A bill that would ban vaccine mandates for government employees died in committee on Monday after a Republican lawmaker voted with Democrats.
State Rep. Matt Gress (R-LD04) said that while he opposed vaccine mandates, he believed that the bill’s language was problematic and “overly broad.” Gress specifically noted his concern that this bill would inhibit the readiness of the armed forces.
“I have deep concerns about our military being ready to address any issues that may arise, including being dispatched to other parts of the world,” said Gress.
Not true. I’ve long been on record on this issue. I do NOT think employers (government or private) should be able to force employees to get the the COVID vaccine. It’s an issue of individual liberty. 1/2 https://t.co/u8MdL8dA3O
The bill, HB2316, would prohibit the government and public accommodations from discriminating against individuals based on their vaccination status, in addition to banning a mandate. These prohibitions wouldn’t apply to health care institutions, schools, and child care facilities. State Rep. Rachel Jones (R-LD17) introduced the bill, along with clean-up language from a strike-everything amendment from State Rep. Barbara Parker (R-LD10).
Several members of the Arizona Freedom Caucus, State Reps. Jacqueline Parker (R-LD15) and Joseph Chaplik (R-LD03), spoke out against Gress’ vote. Parker called Gress’ opposition to the bill “unacceptable,” with Chaplik retweeting her remarks.
Not acceptable. Take notice LD4. 👇 Your reps are NOT representing your interests. https://t.co/HWPKMK598b
During Monday’s committee hearing, Jones said that her husband, a Border Patrol agent, recounted how she was inspired to introduce this legislation because he and others faced the vaccine mandate. Jones said that she and Sen. Justine Wadsack (R-LD17) were inundated with calls from federal employees and contractors worried about the government’s vaccine mandate. Jones testified that they helped over 3,000 individuals retain their jobs.
“I really did make this promise to a lot of the federal employees that I met a year ago that I would come up here and make sure that I would protect them as Arizona citizens from any further overreach from the federal government,” said Jones.
Jones declared that the COVID-19 vaccine should never have been mandated in the first place.
“I think the 10th Amendment gives us the right to protect our citizens if the federal government is potentially overreaching,” said Jones.
Jones also read an anonymous letter from a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent denied religious accommodations. The individual had served 17 years in the Air Force: 4 years active duty and 13 years in the reserves.
“’It was unsettling to think that I spent the last 17 years of my life ready to defend the constitutional rights of our citizens and never once did I realize that I somehow gave up my own constitutional rights in the process,’” read Jones. “’Here I am about to lose everything because I want medical freedom and, dare I say it, religious freedom.’”
Parker said that Arizona would be taking back authority from the federal government.
“A ‘yes’ vote means you will never allow a bureaucracy to use pseudoscience to destroy your civil liberties ever again,” said Parker.
Rep. Patricia Contreras (D-LD12) said that the bill was unnecessary, and claimed that the vaccine prevented COVID-19 deaths.
Among those who signaled opposition to the bill were the ACLU, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Public Health Association, American Cancer Society, Coconino County, Arizona Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Public schools who refuse to have armed officers on campus won’t receive grant money for school safety.
In a press release last Wednesday announcing the latest round of $80 million in funding from the School Safety Grant Program, Arizona Department of Education (ADE) Superintendent Tom Horne told schools to prioritize having armed law enforcement. Otherwise, the superintendent said that ADE wouldn’t recommend the school for funding to the State Board of Education.
“Every school should have a law enforcement officer to protect students and staff, and this should be accomplished on an urgent basis,” said Horne. “Delay in implementing this goal could leave schools more vulnerable to a tragic catastrophe. Schools that currently have no armed presence yet submit grants applications that do not request an officer will not receive a recommendation from this Department to the State Board of Education.”
Superintendent Horne is urging schools to prioritize having armed officers from law enforcement or highly trained security on campus. Our office is accepting school safety grant program applications here >>> https://t.co/6bTNomHqvqpic.twitter.com/W4h4HVGStO
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) February 8, 2023
Under former Superintendent Kathy Hoffman, funding from the grant program could be applied to school resource officers or counselors. One of Hoffman’s main priorities during her first term and re-election campaign was to shrink the disparity between the number of students and counselors.
Hoffman stated that her administration slashed the student-to-counselor ratio by 20 percent. However, Horne’s administration noted that school violence has increased in recent years.
Under my leadership, @azedschools has cut the student-to-school counselor ratio by 20%. Even with this, we still have more work to do, and I will continue advocating for student's mental and physical health.
The ADE cited an increase in reported incidents of school threats, real and fake weapons found on campus, and “disturbing” social media posts inferring school violence. ADE also reported numerous receiving phone calls from Phoenix-area high school teachers about fights that, in at least one instance, risked a female teacher’s safety.
Horne noted in the ADE press release that this push for schools to have armed officers wasn’t in order to exclude other school safety measures that the program funds, such as counselors. He recalled his support for counselors as far back as 1978 during his services as a school board member, when he voted against eliminating counselors from their district.
“Schools still ought to have counselors but providing a safe school atmosphere that requires an armed presence is the first priority,” said Horne.
Horne later toldABC 15 that there wasn’t any reason why schools should refuse police protection on campuses.
“I can’t understand how anybody doesn’t understand how important it is that we be sure we don’t have any massacres in Arizona,” said Horne. “The first priority has to be the safety of the students and we don’t want a situation where 20 or 30 students are killed because no one was there to defend them.”
In a tweet, ADE posed a hypothetical, asking what a school would do if an armed “maniac” invaded a school that only had counselors and no armed officers.
Superintendent Horne supports having a counselor in every school, but if a maniac invades your school with a gun determined to kill people, what's the counselor going to do?https://t.co/RVL7Lt7ioi
Several days after ADE announced its decision on school safety grants, a 13-year-old Cottonwood-Oak Creek School District student making a “kill list” was arrested; school officials determined that the student posed a credible threat.
School Safety is a team effort. Thank you to the administrators, school resource officer, and counselors who helped avoid a tragedy. https://t.co/T80tNsxlNU
State Rep. Jennifer Pawlik (D-LD13) called Horne’s decision “disappointing.” Pawlik also criticized the decision to make the announcement during National School Counselors Week.
The ACLU of Arizona asserted that school safety couldn’t be achieved with police presence on campus.
School safety is not achieved by placing armed cops on campuses. It’s achieved when schools are well-resourced and students have the mental health support they need.
Forcing schools to follow these requirements prevents communities from deciding what’s best for their students. https://t.co/whefParndA
In addition to this funding, ADE is working with former Phoenix Police Department leaders to provide additional safety resources and procedures to schools.
Opposition to armed officers on campus often comes from concerns over a racial divide. Tensions heightened in one school district last year over discussions of funding school resource officers (SROs), about one month after the Uvalde school shooting. Chandler Unified School District (CUSD) Board Member Lindsay Love said that she and too many others, including children and parents, felt uncomfortable with having more police officers on campus.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Benjamin Franklin once famously said, “[I]n this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes” — true, unless you’re a leftist political nonprofit. For many of them, taxation isn’t certain, even if they run afoul of tax-exempt status requirements.
Funding sources, expenditure recipients, and even those operating these nonprofits may remain secretive under the current state of lax federal enforcement. These tax-free and opacity perks are possible through two interrelated federal tax classifications: 501(c)(3), or “C3,” and 501(c)(4), or “C4.” There are over 27,000 C3s and just over 1,200C4s registered in Arizona. The big difference between the two classifications is that donations to IRS-recognized C3 organizations are deductible under our income tax code. And the Left has learned how to exploit this tax status for their political benefit.
In Arizona, many liberal C3 and C4 nonprofits work in tandem, each executing symbiotic duties while coordinating their activities and sharing data and resources. Sometimes, these C3 and C4 duos are “sister” organizations — meaning, they’re affiliated rather than independent entities allied over common goals.
These arrangements are legal so long as clear distinctions are made between charitable and non-charitable activities. Over the last several months, AZ Free News has conducted an extensive review of over a dozen different liberal nonprofits in the state, examining their websites, tax documents, and social media accounts. Our research has found that many of these organizations have blurred the lines on their political activities via various C3 and C4 groups. In some cases, there appeared to be no distinction at all, with some C3 organizations providing completely different accounts of their tax-deductible program activities to the IRS compared to what they shared publicly.
How the IRS Intended for C3 and C4 Organizations to Operate
C3s have two major qualifiers: they’re supposed to be nonpartisan and apolitical—meaning, they can’t expend funds or use resources to coordinate with political activity being conducted by C4s.
C3s must organize and operate exclusively for purposes that are one or more of the following: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.
The IRS defines “charitable” as relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
The IRS expressly prohibits C3s from being an “action organization”: those engaging in political or legislative activities. Political activities include the direct or indirect participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any political candidate. The IRS also prohibits political campaign fund contributions or public statements of positions, either verbal or written, on behalf of the organization in favor of or opposing any candidate.
The IRS does condone voter education activities, such as get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts like voter registration. However, any evidence of political bias is forbidden: favoritism of a candidate, opposing a candidate in any way, or “hav[ing] the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates.” Lobbying is also largely forbidden.
Comparatively, the IRS classifies C4 organizations into one of two categories: social welfare organizations or local association of employees. The former concerns civic leagues or organizations organized exclusively for social welfare promotion, not profit. The IRS clarifies that social welfare promotion doesn’t include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate. Those that do must not render that activity as their primary activity, and risk being subjected to taxation. The latter concerns membership-based organizations with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
How Leftist C3 and C4s Operate in Arizona
Our review of leftist C3s in Arizona appears to indicate that their activities are overtly partisan and political. They coordinate with politically active C4s to achieve shared, partisan goals, and receive political action committee (PAC) funding while doing so. Often, these leftist C4s have either direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to one or more candidates.
Progressive activists leading these C3s have effectively mastered the art of exploiting the IRS code for partisan advantage, helping to maximize liberal donor partisan impact with their dollars while still hiding their identity. The C3s will claim that their allowable vote (GOTV) efforts, such as voter registration, are nonpartisan. They will claim they’re reaching out to certain, “marginalized” demographic groups; however, these groups turn out to be known Democratic voter bases.
One example of this is Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, the C3 sister organization of Mi Familia Vota, the C4. The former admitted on their 2020 tax filing to coordinating political activity with the latter. The executive director of Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Hector Sanchez Barba, has publicly advocated for the losses of Republican candidates.
“We will keep working to keep extremism, Trump and MAGA out of our democracy,” wrote Sanchez Barba. “@MiFamiliaVota.”
In response to a Politico article documenting the GOP’s underperformance in last year’s midterm elections, Sanchez Barba thanked Latino voters for having Democrats win.
Meanwhile, their partner C4s pay for media and partisan activities like ad campaigns for candidates. It’s uncertain whether the funding for these activities comes from their C3 partners since those grant or cost-sharing agreements aren’t public. The IRS requires that C3 funds given to C4s be restricted to charitable uses — not electioneering activity.
The C3-C4 duo targets certain voter demographics to achieve a partisan outcome. They contact Democrat-leaning voters to get their vote cast, convince newly registered voters to vote Democratic through mailers and ads supportive of Democratic candidates and causes, and publicly support certain partisan ballot initiatives.
The C3-C4 sister organizations thinly veil their efforts that a division exists between them. For example, Mi Familia Vota spent tens of thousands on TV advertising that advocated for the election of Reginald Bolding ahead of last year’s primary. However, they listed a staffer for their C3 sister organization, Mi Familia Vota Education, as the point-of-contact on that campaign filing.
As AZ Free News reported in Part One of this series, Mi Familia Vota receives funding from One Arizona, a C3, which in turn receives its funding from the Tides Foundation, George Soros’ Open Societies Foundation, and several different organizations under Arabella Advisors.
.@RealMarkFinchem, a MAGAmigo, lies, & says that the 2020 election was fraudulent. If elected, he would use his position to help Trump. We are fighting for free and clear elections this cycle. Our democracy is at stake in Arizona, we must fight back. We say #BastaFinchempic.twitter.com/WPVSjflt2L
Ahead of the midterm election last June, One Arizona advertised a job opening for an independent expenditure (IE) campaign manager. The position appears to be one for a political staffer, which would constitute prohibited electioneering.
While not a complete pitcure, the above graphic illustrates some of the connections in the left’s secretive infrastructure and how they relate to Arizona elections.
Leftist C3s also hire for both the C3 and C4, resulting in shared jobs and salaries. One Arizona (C3) and Arizona Wins (C4) co-hired staff including a field director, field program coordinator, and finance and compliance director. That shared salary should not be used for political work. One recent example of this was a job listing by Arizona Coalition for Change (C3) and Our Voice Our Vote (C4) for a data manager that would work within the duo’s political and grassroots lobbying arms.
These blurred lines surrounding co-hires don’t just apply to staff. Arizona Center for Empowerment (ACE, a C3) and LUCHA (C4) share an executive director, Alejandra (Alex) Gomez, as well as staffers. This relationship is further complicated by the fact that ACE listed LUCHA as its “Employer of Record” on their latest tax return. Under Gomez, both organizations have expressed their partisanship.
Last year, LUCHA launched an initiative to get Democratic candidates elected: “LUCHA Blue.” The nonprofit pledged to prioritize certain races and voter bases in its GOTV efforts. On its hiring page for the initiative, LUCHA disclosed that it would staff between 70 and 105 people.
“We believe that not all candidates align with the mission of LUCHA, and this is why we created a campaign not only to flip Arizona Blue — but LUCHA Blue!” stated LUCHA. “Overall, the goal of the campaign is to win these targeted races, increase Latin/Hispanic voter turnout, and educate voters on the voting process.” (emphasis added)
In one post following Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) winning re-election last November, LUCHA appeared to affirm that both it and ACE assisted in organizational efforts to assure Kelly’s victory.
Wealthy dark money donors have a greater financial incentive to back C3s. 75 percent of their donations can go to politics and qualify as tax deductible — effectively maximizing their gift-giving while affording them a tax break. C4 donations aren’t tax deductible.
The IRS has long been aware of the disparity between the lawful intent for C3 and C4 entities, and the current reality of C3-C4 relationships. As ProPublica revealed in 2019, the IRS essentially gave up on holding nonprofits accountable.
The following are some of Arizona’s liberal C3-C4 nonprofit duos: One Arizona and Arizona Wins, Arizona Center for Empowerment and Living United for Change in Arizona, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund and Mi Familia Vota Victory, Chispa AZ/League of Conservation Voters Education Fund and League of Conservation Voters, Arizona Coalition for Change and Our Voice Our Vote, Instituto Lab and Instituto Power, Rural Arizona Engagement and Rural Arizona Action, and Voto Latino Foundation and Voto Latino.
The relationships between these nonprofits and the awareness of their straining tax law will be further explained in the next installment of this series.
This is Part Two in a series on the Left’s secret infrastructure to turn Arizona blue. Be sure to sign up for our newsletter to be notified of Part Three in the series.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Monday, Attorney General Kris Mayes announced that her office would no longer investigate social credit scores imposed by banks and other financial institutions.
Mayes said in a press release that social credit scores — or, Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) rating — were “politicized” issues that don’t merit investigation.
“While my predecessor’s administration spent time and resources launching politicized investigations into the environmental sustainability efforts of major financial institutions, my administration is committed to using the tools and resources at our disposal to protect and secure the rights of Arizonans on matters that affect their daily lives,” said Mayes. “Arizonans can expect my office to be laser-focused on issues like protecting Arizona’s natural resources – including water, combating fraud and scams, and safeguarding vulnerable groups like seniors and children.”
An ESG rating reflects the long-term environmental, social, and governance impacts an individual or company may pose, which in turn informs a banking or financial institutions’ decisions regarding investments, loans, membership, and so on. Examples of what could impact ESG scoring could include a company’s reliance on fossil fuels or an individual’s gun ownership. Last September, Treasurer Kimberly Yee prohibited the use of ESG scoring when determining state investments.
Mayes also asserted in Monday’s press release that governments couldn’t dictate corporations or their investors concerning how to invest.
“Corporations should be permitted to access capital markets in ways that they feel are necessary for the advancement of their investor objectives and for society, as long as they are doing so in a lawful manner,” stated Mayes. “Corporations increasingly realize that investing in sustainability is both good for our country, our environment, and public health and good for their bottom lines. The state of Arizona is not going to stand in the way of corporations’ efforts to move in the right direction.”
Mayes had already pulled Arizona out of an investigation involving 18 other attorneys general looking into six major American banks launched last October: Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The attorney general toldKTAR News last month that this move was part of her effort to clean house of “political lawsuits,” which she said also included challenges to President Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness.
Mayes gave notice at the time that her office would be pulling out of a number of lawsuits, though she didn’t clarify which ones.
“You can anticipate that there will be a number of announcements in the coming weeks of us withdrawing from these lawsuits,” said Mayes.
Mayes’ predecessor, Mark Brnovich, launched multipleinvestigations over the last few years into banks and other financial institutions due to their ESG practices.
Early on in her candidacy, Mayes pledged to make fighting climate change her top priority. Mayes promised to appoint a climate director on her first day in the office; if that appointment was made, it hasn’t been made public.
“Arizona is on the precipice of a water catastrophe that is being exacerbated by our state leaders’ inaction to historic drought and climate change,” the plan says.” You can read my plan here: https://t.co/nHh14WcA8M
Mayes, who also served as an Arizona State University (ASU) energy law professor, pledged to impose stricter enforcement of water quality and pollution laws.
“Mayes, a former Republican utility member on the Arizona Corporation Commission, has made environmental issues one of her campaign pillars. The ASU energy law professor has a 16-point plan for how she would preserve water quality and punish polluters.” https://t.co/d8PSPM7xKc
On Thursday, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) introduced a resolution to protect women by preventing gender ideology from redefining biological sex.
Lesko was joined in the resolution by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), titling it the “Women’s Bill of Rights.” In a press release, Lesko declared that the resolution would not only protect but affirm the importance of women.
“Now more than ever, we must protect women’s rights and combat the left’s attempts to erase women,” stated Lesko.
The resolution would define “sex” as a person’s biological sex from birth, “female” as an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize their ova, “woman” and “girl” as human females, and “man” and “boy” as human males. The resolution also would declare that “equal” doesn’t mean “same” or “identical,” and that “separate” didn’t indicate inherent inequality.
With these definitions, the resolution would require schools and all levels and divisions of government to identify subjects of data gathering as either male or female at birth, such as for public health, crime, and economic data. It also would make all policies and laws distinguishing sexes subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny, a test employed by courts to determine the constitutionality of a statute that negatively impacts certain protected classes. Statutes pass scrutiny if they further an important government interest and employ means of accomplishing that interest that are substantially related to that interest.
Further, the resolution would warrant discrimination in certain circumstances.
“There are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons or other detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms, and other areas where biology, safety, and/or privacy are implicated,” stated the resolution.
Lesko and Hyde-Smith first introduced the resolution last May, in the 117th Congress. It was referred to the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee last November, but never made it any further. During a press conference last year, Lesko argued that the necessity of her resolution proved that the country has gone “to hell in a handbasket.”
“The world is totally upside down when I have to introduce legislation to define a woman versus a man,” said Lesko. “More and more often our colleagues on the left are trying to erase women.”
Today at the @RepublicanStudy’s press conference, I spoke about the Women’s Bill of Rights that I introduced to stand up for the rights of women and ensure our safety. Watch my remarks below: pic.twitter.com/AcvQI2Om3i
— Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (@RepDLesko) May 19, 2022
That version of the Women’s Bill of Rights was included in the Republican Study Committee (RSC) Family Policy Agenda ahead of the midterm elections. The agenda issued over 80 recommendations to better align the GOP with its goal of advancing families’ interests, focusing on child protections, increased economic power for working families, additional parental rights, increased flexibility to child care, elimination of policies discouraging family formation, incentives to work, school choice, higher education reforms, foster care and adoption reforms, and abortion abolition.
I’m pleased that my Women’s Bill of Rights was included in the @RepublicanStudy’s Family Policy Agenda. Republicans are fighting to stop the left from erasing women and to strengthen America’s families to secure a better future for our nation! https://t.co/UD8yXOo6nM
The RSC was established 50 years ago for the purpose of coordinating research efforts by conservative congressmen.
Lesko and Hyde-Smith were assisted in crafting the resolution by the Independent Women’s Law Center and Independent Women’s Voice, two related women’s advocacy organizations.
Thank you to @SenHydeSmith for reintroducing a resolution in the Senate that would establish a Women's Bill of Rights to reaffirm legal protections afforded to women under Federal law!
Independent Women’s Law Center Director Jennifer Braceras said that rooting out sex discrimination won’t be possible without proper definitions of biological sex.
“We can’t fight sex discrimination if we can’t agree on what it means to be a woman. And we can’t collect accurate data regarding public health, medicine, education, crime, and the economic status of women if we redefine sex to mean ‘gender identity,’” said Braceras.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
