Attorney General Kris Mayes has long fancied herself as a champion for ratepayers. After another round of rate hikes rolled in at the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), this time a proposed 14% increase by both APS and TEP, AG Mayes fired off a press release announcing that she will “vigorously oppose” these requests as “Arizona residents struggle to keep up with ever-increasing electricity bills.”
Setting aside the fact that the AG has little purview over ACC affairs, Mayes seems to think that her own time serving on the Commission back in the 2000s makes her uniquely qualified to stop what seems like an endless barrage of double-digit rate hikes by our public utilities. Unfortunately for ratepayers, having Kris Mayes involved will only pour fuel on the Net Zero fire currently raging at the Corporation Commission.
You see, Kris Mayes is the one that laid the foundation for the Green Scam rate hikes Arizonans are suffering through today. In fact, the biggest irony about having Kris Mayes jump into the rate hike fray is that it highlights the dangerous parallels between the Commission she served on in 2006 and the one that we have today…
In 2006, voters in Pima County made a deal: an increase in the sales tax for better roads and infrastructure. But now, after nearly two decades of taxpayers holding up their end of the bargain, the results are underwhelming. Of the 35 projects originally promised, only 18 have been completed—and much of the unfinished work lies within Tucson’s jurisdiction. The question is no longer whether the plan was fulfilled, but why one city fell so far short.
The mismanagement is staggering. Tucson’s unfinished Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) projects are estimated to be $400–$600 million short. At the current pace—roughly $50 million in spending per year—completing the work would take at least eight more years. There’s one big problem, however: the sales tax that funds the RTA is set to expire in 2026, and time is running out. Tucson officials have responded by throwing up their hands and admitting defeat, postponing four projects for inclusion in a future “RTA Next” plan.
Every infrastructure plan faces risks, and Pima County’s strategy was no exception. The 2008 recession slowed tax collections, and inflation has since driven construction costs well beyond the 10% buffer allowed by law. Tucson, however, made matters worse by repeatedly altering project scopes to appease neighborhood groups, further delaying timelines and driving up costs. Each time, Tucson failed to take responsibility by allocating more supplemental resources. Instead, city leaders appeared to hope the problem would simply go away.
Tucson’s leaders clearly misunderstand the purpose of the RTA, viewing it more as a construction manager responsible for overruns than a basic funding mechanism distributing tax dollars. Each city was responsible for designing and building its own projects. Any change in scope—additional lanes, neighborhood preferences, unforeseen costs—was theirs to fund, not the RTA’s. State auditors reinforced this responsibility repeatedly over multiple years, including in 2017, 2022, and 2024. While overruns in other areas were previously paid for by partner municipalities under the RTA, Tucson now appears ready to go hat in hand to the rest of the county asking for a bailout.
Why should voters trust them this time around?
Taxpayers deserve clarity. Tucson’s chronic delays mean taxpayers will be asked to pay more. Approval of any extension or revision to the existing projects should depend on city leaders being transparent with the public. Why should all of Pima County be asked to pay for Tucson’s poor planning and execution? Kicking the can down the road is not a transportation strategy—it’s a sign of dysfunction. If Pima County taxpayers are expected to foot the bill yet again, they deserve full accountability before a single dollar is spent.
William Beard is the Municipal Affairs Liaison at the Goldwater Institute.
America’s carmakers face an uncertain future in the wake of President Donald Trump’s signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law on July 4.
The new law ends the $7,500 credit for new electric vehicles ($4,000 for used units) which was enacted as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act as of September 30, seven years earlier than originally planned.
The promise of that big credit lasting for a full decade did not just improve finances for Tesla and other pure-play EV companies: It also served as a major motivator for integrated carmakers like Ford, GM, and Stellantis to invest billions of dollars in capital into new, EV-specific plants, equipment, and supply chains, and expand their EV model offerings. But now, with the big subsidy about to expire, the question becomes whether the U.S. EV business can survive in an unsubsidized market? Carmakers across the EV spectrum are about to find out, and the outlook for most will not be rosy.
These carmakers will be entering into a brave new world in which the market for their cars had already turned somewhat sour even with the subsidies in place. Sales of EVs stalled during the fourth quarter of 2024 and then collapsed by more than 18% from December to January. Tesla, already negatively impacted by founder and CEO Elon Musk’s increased political activities in addition to the stagnant market, decided to slash prices in an attempt to maintain sales momentum, forcing its competitors to follow suit.
But the record number of EV-specific incentives now being offered by U.S. dealers has done little to halt the drop in sales, as the Wall Street Journal reports that the most recent data shows EV sales falling in each of the three months from April through June. Ford said its own sales had fallen by more than 30% across those three months, with Hyundai and Kia also reporting big drops. GM was the big winner in the second quarter, overtaking Ford and moving into 2nd place behind Tesla in total sales. But its ability to continue such growth absent the big subsidy edge over traditional ICE cars now falls into doubt.
The removal of the per-unit subsidies also calls into question whether the buildout of new public charging infrastructure, which has accelerated dramatically in the past three years, will continue as the market moves into a time of uncertainty. Recognizing that consumer concern, Ford, Hyundai, BMW and others included free home charging kits as part of their current suites of incentives. But of course, that only works if the buyer owns a home with a garage and is willing to pay the higher cost of insurance that now often comes with parking an EV inside.
Decisions, decisions.
As the year dawned, few really expected the narrow Republican congressional majorities would show the political will and unity to move so aggressively to cancel the big IRA EV subsidies. But, as awareness rose in Congress about the true magnitude of the budgetary cost of those provisions over the next 10 years, the benefit of getting rid of them ultimately subsumed concerns about the possible political cost of doing so.
So now, here we are, with an EV industry that seems largely unprepared to survive in a market with a levelized playing field. Even Tesla, which remains far and away the leader in total EV sales despite its recent struggles, seems caught more than a little off-guard despite Musk’s having been heavily involved in the early months of the second Trump presidency.
Musk’s response to his disapproval of the OBBBA was to announce the creation of a third political party he dubbed the American Party. It seems doubtful this new vanity project was the response to a looming challenge that members of Tesla’s board of directors would have preferred. But it does seem appropriately emblematic of an industry that is undeniably limping into uncharted territory with no clear plan for how to escape from existential danger.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
When we launched the American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF), we did it with an important mission in mind: to give voice to the millions of Americans who are sick and tired of watching their retirement dollars fund woke liberal corporate activism. That mission brought us face to face with a troubling trend: major U.S. companies using their platforms not to grow shareholder value, but to push divisive political agendas. One of the worst offenders is Airbnb.
That’s why, through First Amendment legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, we’ve filed a lawsuit against Airbnb. The lawsuit says Airbnb violated federal securities law and illegally excluded our shareholder proposal(s) from its 2025 proxy statement. Our proposal was simple.
We wanted Airbnb to explain the risks to its business from denying or restricting service to users based on their religion, political status, or Airbnb’s expansive speech codes. Instead of playing fair and following the law, we believe Airbnb broke the rules to shut us out. Here is a link to the lawsuit.
We believe Airbnb ignored SEC Rule 14a-8, which requires companies to notify shareholders within 14 days if they plan to exclude a proposal and give them an opportunity to challenge that decision. Airbnb didn’t do that. They just silently buried our proposal because it didn’t fit their politics.
Let me be blunt; This is what corporate viewpoint discrimination looks like in 2025. And we’re not going to let it stand.
We believe in free markets and free speech. As institutional investors, we believe that companies, especially publicly traded ones, should be focused on delivering value to their shareholders, not playing political referee. But Airbnb has turned itself into a culture war weapon. And now they’re shutting the door on shareholders who dare to question that approach.
We firmly believe that Airbnb’s behavior isn’t just wrong. It’s illegal. It undermines the entire purpose of shareholder democracy. Rule 14a-8 exists so that companies can’t pick and choose which viewpoints they allow on the proxy ballot. The SEC has made it clear that if a proposal meets the technical requirements, it belongs in front of all shareholders. Period.
When two different conservative groups (our co-plaintiff, The Heritage Foundation, also had a proposal ignored) submit 14a-8 compliant resolutions, those just get “lost in the mailroom.” That proves our point.
It’s our belief that Airbnb isn’t trying to stay out of politics. They’re just trying to silence one side of the political spectrum. Our proposals were lost in the mailroom while a proposal from a left-leaning group managed to make it to the ballot.
That’s why we’re taking this to court. This lawsuit isn’t just about one proposal or one company. It’s about defending the right of every investor including conservative investors to be heard. It’s about holding companies accountable when they break the law to protect their political biases. And it’s about making sure that our money isn’t used against us.
We’re grateful to stand with fellow conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation, our co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit in this fight. We’re grateful to be represented by excellent attorneys at ADF and Boyden Gray. Together, we’re demanding that Airbnb follow the law, include our proposals, and respect the rights of all shareholders, not just the ones who agree with their worldview.
We know this case could set a major precedent. If we win, it will send a loud and clear message to every boardroom in America. Conservatives will no longer be silenced. We have just as much right to shape the direction of the companies we invest in as anyone else. And we won’t stand by while biased corporations break the rules to push their agenda and shut us out.
So Airbnb had a choice. We believe they could have engaged with us, followed the process, and shown respect for their shareholders. Instead, they chose arrogance and exclusion. That choice now comes with consequences.
The woke bubble is bursting. The days of silent conservative investors are over. And we’re just getting started.
William Flaig is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and the Founder and CEO of the American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF). www.investconservative.com.
In 2016, when Donald Trump announced his candidacy, he took the political world by storm. Trump introduced an entire generation of young men and women to a new kind of politics. His charisma and iconic moments fueled a political machine that reached its peak in the 2024 Presidential Election.
In the wake of that election, a large base of young conservative men and women, highly invested into the political state of the United States, have been left behind. While voices throughout the political sphere have sought to align themselves with this wave of young activists, the most successful have not been journalists or politicians. It’s been the content creators.
An entire generation of young adults are hungry for political content, but few understand them enough to provide it. The legacy media has abandoned the youth in support of an audience that has retained viewership. This doesn’t further any agenda but holds one captive. Creators like Dean Withers have begun to fill that void in progressive spaces, preaching politics but more importantly allowing direct open communication with his audience. That connection has created a cult-like following around these new Gen Z creators. And it’s exactly what we’re hoping to do with Off The Record USA (OTR-USA).
OTR-USA represents a platform for young conservatives, enabling them to grow and share their thoughts and opinions openly and honestly. With a goal to bring both sides closer together, we are looking for any voices, liberal or conservative, that are willing to have open and honest dialogues.
As Arizona natives, both of us have contributed to our communities. Carson graduated from ASU and has spent time developing relationships within Arizona politics, building a network of support that he used to grow ASU’s College Republicans.
Stryder is currently studying Journalism and Political Science at ASU and has contributed to several different clubs on campus, including the Emmy award-winning Walter Cronkite Sports Network.
With OTR-USA, we hope to empower young creators to amplify their messages and broaden their influence while getting to the truth in our country through investigative journalism, interviews, and connecting back to our communities.
In an age where information is easily accessible, audiences are desperate for the truth. And we will use our influence to promote the importance of loving one’s country, along with the values that make America great.
Join us, as we fight for a better future.
Carson Carpenter graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Arizona State University and serves as Co-Founder & CEO of Off The Record USA.
Stryder Bigler is currently studying Journalism and Political Science at Arizona State University and serves as Co-Founder & COO of Off The Record USA.
Before the Declaration of Independence, there was the Olive Branch Petition.
Written 250 years ago on July 5th, the Olive Branch Petition was Thomas Jefferson’s first attempt to explain to King George III why the American Colonies were rebelling and ask for reconciliation.
The “Shot heard ‘round the world” had been fired almost three months earlier, and the Battle of Bunker Hill had just ended. It was readily apparent to the Second Continental Congress that the situation was spinning out of control. In a last-ditch effort to stave off a rebellion and attempt a peaceful settlement, John Hancock authorized the drafting of a document to explain the colonies’ position, acknowledge their loyalty to the King and propose a solution to the conflict.
Everything the colonists knew about their government was that the King’s representative controlled most of the governing of their political subdivision, and the actions of the Royal Governor were generally respected as if the King himself was in residence. What the colonists could not appreciate was the emerging British constitutional government caused Parliament to become more powerful while the King’s authority gradually eroded. Most critical in this tug of war for authority was the power of the purse. The King and Parliament routinely argued over taxing and spending with Parliament eventually gaining the upper hand.
But during this time, while the role and responsibility of the King and Parliament were being established, the colonies were in the midst of creating their own unique political system. Initially, the colonies grew and developed with little, if any, input from the King. The customs as British subjects were transferred in a seamless manner, almost by osmosis, that accepted a local structure of self-government that was limited and almost invisible. The law and accompanying political organization were accepted by the colonies because they were familiar; but most importantly, they worked.
Always looking for new revenue to fund both the Crown and Parliament, the colonies became an untapped revenue stream. Under the excuse that the cost of protecting the colonies from foreign invasion should be paid for by the direct beneficiaries (the colonies), Parliament acted. Beginning in 1764, Parliament sought to impose various taxes on the colonies. The King benefited from these taxes as a portion of the generated revenue directly funded his royal court, but the numerous acts imposing taxes were not issued in the name of the sovereign, but in the name of Parliament.
So, with each successive tax, the colonists became more vexed and sought to avoid new levies in many ways; some benign, like smuggling or boycotting to avoid payment, or direct action, like the destruction of property to illustrate displeasure. But in all these aggressions against parliamentary acts, the colonists reasoned that if King George could understand the situation and reign in Parliament, then the colonial relationship could be restored. The colonists failed to appreciate the King’s complicity in the imposition of the various taxes.
When the relationship between the colonies further deteriorated and red coats were ordered to disarm colonial militias, the war of words turned into a hot war with the loss of life and destruction of property. Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill were more than simple police actions — they were serious military conflicts with significant casualties. With the conflict escalating, the Continental Congress tried one last step and appealed to the King with the Olive Branch Petition, which almost begged for a restoration of their former relationship. Thomas Jefferson’s initial draft of the Olive Branch Petition was too strident and bellicose, so with input from other founding fathers, John Dickinson would tone it down, and his revision was sent to the King after being approved by Congress.
King George never read the conciliatory document and instead responded by issuing his own Proclamation of Rebellion authorizing force to restrain the rebellion and hang the leaders. The Olive Branch Petition was an attempt to avoid bloodshed and restore an amicable relationship between the crown and colonies, but in rejecting the petition, the King, to his eventual detriment, turned loyalists into rebels.
One year later, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence would set an inevitable course; Washington’s victory at Yorktown would conclude the matter.
Will Sellers is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, graduate of Hillsdale College, and was appointed by Gov. Kay Ivey as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com
