Sam Wercinski 
Member since Nov 3, 2011


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Clean Elections Commission Power Grab Update

Regarding bslap's comment on AZ politicians becoming more conservative since 1998, I respectfully disagree. Ev Mecham and Fife Symington were very socially conservative and like today's "fiscal conservatives," handed over taxpayer dollars to their donors (legal bribery) as well as being crooks that faced criminal charges and removal from office. In the first gubernatorial race after voters passed Clean Elections, 2002, a Democrat barely beat a privately funded, extreme-conservative (Tea Partier in Congress today - no Clean Elections there). Clean Elections, when thriving with about 70% participation, brought about a 15-15 split in the senate, progressive policies like all day kindergarten and a bi-partisan Corp. Comm. that passed one of the nation's highest renewable standards at the time. Voter turnout changed course from a long term downward slide to increased turnout as more candidates ran Clean - more candidate-voter engagement. Voter turnout is declining again, paralleling the smaller number of Clean candidates. Big Money wants low turnout. Congress has gone way to the right along with many state governments that have no Clean Elections system. The Tea Party has simply done a better job with their persuasion, pulling votes from the middle and left to support their candidates. Look at Sheriff Joe Arpaio, no Clean Elections at the county level in AZ and yet he continues to win due to his messaging. Opponents of Clean Elections want voters to believe the anti-corruption law is at fault for the kooks. It's simply not true. There were plenty of kooks elected prior to Clean Elections. Why does big money continue to seek repeal of it? They want to prevent any revival of the system that reduces their control of who runs and wins elections. they want to control the purse strings of the public treasury from which they rake in billions, like our private prison and private for profit school industries. Tom Horne, privately funded, didn't like the Clean Elections Act either. He faced removal from office had he won re-election under the voter passed Act which holds cheating politicians accountable to voters, not donors. bslap, thanks for invigorating the conversation with your comment. There are many more reasons to strengthen Clean Elections to move Arizona forward for the People, not corporations. Connect with Arizona Advocacy Network on Facebook, @AZadvocacy or www.AZadvocacy.org.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Sam Wercinski on 06/11/2015 at 11:07 AM

Re: “Clean Elections Commission Power Grab Update

Voters support the actions of the independent, nonpartisan Clean Elections Commission, empowered by the voters through the Act to provide campaign finance oversight. Read the Act. Meanwhile the SoS, backed by corporate donors and secret, dark money, avoids enforcing election laws that don't benefit her or her donors. She spends her time taking polls on marijuana and "do you like to take polls." What a waste. The People of Arizona know that the Citizens Clean Elections Act is our toughest anti-corruption law...passed by the voters of course. It is the crony politicians, like Tom Horne, and big business that want it repealed, not working voters. Arizona and our nation deserve a Democracy for the Many, not the Money. Clean Elections is a great means to help achieve this. Strengthen it!

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Sam Wercinski on 06/10/2015 at 5:33 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation