope by putting on this seminar you will be able to have a stronger presence at the legislature, know what is going on and have an impact on the process. We have a great line up of folks to help you understand what you can do and help with the process and it should be fun.

Go to www.azlegworkshop.sirbarratt.com right now and get your tickets for this great event.

Russell

AFP: Did tax cuts cause the Napolitano Deficit?

Dear Arizona Taxpayer:

It’s recession time again in Arizona, and the state government is short of money, so the usual suspects are coming around, arguing for tax increases.

Some of the usual suspects are blaming the Napolitano Deficit on the income and property tax cuts passed in 2006. But the truth, as you can see in this graph, is that Arizona’s gigantic budget deficit was created by massive overspending during the last six years, pushed first and foremost by Gov. Janet Napolitano:

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/includes/filemanager/files/az/aznapolitanodeficit1.pdf

Even if the state government got its hands on all of the revenue it has given up since 2006, the state’s spending commitments in FY 2010 would still be $2 billion more than projected revenue.

To learn more about Arizona’s fiscal crisis, and how grassroots taxpayer action can help to balance our budgets and hold the line on taxes, be sure to attend our 2008 Defending the American Dream Summit on Saturday, December 6^th. More information about the Summit is available here:

http://www.defendingthedream.org/AZ/

For Liberty, Tom

Re: Arizona needs a firm spending limit, not higher taxes.

(Submitted to the Arizona Republic, 7 November 2008)

It’s recession time again in Arizona, and the state government is short of money, so the usual suspects are coming around, arguing for tax increases.

Center-left ASU economist Dennis Hoffman (who also argued for tax increases during the last budget crisis) believes that tax cuts are to blame for Arizona’s current budget deficit (“ASU economist in high demand during fiscal crisis,” Monday, October 20, 2008).

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2008/10/19/20081019biz-hoffman1020.html

Hoffman argues that before 1995, state general fund revenue averaged 4.5 percent of state GDP, while since 1995, after reductions in tax rates, it has averaged 3.5 percent. By simple logic, if you have the same amount of spending, with less revenue, you get deficits.

There are several problems with that analysis. First, taxes and spending are different sides of the same deficit coin. If spending increases remain modest, the government can balance its budgets, even with slower revenue growth.

But state spending increases, especially since Gov. Napolitano took office in 2003, have been anything but modest. >From FY 2004 to FY 2008, state spending increased by an average of over 12 percent annually, at a time when the state economy was growing at 7 percent (a figure inflated by the housing bubble). The result of rapid spending increases has been a significant increase in the size of government as a portion of the economy. According to the Governor’s own budget office, state government in 2007 spent more than 7 percent of state personal income—the highest level of spending since 1980.

Second, Hoffman’s 3.5 percent figure is an average. In years of robust economic growth, state taxes have higher-than-average yields. The state government then uses high tax revenues in boom years to ratchet up spending to unsustainably high levels. In 2006, for example, two out of every three dollars of the state’s projected budget surplus went to new spending, while one dollar went to income and property tax cuts.

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/includes/filemanager/files/az/aznapolitanodeficit1.pdf

By our projections (see chart), Arizona will enter FY 2010 with general fund spending commitments about $2.4 billion higher than available revenues. The higher revenues the state might have had without the 2006 income and property tax cuts would have covered less than one-fifth of the gap. And that assumes (unrealistically) that the extra revenue in FYs 2007 and 2008 would not have pushed spending even higher.

Third, although Arizona has indeed reduced its income tax rates since 1995, it has increased its sales tax rate. Although sales tax revenue should be relatively more stable, it has taken a beating in the recent economic downturn. But even with a more stable revenue source, the government will typically spend most of the new dollars it is given, and then leverage that revenue to spend more. The inevitable result when the economy turns south is a deficit.

Fourth, we need to look carefully when comparing budget deficits. Hoffman and other proponents of tax increases would likely credit the FY 1988 and 1989 tax increases for the apparently modest deficits during that period. But the mildness of those deficits is better explained by noting that spending coming out of the FY 1983 trough increased one-third as rapidly as it did coming out of the FY 2003 trough, with increases moderated to some extent by mid-year budget cuts in FYs 1986, 1987, and 1988.

(According to the Governor’s budget office, state spending as a portion of state personal income rose from 6.07 percent in FY 1983 to 6.94 percent in FY 1989—an average annual increase of 0.14 percentage points. State spending as a portion of state personal income rose from 5.38 percent in FY 2003 to 7.01 percent in FY 2007—an average annual increase of 0.41 percentage points.)

Compare the present crisis with the scenarios that would have occurred under two different spending limits (use the chart link below). If Arizona government had been subject to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) since 2003, with spending growth limited to the rate of growth of population plus inflation, there would be no budget deficit crisis. Under a more permissive limit, in which spending growth had been limited to the rate of growth of the Arizona economy, the FY 2010 deficit would be one quarter of its projected size.

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/includes/filemanager/files/az/azspendinglimits103108.pdf

Hoffman and other academic economists need to look up from their models for a few moments and observe how politicians actually behave. If Arizona government is to become fiscally responsible, it needs a firm spending limit, not higher taxes.

Tom Jenney

Arizona Director

Americans for Prosperity

www.aztaxpayers.org

PS: For those concerned about government’s possible role in alleviating poverty, please read Dr. Matthew Ladner’s Goldwater Institute study showing that Arizona’s poverty rate improved in the 1990s, at a time when Arizona government was shrinking as a portion of the state economy:

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/ArticleView.aspx?id=1197

ADF: More on their free speech pulpit initiative

Pulpit Initiative

Restoring the right of pastors to speak freely

Why? That is a question we hear a lot. Why would ADF get involved in something that will likely result in a federal lawsuit with the Internal Revenue Service? For the same reason—the only reason—ADF does everything: to defend religious liberty.

Who should decide what a church can talk about? Right now, according to IRS regulation, the government does. But if we let our government mark "politics" as off-limits today, then tomorrow the forbidden topics will be "politically correct" issues like homosexual behavior and abortion. And the government may one day decide that the Gospel itself—with all its talk of Jesus as the only way, sexual sin, male-female marriage, and absolute Truth—should be off-limits too.

That is a slippery slope we are unwilling to slide down.

Simply put, the Pulpit Initiative is a legal effort to secure the right of pastors to freely speak from their pulpits to their congregations and to freely act—from a scriptural basis—on political matters without improper censorship by the government.

In 1954, then Senator Lyndon Johnson proposed and the U.S. Senate adopted an amendment to a U.S. Senate bill overhauling the IRS code prohibiting churches from speaking out on political candidates for office. It is an amendment that legal scholars agree violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The so-called "Johnson amendment" is what many government officials—particularly the IRS—reference when seeking to limit what preachers preach about.

Specifically, they don't want pastors telling their congregations what the Bible says about political issues and the agendas of individual candidates.

Some church members don't want their pastors talking about those issues either. And that's fair enough—but most Christians can agree that this should be a decision made by the pastor and the church . . . not the IRS.

Dozens of pastors all across the country are challenging these limits on their sermons so that if the government tries to penalize clergy when they preach freely from their pulpit about candidates and elections, ADF will defend them by exposing in open court just how profoundly unconstitutional this amendment really is.

Complaints from ACLU ally Americans United for Separation of Church and State have already arrived on the doorstep of the IRS. We expect investigations of the churches and pastors who participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday. We will defend them vigorously, all the way to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary. In fact, that would be an honor and a blessing – an opportunity to set the legal record straight regarding the basic freedom of pastors.

This goes to the very heart of our
God-given religious liberty
the First Amendment was meant to protect.

That makes the Pulpit Initiative a logical—indeed, inevitable—extension of what ADF has been doing since our inception.

With the Pulpit Initiative, ADF seeks to legally overturn this unjust regulation before it paves the way for even more government censorship of the Gospel. · We are not saying that churches should be political. · We are not encouraging your pastor to talk politics from the pulpit. · We are not advocating a particular political point of view. What we are saying—all we're saying—is that what a pastor does and does not talk about from his pulpit is an issue to be worked out between himself and his congregation. Pastors should have the freedom to teach the entire counsel of God's Holy Word without government intrusion.

Many Christians still don't realize that, for years now, houses of worship across America have been targeted for unfair and illegal penalties and prosecution. The nation's number-one religious censor, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is siding with its allies – namely Americans United for Separation of Church and State – in a massive campaign of fear, intimidation, and disinformation against those who would hear and speak the Truth of Jesus Christ.

For 15 years, ADF has been aggressively and successfully defending pastors and their congregations against the countless attacks. By God's infinite grace:

• We've won "hate" crimes cases . . . lodged against people like Swedish pastor Ake Green, whom ADF attorneys traveled overseas to help gain an acquittal and avoid prison time after he was vengefully prosecuted for preaching a Biblically based sermon on homosexual behavior. Read more…
• We've won equal access cases . . . like those filed against Canyon Ridge Baptist Church, which had been renting space for years at a recreation center in San Diego. The city allows other groups to use the recreation center either at no cost or for a nominal fee—but suddenly began charging religious groups like Canyon Ridge a much higher rate. ADF lawyers put a stop to that. Learn more…
• We've won zoning cases . . . and free speech cases . . . and we're defending churches in cases for the right to hire church workers who share the church's religious convictions and not hire those who don't. All of these were within our ministry's mandate to defend religious freedom and keep the legal door open for the spread of the Gospel.

To defend religious freedom, ADF depends on the faithful and generous giving of great ministry friends like you, along with your ongoing prayer support. Please give your best gift today so we can continue this momentum of success.

Post-election analysis with Sen. Jon Kyl on Thursday

Hosted by the Federalist Society, the organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers. You do not need to be a member to attend, their events are open to everyone.

A Post-Election Conversation with Sen. Jon Kyl

From the race to the White House all the way down the ballot, the 2008 General Election will undoubtedly be historic.

We are honored to have veteran statesman United States Senator Jon Kyl provide a post-election wrap up and commentary.

WHEN: November 6, 2008, 6-8pm (Registration at 5:30)
WHERE: Phoenix Biltmore Embassy Suites Santa Cruz Room
2630 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, Arizona, 85016

Registration is $15.00, Students $5.00
(includes heavy appetizers and no-host bar)

Online registration is available here.

RSVPs and information requests to Kasey Higgins
(khiggins@ij.org or 480-557-8300)

Rose-Allyn Public Relations Posts Six Campaign Wins Tuesday Night

Rose & Allyn Public Relations Posts Six Victories on Election Night Despite GOP Challenges, Economic Headwinds

Available For Commentary on These And Other Campaign Issues

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA. NOVEMBER 5, 2008. A political hat trick. Squared. Barack Obama may have won the big prize, but Rose & Allyn Public Relations was also a big winner Tuesday night, helping six issues and candidates to victory.

They included:

-Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas: Re-Election Campaign

-Central Arizona College Bond-Question 1: First Bond Passed Since 1972

-Maricopa Parks & Recreation Bond-Question 5: Passed With 62 Percent In Rough Economic Climate

-Pinal County Supervisor-Elect Bryan Martyn: First Republican To Hold This Seat

-Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock: Re-Election Campaign

-Proposition 411: Ritz-Carlton Referendum-Paradise Valley, AZ*(Note: Prop. 411 was managed by Highground. Rose & Allyn consulted on the campaign.)

Earlier in the year, Rose & Allyn successfully consulted on the re-election of Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman, the defeat of an electoral attempt to incorporate Tusayan (adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park) despite being outspent five to one, and Bryan Martyn's Republican primary victory.

Tuesday night's success brings Rose & Allyn's campaign record to 17-3 in the past five years, which includes Mitt Romney's second place finish in the Arizona presidential primary.

For commentary on these or any other Arizona election results from Tuesday night, please call Jason Rose or Jim Sharpe.

Paid for by Aggressiveness, Creativity, Success & Clients We Feel Privilege to Have Assisted

ADF on gay marriage ballot initiatives

If you're looking for evidence that God in His mercy continues to bless, equip, and empower the Alliance Defense Fund to accomplish its mission amidst — or in spite of — the current legal and political climate... you need look no farther than last night's election results.

All three Marriage Amendment proposals on the ballot were passed — in Arizona, in Florida, and even in California, where the state Supreme Court had fabricated same-sex marriage and advocates of the homosexual legal agenda outspent our allies more than 2-1. Meanwhile, in Arkansas, voters passed a measure barring adoption for same-sex couples. Thanks be to God.

Clearly, the people have spoken. Last night's results bring to 30 the number of states nationwide that have affirmed marriage with a constitutional amendment — in fact, in every state where marriage has been put to a vote, the people have shown their resounding support for this fundamental institution.

In fact, in all three states last night, support for the marriage propositions outstripped support for the more conservative candidate for president — in California, by more than a million votes. ADF will continue to engage in the legal battle for the issues we've been called to defend and protect, regardless of who is in office.

That said, ADF, and indeed all those called to defend religious liberty, face an uphill road in the years ahead. Beginning in January, the Presidency and the Congress will be dominated by those who have openly campaigned on their intention, if elected, to "transform America" — in part by launching concentrated attacks on free speech, religious liberty, and the sanctity of life, family, and marriage.

But ADF is ready. We move into an uncertain future certain of our calling, of God's guidance and protection, and of our expanding capacity — thanks to you — to respond to every opportunity He gives us.

Look again at the final results on the presidential and congressional candidates. Then look at the polling numbers on the marriage propositions. And believe me when I tell you that — whatever the political and legal environment we're in — by God's grace ADF can and will win the battle to keep the legal door open for the spread of the Gospel.

And we'll continue to successfully defend your right — and the right of your children and grandchildren — to hear and speak the Truth.

Pray for our country. Pray for all of our newly-elected leaders, that they will seek out and submit themselves to God's wisdom and direction. And pray for the lawyers and staff of the Alliance Defense Fund, that we will be faithful to the good work our Lord has called us to do, remembering that apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5)...

...and with Him, all the things He calls us to do are possible (Matthew 19:26).

Yours for religious freedom,

Alan E. Sears
President, CEO, and General Counsel

AFP Arizona statements on 2008 AZ election results

AFP Arizona Statements on 2008 Arizona Election Results Dear Arizona Taxpayer: The Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity took positions on six of the eight ballot propositions on the 2008 Arizona ballot. We are pleased to have won in four out of the six proposition fights (Props 100, 200, 201, and 300), and we are hoping that Prop 101, the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, will prove victorious when all of the votes are counted. AFP Arizona’s statements on the ballot proposition outcomes are pasted below, and available here: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=6685&state=az While AFP Arizona does not endorse or oppose candidates for public office, we are pleased to report that in January 2009, both the Arizona House and Arizona Senate will have majorities of legislators who either scored well on AFP Arizona’s 2008 Legislative Scorecard, or who have pledged as candidates not to raise taxes. That will be very important, because Arizona has one of the biggest budget deficits in the country, and many politicians will be sorely tempted to raise taxes, including property taxes, to try to close the gap. For Liberty, --Tom Proposition 100 Protect Our Homes (AFP Arizona favored Prop 100; Prop 100 passed) The passage of Prop 100 is a victory for Arizona taxpayers. It sends a strong signal to politicians that the people of Arizona do not want state and local governments coming after their houses in search of new revenue sources to boost their bloated budgets. Proposition 101 The Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act (AFP Arizona favors Prop 101; Outcome is too close to call, as of 11-05-08) The passage of Prop 101 would be a victory for taxpayers, patients, and those in need of affordable health insurance. Under Prop 101, the Arizona government could not take away our right to choose our doctors and choose our private health insurance plans. The passage of Prop 101 would also send a message to Congress and to the new President: We do not want Big Government to destroy our freedom and to destroy the quality of medical care in America. Proposition 105 Majority Rule—Let the People Decide (AFP Arizona favored Prop 105; Prop 105 was defeated) The voters have missed a great opportunity to improve the long-term fiscal health of the Arizona government. Prop 105 would have made it much tougher for special interests and slick campaigns to put the state budget on autopilot and force the Legislature to spend more and more each year. Prop 105 would also have made it harder for special interests to use ballot initiatives to raise our taxes. Proposition 200 Payday Loan Reform Act (AFP Arizona opposed Prop 200; Prop 200 was defeated) Our concern was that Prop 200 would have locked in permanent regulations that would have consolidated the industry and restricted entry into the market by newcomers. It is now up to the Legislature to act responsibly and not abolish or over-regulate an industry serves the demands of a large number of Arizona citizens who do not have the resources to avail themselves of traditional bank loans, and who would otherwise have to obtain loans on the black market. Proposition 201 “Homeowners’ Bill of Rights” aka Trial Lawyer Enrichment Act (AFP Arizona strongly opposed Prop 201; Prop 201 was defeated) The defeat of Prop 201 is good news for home buyers, good news for home sellers, and good news for everyone in the construction industry in Arizona. The only people who should be sad about the defeat of Prop 201 are trial lawyers. By voting against Prop 201, the people of Arizona have avoided a flash flood of costly lawsuits against home sellers. Prop 201 was far and away the worst initiative on the 2008 ballot, and we are happy that Arizona voters rejected it. Proposition 300 Legislative Salary Increase (AFP Arizona opposed Prop 300; Prop 300 was defeated) The failure of Prop 300 is a good thing. We do not wish to encourage individuals to become career politicians, and we do not wish to encourage legislators to stay in session any longer than they already do. The longer the session goes on, it seems, the worse the legislation. Tom Jenney Arizona Director Americans for Prosperity (Arizona Federation of Taxpayers) www.aztaxpayers.org tjenney@afphq.org (602) 478-0146

Daniel Veres: The better alternative to Leah Landrum for Senate in District 16

If you live in District 16 (south & central Phoenix), and think Leah Landrum (D) is too radical and fiscally irresponsible, consider voting for Daniel Veres (R) instead on Tuesday. Landrum received an F+ from the Goldwater Institute last year for her dismal record on fiscal responsibility. She received a 45 ranking from Americans for Prosperity last year, even worse than Janet Napolitano's score. AFP labels her a "Friend of Big Government."

Take a look at what Daniel has to say:

In 2006, I decided to run for the State Senate because I believe we Arizonans deserve world-class public schools, affordable health care for families, and a legislature that makes good use of our tax dollars. Less than two years later, we have a record number of failing schools, longer emergency room waits, and billion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future.

Check out his interview with the Arizona Republic here. Here are a few of his answers to questions:

Q. Has state government been spending too much money, the right amount, or not enough? Specifically, how would you change the state's approach to spending?

A. With a $2 billion deficit, the Legislature needs to act as a better steward of the people's money

Q. Name one state agency or program you believe gets too much money. Why?

A. Department of tourism because Arizona sells itself Q. Do you support the use of school vouchers? Why or why not? A. Yes, school choice strengthens competition in public schools

Endorsed by Alice Lara, candidate for Maricopa County Special Healthcare District 5

County Attorney Thomas Blasts Nelson For Hoarding New Cash From Criminal Defense Lawyers, Anti-Death Penalty Advocates

Latest Contribution Report Shows County Attorney Candidate Tim Nelson Continues to Hoard Campaign Cash from Criminal Defense Attorneys & Anti-Death Penalty Advocates

PHOENIX, ARIZONA. OCTOBER 31, 2008. ACLU lawyer Tim Nelson continues to rake in a record amount of campaign contributions from criminal defense attorneys and anti-death penalty advocates in his race against Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

A review of the liberal lawyer’s most recent campaign contribution report filed late last week shows Nelson continuing to receive support from the people most unhappy with Thomas’ tough-on-crime policies: those representing Valley criminals.

The latest reports show eighteen criminal defense attorneys writing substantial checks to Nelson. They include:

Dave Derrickson-$390

Sharad Desai-$200

Mark Dwyer-$140 (also gave previously)

Douglas Erickson-$50

Sarah Greene-$100

Debbie Hill-$390

Mark Hummels-$100

Heather Baker-$20

Shawdy Banihashemi-$25

Dan Lowrance-$50

Daniel Maynard-$50 (also gave previously)

Jeremy Mussman-$100

Alan Baskin-$190 (also gave previously)

Jeffrey Rogers-$390

Garrett Simpson-$50

Michael Souccar-$390

Joseph Traher-$40

William Walker-$100

Spouse:

Cecile Derrickson-$390

Total money received from defense attorneys in the October 23, pre-general election report: $3,165

Anti-death penalty advocates continue to support Nelson with large contributions too. They include:

*Dave Derickson and his spouse maxed out. Derickson is past president of the anti-death penalty group “Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice.”

*Andrew Silverman. Silverman is an extreme anti-death penalty/pro-illegal alien University of Arizona law professor and member of far-left groups like "Coalition of Arizonans to Abolish the Death Penalty" and "Florence Immigrant Rights Project.”

“Attorneys for Valley criminals and anti-death penalty advocates are not supporting Tim Nelson because he will be tougher on criminals than I will. In Nelson, they believe they have found someone far more sympathetic to their soft on crime agenda. And they are right,” Thomas said.

Thomas severely curtailed plea bargains and what he called sweetheart deals for crimes after taking office in 2005. For example, Thomas required that violent offenders plead guilty to the highest charge and accept the tough prison sentences that come with that or go to trial and risk getting sentenced longer. In the real world, this means a rapist who breaks into a house no longer can plead guilty just to burglary, but must plead guilty to sexual assault and get a severe prison sentence.

As for the death penalty, Nelson represented convicted double murderer Jose Ceja in his attempts to stop the death penalty for his heinous crimes.

A partial list showing the unprecedented criminal defense attorney support for Nelson revealed in previous campaign finance reports is below. There may be other criminal defense attorney contributors not identified by Thomas. Furthermore, numerous criminal defense attorneys have hosted fundraisers or otherwise raised money for Nelson.

It is illegal for Arizona state legislators to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists during the legislative session. To accept so much money from lobbyists for criminals with active interests before the County Attorney’s Office is even more alarming, Thomas said.

“Our policies, combined with those of Sheriff Arpaio and outstanding efforts by local law enforcement have reduced Valley crime over the past four years. Mr. Nelson wants to eviscerate these efforts and return to the days of soft sentences for criminal defense attorneys and their clients,” Thomas said.


Below is a partial list of criminal defense attorneys who contributed to Nelson revealed in previous reports (NOTE: $390 is the maximum contribution allowed by law):

Charles Babbitt-$225

Dale Baich -$390
Alan Baskin-$200
Melanie Beauchamp-$390
James Belanger-$390

Chad Belville-$100
Michael Black-$390
Antonio Bustamante-$390
Michael Buxton-$390

Jean Cabou-$300
Zachary Cain-$100
Colin Campbell-$390
David Cantor-$390

Tony Colon, $100,
Harla Davison-$100
Hector Diaz-$250
Stephen Dichter-$390

Mark Dwyer-$250
Timothy Eckstein-$300
Bruce Feder-$250
Carmen Fischer-$390
Tracy Friddle-$35
Stacey Gottlieb-$390
Benjamin Green-$100
Larry Hammond-$390
Leslie Hatfield-$390
Melissa Ho-$100

William Hostetler-$25
Bret Huggins-$200
David Kephart-$150
Michael Kimerer-$390
Jason Lamm-$390

Martin Lieberman-$390
Jess Lorona-$390
Norma Martens-$390
Daniel Maynard-$200
Craig Mehrens-$390
Jeffrey Mehrens-$390
Alicia Morrison-$100
Alex Navidad-$100
Phil Noland-$390
Ed Novak-$390
Frederick Petti-$390
John Phebus-$390

Lisa Posada-$390
Rebecca Potter-$40
Christopher Rapp-$390
Jon Sands -$390
John Sandweg-$390
Gary Scales-$390
Douglas Schwab-$200
Margarita Silva-$50

Kyrsten Sinema-$200
Lee Stein-$390
E.Sharon Storrs-$200
James Tinker-$200
Peter Wand-$200
Robert Weeks-$200

Tracey Westerhausen-$200

Amy Wilemon-$390
Alan Zimmerman-$100

Their spouses:

Joo Cantor $390
Frances Hammond $390
Jennifer Lorona $390
Timothy Martens $200
Heather Novak $390

Grand total of all money raised from the 76 criminal defense attorneys and their spouses who have given to Nelson: $21,790

Attorneys in the above list have represented such people as convicted child murderer-rapist Don Beaty, Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, murderer-rapist Robert Comer and convicted child murderer Kevin Roscoe, among many others.

For more information or to arrange interviews with Mr. Thomas please call Jason Rose or Jim Sharpe.