Questions Raised About How Gilbert Mayoral Campaign Violation Was Investigated

Questions Raised About How Gilbert Mayoral Campaign Violation Was Investigated

By Terri Jo Neff |

Questions have been raised about a private law firm’s handling of a campaign finance violation investigation involving the Town of Gilbert’s recent mayoral race, while others are asking why the law firm was involved in the first place.

Last week an attorney with Fitzgibbons Law Offices reported to Gilbert Town Attorney Chris Payne that legal sufficiency does not exist to establish a violation of state election law with respect to dozens of campaign-related signs, despite a finding by the Phoenix City Clerk earlier this year of “reasonable cause” to believe a campaign finance violation occurred.

The law firm’s decision appears to have been made without reviewing bank records of the parties involved nor speaking to additional witnesses, a fact not sitting well with many in Gilbert and Maricopa County who support election integrity.

On Nov. 11, 2020, the Town of Gilbert received a complaint related to dozens of signs put up around town that were critical of Matt Nielsen, who lost to former city councilwoman Brigette Peterson in a mayoral runoff race.

Based on citizens’ statements and a private investigator’s report, none of the signs included “paid for by” or “authorized by” verbiage. Nielsen filed a campaign violation complaint alleging the Public Integrity Alliance Committee, headed by Tyler Montague, was involved with the anti-Nielsen signs. Public records show the committee was actively involved in supporting Peterson’s campaign.

The City of Phoenix handled the initial phase of the violation review to avoid the conflict of interest of having Gilbert town staff involved. In February, the Phoenix City Clerk announced there was “reasonable cause” to believe a campaign finance violation was committed in connection to the signs that Montague admitted paying for in cash and picking up at a print shop.

The second phase of the campaign finance complaint would normally have involved Town Attorney Chris Payne reviewing the reasonable cause report from the City of Phoenix in order to determine which state law had been violated.

However, town officials once again declared a conflict because Payne and his staff work at the pleasure of the town’s mayor and council. Instead of asking the Phoenix City Attorney or the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to handle the second part of the investigation, town officials hired a private law firm to do the work; a law firm which needs to rely on Peterson’s approval for future business with the town.

During its investigation, attorneys for Fitzgibbons had access to a statement Montague provided the City of Phoenix in which he described seeing several of signs laying on the ground while driving by a polling place at the Gilbert Recreation Center on Nov. 3, Election Day.

According to Montague’s statement, he replaced four or five of the signs even though he did not originally place those signs. He also said he saw a woman remove the same signs he had just replaced and told her it was illegal to take down political signs without authorization.

The woman previously told a private investigator that the man told her she was committing a misdemeanor and she should not touch” his” signs. The man was identified as Montague through his license plate. He told the Phoenix clerk that his activities were not an operation of the Public Integrity Alliance Committee.

Once retained, a Fitzgibbons attorney issued a subpoena in March to the print shop where the anti-Nielsen signs were printed. In response, an invoice in Montague’s name was provided by the printer, who said Montague ordered and paid for the signs with $500 cash.

A subpoena was also issued to Montague seeking “all information related to the purchase of any signs pertaining to the 2020 election for the Mayor of the Town of Gilbert that reference Matt Nielsen. Such information shall include, but not be limited to, the name and contact information for any vendor that made such signs, purchase orders, receipts, wording included on the signs and any images of the signs.”

Montague replied again that the anti-Nielsen signs were not funded by himself or the Committee. He explained that the printer’s invoice ended up in Montague’s name only because he “volunteered to pick up those up for a friend who funded them. Public Integrity Alliance was not involved in any way.”

It should be noted that the invoice numbers for both Public Integrity Alliance’s sign purchases, as well as the order numbers for both purchases are sequential, indicating that the signs had been ordered at the same time and paid for at the same time.

In a July 6 report to Payne, Fitzgibbons attorney Tina Vannucci noted that ARS 16-925(A) states a “person that makes an expenditure for an advertisement or fund-raising solicitation, other than an individual, shall include [certain] disclosures in the advertisement or solicitation…”

Vannucci noted “there is not legal sufficiency” to establish that Montague acted in his capacity as President of the Committee, or on behalf of the Committee, or that the Committee purchased the signs at issue in the Complaint which were not properly labeled.” And because the statute specifically exempts individuals from the “paid for by” or “authorized by” language, if Montague was responsible for the signs at his own volition then he cannot be charged with the violation.

What is not mentioned in the Fitzgibbons report is whether Montague was asked who the “friend” was in the event that person was acting on behalf of a committee or other organization. In addition, there was no subpoena issued for bank records belonging to Montague and the Public Integrity Alliance Committee which may have revealed whether Montague received or requested reimbursement or petty cash for the anti-Nielsen signs.

The next meeting of the Gilbert town council has not been confirmed. It is unclear whether any formal action on the campaign complaint is necessary by the council, although the town will have to approve a bill at some point from Fitzgibbons for legal services.

Arizona’s Republican Congressional Delegation Denounces Possible Door-To-Door Vaccination Inquiries

Arizona’s Republican Congressional Delegation Denounces Possible Door-To-Door Vaccination Inquiries

By Terri Jo Neff |

Criticism continues to mount in response to comments by President Joe Biden earlier this month about public health professionals possibly going door-to-door across the country to encourage people to receive one of the COVID-19 vaccinations.

Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs joined with 31 other lawmakers who comprise the House Freedom Caucus in sending a letter to Biden last week, calling it “deeply disturbing” that the federal government may be in the process of tracking the private health information of millions of Americans. Other Arizonans in the House Freedom Caucus who signed the letter were Rep. Paul Gosar, Rep. Debbie Lesko, and Rep. David Schweikert.

“There is no scenario where the federal government should be actively entering communities and traveling door-to-door to pressure Americans to receive a vaccine,” the July 9 letter states. “COVID-19 vaccine information is widely available throughout the country, and Americans have every ability to decide for themselves whether or not they should receive a vaccine.”

The letter was prompted by the President’s July 6 comments about the possibility of members of the U.S. COVID-19 Response Team going ““community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood and oftentimes door-to-door, literally knocking on doors, to get help to the remaining people.”

The letter asks for a response by July 23 to a series of questions related to what activities the Biden Administration has undertaken, or plans to undertake, connected to vaccination databases.

Biggs, who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, made additional comments after the letter was sent.

 “Instead of meddling in private medical decisions, the Biden administration should focus on addressing the border crisis, the rampant rise in inflation, and the crime wave that is plaguing American cities – all crises it created,” Biggs said. “The door-to-door spying on Americans is one more example of the burgeoning surveillance state by the national government.”

 The House Freedom Caucus letter is just the latest criticism directed at Biden’s comments. Two more governors spoke out late last week about the suggestion of personal reach-out to unvaccinated Americans.

“The prospect of government vaccination teams showing up unannounced or unrequested at the door of ‘targeted’ homeowners or on their property will further deteriorate the public’s trust,” South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster said in a statement.

In Missouri, Gov. Mike Parson tweeted that “sending government employees or agents door-to-door to compel vaccination” would not be an effective nor welcome strategy in his state.

But despite the criticism, the prospect of a “who has been vaccinated” database may not be difficult to create. The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) have been behind a COVID-19 tracking smartphone app that was been promoted by tens of thousands of doctors and nurses.

Called v-safe, the app is described as an after-vaccination “health checker” which users register with to answer surveys about side effects and to report dates of vaccinations. Parents can also register dependents under their v-safe account.

“Your healthcare provider will give you an information sheet on v-safe that explains how to register and get started,” according to the CDC website. “Through v-safe, you can quickly tell CDC if you have any side effects after getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Depending on your answers to the web surveys, someone from CDC may call to check on you and get more information.”

As to the confidentiality of a v-safe user’s information, the CDC website notes that “to the extent v–safe uses existing information systems managed by CDC, FDA, and other federal agencies, the systems employ strict security measures appropriate for the data’s level of sensitivity.”

How To Fix Politics In The Classroom? Sunlight.

How To Fix Politics In The Classroom? Sunlight.

By the Goldwater Institute |

In too many of our nation’s classrooms, children are being taught that everything should be seen through the lens of race—a divisive and damaging worldview that negates the value of the individual. Instead of reading our country’s founding documents, students are being told that America was founded on fundamentally hateful and intolerant ideas. And they’re learning that the American Dream isn’t really for everyone. What is a parent to do?

In a new paper released by the American Enterprise Institute, Goldwater Institute Director of Education Policy Matt Beienburg shows that in order to truly put parents—and not bureaucrats—in control of kids’ education, more sunlight is the answer. And Goldwater is leading the effort to bring that sunlight to school districts across America, in the form of academic transparency.

To date, state lawmakers have dealt with the issue of politically charged classroom content by either doing nothing or banning certain curricula or materials. But neither path is sufficient to proactively root out political content in our schools. And neither path gives parents the power they need to make the best possible decisions regarding their children’s education.

>>READ MORE >>>

Hobbs’ Campaign Treasurer Attacks Vietnamese Refugee Turned U.S. Citizen Lawmaker

Hobbs’ Campaign Treasurer Attacks Vietnamese Refugee Turned U.S. Citizen Lawmaker

By Terri Jo Neff |

A state senator who also serves as treasurer for Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’ gubernatorial campaign remains under fire for a tweet he wrote Friday which many perceive as an insult of a foreign-born state lawmaker.

Sen. Martin Quezada (D-LD29) tweeted “This is what #WhiteNationalism looks like” with a finger pointing downward toward Rep. Quang Nguyen’s supportive retweet of Gov. Doug Ducey’s announced signing of legislation banning government-sponsored or funded Critical Race Theory instruction.

Among those who came to Nguyen’s defense was Rep. Justin Wilmeth (R-LD15) who called Nguyen “one of the most kind, funny and caring people in this country,” along with Rep. Shawnna Bolick (R-LD20) who reminded Quezada of their colleague’s history.

Nguyen (R-LD1) was born in Vietnam where several of his family members were killed by Communists. He fled to America as a child asylum applicant, later becoming a U.S. citizen and a successful businessman before his election to the Arizona House of Representatives in November 2020.

Known as a quiet and respectful lawmaker, Nguyen was vice-chair of the House Committee on Military Affairs & Public Safety. He was most animated during the session when talking about his daughter’s various experiences and achievements in the U.S. Navy.

But Nguyen garnered national headlines last month when he pushed back on a suggestion by   Rep. Daniel Hernandez (D-LD2) that Communism is not as big of a threat to Americans as White Nationalism. After Hernandez finished, Nguyen spoke up and spoke out.

“So, let me tell you something about White Nationalism,” Nguyen said while looking over at Hernandez. “White Nationalism didn’t drown 250,000 Vietnamese in the South China sea. The Communists did. White Nationalism did not execute 86,000 South Vietnamese at the Fall of Saigon. Communists did. White Nationalism did not put me here. Communism did. So don’t take it lightly. Don’t mock me. Don’t mock what I go through in life.”

As of Saturday night, neither Hobbs nor Quezada had commented on the furor over the tweet.

Nguyen was the prime sponsor of HB2575 which mandates that hospitals offering in-person visitation must include clergy as approved visitors. If a hospital does not offer in-person visitation then hospital staff must facilitate virtual clergy visits. HB2575 cleared both chambers with bipartisan support and was signed by the governor in May.

The Supreme Court’s Decision to Protect Donor Privacy Is the Right One

The Supreme Court’s Decision to Protect Donor Privacy Is the Right One

By the Free Enterprise Club |

Every American should be free to support nonprofit organizations they believe in without being harassed or intimidated. You would think this is obvious. But leave it to California’s former Attorney General, Kamala Harris, to trample on that freedom.

Back in 2010, Harris began ordering nonprofits that fundraise in the State of California to disclose the information of their major donors. Of course, the California government had no real need for this information. And, despite the fact that the state was required to keep donor names private, they were regularly leaked to the public.

You may even remember the name of Brendan Eich. In 2014, Eich, who created JavaScript, became CEO of Mozilla. But soon after, he was forced to step down from his position amid a flurry of backlash when it was made public that he donated money in support of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The harassment didn’t stop with Eich. Organizations like Thomas More Law Center and Americans for Prosperity Foundation faced similar intimidation. In fact, Thomas More Law Center donors, employees, and clients even faced death threats, hate mail, and an assassination plot from those who oppose them.

>>> READ MORE >>>