FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB: Arizona’s Tax Dollars Should Not Be Going To Hollywood

FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB: Arizona’s Tax Dollars Should Not Be Going To Hollywood

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

As President Trump gets to work cleaning up Joe Biden’s failed economy, the last thing the people of Arizona need is to be sending their hard-earned dollars to woke Hollywood. But that’s exactly what’s happening.

Thanks to a law passed in 2022, movie companies that film in Arizona will begin receiving refundable tax credit subsidies this year—up to 15 percent if they spend up to $10 million in production costs, 17.5 percent if they spend between $10 million and $35 million, and 20 percent if they spend over $35 million. Then, to top it all off, these movie companies can get an additional 2.5 percent if they meet other criteria.

But here’s the real kicker. The keyword in all of this is “refundable.” This essentially means that if a movie company qualifies for more credits than they owe in taxes, the State of Arizona sends them a check!

So, how much does this outrageous tax scheme cost the people of Arizona?

Up to $125 million each year!

For that kind of money, there must be at least some kind of return on this investment, right? Nope.

If a company comes to Arizona, films a movie, mentions our state in the credits but decides not to release or distribute the film, it still receives the money.

Yes. You read that right. Arizona taxpayers could be funding Hollywood movies that won’t ever see the light of day…

>>> CONTINUE READING >>> 

Gilbert Town Council Sued By Goldwater Institute For “Illegal” Pickleball Tax

Gilbert Town Council Sued By Goldwater Institute For “Illegal” Pickleball Tax

By Matthew Holloway |

The Town of Gilbert is the target of a lawsuit by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona and a local property owner, Jonathan Barth, for allegedly violating the Arizona Constitution which bans tax increases on “services.”

According to Goldwater, the tax increase imposed by the Town of Gilbert includes “many types of business that do not produce tangible goods, such as advertising, photography, utilities, hotel/lodging, and construction.”

Goldwater is challenging two of the tax increases in particular: on homebuilding and short-term rental properties.

As noted in the text of the lawsuit, the Arizona Constitution prohibits “any county, city, town, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision of the state, or any district created by law” from creating any new or increasing any existing transaction-based taxes on the “privilege to engage in, or the gross receipts of sales or gross income derived from, any service performed in this state.”

The new tax ordinance in question, per the Town of Gilbert’s website, imposes a 0.5% increase in the existing sales tax and creates a “use tax” to be “paid for by residents and businesses when purchases are made online with out-of-state vendors who do less than $100K of sales in Arizona per year.”

The lawsuit explains that, “As a result of the Ordinance, individuals, businesses, and taxpayers, including Plaintiff Jonathan Barth, who engage in the rental or lease of real property, including for transient lodging, will pay a higher tax rate for the services they perform. Additionally, individuals, businesses, and taxpayers that engage in general contracting services, including the members of Plaintiff Home Builders Association of Central Arizona (“HBACA”), will pay a higher tax rate on the services they perform.”

Barth, an educator and father of five, will be impacted because he earns supplemental income by managing his detached bungalow as a rental for short-term tenants. He told Goldwater, “This tax hike makes it all the more difficult to make ends meet in Gilbert.”

Former Mayor Brigette Peterson and all of the members of the Town Council are named as defendants in addition to the town itself.

The town allegedly intends to use the projected $55 million yield of this new tax for “Critical Infrastructure Projects,” adding that “Time is of the essence as many of Gilbert’s services are over capacity and new infrastructure is needed.”

The Goldwater Institute has found however, that these “Critical Infrastructure Projects,” include pickleball courts, splash pads, a ropes course, and a “statement” bridge.

The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona (HBACA) told Goldwater that the new taxes will result in increased construction costs in the town as well. HBACA CEO Jackson Moll warned, “Gilbert officials are trampling on their own constituents’ rights with no regard for the consequences their illegal actions will have on taxpayers and homebuyers. The Arizona Constitution is clear: increasing taxes on services, including on construction contracting, is unlawful.”

As previously reported by AZ Free News, the Goldwater Institute pursued a similar action against the Town of Payson in September when the Town Council decided to incur a $70 million debt via a bond measure without a public referendum.

Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.

Arizonans Approve Prop 139 To Expand Abortion Access Up To Birth

Arizonans Approve Prop 139 To Expand Abortion Access Up To Birth

By Daniel Stefanski |

The right to an abortion will now be enshrined in the Arizona Constitution after voters approved a radical ballot measure on Tuesday night.

Proposition 139 passed in the Grand Canyon State, receiving over 61% of the vote as of Thursday night. It will create a “fundamental right” for abortion up to “fetal viability” and allows a baby’s life to be ended potentially up until birth.

Arizona for Abortion Access released a short statement on its social media platform after the outcome became clear, stating, “We did it! Arizona has overwhelmingly voted to protect abortion access! We proved, yet again, that Arizona is a state that values freedom and individual rights. Thank you to the thousands of voters, volunteers, and donors – this victory belongs to you.”

Pastor Eric Jones, who helped organize a large coalition of local faith leaders against Prop 139, bemoaned the result of the campaign in a statement posted to his Facebook account. Jones wrote, “While I mourn and lament over the passage of Prop 139, there remains a silver lining as over 700 Arizona Christian pastors crossed denominational and doctrinal lines to unite over this biblical issue and take a stand for the sanctity of human life. Our unity and willingness to stand together pleases the Lord. “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity (Psalm 133:1)! And so, let us not grow weary in doing good and let us pray without ceasing. God, have mercy on us.”

Cathi Herrod, another pro-life advocate against this ballot measure, issued a warning about the effects of this amendment on her state, saying, “Arizona will come to regret passing Prop 139 – when girls and women lose their doctors and safeguards, when parents get shut out, when a staggering number of unborn lives end before they even begin, and when voters realize they have been lied to by proponents who would say anything to pass their extreme abortion amendment.”

Herrod added, “I suspect abortion activists know, and that is why they deceitfully lied to voters, telling them there was a ban – when there was no ban – and shamefully telling them women cannot get treatment for miscarriages without passing the proposition. Again, false. But Prop 139 was never about protecting women; it has always been about unregulated and unlimited abortion.”

For several decades, Arizona had been one of the most pro-life states in the country – largely thanks to Republican legislators, governors, and effective activists. Because of the constitutional amendment being passed by voters, a simple majority of the members of the state legislature would not be able to reform any of the policies enacted by the measure.

Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.

Hobbs Accused Of Spreading Disinformation About Prop 139

Hobbs Accused Of Spreading Disinformation About Prop 139

By Matthew Holloway |

Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs is insisting that the Prop 139 amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would state, “Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion,” would not include minors. However, prominent critics of the Proposition, such as Cindy Dahlgren, communications director for Center for Arizona Policy Action, says different. Dahlgren told reporters, “It would clearly be argued that ‘every individual’ includes minors.”

In the text of the Proposition, the new amendment would read:

“Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that does any of the following:

  1. Denies, restricts or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.
  2. Denies, restricts or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
  3. Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual’s right to abortion as provided in this section.”

The legal definition of “individual” is key to this argument:

  • According to A.R.S. 18-551, under Arizona law, an “individual” is defined as, “a resident of this state who has a principal mailing address in this state as reflected in the records of the person conducting business in this state.”
  • Under A.R.S. 43-104, “‘Individual’ means a natural person.”
  • Under family law in Arizona, A.R.S. 25-1202 also clearly establishes that the definition of “individual” applies to minors through the inverse: “’Child’ means an individual, whether over or under the age of majority.”

As reported by the Arizona Capitol Times, Hobbs claimed that even if the amendment to the Arizona Constitution were to overturn current abortion laws requiring parental consent, that minors would still be unable to obtain an abortion without that consent.

“Health care providers would be subject to the same provisions relating to minors as they are under any other circumstance,” Hobbs told the outlet.

However, current Arizona law under A.R.S. 44-132 doesn’t seem to bear that conclusion out. The law in question states clearly:

“The consent of the parent, or parents, of such a person is not necessary in order to authorize hospital, medical and surgical care.”

The Arizona Capitol Times noted that Attorney General Kris Mayes, another Democrat advocate for the sweeping pro-abortion law, told reporters that this major legal distinction would likely need to be settled in court. “If Prop 139 passes, my office will conduct an analysis on its impact to other statutes,” Mayes explained.

“As with most newly passed referendums, litigation may be necessary to determine the specific impact on state law,” she added. “Ultimately, the courts may have to decide how any new constitutional provisions interact with current laws.”

The Arizona Capitol Times also observed that there is existing legal language in statute that addresses a judicial path for a minor to seek abortion without parental consent if she proves to a judge she is “sufficiently mature and capable of giving informed consent.” And while not a majority of the abortions performed involve minors, these cases do present a significant portion, about 12% of the total cited in 2022: 37 out of 250. 

The outlet also spoke with Attorney Andrew Gaona, representing Arizona for Abortion Access, who told reporters that the measure would create “a fundamental right to abortion and sets forth the standard that existing and future laws regulating abortion must satisfy.” He also claimed that the new law wouldn’t be definitive on the question of minors.

“How that standard will apply to the more than 40 existing abortion-related statutes if a party chooses to challenge some or all of them will be determined by Arizona courts,” he said.

Bethany Miller, an attorney representing the Center for Arizona Policy told the Arizona Capitol Times that the distinction between Prop 139 and other amendments pertaining to individual rights comes down to the wording. “The Arizona right to bear arms is not ‘fundamental,’” she said, citing a 1994 ruling that declared the right to bear arms a qualified rather than absolute right. “In other words, Arizonans do not have the right to bear arms in any time or any way.”

“By contrast,” she warned, “Prop. 139’s fundamental right is likely to be interpreted as a near absolute right.”

Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.

Prop 136 Would Protect Our Ballot From Unconstitutional Measures

Prop 136 Would Protect Our Ballot From Unconstitutional Measures

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

Every election cycle, out-of-state special interests spend millions trying to put their bad ideas onto our ballot. Because these groups do not understand our laws or our constitution, the measures they peddle are poorly drafted and are often unworkable or illegal. In some instances, they do know better but don’t seem to care that their proposed measure is unconstitutional.

For example, in 2020, two out-of-state groups collected signatures to put the largest tax hike in state history on the ballot. Nonpartisan attorneys at legislative council told them prior to gathering any signatures that their measure was unconstitutional. They didn’t care. After a multi-million-dollar campaign that resulted in the measure passing by a slim margin, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the initiative unconstitutional a year later.

Why was it on the ballot in the first place, if it was so clearly unconstitutional? The courts have long held that they currently do not have the power to consider any challenges to the constitutionality of a measure before it is passed on the ballot. The only challenge that can be brought is against the signatures filed with the Secretary of State, or for a violation of the single subject or separate amendment requirements.

But if an out-of-state group is trying to put a measure on the ballot that is clearly unconstitutional, like statutorily exempting a tax hike from a constitutional spending limit, as Prop 208 tried to do, a challenge is not considered “ripe.” Instead, costly campaigns are run on both sides, and only after voters have been presented with a broken measure can a challenge be brought.

Prop 136 changes that…

>>> CONTINUE READING >>>