How do Southern Arizona Legislative candidates stand on progressive issues?

PDA Tucson distributed questionnaires to all candidates running for the Arizona Legislature in Southern Arizona and to all Congressional candidates, regardless of party.

It is important for Progressives to know where candidates stand on issues important to us. The PDA questionnaire was based upon the following issues: Corporate Personhood, Public Financed Elections, Women’s Health, AHCCCS, Mandatory Sentencing, Renewable Energy, Collective Bargaining, Taxation, and the Quality Education and Jobs Initiative. Our goal was to determine which candidates are most aligned with Progressive issues. Below is our analysis of their responses. 

All 30 candidates for Southern Arizona legislative seats were sent a questionnaire. Seven responses were received, all from Democrats, no Republicans responded. Democrats responding were: Bradley, Cajero Bedford, Cox, Fleming, Gabaldon, Patrick, and Steele. Democrats not responding were: Dalessandro, Farley, Gonzales, Leach, Lopez, Mach, Saldate, Sidwha, Stonebreaker, Wheeler. The questionnaire was also sent to Congressional candidates, but none of them responded. (Clairfication: PDA National has endorsed Congressman Raul Grijalva and Wenona Benally Baldenegro; so, questionnaires were not distributed to CD1 or CD3 candidates.)

There were a total of 13 questions covering . Candidates were asked to rate their level of agreement with statements on a scale of 1 to 5, one being strong disagreement and 5 being strong agreement. There was space after each question for clarifying comments.

Scoring

Strong agreement on all statements resulted in a score of 65. We also gave 5 extra points for detailed comments. Only 2 candidates provided detailed answers in addition to their numbered answers-- Brandon Patrick (LD10) and Dustin Cox (LD9). To emphasize how important Clean Elections is to PDA, we also gave "clean" candidates 2 extra points. 

The candidates with the highest scores and the most complete answers were Brandon Patrick (72 points) and Dustin Cox (70 points). Here is what we learned from these candidates.

DAVID BRADLEY, Senate, LD 10. Privately financed.Score: 64 + 5 = 69. Clarifying comments were provided on almost all answers which was appreciated. He doesn’t seem to share Progressive’s total commitment to Clean Elections.

OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD, Senate, LD 3. Clean Elections financed. Score: 63 + 2 = 65.  Although her answers indicate support for progressive issues, the only clarifying comment was “need more information on the details” in response to the Quality Education and Jobs initiative statement. This concerns us because it seems to indicate a lack of knowledge on an issue that is important to Progressives and has had a good deal of press coverage.

DUSTIN COX, House, LD 9. Privately financed.Score: 65 + 5 = 70. He provided very detailed comments which made it easier to assess his positions. All his answers show support for Progressive issues. However, we are concerned about his answer regarding Clean Elections because it does not seem to square with his decision to finance his campaign with Private, not Clean Elections, funding.

PAT FLEMING, Senate, LD 14. Clean Elections financed.Score: 63 + 2 = 65. Brief comments were provided to some questions. We are concerned that she appears to not share Progressive’s strong commitment to repealing mandatory sentencing laws.

ROSANNA GABALDON, House, LD 2. Clean Elections financed.Score: 61 + 2 = 63. Only comment provided was “need to learn more about this subject” on statements related to mandatory sentencing, public investment in renewable energy, new nuclear plants in AZ, and taxation. She seems to lean progressive but apparent gaps in her knowledge about issues important to us are troubling.

BRANDON PATRICK, House, LD 10. Clean Elections financed. Score: 65 + 5 + 2 = 72.Detailed comments provided showed a sophisticated and detailed knowledge of issues important to us. Of all the respondents, he is clearly the candidate whose answers and clarifying comments best represent Progressive positions.

VICTORIA STEELE, House, LD 9. Privately financed.Score: 65. Although she strongly agreed with our statements, the two brief comments provided made any further assessment of her positions difficult. Although she indicates agreement with strengthening Clean Elections, she is not running with Clean Elections funding. This concerns us.

To repeat, any feedback on this effort is sincerely appreciated. Please comment on our Facebook page.

Occupy ALEC in Tucson-- and worldwide-- on Feb. 29

Is it time to finally say, "I'm mad as hell and not going to take this anymore?"

The Arizona Legislature (and other Republican-led Legislatures around the country) are attacking the citizens with anti-work bills and anti-student bills.

Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich and Congressional Republicans are attacking women, immigrants, gays and Lesbians, unions, teachers, college students, the poor, reproductive health, public education, healthcare... the list goes on. They want to take away basic rights that we have taken for granted-- like the minimum wage and collective bargaining.

FIVE people have donated 25%-- $14 million-- to super pacs to elect more Republicans-- particularly a Republican President.

Are you tired of government against the people and for the corporations?

If you are "mad as hell", then join Occupy Tucson, PDA Tucson, and others for a demonstration against corporate rule.

Tucsonans-- and others around the world-- will be demonstrating against corporate control of our lives, big-money politics, and specifically against the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-- the folks who gave us SB1070 and the anti-worker legislation in Wisconsin, Ohio, Arizona, and elsewhere.

Tomorrow, Feb. 29, come to the downtown public library at 4 p.m. for the demonstration. Bring your signs, noise-makers, and friends. Here's more information from Occupy Wall Street...

This Wednesday, Occupiers in New York, Oakland, Mexico City, and over 80 other cities [including Tucson] will take part in a coordinated National Day of Action to Shut Down the Corporations. Occupations have been preparing a variety of decentralized actions in response to Occupy Portland's call to target the American Legislative Exchange Council:

We specifically call on people to target corporations that are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The biggest corporations in America, like ExxonMobil, Bank of America, BP, Monsanto, Pfizer, and Wal-Mart use ALEC to buy off legislators and craft legislation that serves only the interests of corporations and not people. They then duplicate and spread this corporate legislation in Washington, D.C. and in state legislatures across the country. The anti-labor legislation in Wisconsin and the racist bill SB 1070 in Arizona are two recent and destructive examples of what corporations use ALEC to do.

See here for more about why we protest corporate power and how ALEC seeks to erode our democracy, undermine workers rights and attack unions, destroy our environment, obstruct efforts to address climate change, undermine public education, pursue destructive agricultural practices and fuel the prison industrial complex. You can also RSVP for the Occupy Wall St/NYC Facebook event. For national coverage, follow @F29PDX on Twitter.

Simultaneously, European trade unions have declared Feb. 29th a European Day of Action against austerity, following massive demonstrations against budget cuts in Greece, Spain, Belgium, and elsewhere. Decentralized actions in all 27 European Union nations and beyond will be "sending a clear message to the EU leaders: this imposed austerity is going to plunge Europe into a recession!"

The effects of the financial, economic and social crisis have reached unbearable levels in several countries. Faced with the extreme seriousness of the situation, European leaders are making the race for austerity their priority response. The crisis serves as a ready-made pretext to attack the European social model, justify cuts in wages and public services, weaken social protection, make the labour market hyperflexible, and attack trade union rights.

Thus, at a time when the European summit has to adopt a treaty plunging Europe into recession and job insecurity for the long haul, the European trade unions are saying “enough is enough” and putting employment, recovery, social justice and solidarity at the forefront of the discussions.

If you are not "mad as hell," check out the ALEC Exposed website here.

Following Up Our Meeting with Rep. John Fillmore

Good Morning!

First of all, I want to thank everyone who came to last night's meeting for attending and especially participating. We certainly had a lively and productive session with Rep. Fillmore.

Secondly, Rep. Fillmore asked us to consider supporting his school district consolidation bill. Obviously, we need the text and a good discussion. The link to the bill is below:

http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2219&Session_ID=102

Feel free to discuss the bill as you will. We will certainly make it an agenda item at the next IOT meeting: Saturday, March 3, Ward 6 Council Office, 3201 E. First. St., 10 AM - noon.

Please join us then!

Arizona unionists fight back against anti-labor bills

The Arizona Legislature is considering four anti-union bills that, if passed, would make Arizona's labor climate "worse than Wisconsin."

SB 1484, SB1487-- eliminate payroll deductions for union dues.

SB1485-- outlaws collective bargaining.

SB1486-- prohibits public employers from compensating workers for union activities.

The Pima Area Labor Federation is holding a public hearing about these four bills on Friday, February 17, 2012 from 4 - 5:30 p.m. at the IBEW Local 570 Hall (750 S. Tucson Blvd.)

In addition, the Arizona AFL-CIO is holding a Day of Action to Protect Workers' Rights at the Arizona State Capitol (1700 W. Washington St., Phoenix) on Thursday, March 1, 2012 from 10 a.m. - 2 p.m. Contact info@azaflcio.org for information on bus transportation.

Above is a video depicting a demonstration in Tucson against the anti-labor laws. Below is Congressional Representative Raul Grijalva discussing these bills with MSNBC host Ed Schultz.

Should the State of Arizona 'move its money' and create a state bank?

Should Arizona create a state bank? Yes! It makes good economic sense for the State of Arizona's monies to be held in a public bank.

What are the benefits of creating a bank that would hold the state's monies and handle all of its official transactions? Just think of the fees that the state is being charged for current transactions and the interest that the banks are making from the state's holdings.

Would a state bank compete with other banks? No. A state bank would complement the services of regular banks and credit unions-- not compete with them. For example, a state bank would not offer services like checking or savings accounts, credit cards, or car loans to individuals.

The Progressive Democrats of America, Tucson chapter (PDA Tucson) will be hosting an important and very interesting program on public banking in Arizona on Tuesday, February 21, 2012.

Our speaker will be Rep. John Fillmore, Rep., LD 23, which is most of Pinal County. Rep. Fillmore has been working on this issue for a long time and has recently attempted to introduce a bill into the current legislature to create the Bank of Arizona. PDA Tucson has had the opportunity to collaborate with Rep. Fillmore, and the experience has been a felicitous one for all concerned.

Although 15 states are looking into the creation of a state bank, North Dakota is the only one who has one. Here are two links about the Bank of North Dakota:
http://banknd.nd.gov/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota

At PDA Tucson, we believe that the creation of a public bank will give us the economic driver to help all sectors of the state and truly move us out of the economic doldrums.

We also believe that this is a non-partisan issue. We are not alone in this pursuit; red states like Idaho, Vermont, and New Hampshire are moving along in this area as are blue states like Washington and California.

PDA Tucson believes that this issue is of consummate importance and would like to involve you as well as members of your organizations.

So please join us on Tuesday, February 21, 2012, Ward 1 City Council
Office, 901 W. Alameda st., Tucson, AZ, at 6:30 PM.

Using the Bank for the Public Good: Short Film on Public Banking

Here is a very short video on public banking giving a Canadian perspective on the issue and on US!

State Banking Bill to be Heard in Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012

THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT!!!!!

HB 2104, a bill to establish the Bank of Arizona, will be heard in committee on Tuesday, Feb. 7th. 

In our IOT meeting on Saturday, we will discuss the bill and our next steps. 

MEANWHILE

it is imperative for us to send emails to the committee members. 

The legislators most emphatically do NOT want one letter sent by all concerned people, so I cannot offer you a text to cut and paste. 

What I can offer you is below.  In it you will see:

1. a directory of the Employment and Regulatory Committee

2. a list of their emails

3. a list of bullet points (running onto a second page).

Please choose 4 or 5 bullet points and/or anything else you want to say and compose your email letter. 

Then send a copy of your letter to each representative on the committee. 

I don't think this endeavor will take too much time and it should be well repaid. 

Many thanks in advance,

Richard

Employment and Regulatory Affairs
 House of Representatives Standing Committee
  Members Position
Eddie Farnsworth Member 
John Fillmore Vice-Chairman
Sally Ann Gonzales Member 
John Kavanagh Member 
Justin Olson Member
Lynne Pancrazi Member
 Daniel Patterson Member
  Bob Robson Chairman
  Kimberly Yee Member

Email Addresses:

Farnsworth = efarnsworth@azleg.gov  R
Fillmore = jfillmore@azleg.gov  R
Gonzales = sgonzales@asleg.gov  D
 Kavanagh = jkavanagh@azleg.gov  R
 Olson = jolson@azleg.gov   R
Pancrazi = lpancrazi@azleg.gov  Lead Democrat
Patterson = dpatterson@azleg.gov  D
Robson = brobson@azleg.gov  
R Yee = kyee@azleg.gov   R

Choose 4 or 5 points for your letter:

* A public bank is NOT socialism.  Socialism entails public ownership of all banks and thus the receipt of all profits.

* A public bank is wise, efficient stewardship of public resources.

* A public bank is the economic driver needed now because our financial situation is dire and received wisdom is not helping to ameliorate it.  

* A public bank can invest in the state, keeping capital within Arizona and assuring Arizona’s development.

* A public bank is more like a mini-Fed than a bank on the street corner.

* Public banking works best in partnership with private banks.  The Bank of North Dakota partners with over 100 local banks. 

* Capitalizing a public bank will NOT cost the taxpayer anything.

* A public bank can help individuals seeking small business loans, local governments, research for future state development such as alternative energy, agriculture, education, access to higher education, and even parks and Arizona heritage sites.

* Other states are considering creating public banks:  ID, VT, NH, and WA are making progress in this direction right now!

* Since 1945, the Bank of North Dakota has transferred $555 million in profits to the state general fund.  

Clean elections suit filed

From the Arizona Daily Star...

PHOENIX - Saying the proposal is legally flawed, supporters of public financing of elections filed suit Friday to block a public vote to kill the state's Clean Elections funding system. 

The proposed constitutional amendment is billed as barring the government from providing public subsidies to candidates for public office, attorney Paul Eckstein said in the suit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court. But he said the language lawmakers last month approved for the 2012 ballot would bar government agencies from collecting or spending public funds for "campaign support," a phrase that is not defined.

The problem with that, Eckstein said, is it could be interpreted as barring not only direct contributions to a candidate's race but also other functions of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, including its sponsorship of debates and voter education. And that, he said, means the proposal would do two things, violating a requirement that constitutional amendments address only a single subject.

If the courts don't buy that argument, Eckstein has a backup.
The ballot proposal would affect not only the state's public-financing system, approved by voters in 1998, but also would kill an even older program in the city of Tucson by which candidates who agree to limit what they collect from private donors can get matching public dollars.

Eckstein pointed out the measure would "sweep" any leftover funds set aside for candidate financing into the state treasury. That would cover not only cash in the state Clean Elections fund but also city tax dollars.

Click here for the rest of the story.