|
Source
E.J. Montini is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Will $261,000 gift to Pearce be in the budget? Apparently, Republican loyalists/lackeys for the deposed former Senate President and de facto governor Russell Pearce are STILL lobbying for the governor and Republican budget makers to include a $261,000 “reimbursement” to Pearce as part of the budget bill. Pearce’s loyal Tea Party Republican pals are pushing for the measure. Among them House Speaker Pro Tem Steve Montenegro. The money is to cover the amount that Pearce spent on his recall election, even though none of it was Pearce’s own funds. Essentially, his political allies in the legislature want to hand Pearce a big fat check to use in his campaign to get back into the legislature. Democratic Sen. Steve Gallardo plans to hold a press conference on Monday to speak against the idea. Gallardo can do this, essentially, because the Democratic minority in the legislature has plenty of free time. Its members have had essentially nothing to do with producing the budget. That is being worked out by Gov. Jan Brewer and Republican leaders. The minority party leaders claim that told they were told their members would get copies of the supposed $8.5 billion-plus budget about “ten minutes” to look it over before it is voted on. Might be tough to find the fine print outlining Peace’s little gift in that time. Or to find anything else, for that matter. What can the rest of us do? Well, there's always the phone. The governor’s office number is 602-542-4331. The House is 602-926-4221. The Senate is 602-926-3559. Your opinion should mean something, right?
Do we owe Russell Pearce $260k? The hot topic at the Capitol today: Will they or won’t they? Hand over a cool $260,000 to Russell Pearce, that is. Last week, a handful of legislators, led by Rep. Steve Montenegro, were pushing to cut Pearce a check to “reimburse” him for his recall campaign expenses. Montenegro, Sen. Steve Smith and others believe the state constitution requires us to pay for Pearce’s recall costs. Never mind that those costs were covered by campaign donors, many of them from out of state. Pearce told the Capitol Times last week he would seriously consider taking the money but would rather see those who believes are responsible for his recall pony up. That would be Randy Parraz, Jerry Lewis and Rich Crandall – not the voters who ushered the former Senate president to the door. The idea of a Pearce payoff has been percolating since his defeat last year, fueled by Aricle 8, Part 1, Section 6 of the state constitution. Here’s what it says: Section 6. The general election laws shall apply to recall elections in so far as applicable. Laws necessary to facilitate the operation of the provisions of this article shall be enacted, including provision for payment by the public treasury of the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer. It seems only fair that we should repay Pearce every dime that he personally put into the campaign. And that would come to.... ....zero. According to campaign finance reports, Pearce spent $260,810 on his recall campaign. But he raised $261,904. So will our leaders bestow a windfall on a guy who was thrown out of office by his own constituents? Should be an interesting week around here.
Laurie Roberts' Columns & Blog Operation Pearce Payback: is it DOA or a sine die surprise? This week brings two pieces of good news. No. 1. The end of the legislative session is, at long last, upon us. No. 2. It looks like our leaders will go home without handing $260,000 to recalled Sen. Russell Pearce. To the first point, I believe I speak for all of the Arizona when I say, “Go already”. To the second … wait ... huh? Pearce has apparently joined the ranks of Arizona’s most vulnerable residents, a politican cast adrift and left to eke out a new existence in a cold, cruel redistricted world where so many have turned their backs. I doubt even the Fiesta Bowl returns this guy’s calls. So naturally, some of his former colleagues -- champions, as they are, of the downtrodden – have begun a campaign to extend a hand. Your hand, that is Simply put, some of our leaders believe that we owe Pearce upwards of $260,000 and they’ve been quietly pushing to cut him a check. This, to cover his non-existent recall expenses. “It’s our constitutional duty,” House Speaker Pro Tem Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, told the Arizona Capitol Times last week. The idea of “reimbursing” Pearce has been percolating since his defeat last year, fueled by Article 8, Part 1, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution. That section calls for enactment of laws dealing with removal from office, “including provision for payment by the public treasury of the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer.” Pearce spent $260,810 in the recall election. But he collected $261,904 in contributions, leaving him $1,094 in the black. Put another way, an entrenched incumbent outspent his opponent by more than 3-1 and his constituents ousted him anyway. Now some legislators are quietly maneuvering to offer him a consolation prize: $260,000. If that’s the way it works, where do I sign up to be recalled? Montenegro, who was circulating a petition last week calling for the Pearce payback, didn’t return a call to explain why he believes we should “reimburse” Pearce for costs he never incurred. Or who is the driving force behind the push for payback. In a discussion with readers on my Facebook page, Rep. Brenda Barton, R-Safford, wrote that the state is obligated to pay Pearce. The blame, she says, goes to Randy Parraz and the “union and community organizers” who instigated the recall. “Were we to ignore this provision of the Constitution, Mr Pearce would have a clear case for legal action,” she wrote. Perhaps he could get some pointers from Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, who’s already suing us. It’s interesting to note that all of the legislators thus far publicly associated with the payback plan – Montenegro, Barton and Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa -- are affiliated with GOP strategist Constantin Querard. In fact, nearly half of the Republicans in the Legislature have employed Querard’s services at one time or another. Many believe Querard was the braintrust (so to speak) behind the legendary and oh-so-clueless campaign of Olivia Cortes, who was supposed to the split the vote so Pearce could win. Instead, the Cortes caper likely eliminated any chance Pearce had of winning. Querard is reportedly running Pearce's campaign to get back into the Senate. An infusion of $260,000, courtesy of taxpayers, would boost Pearce's bid against Republican businessman Bob Worsley, who is expected to win the endorsement of most of Mesa's political and civic leaders. Neither Querard nor Pearce returned my calls to talk about Operation Payback or how many Republicans were on board. Not surprisingly, Democrats are not amused. “How can you consciously give $261,000 when you’re not fully funding health care, when you’re not fully funding education,” Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said. “Our state agencies have taken huge hits. How can you consciously give this much amount of money to someone who was recalled?” The answer: you can’t. You can’t, can you? "It would blow up the entire budget process and no one's willing to do that," said Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, one of the more moderate Republicans who opposes handing Pearce a windfall. Maybe not but the Legislature is planning to ram through a bill allowing repayment of officials’ “reasonable” recall expenses after the budget passes, just before adjournment. House GOP spokesman Rey Torres has assured me that any law passed would not be retroactive, that Pearce hasn’t asked for and won’t be getting any money. “It’s a non issue,” he said. It certainly should be. Handing over what amounts to a welfare check to an ex-colleague is crazy. Which is why I suppose it sounds so possible.
Arizona taxpayers may end up paying the bill for Pearce recall Posted: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:39 pm By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services | 0 comments Taxpayers from throughout the state could end up underwriting a bid by ousted state Sen. Russell Pearce to get his seat back this year. Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, said the Arizona Constitution requires the Legislature to reimburse the “reasonable special election campaign expenses” of any recalled public official. He said while there is not any money in the proposed budget at this point to deal with it, he does not want to set a bad precedent by ignoring what he sees as a mandate. As it turns out, though, Pearce reported spending no money of his own on his unsuccessful race. Instead, the $260,000 came from not just individual donors but a host of political action committees representing special interests at the Capitol. But Pearce, who was Senate president, said if he takes the money — something he has not yet decided — he does not intend to seek out those who gave him the cash in the first place to reimburse them. “It would go to the campaign,” he said, referring to his ongoing campaign committee. “They gave me money for a campaign,” Pearce said of his donors in last year’s recall. And he figures if the money is not needed for that race, his donors want him to have it for the next one. That next one could prove expensive. Because of redistricting, Pearce is no longer in the same district as fellow Republican Jerry Lewis, who ousted him in the recall. Instead he is set to face off in the Republican primary against entrepreneur Bob Worsley who made his fortune by founding and then selling SkyMall, the operation that puts magazines onto airplanes to sell trapped fliers things they didn’t know they wanted or needed. Montenegro said it’s irrelevant where Pearce intends to spend the money if he’s reimbursed. “There are things that the Constitution prescribes that you need to do,” he said, calling the reimbursement language “very clear.” Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, acknowledged the constitutional language. He said, though, it is not as simple as Montenegro makes it out. “If he had mortgaged his home, that’s a whole ‘nother discussion,” he said. But Gallardo said Pearce’s recall expenses came from others. Gallardo said that means anything lawmakers give Pearce would wind up helping him win a totally different race. Anyway, Gallardo pointed out, voters in Pearce’s Mesa district did remove him from office. He said having taxpayers foot the bill “is like rewarding bad behavior.” What also is clear is that the funding is not automatic: The Secretary of State’s Office, which administers elections, says while there is that constitutional mandate, no money will be disbursed without specific legislative direction. It was not always that way. Until 1973, state law spelled out that statewide elected officials would get a flat $500 to cover their recall expenses; lawmakers were entitled to $200. That law, never used, was repealed, leaving only the constitutional requirement for lawmakers to provide for “reasonable” expenses. Nor is there any historical precedent: While a recall petition was filed against Evan Mecham after he became governor in 1987, there never was an election because the Legislature itself impeached him and removed him from office first. Montenegro said he is not the architect of any plan to reimburse Pearce but simply the conduit. “Members have come to me,” he said. “I want to make sure that we’re following the Constitution.” Pearce said he has not been in contact with his former colleagues and remains divided about whether to accept the cash if it is offered. He said he does not relish the idea of forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab. But things would be different, Pearce said, if the financial obligation fell elsewhere. “Who ought to pay — and I’m very adamant about this — are Jerry Lewis, Randy Parraz and Rich Crandall who brought this election on,” he said. While Lewis was the candidate, Parraz was a recall organizer; Crandall is a state senator from an adjacent Mesa district who often found himself on the opposite side of issues with Pearce. “They knew the cost to the taxpayers,” Pearce said. “They’re the ones who should have to pay for this.” Gallardo said that regardless of what happens now, he hopes to give voters a chance to revisit that constitutional language and decide if they really want that mandate. |