“I’m Katie Hobbs, and the rules don’t apply to me.” That might as well run at the end of the next campaign ad featuring Arizona’s governor. Since taking office in 2023, Hobbs has been building a rap sheet of scandals that would make Minnesota Governor Tim Walz blush.
From one of the largest Medicaid fraud scandals in Arizona history to a pay-to-play scheme that has put her administration under active criminal investigation, Hobbs has taken corruption to new heights in our state. But now, her latest campaign-finance reports are raising even more troubling questions: How did more than $1 million in small-dollar contributions disappear? And why are over 46,000 of her contributors listed as unemployed?
A Million-Dollar Campaign-Finance Mystery
How many times can a campaign-finance report be amended before it starts to raise red flags? For the 2026 Quarter 2 report, the Hobbs campaign has managed to amend it 10 times so far. But why? Were there some typos or decimals in the wrong spot? Nope. Many of these amendments repeatedly changed the amount of money the Hobbs campaign reported receiving.
The biggest mystery involves more than $1.4 million in small-dollar contributions. In its original filing, Elect Katie Hobbs reported $1.426 million in exempt small contributions—donations under $100 that can be reported in aggregate. The campaign reported the same amount in its first amended filing.
But something happened in its second and third amended filings. All of a sudden, that $1.426 million dropped to $0. And then, in the fourth amended filing, nearly $400,000 suddenly reappeared.
The campaign’s total receipts also followed a similarly bizarre path, jumping from $2.64 million to $3.1 million, falling below $1.7 million, and then climbing back above $2.6 million through various amendments.
So, where did the money go?
That’s a great question. And Hobbs has yet to answer. But it’s not the only anomaly in her campaign-finance reports…
Sophie Cunningham seemed to have it all. As a guard for the Indiana Fever in the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), Cunningham’s star power was on the rise. She boasts 5 million Instagram followers, countless brand partnerships, and appeared as a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model.
Then in a July interview with ESPN, Cunningham said that biological men shouldn’t be in women and girls’ sports or private spaces. She is now receiving the backlash from far-left activists we’ve come to expect. Despite it, she hasn’t backed down.
“I said what I said,” she told reporters questioning her position. “I think it’s kind of common sense … it’s really important to protect children, and that’s little girls who are also involved in that category.” She later doubled down on her stance saying, “That’s why you have Title IX. That’s why you have some of the greats in women’s sports. If Title IX and women’s sports weren’t protected, then you wouldn’t hear about any type of women in sport. And so, I think in the future, it’s just really important to protect.”
Most people agree. A majority of Americans believe biological males should not be permitted in female private spaces like locker rooms, dorm rooms, or bathrooms. And nearly 80% of Americans oppose biological males competing on women’s sports teams.
Those numbers reflect something people understand intuitively: biological males have physical advantages over their female peers. In fact, the United Nations, American Parents Coalition (APC), and He Cheated, have each documented countless incidents in which biological males competing in female sports have cost female athletes of trophies, podium spots, and even championship titles. In some cases, the consequences have gone beyond lost opportunities and resulted in physical injuries.
But you’d never know that from looking at the mainstream coverage of Cunningham’s remarks. Instead, the WNBA, the public, and the mainstream media, are allowing a small but loud segment of the population to bully Cunningham for speaking the truth.
The aggression of Cunningham’s opponents has made recent WNBA games look more like violent brawls than professional basketball. Just last week, Cunningham was flagrantly fouled and could have been seriously injured. Some responded by calling it “karma.” She has also been protested and booed at games and even branded as a “MAGA Barbie.” Despite this, the physical, personal, and political attacks have failed to diminish Cunningham’s courage.
“I think that I am here to extend love,” Cunningham has said. “But I also think that with love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in a sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”
These words from a professional athlete like Cunningham, or a former top collegiate athlete like Riley Gaines, carry enormous weight. But Cunningham and Gaines should be amplifiers for what we already know the public overwhelmingly supports, not the only ones willing to speak up.
It’s our duty as parents to support their courage, not leave them to stand as the sole advocates for our daughters. We must defend the future of women’s sports as well as the safety, privacy, and opportunities of girls in our own communities. Whether in youth sports leagues, high schools, or even at the collegiate level, parents have an obligation to speak truth, stand up for our daughters, and hold the line. We cannot be afraid of or intimidated by pushback within our community and social circles and idly stand by expecting others to fight these battles for our daughters. We cannot afford to be the silent majority any longer.
That anyone would attack a woman for defending women’s sports, Title IX, and the safety and privacy of female athletes is an outrage. That so few have come to her defense is equally appalling, especially when we know where the public stands. Parents should ask themselves why they are letting her hang out to dry. If more of us were willing to speak up, would Cunningham’s words even seem so remarkable?
As a former athlete and coach, I know firsthand how important being on a sports team can be to the development of young girls. The benefits extend far beyond their athletic careers, giving girls the confidence and skills to thrive later in life. If a boy takes a spot on the team that could have gone to a girl, that girl misses out on crucial opportunities during a formative period of her life. She loses opportunities to develop teamwork, build healthy eating and exercise habits, form friendships, benefit from mentorship, and learn how to win and lose with grace. Allowing boys into female sports threatens the very opportunities those teams were created to provide.
Cunningham stuck her neck out for your daughters. We need parents, coaches, and our community to stand up too.
While the left has been lecturing us for decades that requiring ID to vote is somehow an overt example of systemic racism, they’re now planning to require ID for the privilege of shopping in government run grocery stores.
Democratic New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced in a recent press conference that he intends to spend over $70 million in taxpayer dollars to launch five government run grocery stores across New York, promising a 30% discount on all groceries.
And when questioned on how he intends to ensure people won’t just travel to New York and buy up the inventory for resale elsewhere in a predictable arbitrage play, his answer was both astounding and hypocritical. This is par for the course with his failed promises.
He said that they would implement a “library-esque” ID card that only New York citizens could obtain.
Yep, you heard that right — according to Democrats, it’s racist to ensure that only United States citizens are voting in our elections, but it’s totally fine to require ID to buy a box of Hot Pockets.
Someone else will have to make it make sense, because I sure as hell can’t.
For now, let’s set aside the absurdity of government run grocery stores. Let’s also set aside the fact that Democrats are claiming they have the magical ability to provide a 30% discount in an industry that operates on a 1-3% profit margin. And last but not least, let’s set aside the fact that every single industry the government gets involved in instantly experiences massive cost increases that destroy the budgets of hard working Americans.
Instead, let’s unpack their initial claim that requiring ID to vote is somehow racist.
What explanation have they used to justify that claim?
Across the board, nearly every Democrat politician, lobbyist, activist, and political pundit has consistently stated that black Americans either don’t know how or can’t afford to get a government issued ID.
Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has consistently been one of the most vocal critics of voter ID, and recently made the ridiculous statement that, “We are not going to turn our elections over to Donald Trump.”
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a law to completely ban local voter ID requirements.
And Matt Dietrich, spokesman for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said that Illinois does not require voters to show any type of photo ID at the polls, and went on to say voters only need to sign a sworn statement on their voter registration application that they are a U.S. citizen.
These are just a handful out of hundreds of examples.
Personally, I think the claim that black Americans either don’t know how or can’t afford to get a government issued ID, in and of itself, is pretty racist.
Virtually every single human of every race in America knows that getting an ID is a simple matter of going to your local Department of Motor Vehicles. And even if someone doesn’t know where one is, it’s hours of operation, or even what documents they’ll need, finding those answers is as simple as a quick Google search. (Although Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul did claim in May 2024 that black children don’t know what computers are, so I can see why Democrats might be confused here.)
So the claim that voters of any race don’t know how to get an ID is absurd.
The claim that black Americans can’t afford a government ID is equally absurd because the cost of a driver’s license ranges from $10 to $90, depending on your state.
But beyond that, an ID is already required for typical life in America anyway.
You need to show ID to drive a vehicle, visit a doctor, pick up prescriptions, travel on an airplane, buy a firearm, get a job, open a bank account, join the military, rent an apartment, enter a casino, purchase alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and some video games, register for government benefits, get married, get divorced, cash a check, rent a car or hotel room, register for health insurance, get a piercing or tattoo, donate blood, go hunting or fishing, sign any legal document, and countless other activities that most Americans do every single day.
And now, apparently, we can add shopping at Democrat run grocery stores.
According to Democrats, requiring an ID for all of these activities is perfectly fine, but when it comes to voting in our elections, it’s somehow an egregious burden that disenfranchises black voters.
What’s clear to me is that Democrats don’t want secure elections because they know they can’t win without cheating the system.
We’ve seen case after case of voter fraud. Recent examples include illegal aliens who were registered to vote, dead citizens still on the voter rolls, and harvesting ballots from the homeless population.
And in nearly every single case, this fraudulent voting favors Democrat candidates.
You don’t have to be a statistician to realize that it’s mathematically impossible for that to just be a coincidental fluke. It’s a clear case of systemic voting fraud perpetuated by the Democratic political machine.
The bottom line is that if Democrats think ID should be required to buy groceries, then the least we can do is require the same for our elections.
If it’s good enough for Hot Pockets, it’s good enough for the voting booth.
On July 14, the UN’s Adaptation Committee put fund managers, negotiators, and development bankers on a video call to work through a problem that clearly has them rattled. The money is drying up.
The Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, and the Adaptation Fund all sent people to explain how developing countries can tap them for cash. What they mostly did was ask for more. The reason they are running short, though, is news that ought to please anyone who pays U.S. taxes. In February 2025, the United States rescinded roughly $4 billion in outstanding pledges to the Green Climate Fund. We were the first country to do it. This spring, the United Kingdom followed, halving its pledge from £1.6 billion to about £815 million.
The people on the call treated this as a crisis. For anyone who works for a living and pays the bills, it looks more like a rescue.
It’s worth being clear about what these funds are. They hand out grants, not loans. Hansol Park of the Green Climate Fund said about 80% of its public-sector adaptation money is grant based, and the Adaptation Fund gives grants exclusively. Grant means gift — no repayment, no return, nothing back. When Washington pledged $4 billion, it was pledging to give $4 billion away and call it climate policy.
Where does the money go? The funds prefer to answer that in their own vocabulary. Ask what they finance, and you get “readiness,” “institutional capacity,” “capacity building,” “accreditation support,” “project preparation,” and “locally led adaptation.” Some of it does buy physical things, water systems and farms and flood defenses. A good deal of it, though, pays to build and staff the offices that write the grant applications in the first place.
The Green Climate Fund has placed outside experts inside developing-country governments, with more on the way. It runs multi-year “readiness” programs to prop up national agencies, with eight approved and 93 countries waiting in line. Over at the Adaptation Fund, staff run proposal-writing workshops and report that the workshops produce stronger proposals, which tells you the process is complicated enough to need a training seminar just to fill out the forms. Roxanne Valentine-Donegan of the Development Bank of Jamaica, one of the few speakers who had actually tried to pull money through the system, said getting it is “genuinely difficult,” slowed by shifting requirements and document-heavy applications.
So the recipients themselves say the system is too slow, too technical, and too expensive to navigate. And the answer on offer is not less paperwork; it is more staff and more workshops to process the paperwork. That is how bureaucracies grow. Every new hurdle becomes the reason to hire someone to help you clear it.
“Institutional capacity” is the polite expression that makes reference to the permanent layer of coordinators, accredited entities, and consultants standing between a donor’s check and an actual project on the ground. The Adaptation Fund alone works through roughly 62 accredited entities. The NDC Partnership, which helps developing countries navigate climate finance, says it has received more than 7,000 requests for support since 2016. Yet after nearly a decade and tens of billions of dollars, the people running this system are still saying they need more funding, more staff, and more capacity. The bureaucracy never seems to reach the point where it decides it has enough.
The Adaptation Fund reported an active pipeline worth about $1.9 billion with an appetite that seems to have no ceiling.
Adaptation Fund specialist Alyssa Gomes said flatly, “We do need more finance.” The Green Climate Fund talked up a board decision that could unlock roughly $4 billion in new programming capacity. No number is ever sufficient, because the demand is set by the funds themselves, not by any budget a taxpayer ever approved.
The dialogue ended the way these things invariably do, with appeals for donors to give more, at a faster pace, with fewer strings attached. The honest answer from the American side is already on the record. We are keeping the $4 billion.
Melanie Collette is a contributor to the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that champions free markets, property rights, and innovation as the keys to protecting both people and the environment.
The U.S. Constitution is very clear with regards to the requirements to hold any public office in the United States. One of the requirements is as follows:
“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—’I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’” (Article 2, Section 1, U.S. Constitution)
Also:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…” (Article 6, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution)
The requirement of taking an oath is in addition to other qualifications listed in the Constitution to hold public office, such as age, birth, citizenship, residency, and more. No person, even if elected, may legitimately hold any office in the United States or any particular state unless that person promises under oath to support, protect, and defend the principles of the U.S. Constitution.
Some may ask, then, what about candidates today who have announced they want to eliminate some basic constitutional provisions, such as the executive or judicial branches of our government? Such actions would destroy our system of checks and balances and limited government. The nation first tried this type of government in the Articles of Confederation, which had neither executive nor federal courts. It was a disaster and led to the Founders wisely adopting the U.S. Constitution in its place with limited, enumerated powers distributed among three branches.
The Founders also provided that the Constitution may be amended, allowing for changes to be made within the document as time and circumstances required, but not to throw out the whole document. It has been amended 27 times.
Those who advocate for the complete dismantling of our system of government should be stopped at the gate—not allowed to lie their way into public office by taking an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” while intending to destroy the very heart and structure of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold. That’s especially true when America’s enemies have openly pledged to do precisely that. The Founders called such action by would-be public officials treason, which they defined as giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.
It’s pretty rare in politics to find a policy that is considered across the political spectrum as a true win, win. In the most recent primary election, Maricopa County implemented a new process that may actually be considered a win, win, win for elections.
Win number one: more options for voters, not fewer.
Win number two: faster election results.
Win number three: more integrity in the process.
What is it? On-site tabulation of early ballots. That’s right, a policy we spearheaded with Senator J.D. Mesnard in 2022. Then, it was SB1362. It was introduced on the heels of an election taking weeks to get election results and one of the largest drivers of the delay were early ballots that voters did not mail back, did not drop off during early voting, but instead held onto until election day and dropped them off en masse at polling locations. Hundreds of thousands of ballots dropped off, that later had to be transported to the county, signature verified, cured, removed from the envelope, and finally tabulated.
That wasn’t novel, and you can see why so many would choose to vote this way. For some, they simply forgot to return their ballot in time. Now it is election day, they don’t want to wait in line to fill out a two-page ballot again, so they drop it off. Or they filled out their ballot at home, and they don’t trust the mail to get it delivered and would prefer the assurance of dropping it off themselves. Or they like filling out their ballot at home, but they also like to go to the polling place on election day. Whatever the reason, a large portion of voters choose to do it every year. Most of them do not realize it delays results for weeks.
SB1362 began as a mandate on the counties, requiring them to provide this option to voters. Believe it or not, the counties fought it tooth and nail the entire session. Eventually, the bill was amended to make it optional for counties to implement. They still opposed it. Why? They knew that if voters found out that their county officials could be doing this but are refusing to do so, voters would get mad at them.
