Donor Privacy To Be Defended Before Arizona Supreme Court

Donor Privacy To Be Defended Before Arizona Supreme Court

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.

Arizona Leaders Convince EPA To Cease Penalizing States For Foreign Air Pollution

Arizona Leaders Convince EPA To Cease Penalizing States For Foreign Air Pollution

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.

AZFEC: Attention Adrian Fontes: We Won’t Back Down From Your Attacks

AZFEC: Attention Adrian Fontes: We Won’t Back Down From Your Attacks

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 >>> 

Republican Lawmakers Introduce Bills To Protect Taxpayers And Enhance Transparency

Republican Lawmakers Introduce Bills To Protect Taxpayers And Enhance Transparency

By Jonathan Eberle |

Arizona lawmakers are advancing a series of bills aimed at increasing transparency, accountability, and taxpayer protection. These measures tackle issues ranging from government spending on elections to school board meetings and travel, with a focus on ensuring that public funds are used responsibly and efficiently. With strong support from various groups, these bills reflect ongoing concerns about how taxpayer money is spent and how local government actions are conducted.

One of the most significant pieces of proposed legislation, HB2722, is backed by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and sponored by Rep. Neal Carter (R-LD15). The bill seeks to prevent taxpayers from indirectly subsidizing private businesses through government gifts. Specifically, it targets “gift clauses” in state and local government contracts, which some argue allow for inappropriate use of taxpayer funds to benefit private entities.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has been vocal about the need for stronger protections against such expenditures. The organization has stated that this bill is necessary to curb the growing trend of government spending on private corporations without clear public benefit.

“Taxpayers should not be used as a backdoor financing mechanism for private companies,” said Arizona Free Enterprise Club officials. “This bill is about ensuring that public dollars are spent in a way that directly benefits the public, not private interests.” If passed, this bill would create stricter guidelines on how public funds can be spent and would allow taxpayers to hold officials accountable when misused funds are discovered.

Another bill making its way through the Arizona legislature is SB1036, supported by the Goldwater Institute and sponosred by Sen. John Kavanagh (R-LD3). This bill targets government spending on influencing elections, a topic that has sparked considerable debate in recent years. SB1036 would create a private right of action for taxpayers, allowing individuals to sue if they believe government funds are being spent on efforts that influence an election. This would make it easier for citizens to challenge the use of taxpayer money in elections, particularly when the spending appears to be partisan or otherwise improper.

The Goldwater Institute has argued that taxpayers have a right to ensure their money isn’t used to sway political outcomes. According to a recent report by the organization, there have been multiple instances of local governments spending taxpayer funds to advocate for policies that align with political interests, which has raised concerns about government overreach.

“Governments should not be using taxpayer money to influence the political process,” said Goldwater Institute officials. “This bill provides taxpayers with the ability to stand up for their rights and ensure public resources are not misused.”

Another bill, HB2169, which was introduced by Representative Matthew Gress (R-LD4), seeks to address transparency within Arizona’s public school districts. The bill would require school board meetings to be held in public facilities within the district, ensuring that they are easily accessible to the communities they serve. Additionally, the bill mandates that school boards must receive public approval before engaging in out-of-state travel, making it more difficult for administrators to make costly decisions without community oversight.

This legislation gained near-unanimous support, with proponents arguing that it ensures greater accountability for how public schools operate and how funds are spent. Critics of the current system have pointed to examples of school board members using taxpayer money for luxury travel without clear, public approval or benefit. A notable incident involved a local school district that faced backlash after spending taxpayer funds on extravagant trips while simultaneously requesting additional funding from voters for educational needs.

“Public education is about serving the community,” said Representative Gress in a statement. “We need to make sure that the actions of school boards are always in the public interest. This bill strengthens public trust in our school systems.”

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

Tucson Voters Resoundingly Reject $80 Million Annual Tax Increase

Tucson Voters Resoundingly Reject $80 Million Annual Tax Increase

By Matthew Holloway |

In a dramatic defeat for the proponents of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), along with other various apparatus of leftist governance, Tucson voters struck down the proposed Safe & Vibrant City ballot measure on Tuesday. The measure would have increased the city’s overall sales tax by a half-cent, extracting an estimated $80 million in annual revenue from taxpayers to fund a raft of left-leaning agenda items.

The final result saw 69.76% vote NO with 30.18% voting YES.

Michael Guymon, President and CEO of the Tucson Metro Chamber, told KVOA, “I am very pleased the voters supported our message of fiscal responsibility without the need to raise taxes on our community’s most vulnerable individuals.”

The No on Prop 414 coalition, a group of business owners and Tucson residents opposed to the measure, celebrated the defeat of the proposition as well stating, “The resounding defeat of Prop. 414 is an important victory for all Tucsonans and an important first step in making sure city resources go to where they can do the most good. While we celebrate that we won’t be directly funding increased surveillance and the harms of policing with every dollar we spend for the next 10 years, we understand that there are still urgent, unmet needs in the community.”

Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, also celebrated the results of the election saying, “Voters from all sides of the political aisle made the correct decision in Tucson today. This tax increase was another failed attempt by Tucson’s radical leaders to take more tax dollars from hard-working men and women to fund an insatiable leftist agenda.”

Mussi added, “We have seen over the years how Tucson officials have embraced globalist environmental, energy, and social justice propaganda and policies to steer their municipality – and even our state – into that camp. Tonight, Tucson voters rejected these efforts, rightly deciding to keep their tax dollars for themselves.”

According to AZCentral, $13.4 million of the new tax would have gone “to community and justice-related programs” with approximately two-thirds of it being directed toward public safety measures. The proposition was also strongly endorsed by Democrat former state Sen. Kristen Engel, who was recently defeated in a challenge to Republican Congressman Juan Ciscomani.

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.