by Matthew Holloway | Jun 27, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
As the City of Scottsdale stands poised to enact a staggering $2.2 billion budget, city leaders must now contend with a new lawsuit from the Goldwater Institute challenging the city’s controversial sales tax increase.
As of the council’s June 10th meeting, the city has reportedly agreed to spend up to $90,000 in taxpayer dollars on the outside law firm Osborne Maledon to defend it.
In June 2024, the Goldwater Institute challenged the newly approved 0.15% sales tax, which was pitched to voters as a “replacement tax,” for an unrelated, expired 0.2% Land Acquisition Tax.
Goldwater won that legal battle, “forcing the city to admit that it was raising, rather than lowering taxes,” according to a press release.
Under the Arizona Constitution, such a tax hike must be approved by at least 60 percent of voters, a threshold the city did not meet in the 2024 election. Scottsdale leaders, however, have enacted the tax.
On Friday, June 3rd, the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit against the city, panning the tax as “unconstitutional.” It stated that, “Supermajority rules help protect minority voices, prevent special-interest-driven decisions, and force governments to clean up their budgets before reaching for more of your money. Just like any responsible household, city, county, and state officials should look at how they’re spending first—not just always demand more, regardless of what the law and economic commonsense demand.”
Scott Day Freeman, writing for Goldwater added, “Scottsdale is ignoring the state’s constitutional mandate—requiring us to go to court yet again.”
City Attorney Sherry Scott’s summary to the city council stated, “The budget implications of not defending this case are $25 million per year for the next 30 years.” The law firm, earning approximately $912 per hour at the taxpayer’s expense, is fighting the Goldwater Institute’s efforts to seek an injunction that would stop the tax from taking effect on July 1st, along with a declaratory judgment that the tax is unenforceable.
Freeman said, “Our clients seek only a declaration that the tax is unlawful and an injunction to stop it being enforced. Our clients do not seek a refund or damages.”
Scottsdale spokesman Kelly Corsette stated, “The city is confident its ballot item and election result comply with the Arizona Constitution and all applicable election laws.” He claimed that “the 60% tax approval threshold does not apply to local ballot measures: it is in a section of the constitution that regulates statewide initiatives and referendums, not in the separate section of the constitution applicable to city initiatives and referendums.”
In its press release, the Goldwater Institute maintained that, “In 2022, Arizonans strengthened those protections by amending the Constitution to require any tax passed through a citizen initiative or referendum receive at least 60 percent approval to become law—a requirement that applies not just to statewide, but also to local ballot initiatives.”
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 AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jun 17, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
One of President Trump’s most important campaign promises was to bring accountability and transparency to federal government spending. Under the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his administration didn’t waste any time getting to work.
Within weeks of Trump’s inauguration, DOGE had uncovered billions of dollars in waste and abuse of taxpayer funds under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Here are just a few of the ways the Trump administration discovered USAID was spending your tax dollars:
- $1.5 million to “advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.”
- $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala.
- Millions to EcoHealth Alliance — which was involved in research at the Wuhan lab.
- $1 million to boost French-speaking LGBTQ groups in West and Central Africa through the State Department.
- $15 million for condoms to the Taliban through USAID.
This list barely scratches the surface of the waste and abuse that was discovered. But now, it appears it’s not just the federal government that’s been throwing your money around to outlandish woke initiatives. Arizona may have its very own USAID scandal…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Matthew Holloway | May 27, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
An investigation by Republican Reps. David Marshall, Walt Blackman, and Quang Nguyen found that the City of Phoenix has distributed over $28.5 million of taxpayer funding to more than 100 private organizations with a shocking lack of oversight. Now, the Goldwater Institute is asking Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes to intervene and stop what it termed an “unlawful spending spree.”
Citing the legislative findings, the Goldwater Institute alleges that “Organizations like the Phoenix Film Foundation, Phoenix Pride Inc, Mexican Baseball Fiesta LLC, the Arizona Science Center’s Galaxy Gala, and many others received subsidies—sometimes simultaneously by multiple departments—under questionable labels like ‘Sponsorships,’ ‘Grants and Subsidies,’ ‘Emerg[ency] Assist[ance],’ or ‘Miscellaneous.’ The city has no lawful authority to spend public money in this way.”
Parker Jackson, a staff attorney at the Goldwater Institute, said in a statement, “This effectively turns large portions of the city’s budget into a patchwork of slush funds that special interests can access in the sole discretion of a single city employee. Amazingly, the city ‘does not track donations by nonprofit status,’ so it does not know exactly how much taxpayer money has been funneled out through this opaque process.”
The reported “Sponsorships,” “Grants and Subsidies,” “Emerg[ency] Assist[ance],” or “Miscellaneous” donations run afoul of the Arizona State Constitution’s Gift Clause according to Jackson in a letter to the Attorney General co-signed by Jon Riches, the Goldwater’s Vice President for Litigation.
Riches wrote, “Most—if not all—of these expenditures appear to violate the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause, which strictly prohibits use of public funds to benefit private, special interests. Not only is it doubtful that these allocations serve a legitimate public purpose, but there also appears to be no direct or measurable consideration received in return for this use of public resources.”
The Arizona Constitution under Article 9 Section 7 states, “Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation, or become a subscriber to, or a shareholder in, any company or corporation, or become a joint owner with any person, company, or corporation, except as to such ownerships as may accrue to the state by operation or provision of law or as authorized by law solely for investment of the monies in the various funds of the state.”
The Goldwater attorneys have called on Mayes to “[e]njoin the illegal payment of public monies” and to “[r]ecover illegally paid public monies,” under A.R.S. § 41-194.01 and A.R.S. § 35-212 respectively.
Jackson wrote in a Goldwater Institute press release that the finding by the Arizona legislature may seem familiar to keen observers: “If treating taxpayers as financiers for private entities—even controversial and ideological ones—sounds familiar, that’s because it mirrors what has been exposed throughout the federal government this year. For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was aptly described as ‘a slush fund for leftist priorities’ after the White House exposed decades of waste and abuse in that agency.”
In a video posted to X, Jackson said, “At the end of the day, public dollars should be used for public purposes… not to enrich special interests at a bureaucrat’s whim.”
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 20, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
In a dramatic reversal of policy from the days of the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), under Secretary Linda McMahon and President Donald Trump, rescinded a $37 million fine against Grand Canyon University with prejudice Friday. The decision scraps the largest fine ever levied against a university by the USDOE.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, Grand Canyon University launched an appeal challenging the enormous fine and allegations of advertising false degree costs. The university was supported by the Goldwater Institute, which launched its own lawsuit in February after the USDOE failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request to gain clarity on the fine against GCU.
In a statement following the decision, GCU President Brian Mueller described the dismissal as welcome, but unsurprising news.
“The facts clearly support our contention that we were wrongly accused of misleading our Doctoral students and we appreciate the recognition that those accusations were without merit,” he said. “GCU is a leader in innovation, transparency and best practices in higher education and we look forward to working cooperatively with the Department in the future – just as we have with all regulatory agencies.”
The USDOE dismissed the case in its entirety with neither findings, fines, liabilities, nor penalties of any variety. According to GCU, the USDOE, “confirmed it has not established that GCU violated any Title IV requirements, including the claim that GCU ‘substantially misrepresented’ the cost of its doctoral programs that was alleged by ED officials under the Biden Administration. The Dismissal stated unequivocally that ‘there are no findings against GCU, or any of its employees, officers, agents, or contractors, and no fine is imposed.’”
In a statement the University said, “The proposed fine action was, by far, the largest the Department of Education had ever levied against a university. GCU filed an appeal to ED’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, maintaining that the unsubstantiated accusations were gross mischaracterizations based on isolated, out-of-context statements from certain enrollment documents and that, in fact, GCU students receive robust information about the time, cost and credits needed to complete a doctoral degree throughout their enrollment and onboarding process. Moreover, GCU maintains that its disclosures surrounding continuation courses, which are common in higher education doctoral programs, provide more information than is legally required or that other universities typically provide. As such, GCU has consistently insisted that it would contest any fine amount – even $1, let alone $37.7 million.”
In a post to X, Arizona Congressman Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ08) praised the dismissal writing, “The record-breaking fine imposed on Grand Canyon University (@gcu) was just one of many attacks by the Biden Administration on Christian organizations. Congressman Hamadeh applauds the Trump Administration’s decision to rescind the fine with prejudice.”
Congressman Andy Biggs made a similar post saying, “I’ve urged investigation into the outrageous fine since the moment it was handed down by the radical Biden-Harris regime. Thank you @POTUS and @EDSecMcMahon for working to ensure that the weaponization of government against @GCU isn’t allowed to stand!”
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.
