As longtime readers of this site are well aware, it’s a rare occasion we see eye-to-eye with the daily newspaper. The Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) holds obtuse and extreme positions on a wide variety of issues, routinely veering far left of the political center. Like the harping of a bitter shrew, the relentless rant becomes wearisome. Whether the topic is illegal immigration (which the newspaper supports) or conservative elected officials (which the editorial board, reporters, columnists and cartoonist work in unison to disparage), the aim is the same. The unified, shrill cry from various staff corners is an irksome assault on reasonable sensibilities.
Today is that rare occasion when we actually agree with an editorial. This one, Suit may garner answers, asks the question, “Why in the world is a public agency like the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission spending what looks like a healthy fortune on promoting itself in advertising?”
The editorial states, “Former state lawmaker Jonathan Paton, with the legal assistance of the conservative Goldwater Institute, claims the commission is illegally spending taxpayer dollars on self-promotion.” Here is the Goldwater Institute‘s take on the issue. Arizona Capitol Times reports on the lawsuit here.
This morning’s editorial takes on the costly expenditures of the commission and rightly calls its “Closed Door Syndrome” television ad, featuring a residential front door with arms and legs, “bizarre.”
Equally bizarre is the fact that we agree.
Seeing Red AZ has previously written about the taxpayer funded scheme:
Clean Elections money: Look what you bought, (November 29, 2010)
SCOTUS guts “Clean” Elections matching funds, (June 28, 2011)
Food for thought: Robb does “clean” elections, (July 1, 2011)
The so-called “clean” elections won voter approval based solely on the name. Who wants “dirty” elections? Most people had no clue what they were actually voting for.
But the ugly truth is, this is simply a means for politicians to get their hands into your pockets for fund their campaigns. And the money, usually confiscated in higher fees and fines, pays for campaigns other than those you might choose to support, if, in fact, you even wanted to donate to any candidates. How many of those of you who think this is such a swell plan like having your money go to support campaigns against the candidates you might be working your tail off for?
Not a fan of Jonathan Paton, but glad he’s taking this garbage on. Kudos to Goldwater institute, also. Clean Elections plays dirty pool, with other people’s money.
Paton is aiming for name ID and conservative creds. He’s not a conservative, and was badly stung by his massive congressional primary loss to a newcomer named Jesse Kelly, who’s the real deal.
Paton is a conservative, Blackbeard, and fought clean elections every year he was in the legislature. He’s fought the corruption with Rio Nuevo too and has been pretty active–whereas Jesse Kelly disappeared to Texas, so if he’s the “real deal” we’re pretty screwed.
And given the fact that Paton has his own TV show, I don’t think he really needs the help name ID wise.
You know there are major problems with the “Clean” Elections system when they have the power to cancel the will of the voters. Doug Quelland and David Smith, both elected to by their district constituents, were kicked out of office by Todd Lang and his liberal friends.