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 in-flight catalog SkyMall.
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.
Moderation posted at 1:06 pm on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Rational Human is right in that it is a law that needs to be in place per the constitution.
Never thought I would say "Rational Human is right"... really hurts!!!!
Now that being said should Russell Pearce get any money?
NOOOOOOOO! They were all contributions and if he wants to run again he should get new contributions!! I would think that heos a greater hypocrite than I already do if he took tax payer money.
Rational Human posted at 7:25 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Here's a fact for you to chew on wdgnas, Mike mcclellan doesn't make our laws and has no influence on those who do. This is what our legislature is doing.
Arizona legislators have formally launched a push for legislation that would allow the Legislature to consider reimbursing former state Sen. Russell Pearce for his campaign expenses in the November recall election that ousted him from office.
A conference committee late Wednesday approved a bill allowing repayment of what the Arizona Constitution calls "reasonable" expenses of an official who is the subject of a recall.
The bill doesn't provide an actual appropriation to reimburse all or part of Pearce's $262,000 of campaign spending, and supporters say future legislators will decide the amount if there's an application from Pearce.
They also said they're just putting into law something required by the constitution.
Critics dismissed that, saying the lawmakers' only motivation is to help Pearce.
The bill now awaits House and Senate votes.
wdgnas posted at 6:30 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
mike mcclellan: stop confusing rational human with the facts. you are going to make his brain hurt...
downtownresident posted at 6:15 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
How much money will Olivia Cortez get?
Pearce is a criminal who should be in jail, not sucking at the trough of public money.
Rational Human, if you could read, you would have seen that all of russ's money came from out of state and not Arizona.
Blind and deaf people such as yourself are a detriment to a free society.
Rational Human posted at 9:41 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Dale, you're not a RINO. I have much more respect for RINOS than I do for you. You are a communist sympathizer with a deep seated need to destroy America just like your messiah Obummer. While there is some debate over the reimbursement issue, clearly Pearce has much support here in Arizona and throughout the nation for the ground breaking work he and others have done in stopping this illegal invasion from the south and our federal governments attempt to take power never intended for them. A dictatorship in the making.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:55 am on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Mike,
Your comments are square on! We Republican Conservatives in Principle [RCIPs]so anger the Neoconservative and Tea Party fanatics that they call us names like RINO. None of them have a clue as to what conservative principles really are. My first piece in this paper explained what classical conservatism was. The Neocons rejected that piece, virtually trashing Bill Buckley and his crowd.
I often reflect back on Bill Buckley's "Firing Line." Liberals were happy to undergo Buckley's scrutiny. It was the Neoconservatives who feared Buckley's criticism. His stares were pearcing to their heart.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:46 am on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Rational,
Look up the word 'reimburse' and you might come to understand why the law does not require giving Pearce money for the defense of his office. Before Pearce can qualify for reimbursement, first he must have made some disbursements into that campaign. Clearly Pearce got campaign gifts called contributions, but made only $300 worth of disbursements himself. Your argument either ignors this wording or missaplies the English language. Chance are the money flowed into bank accounts not bearing hisPearce's name. But even so, where he deposited none of his own "hard earned" money into those accounts, he is due no reimbursement!
Now if Mike is correct, then the wording is "reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer." Did Pearce contract with others to provide services to his campaign for which Pearce made disbursements? Or did others do this contracting? And were those disbursements for reasonable campaign expenses? The disbursements may or may not have been reasonable. Funding the campaign of another in a effort to take away votes from the challenger-in-chief, a tactic I predicted Pearce would use, does not appear to be reasonable. But giving money to anyone but Pearce seems to go against the intent of the law. So let's give Pearce his $300 and bid him adieu.
My oh my how severely you Neocons distort things to achieve your narrow minded sense of reality.
soricobob posted at 4:51 am on Wed, May 2, 2012.
I, for one, will be happy to chip in; it's worth it!
Rational Human posted at 9:39 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
Open border, illegal alien supporters got absolutely nothing by removing Pearce but the taxpayers got stung good. How smart was that? It's like they thought if we can just get Russell out maybe amnesty will be realized. You people just do not get it at all. The tide is turning on your little brown skin criminals. As soon as the Supreme Court gets finished with SB1070 there is going to be a rush to create laws against this class of criminal invader, and Pearce will be hailed as a hero. He will be able to win easily and be back in the Senate after a well earned vacation at your expense. Of course, the progressive socialist party, AKA democrats, will have the Hispanic vote tied up for standing up for all those potential democrat votes.
"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.“
What does it matter how much of that money was Pearce's own personal money or donated money? It was campaign money and he deserves every bit of the 200 grand his campaign spend defending his office. lol, imagine that. It will have cost the taxpayers 300 grand to get that clown, Lewis elected. Not to mention all the liberals money that donated to republican Lewis campaign. That part I love the best.
Mike McClellan posted at 3:35 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
Hilarious. The Tea Party Arizona Republicans reveal their hypocrisy once again.
These are the guys and gals who insist on "strict construction" of the constitution.
Except, of course, when it suits their purposes. Like here.
Montenegro -- one of the Tea Partiest of Tea Partiers -- is playing fast and loose with our constitution.
The specific part of Article 8 in the Arizona Constitution says this about recalls:
"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.“
Key words? "campaign expenses of such officer."
What were Russell Pearce's expenses? Less than $300, the amount he contributed to his own campaign. The remaining $260,000 was donated.
Thus, the state should reimburse Pearce his $260. Maybe he can use that money to find another stealth candidate to run in the primary. I wonder if Olivia Cortes is available . . .