Then there is Trent Franks “…Far more of the African-American community is being devastated by the policies of today, than were being devastated by the policies of slavery.”

We all know about the Republicans in Congress and healthcare – they will do anything to protect the insurance and pharmaceutical companies no matter how much they harm the public.

Here in Arizona the Republican legislature will do anything to destroy Clean Elections and our Public School System with budget cuts.  They will eliminate the KidsCare Program leaving 50,000 children without health insurance and rollback health care dollars for AHCCCS recipients leaving 311,000 citizens without healthcare coverage.  But they will “encourage” business to come to Arizona by cutting taxes.  Will they ever learn?

Now it is up to you, you can do nothing and let the Republicans destroy our State and country or you can fight.  You can join rallies, write letters to the editor and call your legislators and let them know what you want.  Most important, do more than just vote.  Pick a candidate or candidates and support them financially as well as helping them campaign.

We have Democratic candidates running for the Arizona Legislature in most LD’s and candidates in all the CD’s.  You can replace Trent Franks with John Thrasher, replace John Schadegg with Jon Hulburd and replace Jeff Flake with Rebecca Schneider.  You will also have the chance to replace McCain/Hayworth with a Democrat – Rodney Glassman or Rudy Garcia.

You can come to our DFA-MC meetings (see sidebar for speakers) and learn about the issues we have to fight for or against and meet our candidates.  If YOU CARE … you must do something.

After the debate, join the Maricopa County Democratic Party for a private dinner reception with our special guest, Howard Dean.

An exit poll taken by Research 2000 at the Massachusetts election shows that the election was not a call to go back to conservatism but was a call for Democrats to be bolder in pursuing the populist reforms the public thought it was going to get after the 2008 elections.  Only 31% of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 and voted for Scott Brown or didn’t vote at all felt Obama is delivering enough change as he promised.  Only 21% felt that Democrats in Washington are fighting hard enough to change the Republican policies of the Bush years.

These same people (47 %) think that Democrats in Washington are more on the side of the Lobbyists than the people AND 82% of the people favor a government administered health insurance plan something like Medicare.

Self-identified Independents and Democrats responded nearly identically.

What this means is we, the people want more from the Obama administration NOT less.  Don’t retreat on the election promises – give us healthcare with a public option and put restrictions back on Wall Street and now find a way to preserve our elections from the recent Supreme Court decision that gives Corporations free speech rights.

Join us February 3 at the Old Spaghetti Factory.  Hear our speaker, Rodney Glassman, exploring a candidacy for US Senator, the seat currently held by John McCain and sought by J.D. Hayworth and then let’s talk about what we can and should do to get us out of the mess our country and state is in.

These are just some of the things we will have to counter in this election year.  We will also have to respond to “it is all Janet’s fault” or it’s all the “Democrats’ fault” in Arizona.

Help us.  How do you answer such falsehoods?  Let us know your suggested responses or when you hear something that needs a response please inform us at:  info@dfamc.com.

The Senator race might be covered if everyone will check out the Rodney Glassman site.   Rodney will be our speaker at our February 3rd meeting. Todd Landfried, former Maricopa County Executive Director will talk about becoming a candidate at our January 6th meeting.

Also speaking at this meeting is a candidate, Martin Quezada, running for the House in LD13.

A doctor’s opinion of the healthcare bills will be shared by Dr. Jonathan Weisbuch.

We will also be holding the election of the Executive Committee.  The nominees include:

Nominations will be accepted from the floor.

DFA Meeting
January 6, 2010
Old Spaghetti Factory
1418 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003
Dinner at 6:30pm, Meeting at 7pm
Please join us and support our candidates

===================================

A message to be delivered by Democrats: YES WE CARE…

THE ISSUE: During the November 2008 election, the payday industry tried to pass Proposition 200 in Arizona – an initiative that would have allowed the payday lenders to bleed hard-working Arizonans with 400 percent interest rates forever.  Arizona voters said “No!” to the payday lenders – loud and clear – rejecting Proposition 200 by a 60 percent margin and demanding that the sun set on the payday lenders’ special deal in Arizona.

LET THE SUN SET ON PAYDAY LENDERS. In every district, a majority of voters rejected Prop 200, calling for an end to 400% interest rates and rebuffing the industry’s fake reforms.  By defeating Prop 200, voters halted payday lenders’ attempt to repeal a provision in the Arizona Consumer Loan Act requiring them to cap their interest rates at 36 percent, like other consumer lenders.  The voters have spoken; the sun must set on the payday lenders’ special deal.

PAYDAY LOANS TRAP BORROWERS. Payday loans, which charge 400 percent interest, are structured to trap borrowers in long-term debt, with the average borrower needing to pay back nearly $800 on a $300 loan, after multiple loan renewals. That’s why to date, 15 states and the District of Columbia have ended predatory payday loans at triple-digit interest rates, enforcing interest caps of 36 percent or less.   In 2006, Congress outlawed payday loans above 36 pecent interest to active duty members of the military, a measure supported by both John McCain and Barack Obama.

THEY TRIED TO BUY YOUR VOTE.  THEY LOST. Out-of-state payday lenders spent nearly $15 million trying to buy your vote for Prop 200.  They sought to protect the $149 million a year they take from Arizonans in fees stripped from trapped borrowers. They ran misleading advertisements and propaganda to promote Prop 200 – which would have legalized their predatory interest rates forever.  In an attempt to fool voters, the industry’s ads condemned the practices they themselves promote.   Their deceptive ads ran day and night for weeks.

DON’T TRUST THE PAYDAY LENDERS TO REFORM THEMSELVES.
The TRUTH is, the payday lenders pushed Prop 200 to try to repeal the Arizona law that will force them to cap their interest rates at 36 percent beginning in 2010.

The TRUTH is, we defeated Proposition 200 with over 1.2 million “No!” votes and a statewide coalition of more than 200 organizations and elected officials from both parties.

We DEFEATED Prop 200, so the payday lenders’ special deal must expire in 2010 as scheduled.

We DEFEATED Prop 200, so the payday lenders must either cap their rates at 36 percent, like every other consumer lender, or leave the state beginning July 1, 2010.

The Payday lending industry is currently spending $150,000 a month lobbying Governor Brewer and your legislators to subvert the will of the voters and pass a law protecting their slimy businesses.   Former Attorney General Grant Woods is leading the charge, trying to convince good people that the industry wants real reform.  Please contact the governor and your legislators.

SAY NO AGAIN TO PAYDAY LENDING.   TRIPLE-DIGIT INTEREST RATES MUST END!

(Info from www.nomoreloansharks.com)

Conservative courts may soon invalidate the matching funds provision of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act.  Longtime foes of Clean Elections view this as their opportunity to end public campaign financing in Arizona and return to a time when big-money was the primary factor deciding who would represent our communities in legislative and statewide elective offices.  Senator Jonathon Paton, with backing from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, is determined to kill Clean Elections through a repeal referendum on the 2010 ballot.  Concurrently, the national health care debate has heightened voter frustration with big-money influence on politicians.  Efforts to pass the Fair Elections Now Act—Clean Elections for federal races– have significant traction.  With the stakes so high we must protect Clean Elections in Arizona.

In anticipation of the loss of matching funds, a national team of experts working with AzAN has developed a “hybrid,” small-donor based public financing alternative that would allow us to preserve the intent and value of Clean Elections (CE) in a post matching-funds world.  This solution, summarized on page 3, is particularly attractive because it could greatly simplify the system and neutralize many concerns that have irritated opponents of CE.

Reminders of why we worked to pass Clean Elections:

• Long before the Clean Elections law was passed, years of political corruption scandals, including AzScam, prompted Arizona voters to place strict limits on campaign contributions (Prop 200, 1986).  These limits were adjusted further downward by a key element of the voter-protected Clean Elections Act in 1998.
• All candidates had to appeal to the same big-money special interests to finance their campaigns and these special interests expected a return on their investments
• To diminish the influence of big-money special interests; elected officials using the system would be more connected to and accountable to their voters, not to lobbyists and big-money special interests
• To increase competition and bring varying viewpoints into each race.
• To increase citizen participation in the political process
• To make it possible for citizens who are not connected to big-money to run viable campaigns

Benefits of Clean Elections:

• The people–not fat cats in smoke-filled rooms–can decide who runs and who is elected.
• Ordinary people run:  teachers, social workers, progressive activists and artists have been elected to public office.
• More competition and more points of view as fewer candidates run unopposed. (In 1998 24 senate candidates ran unopposed as compared with eight in 2008.)
• $5 qualifying contributions dramatically increased the economic, ethnic and geographic diversity of contributors (stakeholders) to candidate campaigns.  Prior to Clean Elections, most campaign contributions came from Paradise Valley, the Tucson foothills or out-of-state sources.  Now they come from every corner of the state.
• Even $5 contributions make voters feel more invested in elections and candidates.   Legislators report a significant increase in constituent calls after running Clean.
• Better voter education: The CE publicity pamphlet goes to every voting household introducing voters to all candidates and their views.  This leads to greater voter participation.  CE debates force candidates to go head-to-head on the issues before voters.
• Prior to Clean Elections, voter turnout was in a ten year decline.  Turnout has been rising steadily since enactment of Clean Elections.
• Year after year, 80 percent of voters report that Clean Elections is important to Arizona (CCEC annual survey.)
• High participation: most Corporation Commission candidates run Clean, along with nearly two-thirds of state House candidates and more than half of state Senate candidates.

Criticisms of Clean Elections don’t track with the facts

Clean Elections is not the cause of “extremist” candidates.

Frustrated pols and pundits are fond of pointing to Clean Elections as a primary cause of Arizona’s dysfunctional state government.  They claim the system has enabled the election of far right and far left legislators who are unwilling to compromise on policy matters.  Eliminating Clean Elections would not cure this problem.  Indeed far right candidates have ousted moderate Republicans during the past three elections, but not all of those races involved public financing. The argument negates other systemic and trend-related causes that have had a far greater impact on electing extremist candidates.

• Non-competitive districts and low turnout in primaries

Most of Arizona’s legislative districts are non-competitive.  Voter registration numbers favor one major party resulting in most races being decided in the primaries.  Primary voters tend to be passionate partisans more likely to elect ideologically pure candidates and rejecting moderates.  That said, moderates can win if they turnout their voters.

• Far right turn of the Republican Party at national and state levels

During the past ten years the Republican Party has shifted to the right both nationally and in the states, most of which do not have public campaign financing.  Extremists in Congress make headlines on a daily basis.  Leadership of the Arizona Republican Party has been taken over by far right ideologues.  Just as we see at the national level, moderates in Arizona’s Republican Party have been unable to wrest party leadership away from the far right.  Even privately funded challengers have managed to unseat moderate Republicans.

• Arizona has a long history of electing colorful candidates.

Russell Pearce, Barbara Blewster, Debra Brimhall, Jack Harper, Wes Marsh, Jeff Groscost, Karen Johnson, Jean McGrath and many more were all elected with private funds.  Clean Elections allows candidates to communicate their messages to voters, and sometimes voters make choices the establishment doesn’t like.  In a democracy, especially one with public financing, nothing prohibits moderate candidates from challenging extremists and taking their messages to voters.  Funding alone cannot win elections.  Candidates must also have strong campaigning skills and an ability to connect with voters.

It’s not “taxpayer money.”

Funding for Clean Elections campaigns comes primarily from a surcharge on civil and criminal penalties and fines.  The rest comes from voluntary tax credits and contributions.  When money in the fund exceeds projections for what campaigns will need, the extra dollars are donated to the general fund, thereby helping reduce the general fund’s deficit by $15 million a year or more.

Clean Candidates can run competitive campaigns in 2010.

Regardless of what the courts decide regarding matching funds, qualifying Clean Elections candidates will receive sufficient funds to run competitive campaigns.  In 2007 grants for statewide offices were increased significantly.  Those changes will go into effect for the first time in the 2010 election.

Reporting Requirements have been streamlined.

Amendments to the Citizens Clean Elections Act passed in 2007 significantly reduced reporting requirements for non-participating candidates.

Proposed Alternative to Clean Elections Matching Funds

(“Hybrid” Funding System)

• Eliminates “Triggered” Matching Funds. Non-participating candidates that raise more than their participating opponents’ initial Clean Elections grants, or benefit from independent expenditures, would no longer “trigger” matching funds for their participating opponents.  This would eliminate the issue currently pending in federal court.

• Participating candidates may raise more through small donations. Participating candidates who foresee the need for more funds could raise small donations ($100 or less) from individual in-state donors.  These donations qualify the candidate to receive additional Clean Elections funds matched at a ratio of $5 of public funds for each $1 raised.

• Maintains caps on participating candidates’ funds. The amount of additional public funding a candidate can receive would remain limited to the current system’s matching funds limit (two times the initial allocation).

• Bars lobbyists or their spouses from giving to participating candidates. Donations that qualify for public matching would be limited to $100 or less from Arizona residents and could not come from registered lobbyists or their spouses.  Lobbyists or spouses could not serve on participating candidates’ finance committees.

• Raises the bar for participating candidates. It would require candidates in competitive races to demonstrate continuing public support by showing the ability to raise additional private donations.

• Maintains qualifying process. Participating candidates would continue to collect qualifying contributions to be eligible for public funding and receive their base Clean Elections funding allocations exactly as under the current system.

• Simpler system eliminates some reporting requirements. It would remove the extra campaign finance reporting requirements now borne by nonparticipating candidates.

• Modeled on successful systems; basis for federal proposal. Systems that provide similar matching of public campaign funding based on private donations raised are already being used in several places such as New York City and Tucson municipal elections.  A similar system is the basis of the Fair Elections Act currently being proposed in Congress.

Advantages of Proposed Hybrid System

• Eliminates constitutional argument against “matching funds”.  There would be no “trigger” provisions; participating candidates’ funding would not be dependent on any action by their opponents.

• Eases workload on nonparticipating candidates by eliminating requirement to file extra campaign finance “trigger” reports.

• Requires participating candidates who desire more than the basic Clean Elections funding allocation to demonstrate “community support” through the raising of additional donations.

• Maintains the goal of eliminating “big money” influence in campaigns by restricting campaign donations to $100 per donor and not allowing donations from lobbyists.

• Eases administration of the Clean Elections system and would reduce the number of complaints and grievances.  The Citizens Clean Elections Commission would no longer have to track, identify, or quantify expenditures that would trigger matching funds for participating candidates.  Removes the possibility of errors in judgment calls concerning the intent of candidate or independent expenditure communications and the dollar amount of matching funds to be issued.

• Participating candidates can control both the amount and timing of public funds they receive.  Issuance of additional funding would be immediate upon reporting of small donor fundraising and will not be delayed by investigation or dispute of opponents activities which, in the past, have led to participating candidates not receiving funds in time to impact the election.

• The proposed system is “revenue neutral”.  The funds that participating candidates could receive to match small donations would be limited to the amount they can now receive to match opponents’ fundraising or independent expenditures.

Disadvantages of Proposed Hybrid System

• Allows additional limited private donations into “publicly financed” campaigns.

• Increases reporting requirements for participating candidates to report the additional donations in order to receive the matching funds.

Provided by the Arizona Advocacy Network

Molly Ivins and Katherine Ingram at 2005 DemocracyFest

It is with a heavy collective heart that DFA-MC mourns the loss of our dear friend Katherine “Katy” Ingram.  Katy’s proud life ended October 31, 2009 after a long and well fought battle with cancer.

Her life was filled with progressive causes to which she devoted her special energy for getting things “done right”.  DFA-MC benefited from her able leadership beyond her tenure as Chair of this organization.  She was a beacon of never-say-no to the right idea.  She was a force, not just an advocate, for progressive ideals.  IDEALS– beyond values– she utterly and completely walked the talk. Her knack for bringing people together leaves behind a strong and diverse network of family, friends and associates.

She had a long career as a registered nurse and worked in many aspects of the healthcare industry.  In her memory, DFA-MC dedicates our renewed commitment to achieving healthcare for all.

This spring, the board of DFA-MC created our volunteer of the year award, the highest honor given annually to one outstanding person.  Katy found joy in knowing that this award would forever bear her name as the inspiration for strong progressive activists.  The Katy Award represents her proud legacy.  We strive to live up to her example.

We will miss her strength, her activism, her joy, her laugh and most importantly her love.

___________________________

Katherine Ingram is survived by three children, and three grandchildren.
Condolences may be sent to info@dfamc.com or to

Katymine
c/o DFA-MC
P.O. Box 25412
Tempe, AZ 85283

Firedoglake has a memorial thread to Katymine at:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/12457

Our speaker for the evening will be Jason Williams, one of our candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction.