Posted by: Donna
Andrew Prokop of Vox interviewed Michael G. Miller of Barnard college about his research on public campaign financing in the states that have enacted it. Conventional wisdom in Arizona’s elite circles holds that Arizona’s Clean Election system is largely to blame for the election of radical right wing legislators and laws such as SB1070. Miller tried to find the connection and couldn’t:
Andrew Prokop: Arizona’s legislature last made national news for adopting a tough anti-illegal immigration law in 2010. Would you say that the public financing system made that more likely to pass? Support for loosening immigration laws is more widespread among business interests, and under public financing, the support of business may be less important to candidates.
Michael G. Miller: I think that theory’s plausible, but I just don’t see it in the data, and I always follow the data. So what I have found in my work is that there’s no relationship between accepting public funding and taking more extreme positions. As I said, the narrative has always seemed plausible to me, and I actually was a little surprised when we found no relationship. But I just don’t see it in the data. You’ve got to bear in mind, Arizona’s still a really unique place politically, they have a strong strain of libertarianism running through the right side of their politics. It’s a very perceptible tinge of American conservatism. Barry Goldwater’s alive and well in his home state.
I think there’s a temptation to look for these explanations when we see extreme politics happening in a place, but I think it really is as simple as — if you look at the dynamics of the state, it is kinda a microcosm of America in many ways and you see same kinds of things happening there as you do in the United States Congress. And there’s no public funding in the United States Congress. So I think, we tend to go on these hunts for explanations, when it just ends up being the way things are due to political history, culture, or larger dynamics.
The reason there’s a temptation to look for those explanations is that it is always convenient, for the cocktail party class, to blame the working class for everything wrong, even when it is abundantly clear that rich people were always behind all of it:
Businessmen of the World, Unite!
The organizational counterattack of business in the 1970s was swift and sweeping — a domestic version of Shock and Awe. The number of corporations with public affairs offices in Washington grew from 100 in 1968 to over 500 in 1978. In 1971, only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in Washington, but by 1982, nearly 2,500 did. The number of corporate PACs increased from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 by the middle of 1980. On every dimension of corporate political activity, the numbers reveal a dramatic, rapid mobilization of business resources in the mid-1970s.
What the numbers alone cannot show is something of potentially even greater significance: Employers learned how to work together to achieve shared political goals. As members of coalitions, firms could mobilize more proactively and on a much broader front. Corporate leaders became advocates not just for the narrow interests of their firms but also for the shared interests of business as a whole.
And they expanded their tentacles into states with the formation of ALEC in 1973. You built that, Business LeadersTM.
Posted by: Donna
Former Mesa Mayor and AZ GOP Gubernatorial candidate Scott Smith got an undeniable boost on Thursday. He was not only endorsed by Governor Brewer (which everyone expected would happen, though it’s curious that they waited until after mail-in ballots dropped to do it) but AZ Cardinals owner Michael Bidwill swiftly cancelled a meeting with Smith backers in which he was going to try and get them to switch to Doug Ducey. This is a big deal. Smith’s team reports a big bump in fundraising overnight and, with Christine Jones’ campaign fading fast, Smith has a real chance in that primary. Smith will enjoy strong LDS support now that Ken Bennett is no longer a contender and it looks like he’s going to take business establishment support away from Ducey. (I still consider Ducey the favorite based on his early fundraising advantage, all the name ID he’s gotten with his feud with Jones, the continued dark money support from radical right wing moneybags, and the tendency of GOP primary voters to select the biggest asshole who is also electable in the general.)
Needless to say, this Scott Smith development caused a resurgence in the cooing and swooning that tends to overtake some of the more softhearted liberals/left-of-center types in Arizona where he is concerned. It’s so bad at this point that I’ve seen some Democrats bragging on Facebook how they changed their registration to get Republican ballots to vote for their dreamboat.
I’m sympathetic to the argument that Smith is the least reprehensible Republican running in the primary (which is true) and that because it is difficult for a Democrat to win in Arizona in a midterm Smith is the safest Republican choice. What I object to is the unwarranted fawning over on this guy by non-Republicans. It’s eerily similar to the way Democrats gushed over Jeff Flake for years because he was so nice, while ignoring how rabidly right wing most of his views and voting record as a Congressman were. Flake will be in the Senate for the next 3 million years, thanks in part to years of Democrats obligingly softening his image. Those same Democrats never seem to learn because they’re going down the same path with Scott Smith. Let’s just be clear that we’re talking about this guy:
You want to go canvass for this guy? I don’t. Smith’s Center for Arizona Policy questionnaire answers do reveal him to be more moderate than his GOP opponents on many culture war issues – he’s for some LGBT rights and doesn’t want the government censoring the internet. On abortion rights, he does the same thing that Jeff Flake did in 2012, which is to say the magic words about rape and incest exceptions that will get him through endorsement interviews and allow him to paint himself as “moderate” on the issue to the general electorate. As with Flake, Smith can count on not being asked follow up questions about how, precisely, these rape exceptions would work (spoiler alert: they wouldn’t for the vast majority of victims). He gets to look reasonable and magnanimous while opposing about 99% of abortions, which is actually a radical anti-choice position.
The pundits foresee Smith modeling his administration after Governor Brewer’s, which is a reasonable assumption considering her top adviser, Chuck Coughlin, is running his campaign. Brewer has been a disaster on reproductive rights and Smith will be as well. Did you notice that whenever Brewer did something decent like the Medicaid expansion or vetoing SB1062 she’d often get an abortion bill to sign immediately after? It will likely go the same way with Smith. As I’ve noted before, someone has to take one for the team in the culture wars and poor women make for a very convenient sacrifice.
Another answer of Smith’s that I found disturbing was the one on assisted suicide:
Question 8: I believe God has a plan for each of us for which we must be strong, even when this includes trials to our end.
FYI swooners, that right there is what we call a red flag. I mean, look, I don’t expect him to be pro-euthanasia but he seems to be taking a tad to much joy in the prospect of people suffering. Yikes. Is he against palliative pain relief and do-not-resuscitate orders too?
One of the main arguments non-Republican Scott Smith enthusiasts make in his record as Mayor of Mesa and it is a fair one. But running a city is not the same as running a state, especially one with a legislature as full of wingnuts as ours is. There is also the possibility that the guy running as a jobs-focused centrist mayor will turn into an entirely different creature once elected Governor, as happened in North Carolina, where the “Eisenhower Republican” Mayor of Charlotte morphed into Michele Bachmann approximately one nanosecond after becoming Governor of that state.
Posted by: Donna
This installment will conclude my series on the anti-choice Dems running in legislative primaries. This last one, Sen. Catherine Miranda (LD27), might prove the most difficult to remove due to her incumbency and the strength of her family name. Luckily, her challenger the hugely impressive and indefatigable campaigner Aaron Marquez. (I’m pretty sure Aaron has gotten more money out of me than any legislative candidate ever has because he’s that good at raising it.) And while it sucks to want a female Democrat to be defeated, Miranda has got to go, and we’ll be getting a staunch ally in the Senate with Aaron Marquez:
On your campaign website, you mention that as part of your service with the United States Army Reserve, you helped to build women’s centers in Afghanistan. Can you tell us more about this: What services did they provide, and what impact have they had?
My favorite project that I worked on was when we put together a wool processing center. I worked on a provincial reconstruction team that brought together coalition forces. My team was led by the Swedish armed forces and also Finland’s armed forces. The wool processing center works with all of those groups in the province of Balkh, outside the city of Mazar-i-Sharif.
About 80 percent of Afghans are subsistence farmers, and most of them have sheep or goats. The processing center allowed farmers to use electronic sheep shears to increase wool production by 20 percent annually. At the wool processing center we employ women to card [the wool], spin it, and turn it into yarn. Then they dye it, and they sell it to Afghan rug makers.
I also worked through the Department of Women’s Affairs. In one province called Samangan, there was a women’s center in a location that was very inaccessible, so they wanted a road. We built them an asphalt road that went from the main section of town instead of what was a very rocky dirt road.
In other parts of Afghanistan, I was working to build women’s bazaars. What they were looking for and expecting was just a place that would provide privacy for women to be exclusively around other women. They could take off their burqas, and work on whatever crafts they were trying to market and sell in a place that allowed them to come together. One of the proposals was for a women’s gym. Any gyms that did exist in Mazar-i-Sharif, women were not allowed to go there.
Meanwhile, what has Senator Miranda been doing for women? This kind of stuff:
Last legislative session, your opponent in the primary election, Catherine Miranda, voted in favor of HB 2284, which now permits the health department to inspect abortion clinics without a warrant. How do your views on reproductive health care differ from those of your opponent?
She has a clear anti-choice record, a clear anti-women’s reproductive health care record. She voted for 2284. She’s also voted for 2800, prohibiting state funding for abortion providers; 2384, prohibiting taxpayer funding for abortion providers; 2416, adding regulations for abortion providers, making it more difficult to get abortions. I think every time she’s had the opportunity on issues of choice, she’s been a clear anti-choice vote and a clear vote with the Republican Party.
Miranda voted for harassment of women through surprise inspections of abortion clinics and to defund family planning centers. Remember, they do a lot more than abortions in them. Again, here’s another Dem who wants to “save babies” but who doesn’t seem to understand that when women have effective birth control, the abortion rate plummets.
Vote for pro-choice Democrat Aaron Marquez for LD27. One final note: the only pro-choice Dem challenging an anti-choicer running under Clean Elections is Angela Cotera. Charlene Fernandez, Lisa Otondo, Martin Quezada, and Aaron are not and need contributions. Help them out!
Posted by: Donna
My pal Dr. Angela Cotera, who has contributed to this blog, is running in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat in LD19 being vacated by Anna Tovar this year. Her opponent is Rep. Lupe Contreras. Contreras signed a pledge in support of overturning Roe v Wade and of the idea that personhood begins at conception. Cotera, who is a smarty-pants research astrophysicist, explained in very succinct terms why Contreras is dead wrong in an endorsement profile with Planned Parenthood of Arizona:
The “Pro-Life Proclamation” that he signed called for all Arizona legislators to make sure that full citizenship rights begin the moment an egg is fertilized. This basically would mean that women have no more rights than an incubator, which is outrageous. I believe that all women have sovereignty over their own bodies, and no one has a right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do within her own body. I believe that all health care decisions should be private, particularly those which involve the most intensely personal aspect of our lives, reproduction. We must protect the rights in Roe v. Wade because we cannot return to a time when women died due to self-induced abortions.
Preach! Vote for pro-choice Democrat Angela Cotera in LD19.
Posted by: Donna
Rep. Lydia Hernandez and Rep. Martin Quezada are challenging each other for the Senate seat vacated by Steve Gallardo in LD29. Rep. Quezada has gotten the AZ Planned Parenthood endorsement for reasons that will be readily apparent when you see what Hernandez posted on her Facebook page recently:
I explained in my last post that an anti-abortion Democrat is acceptable so long as s/he gives enthusiastic support to contraception access and comprehensive sex ed, while refusing to join with anti-choice Republicans in their demented crusade to make criminals of women and doctors. It’s clear that none of those ideas appeal to Rep. Hernandez, who is pushing the paranoid and risible conspiracy theory that Planned Parenthood is engaging in both the abuse of women and genocide. Hernandez is obviously unqualified to hold office in general, let alone as a Democrat.
Vote for Martin Quezada in LD29.
Posted by: Donna
Jose Leonardo Suarez (LD4-D) is running for Arizona State House this year. When asked how he differed from the Democratic platform at the Clean Elections primary debate, he said that he opposes marriage equality and abortion in most cases.
Suarez believes life starts at conception and that rape victims should have that baby. He would consider abortion to be acceptable in the case of fetal deformity and, almost as an afterthought, in the case that the
defective incubator oops the woman is facing a danger to her life. Nice of him. Suarez does say that rape victims should receive “all kinds of counseling” so that they will either keep the baby or adopt it out. At no point does he consider if giving birth would be the best outcome for her well-being. Rape is simply a way of introducing a pregnancy into a woman’s body and women should always be ready to welcome that, and if they they aren’t, then they just need to have it explained better.
I’ve said this before: I have no problem with Democrats who oppose abortion. I just ask that they support things like universal health care, which includes unfettered access to contraception, and comprehensive sex education. They should certainly support a strong safety net and other policies that make life better for adults and children, while understanding that those things are not a substitute for reproductive rights, since sometimes women don’t want to be pregnant even under the best of circumstances. What they should never do is sign on to disgusting right wing laws that criminalize women and doctors. At the very least, “pro-life” Democrats should never take the side of rapists and rape-apologists over victims.
Posted by: Donna
Arizona and Texas are the latest states to be defending their same sex marriage bans in federal court. Things haven’t gone well for foes of equality lately, as foes of equality lose in state after state, most recently in Virginia. Attorneys in Arizona and Texas obviously see what’s coming and are resorting to desperately hiding behind children and slut-shaming.
Here are anti-equality attorneys in AZ arguing why same sex partners shouldn’t be allowed to marry:
Papers filed in federal court defending the ban say voters, in approving the constitutional amendment in 2008, are entitled to “define marriage for their community.’’ But the lawyers also are arguing to U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick there’s a public purpose in the state getting into the business of regulating private relationships: Ensuring that children are, whenever possible, raised by a biological mother and biological father.
“Only man-woman couples are capable of furthering the state’s interest in linking children to both of their biological parents,’’ argued attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom. And they said the vast majority of such couples produce their own biological children.
Of course this is complete hogwash, since the state allows infertile straight couples and those unwilling to procreate to marry, but Alliance Defending Freedom has no problem letting 92 year old Betty White marry a guy because, well, see for yourself:
“For instance, many man-woman couples who do not plan to have children may experience unintended pregnancies or may simply change their minds,’’ the legal brief says. It also says “modern medical advances’’ might affect otherwise infertile couples.”
Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is running for Governor of Texas, takes the “dear God what about the children?!” gambit one further by strongly implying that gay marriage would lead to more women wantonly procreating sans husband:
Back in court to defend Texas’ ban on gay marriage, Attorney General Greg Abbott is arguing that the restriction is designed to promote responsible procreation, not to demean same-sex couples — a tactic that has already been rejected by two federal appeals courts.
Nonetheless, Abbott relies heavily on the argument as Texas prepares to defend the ban at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is populated by judges that are considered to be far more conservative than most other federal appeals courts.
“By recognizing and encouraging the lifelong commitment between a man and woman — even when they do not produce offspring — the state encourages others who will procreate to enter into the marriage relationship,” Abbott said in the state’s first brief, filed late Monday at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Promoting opposite-sex marriages “increases the likelihood that children will be born into stable environments where they are raised by their mother and their father,” Abbott argued.
Such family structures are good for the children’s well being and good for the state because they increase the likelihood that parents, not society, “will bear the cost of raising these children,” the brief said.
“Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children, recognizing same-sex marriage does not further these goals to the same extent that recognizing opposite-sex marriage does,” Abbott said.
No gay marriage because it’ll lead to more single women popping out kids and going on welfare! This sick thing is there’s a chance it might work, especially in such a conservative court. Wrapping their religious fascism in slut-punishing has been so wildly successful for the Religious Right that why wouldn’t they find a way to weave it into every item on their agenda? Wouldn’t surprise me if they just straight up started calling same sex marriage an “abortifacient”.