Draft Outlaw Dirty Money petition

As we wrote recently, before we launch the huge task of gathering thousands of signatures, we want to be as sure as possible that we got the Outlaw Dirty Money proposition right. The dirty money forces will attack every misplaced comma. Therefore, we want the maximum possible number of critical eyes to view the Outlaw Dirty Money text before it is filed. Once we file with the Secretary of State, the text cannot be changed.

You will see right away that this Initiative Measure is a petition to amend the Arizona Constitution. It will require a minimum of 225,963 valid signatures of Arizona voters! Outlawing Dirty Money is so important, and the majority in the Legislature and most state officials are so hopelessly committed to protecting Dirty Money, that we decided the extra effort was needed. Let’s put this into our Constitution, where they cannot fiddle with it!

The basic idea is very simple: we have the right to know where all the money in politics came from. Period. This Arizona Constitutional Amendment requires that the person who spends over $10,000 trying to influence an Arizona election must disclose the original source of the money. Not just who wrote the last check in a long series of transfers designed to hide the real contributor, but who wrote the first check from their own funds. We have the right to know!

Please read the draft petition text on our Voice of the People website with a critical eye, considering all the implications. Please let us know your comments or corrections by returning this email before next Monday, November 20th. From finding typos (hope there are none!) to finding possible unintended consequences or unnecessary duplicate disclosures, we need your input. Either approve or improve it.

Many thanks,

Terry
Terry Goddard

Attachment: Outlaw Dirty Money Review Version

Paid for by Outlaw Dirty Money

Reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2017-11-15 20:11:24 -0700
    I’m not understanding if the amount is 5k or 10k. It should be as low as possible. When candidates are at the eleventh hour of their campaign and need that money, they are going to take it and be beholden to the donating group. I wish money wasn’t in politics at all. Candidates should be beholden to the people.
  • followed this page 2017-11-15 15:51:46 -0700
  • followed this page 2017-11-13 13:56:06 -0700
  • followed this page 2017-11-13 08:41:53 -0700
  • commented 2017-11-11 22:08:29 -0700
    I wonder if an organization like the NRA spent 1,000,000 but claim each of 50,000 of their members contributed $20.00 would they get away with not disclosing? I’m not a lawyer and this was not clear when I read it but may be to someone more fluent in reading law.
  • commented 2017-11-11 15:50:13 -0700
    I appreciate that any effort to track funding sources in smaller dollar amounts might be a systematic nightmare, but I also know that out here in rural Arizona our Legislative District races are regularly bombarded with variety of Dirty Money contributions in amounts as low as around the $2,000 range. Out in rural, Republican legislative candidates score quite a few dollars through small amounts of Independent Expenditure , which can really make a difference when you consider that Democrats usually have no Independent Expenditure at all being spent on their behalf.
  • commented 2017-11-11 09:22:45 -0700
    It’s unclear whether the limit is $5,100 or $10,000. What happens if the Citizens Clean Elections Commission is de-commissioned? Shouldn’t there be something in the the amendment proposing court jurisdiction if the CCEC is no longer functioning?
  • commented 2017-11-11 07:59:19 -0700
    how do I sign the petition?
  • followed this page 2017-11-11 06:39:16 -0700
  • followed this page 2017-11-10 16:28:18 -0700
  • followed this page 2017-11-10 08:59:26 -0700
  • followed this page 2017-11-09 16:39:09 -0700
  • followed this page 2017-11-09 14:39:37 -0700