Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

image1a

This photo was sent to me within the hour by one of my blog readers. Take a good look. This afternoon these two gentlemen were seen putting up campaign signs and there are more in the bed of the truck. Do you see the logo on the truck? It is a Hope for Hunger truck. Hope for Hunger is a 501c3 non-profit corporation. It was started by and is run by Randy Rodriquez, a Glendale fire fighter. Make no mistake. It does good work in the community. It distributes food to thousands of people annually. It fills an extraordinary need.

So, what’s the problem? “Nonprofit corporations with a 501(c)(3) tax exemption cannot participate in or contribute money to political campaigns. If they do, the IRS can revoke their nonprofit status, and can assess a special excise tax against the organization and its managers.” (http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/non-profit-corporation/) In addition they cannot endorse candidates.

In other words, organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office. The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Let’s for a minute assume the two gentlemen putting up a fire endorsement sign for Barrel district candidate Bart Turner are in no way connected to the 501c3 nonprofit, Hope for Hunger. There still remains the issue of the use of a nonprofit’s equipment, in this case a truck, for a political campaign.  It, instead of money, is an in-kind contribution. You can barely see but there are more campaign signs in the bed of the truck.

For years the Glendale fire union has been a major influence in political elections in Glendale. This time, someone may have crossed the line by using a nonprofit’s equipment for political purposes. That’s what’s wrong with this picture.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Glendale General Election is in less than a month and early ballots have been mailed out and voters are beginning to make choices. For the voters of the Barrel district in Glendale’s General Election you do have a choice between two distinct styles and philosophies. Randy Miller, a self employed IT consultant is running against Bart Turner, a self employed insurance agent.

The mantle of fiscal conservatism goes to Randy Miller.  He has taken the time to research the fiscal issues and to do his “homework.” Each has staked out positions on some of the major issues facing Glendale.  Here are the links to their websites: http://randyforcouncil.com/ and http://bartknowsglendale.com/index.html  . Turner is opposed to the current management agreement for the hockey arena. He supports the recent council passage of the extension of the temporary sales tax increase.  Miller has concerns about the management agreement for the arena and does not support the temporary sales tax increase. He believes there are other strategies, such as reining in the city’s operations and maintenance costs, to help solve Glendale’s financial crunch. Each has taken a position on the proposed casino with Miller opposed on the basis of reservation status and the future losses of critical sales tax revenue and Turner supports the casino because he believes it’s time to stop wasting money on frivolous lawsuits.

Both candidates have shown their commitment to Glendale and its well being through their volunteerism. Miller’s has been in support of Public Safety and Turner’s has focused on the arts, historical Glendale and social welfare.

Let’s look at their campaign reports. The last report made by their political committees is the Post Primary Report which covers activity through September 15, 2014. Miller filed a complete report. Turner continues to turn in only what he considers to be relevant pages of the report. Randy Miller has raised $8,621 as of Sept. 15th. Bart Turner has raised $10,408.94 as of Sept. 15th.They are within the ballpark of one another.

Miller’s base of support is the small business, self-employed community.  He held a local fund raiser and received support from Glendale residents. He has loaned himself $6,821 to date.

Turner’s base of support is from former college classmates; members of non-profits with whom he has worked over the years and a meet & greet with locals. His classmates contributed about $1600 to his campaign. The Young Voters Political Action Committee contributed $100. He made an In-Kind contribution, rather than a loan to his campaign of $3,087.61.  

Their campaign expenditures are also similar to one another. Miller spent $$8,319.49 to date and Turner spent $9,122.77 to date. Since I do not live in the Barrel district I do not have any information related to their political mailings.

The choice in this race is clear-cut for the Barrel voter.  Although Glendale races are non-partisan and no political party affiliations are declared it is pretty evident that Miller is a Republican (or perhaps an Independent) and Turner is a Democrat. Do you want a council representative who will be sympathetic to the interests of the small business and the self employed communities? Then vote for Miller. Or a council representative whose support comes from former classmates and members of the non-profit community? Then vote for Turner. Miller has consistently demonstrated an eagerness to learn and a passion for the issues confronting Glendale.

Based upon readily available information to the Barrel voter the choice for this race is:

 checkmark__bottomheavy_140

 Randy Miller

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Glendale General Election is in less than a month and early ballots have been mailed out and voters are beginning to make choices. For the voters of the Cholla district in Glendale’s General Election, sorry but there are no good, clear-cut choices. Gary Deardorff, a self employed financial consultant is running against Lauren Tolmachoff, a self employed realtor.

Both claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism. Deardorff wins on that score. He has years of expertise in finances. Each has taken a position on the proposed casino with Deardorff opposed on the basis of reservation status and Tolmachoff supporting because of the jobs she believes it will create. Neither has a good grasp, due to lack of incumbent knowledge, on the issues facing Glendale. Both candidates’ websites are disappointing. Here are the links to each:http://www.electlaurentolmachoff.com/ and http://www.deardorff4cholla.com/ .

Gary Deardorff’s “Cholla Chats” are lightweight and generally offer feel-good news about events in the Cholla district. Lauren Tolmachoff’s “Blogs” are stale and have not been updated since August.  Neither website speaks to the issues of the Glendale City Council’s penchant for spending money it doesn’t have, Glendale’s debt burden, the Arizona Coyotes situation or the Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility. It’s obvious as to why they are reluctant to do so. Taking a clear, definitive position on any of these issues will alienate some voters. If you, the voter, want to know these candidates’ positions on the issues you won’t find it on their warm and fuzzy websites.

Let’s look at their campaign reports. The last report made by their political committees is the Post Primary Report which covers activity through September 15, 2014. Both candidates filed complete reports. Lauren Tolmachoff has raised $10,675 as of Sept. 15th.                  Gary Deardorff has raised $23,822.00 as of Sept. 15th.

Tolmachoff’s base of support is the farming community and real estate related community. Four of the Hickman clan and one Tolmachoff (all related to farming) contributed. Eight of her contributions came from real estate and related interests.  Two contributions of note are a $1,000 contribution from Louis Olsen, Director of the World Wildlife Zoo; and a $2,000 contribution from the Realtors of Arizona Political Action Committee. Tolmachoff has loaned herself $3,200 to date.

Deardorff’s base of support is from former Mayor Elaine Scruggs’ circle of contacts and friends or loans he made to himself. Scruggs along with others hosted a fundraiser for him. It grossed $2,837 but Deardorff met expenses for it for almost $800. Scruggs donated $50 but also made an in-kind contribution of $123.14. We don’t know what the in-kind was for as Deardorff did not answer that portion of the form. He also did not explain what Robert Campbell’s $200 in-kind donation was for. In fact, his reporting for nearly every donation he received from individuals is incomplete as occupations and employers are not listed. His major source of funding is loans made to himself totaling $19,067.00 to date.

Deardorff’s campaign expenses are twice that of Tolmachoff’s. Deardorff spent $18,340 to date and Tolmachoff spent $9,415.56 to date. Both spent funds on Deardorff’s legal challenge regarding petition signatures. The difference in spending may relate to the number of political mailings by each. Since I do not live in the Cholla district I do not have any information related to their political mailings. I hope they were more informative than their websites.

As I indicated earlier, the choice in this race is not clear-cut for the Cholla voter. Do you want a council representative who will be sympathetic to the interests of the farming and real estate communities? Or a candidate primarily self-funded and garnering the support of former Mayor Scruggs and her friends?

Based upon readily available information to the Cholla voter the choice for this race is:

                   checkmark__bottomheavy_140 

Lauren Tolmachoff

Next up: Barrel district candidates.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

%d bloggers like this: