Channel 12 continued its clumsy crusade against school choice this week with a breathless report about fraudsters abusing Empowerment Scholarship Accounts to buy diamond rings and necklaces, flights and hotel stays, and even lingerie.
It paints a picture of a program rife with abuse. But is it?
The Arizona Department of Education gave Channel 12 the records for more than 1.2 million ESA requests. Yet when askedrepeatedly what percentage of those requests were fraudulent, Channel 12’s reporter refused to comment.
Why? Because the truth undermines the anti-ESA narrative.
The salacious report is intended to persuade policymakers who support ESAs to impose regulations that would undermine the ESA program. It goes without saying that anyone engaged in fraud should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and the Arizona Department of Education is appropriately cracking down on fraudsters. But before policymakers rush to amend the ESA program, they should know the context that Channel 12 left out.
ESA Misspending Is a Tiny Fraction of Total ESA Spending
The ESA program currently serves about 90,000 students at a projected cost of $882 million this year and $939 million next year, or about 6.7% of the $14 billion spent on Arizona’s district schools. Families can use ESAs to purchase a wide variety of educational expenses to customize their child’s education.
The typical ESA student receives about $7,500 per year, compared with more than $15,300 per pupil at Arizona’s district schools. Students with special needs—who account for more than 19% of ESA students, compared with 14% of district school students—can receive more funding, although the accounts are still worth 90% of what the state spends on similarly situated students at public schools. According to the Common Sense Institute, “a disproportionate share of middle-income households use an ESA.”
On Tuesday, the Arizona Department of Education revealed that their internal audit had turned up $622,000 in ESA funds that are “possible fraud or misuse.”
That’s less than one-tenth of 1% of total ESA spending.
Ignoring Mountains, Covering Molehills
Meanwhile, there are 30 school districts that the Arizona Auditor General currently deems to be non-compliant with state reporting requirements or that have internal control deficiencies. The total spending in those districts is more than $1.4 billion, more than the total spending of the ESA program. Yet aside from its coverage of the disastrous overspending in the Isaac Elementary School District, Channel 12 has barely covered it at all.
For that matter, Channel 12 has ignored the $7.8 billion that Arizona school districts are holding in cash reserves. That’s about $7,000 per pupil. The reserves have grown $2 billion in two years, yet Channel 12 doesn’t evince even the slightest curiosity about why.
Nor is anyone at Channel 12 interested in the $12 billion worth of unused and underutilized buildings that districts are sitting on, often just to prevent private or charter schools from buying them.
Channel 12 found space in the aforementioned ESA exposé to mention that a judge recently ruled that the state supposedly “isn’t properly funding capital needs for its public schools,” but the station had no space to mention that school districts are sitting on $20 billion in cash reserves and underutilized buildings.
Indeed, Channel 12 has barely covered any of these facts even as they pump out multiple anti-ESA stories each week, despite the fact that the ESA program is dwarfed by the spending at non-compliant districts, district school cash reserves, and underutilized buildings.
School-choice opponents and their media allies are hyper-focused on ESA misspending because they want to pressure lawmakers to undermine the program via regulation.
The Arizona Department of Education adopted its risk-based auditing strategy—automatically approving ESA spending requests below $2,000, then auditing accounts on the back end—because Superintendent Tom Horne’s previous “review every penny” approach was causing massive backlogs and delays in approving expense requests and reimbursements.
There were nearly 11,000 transactions in quarter 3 of this year alone. It’s impossible for the department’s staff to review each transaction in a timely manner, but parents trying to teach their kids can’t wait months just to buy a textbook or pay their child’s tutor or school.
To Horne’s credit, he listened to parents and made some incremental improvements that make it easier for parents to use the program. Now a tiny percentage of ESA holders are taking advantage of the looser rules, but they will be forced to pay the money back and could face prosecution.
The Arizona Department of Education has suspended 400 accounts due to improper spending —just 0.4% of the total accounts—and has referred some to the Attorney General for further investigation and prosecution.
Punishing fraudsters is necessary. Every government program is subject to some amount of fraud and abuse, and it’s incumbent upon public officials to implement rules that keep fraud as close to zero as possible. But it is not in the public interest to undermine a program’s effectiveness, especially when that program is helping kids get access to a better education and a brighter future.
School-choice opponents are using misspending as a pretext. If that was their real concern, they’d be raising alarms about all the waste, fraud, and abuse in the district school system. They’re not really concerned with stopping the 0.4% of ESA holders committing fraud, they just don’t want the program to work for 99+% of families just trying to do right by their kids.
Supporters of education freedom and opportunity should ignore the manufactured outrage and work to ensure that the ESA program works well for the families it serves.
Jason Bedrick is a Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
This week, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen delivered a clear message: Arizona will not stand by while abortion providers try to dismantle the protections that defend women and children in our state. At the center of the lawsuit Isaacson v. Arizona is a basic truth: our laws were written to protect the vulnerable, not to support the bottom line of the abortion industry.
President Petersen made it plain that this case is about one fundamental question: will women keep their right to informed consent before an abortion? In every other area of medicine, informed consent is a non-negotiable standard of care. Women deserve the right to know their medical situation fully, to see an ultrasound, and to hear their baby’s heartbeat before making a life-altering decision. To deny them that right is not empowerment, it is exploitation.
But the stakes go even further. Arizona’s Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act makes it illegal to end a child’s life simply because of their race, sex, or disability. Just as America rejected slavery and other injustices that denied whole classes of people their humanity, we must not allow a new form of discrimination to take root in the womb. Every life has value, and no child should be targeted for elimination simply for who they are.
President Petersen is a champion for life, and he is willing to speak on hard truths and act to defend laws that reflect the dignity of every human being. His courage stands in sharp contrast to our current Attorney General Kris Mayes, who has made “reproductive rights” one of her central causes and even gone so far as to file consumer fraud reports against pregnancy resource centers that offer help and hope to women.
As Petersen runs to be Arizona’s next Attorney General, voters will have a choice between two very different paths. One leads toward a state where the powerful and profitable abortion industry writes the rules. The other leads toward a state that defends women’s health, protects children, and affirms that equality must extend to every human life, born and unborn.
Discrimination in the womb is still discrimination. Arizona must not go backwards. We must continue to stand on the side of life, justice, and truth. President Petersen has shown he is ready to fight that battle, and Arizona’s future depends on it.
Here’s where the case stands: on September 15th, there will be a motion to dismiss certain aspects of the lawsuit without even needing a hearing. And a trial is scheduled for November 5th through 7th.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
The Fredonia Fire Department has been awarded a $10,000 grant through the Good Neighbor Firefighter Safety Program, a national initiative from State Farm and the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC).
The program, now in its second year, distributed a total of $1.5 million to 150 volunteer fire departments in 44 states. The announcement came on August 18, which is recognized as Volunteer Firefighters Recognition Day.
Volunteer firefighters make up about 65 percent of the U.S. fire service and often serve in rural or small-town communities with limited budgets. The grants are designed to help departments purchase equipment that enhances safety and emergency response capabilities, including protective gear, medical and rescue tools, and communication devices.
“Firefighting and rescue equipment is expensive, and many departments struggle to find the funding they need,” said NVFC Chair Steve Hirsch. “These grants from State Farm enable small departments to secure equipment they need to be better prepared to serve their communities and protect their responders.”
Rasheed Merritt, State Farm’s corporate responsibility assistant vice president, emphasized the company’s commitment to public safety. “We are proud to support volunteer firefighters – the ultimate good neighbors who risk their lives daily,” Merritt said.
In addition to the financial awards, State Farm provided free NVFC memberships to the first 2,000 eligible applicants, offering volunteer responders access to training, resources, and support services.
Since launching in 2024, the Good Neighbor Firefighter Safety Program has distributed $2.5 million to 250 departments nationwide. This fall, State Farm and the NVFC will participate in community engagement events with 10 of the grant recipients, which could include fire prevention activities, parades, or open houses.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A letter from Solicitor General of the United States D. John Sauer to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson has revealed that the Department of Justice is prepared to defend the removal of former Voice of America (VOA) Director Michael Abramowitz from his position. Abramowitz’s removal was ordered by Acting Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) Kari Lake.
Solicitor General Sauer explained the restriction against Abramowitz’s termination writing, “The head of Voice of America, an inferior executive officer, is appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Agency for Global Media. See 22 U.S.C. 6205(e)(l). A federal statute provides that the Chief Executive Officer may remove the head of Voice of America only with the approval of the Independent Broadcasting Advisory Board.”
The Solicitor General then laid out the legal position of the administration that the DOJ “will file in defense of the removal of Michael Abramowitz from that office.”
He wrote:
“Under Article II, inferior executive officers must be removable at will by the President or by a department head acting on the President’s behalf. See Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197, 215 (2020).
“The Supreme Court has recognized only one narrow exception to that ‘general rule.’ Ibid. That exception extends, at most, to certain domestic inferior officers ‘with limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority.’ Id. at 218.
“The head of Voice of America falls outside that exception. Among other things, he exercises significant policymaking or administrative authority in supervising Voice of America, and Voice of America’s activities implicate the President’s authority to manage foreign affairs.”
Sauer added that this opinion is supported by the precedent set in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197, 215 (2020) in which the Supreme Court ruling penned by Justice Robers is clear: “In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the President, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead. While we have previously upheld limits on the President’s removal authority in certain contexts, we decline to do so when it comes to principal officers who, acting alone, wield significant executive power. The Constitution requires that such officials remain dependent on the President, who in turn is accountable to the people.”
In short, it is the Solicitor General’s legal opinion that because of the unique, Congressionally-mandated duty of Voice of America to carry out foreign policy objectives and the significant authority the VOA Director has over them, the President and his appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer, Kari Lake, must have the power to appoint and remove personnel from the agency at will to satisfy the President’s duties under the Constitution as vested by Congress: “the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, Abramowitz was informed of his dismissal after he declined reassignment to the agency’s Edward R. Murrow Transmitting Station of the International Broadcasting Bureau in Greenville, NC, and that the USAGM maintains “the Chief Executive Officer, acting on the President’s behalf, may lawfully remove the Voice of America Director, an inferior officer.”
When they first announced their original Clean Energy Commitment in 2020, APS boasted about their plans to decarbonize. According to their own release, they weren’t doing what they described as the “easy thing” other utilities were doing–developing resource plans that still allow you to produce some carbon emissions, so long as you offset them elsewhere. No, they were committing to go “carbon free,” which means shutting down every single source of baseload power beside nuclear and replacing it entirely with solar, wind, and battery storage.
But late last week, APS announced a modification to their climate commitment. Instead of going carbon free, APS is switching to carbon neutral by 2050.
How is the new commitment different than the old one? For ratepayers worried about skyrocketing utility bills, it doesn’t change much…
