by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jun 21, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Around the country, the “war on cars” has become apparent. From New York’s congestion pricing scheme to the onslaught of road diets and protected bike lanes to “reallocate” the public space away from cars, there is hardly anywhere you can travel without experiencing the increased hassle and cost of driving your personal vehicle.
Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to reverse the woke transportation trends at the U.S. Department of Transportation under former Secretary Pete Buttigieg, many state and city governments remain committed to punishing drivers.
One specific tool being used to implement the anti-car, woke transportation agenda is vehicle mileage limits and taxes. For example, in Washington State, they passed a law that sets a target of reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita by 50% by 2050. Their department of transportation is empowered to create policies and strategies that would effectively force people to give up their cars. And of course, for our neighbors to the West, California lawmakers have proposed a mileage tax or “road charge” determined by how many miles a person drives in an effort to reduce carbon emissions and endlessly subsidize their failed transit system. Implementing this would require invasive measures such as reporting odometer readings or installing “special plug-in devices.” This kind of Orwellian intrusion on our freedom to travel privately has no place in any American city, even in California…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Matthew Holloway | Jun 18, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Corporation Commissioners Nick Myers and Kevin Thompson responded to reports of an upcoming primary challenge from State Representative Dr. Ralph Heap and running mate Rep. David Marshall with a surprising attack against both candidates and two of the most prominent conservative organizations in the state. After Heap confirmed his 2026 candidacy for the Commission in a call with the Arizona Republic, incumbents Thompson and Myers reportedly blasted Heap and Marshall as “special interest proxies who have been recruited to return politics into ratemaking.”
Myers would even go as far as to claim that the two GOP challengers are in the service of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) and Turning Point USA (TPUSA), telling the Republic that both want “good puppets” on the Corporation Commission.
Responding to the remarks, Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi told the Republic that Myers and Thompason were “pretty on brand,” and added, “They always resort to attacks and attacking whoever they can to avoid having to address the substance of what’s being brought to them.”
Turning Point Action spokesman Andrew Kolvet told the outlet, “We have no idea what the commissioner means by ‘puppet,’ as we have had zero contact with any current commissioners since they have taken office.” He stated that TPUSA considers AZFEC to be “an ally.”
Although the Corporation Commission came fully under Republican control in January, the stakes for Arizona voters are high given that APS has requested yet another rate increase on top of the 8% increase it was given in 2024.
Commissioners Thompson and Myers have also drawn the ire of many Republicans by echoing the talking points of APS and Tucson Electric Power (TEP), when both utilities refused to comply with President Trump’s Executive Order to reactivate the Cholla and Springerville coal-fired power plants. As previously reported by AZ Free News, Thompson claimed that doing so would “jeopardize the grid and burden ratepayers with millions of dollars in short-sighted costs.” He also criticized the President’s intervention saying, “The Commission must hold utilities accountable and ensure that we have reliable and dispatchable generation to meet the load demands of the future. We also have to make sure we accomplish that goal in a manner that doesn’t jeopardize the grid and burden ratepayers with millions of dollars in short-sighted costs that fail to meaningfully address our long-term energy needs.”
He added, “Managing highly intricate systems like our electrical grid is far more complicated than a slogan on a bumper sticker. Continued calls from certain elected officials to reopen Cholla does nothing more than promote financially reckless solutions.”
The Commission’s refusal to follow the Trump administration’s energy agenda and pushback toward efforts to eliminate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies has placed it at odds with the Republican-controlled state legislature—along with the Arizona Freedom Caucus, AZFEC, and the Goldwater Institute.
Speaking to reporters, Myers accused AZFEC and TPUSA of “making things up,” claiming, “They’ve basically been trying to run us through the mud for every little thing they can drum up.”
However, Mussi explained that the Free Enterprise Club has had “a multitude of issues,” with the Commission. “There’s been a multitude of issues that they have shown no interest in working on,” he said. “And when these issues are brought up, rather than engaging on them, they have usually gone and attacked not just us, but whoever is bringing the policies that they disagree with addressing.” In particular he pointed to APS and TEP’s integrated resource plans, which lean heavily on wind and solar generation as opposed to coal, natural gas and nuclear, and AZFEC’s drive to terminate “California-style, Green New Deal policies.”
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.
by Matthew Holloway | May 10, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona State Supreme Court has granted a petition for review in the case Center for Arizona Policy v. Hobbs, which revolves around Proposition 211 and the right of political donors to privacy.
The case, brought by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club argues that the protections of the Arizona Constitution, which are stronger than even the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, forbid Prop 211’s forced disclosure of donors and nonprofits who support or oppose ballot initiatives. The Goldwater Institute cited the Arizona Constitution in a press release, “The state constitution, after all, provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than does the federal constitution—promising both that ‘every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects,’ and that ’no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs.’”
In Goldwater’s case summary, the organization warned, “Everyone has the right to support causes they believe in without fear of harassment, retaliation, or being canceled. Unfortunately, a new measure in Arizona—Proposition 211—tramples on this foundational right. It requires individuals who donate to nonprofits to risk having their private information reported to the government and disclosed to the public. It was sold to Arizonans under the guise of transparency and ‘disclosure.’ But voters weren’t told the full story.”
Goldwater Senior Attorney Scott Day Freeman explained, “This is a very exciting development. There are few rights more precious to Arizonans than their rights to free speech and to the ballot initiative process. The anti-privacy law undermines these freedoms by telling people that if they dare to support a political position, they have to give up their confidentiality and potentially become a target for retaliation and even violence.”
A lower Arizona court rejected the Goldwater’s arguments under the guise that “having an informed electorate,” in service of the government’s interests overrides campaign donors’ right to confidentiality, claiming that they can simply “opt out of contributing to campaign media spending.”
Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Andrew Gould, disagrees. Back in legal practice with the law firm Holtzman Vogel, and representing the plaintiffs alongside the Goldwater Institute, Gould said, “That’s just not true. Even under the law’s ‘opt-out’ provisions, some donors’ information must still be made public, and donors don’t really have a way of controlling how an organization spends donations, which means they can’t really control whether their information is made public.”
Because the case raises claims based on the Arizona Constitution, the burden of protecting donors’ privacy is even greater than in other states according to Gould who wrote, “Our state constitution provides stronger security for individual rights than the U.S. Constitution does. The authors of the state constitution intended to protect the right to donate to ballot initiative campaigns and the right not to have one’s ‘private affairs’ made public by the government. This law violates both those promises and says that if you donate to a nonprofit group that supports or opposes a ballot initiative, the government’s going to paint a target on your back.”
The Goldwater Institute referenced several serious incidents in the past decade which saw political donors and non-profits become targets for threats, vandalism, and violence from radical political extremists. It noted that donors to California’s anti-same-sex marriage initiative in 2008 became targets of property destruction and physical assault when they were effectively ‘doxxed’ by the state. A similar incident in 2020 unfolded when a group of non-profit organizations engaged California in a lawsuit after Sacramento published approximately 2,000 documents with donors’ personal identifying information. Inevitably this led to a campaign of violence and harassment by far-left extremists.
The California law that allowed this to happen was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in 2021.
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club said in a statement, “We are thankful that the Arizona Supreme Court accepted review of this vital case for our First Amendment liberties. Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well. We are hopeful that the Arizona Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Constitution after considering the merits of the case.”
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.
by Staff Reporter | Apr 10, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will no longer penalize Arizona and other states for foreign air pollution affecting state levels.
The EPA decision follows local and statewide efforts by Arizona’s elected and grassroots leaders in recent years to toss this regulation.
Among those engaging with the EPA was the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC). The grassroots organization’s president, Scot Mussi, commended the EPA decision.
“Due to this regulation from the Biden Administration, Arizona was being forced to adopt radical control measures, like banning gasoline-powered vehicles, which still would have left our state short of meeting the ozone standard,” said Mussi. “Yet again, the left’s environmental policies have proven to be disastrous and unworkable. For the good of our state and country, we must never repeat these mandates.”
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced on Monday it would rescind the Guidance on the Preparation of Clean Air Act Section (CAA) 179B Demonstrations for Nonattainment Areas Affected by International Transport of Emissions.
The EPA published a press release, also on Monday, detailing the changes to air pollution regulations. The rescinded guidance effectively penalized states for air pollution caused by other countries.
“This guidance made it unnecessarily difficult for states to demonstrate that foreign air pollution is harming Americans within their borders,” stated the EPA. “States should not be penalized for air pollution beyond their control, including pollution crossing international borders into the United States.”
In a statement, Zeldin said U.S. citizens shouldn’t be held responsible for other nations’ air pollution failures.
“Americans should not be harmed by other countries that do not have the same environmental standards we have in the United States,” said Zeldin. “Not only are we eliminating cumbersome red tape that placed an excessive burden on states to prove emissions were from an international source, but we are also helping states across our nation prosper while ensuring they continue to provide clean air for their residents.”
The EPA said it would work with state and local air agencies to secure regulatory relief under the rescinded guidance.
The guidance emerged in December 2020 during the last month of the first Trump administration. The guidance was intended to assist state, local, and tribal air agencies with developing a demonstration on how a nonattainment area would be able to attain or would have attained relevant National Ambient Air Quality Standard if not for other countries’ air pollution.
Last month, the EPA agreed to reconsider its determination that the Northern Wasatch Front in Utah failed to attain the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
This latest policy change aligns with the Trump administration’s designs for the EPA under Zeldin outlined in his Powering the Great American Comeback initiative. Zeldin declared in his announcement of the initiative that conservation was inherently a core principle of conservatism.
This initiative announced in February proposes five new pillars of guidance for the EPA’s work over the first 100 days and throughout the next four years, all centered around American independence and dominance: securing clean air, land, and water for all Americans; restoring American energy dominance; permitting reform, cooperative federalism, and cross-agency partnership; making the U.S. the artificial intelligence capital of the world; and protecting and bringing back American auto jobs.
In a joint press release issued on Monday, Maricopa County Chairman Thomas Galvin and Supervisor Debbie Lesko said they made the case in a meeting last month with the EPA of the difficulty for states to prove certain air pollution impacts. The stance from current county leadership marks a departure from past leadership, which advanced measures to meet EPA compliance on ozone standards.
“At that meeting, county leadership demonstrated how difficult it has been for states like Arizona to prove the impact of air pollution from international transport, and as a result, we risk more regulation,” said Galvin and Lesko. “As Administrator Zeldin said, today’s announcement is a step in the right direction for states looking to balance the need for clean air with the importance of economic development.”
Galvin and Lesko also thanked Senator Mark Kelly for providing assistance on the issue.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Apr 9, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Adrian Fontes has proven himself to be good at two things during his tenure as Arizona’s Secretary of State: losing in court and throwing tantrums. It’s really unfortunate. The state’s top election official is not supposed to be taken to court on a regular basis—especially for, you know, his repeated attempts to undermine election integrity. And of course, throwing tantrums should be more characteristic of toddlers, not a government official. But Fontes can’t help himself.
In his latest tirade, Fontes joined Hillary Clinton’s old consigliere Marc Elias on Democracy Docket to whine about President Trump’s recent executive order to preserve and protect the integrity of American elections. Toward the end of the discussion, Elias asked Fontes about the multiple lawsuits against his Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), which he lost to us and Arizona Republican lawmakers. As has become all too common with our Secretary of State, he responded how you would expect someone to respond when he knows he can’t win. He attacked our organization and degraded our 15,000 activists and donors.
Yes. That’s right. The top election official in our state, who is supposed to remain unbiased and simply do his job to protect election integrity, lashed out against us and told people not to donate to us because we won our lawsuit against him and his illegal EPM.
Ummm…news flash, Mr. Fontes. One of the reasons our donors support our cause is to stop government officials like you from circumventing the law. So, when we win, they feel good because their money was put to effective use.
But we shouldn’t expect someone with such low character as Adrian Fontes to understand that. After all, this isn’t the first time he’s tried to use the power of his office to attack and intimidate organizations like ours that participate in the election process…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
Page 1 of 2112345678910...20...»Last »
