This Should Help You Decide on Corporation Commission Candidates - or change your mind!

You should watch this video from the Clean Elections debate between ACC candidates.  It's an eye opener.  It's no accident that Tom Forese was absent from the debate.  We saw Eric Sloan a bit differently.  Justin Olson seemed to stand out from the crowd but Sloan did a credible job.  What became clear is that Rodney Glassman lied his way through the debate and kudos to both Jim O'Connor and Eric Sloan for pointing that out by using facts that belied Glassman's comments.

Even if you are sure who you will vote for in this important race, watch the video.  You might have a change of heart!


6-28-18 Arizona Corporation Commission Republican Debate

Special | 28m

Hear from Republicans running for the Arizona Corporation Commission, the body that regulates utility rates and has many other vital functions. Attorney Rodney Glassman, former state lawmaker Justin Olson, Jim O’Connor, who worked in the securities industry, and small business owner Eric Sloan will debate the issues.

Aired: 06/28/18

Clean Elections Debate

Views: 568

Replies to This Discussion

Olson is running with Forese and therefore no vote and I'm going to Vote for just ONE to be certain to get at least one person I can trust on the Commission and that person is Jim O'Connor, I hope you'll all join me, and by the way doing the same in LD 22 House race only John Heep, then CD 8 Dowling, Education Branch, SOS Gaynor, Treas. Sabbagh. For the last time hopefully will never vote 4 anyone who Voted 4 NPV in the House or was ready to in the Senate as well. 

God Bless You All; Clair VAN Steenwyk 

Sorry, Clair.  Olson is not running with Forese.  He pulled out of that partnership shortly after Forese pivoted from treasurer to ACC again.  Notice how many signs you see with only Olson. I heard Forese put up the slate signs anyway.  Forese is dishonest.  But Olson is not.  You are going to vote only for O'Connor who helped people steal money from his organization?  Sorry,  not conservative or honest to do that.  And NO NO NO on Gaynor. You don't even know who that guy is.  It's a known quantity for me.  Reagan.  Ditto wrong on treasurer.  You also don't know who Sabbagh is, either.  How do you know who was "ready to vote" when no vote was taken.  I think AFA erred in supporting this dumb type of thinking.

Has a complaint been filed on the theft of money? Are there charges pending or a trial scheduled for theft?

Then someone needs to take down all the signs with both of them on it, and Olson said he did it so he could afford signs etc. and done because Forese got back in the race for the Commission so they could be a slate for that office. I've spent time with them asking and getting answers to questions and also know the records of the others, as Yee supported the NPV in the Senate, however several people including O'Connor spoke with Biggs and helped to keep it from being brought up for a vote or it would have passed, so I'll stick with my information as it's served me will in the past and believe it still does.

Isn't that the height of hypocrisy?  You complain about dishonest elected officials and then support a dishonest candidate?  Of course, we know that Biggs was never going to support NPV, he publicly disagreed with that from the beginning. No one had any sway over that.  If O'Connor is so powerful, why didn't he keep it from passing in the House?  Then it would never have gotten to the Senate.  Just sayin'

The House vote was overwhelming and the leadership in the House is in CQ's pocket and now running for AZ Senate, Biggs needed support and got it thru emails, calls etc. to justify him not bringing it up for a Vote as had 20 votes there as well, sorry you don't care for O'Connor but I also look at the Votes for SB 1469 stripping Supt. of PI authority and also Olson was opposed  to PROP 123 until the Gov. called him then he flipped and later appointed to Corp. Comm., just far to many coincidences here and Yee also supported SB 1469 and PROP 123 which by the way wasn't a raise for teachers but a way to settle an ongoing court case against the state for not paying back Schools and has been declared illegal by the courts after taking funds from the Trust and not interest but real dollars, thus depleting the Fund. Here's the link to the vote in the House on NPV with additional info on supporters in the Senate.

Clair, I've been engaged in politics for 40 years and I know my way around even though I'm not so active anymore.  I have heard all the excuses for hypocritical behavior.  I know it when I see it.  I also know that Biggs never had any intent to allow that vote to go to the Senate if he had the votes to defeat.  He didn't have the votes to defeat so he did what any conservative would do in his shoes.  He buried it on his desk or bottom drawer.  You are looking for the unflawed candidate but you are a flawed candidate like all of them. If we expect perfection in any candidate anywhere, we aren't going to vote at all.  I look for things as simple as honesty.  How hard is it to take honest action when asked to do it?  That is a BIGLY flaw where I come from

Pat J, a very good post. We, I think, must be pragmatic that candidates have warts that are distasteful to behold. We can wish they were perfect but that wishful thinking neither applies to politicians and oneself.

The best we, I think, is to look at the big picture and then hold the candidate if elected their feet to the coals as they serve the office and the voter who helped elect them.

Getting elected most often a major hurdle but that is not the end for their supporter and that is also a responsibility we as the voter must share, take seriously.

How about a reply to my question? Is this just an allegation or have charges been filed or a complaint lodged against those you said did this? If there is a theft in fact we should know it.

John; During campaign seasons many claims are made with no real facts to them and since I know there have been no charges and have spoken to Jim about this once again anyone can say anything especially when they have a dislike for a candidate. I 've watched this happen over the yrs. and in fact have experienced it, but also realize when facts can't be changed then use the Sal Alinsky tactic it seems to work for the Dems, unfortunate when done by Republicans and of course also not directly answering questions is also another tactic called diversion, hope this helps. God Bless You; Van 

John, we have researched your question.  We have two emails where O'Connor was asked to intervene in the attempt to remove the organization's treasurer for reversing a transaction that surrounded a  misappropriation of funds, illegal in all 50 states.  That is just a fancy name for "steal."  We also have now heard a recorded conversation that included the agreement by O'Connor to be an officer of the rogue group who carried out the misappropriation.  The parent organization was responsible for any formal charges.  Because the treasurer acted quickly to protect the funds by returning them to the rightful owner, it was apparently decided not to press charges.  We also understand there may still be charges against those engaged in the situation.  BTW, the bulk of the board of directors overruled the rogue actors with whom O'Connor aligned and the treasurer was never removed.  O'Connor put these people in place, had influence with them, nominated the felon to be treasurer of the parent organization whose funds were involved, knowing, as just about everyone who has been around the political scene for any length of time knew, this person is a felon and should never have been trusted with other people's money.  The parent organization is based in Tennessee and relied on the recommendation.  O'Connor denies that but we have also seen the email where he makes that recommended nomination.  There is apparently documented proof of this but we don't have access to those documents except copies of the felon's criminal record.  Those are public records available to any who look.  These are the facts as we understand them to be.  Members claim O'Connor alone could have put a stop to these activities.  Whether true or not, he put these people in place knowing the lack of qualifications.  Maybe he could have stopped the madness but he refused to even make an attempt or even respond to the two requests.  He continued for two months thereafter to work with or interact with the rogues if the recorded conversations are to be believed.  He is mentioned by name.  That only ended because the parent organization ruled against them and they had no alternative but to end their effort to keep the local organization's funds.  Hopefully, this settles the matter.

I'd like to add my 2cents to this answer and debunk Clair's answer.  First, Clair has an agenda to protect J O'Connor since he has been working with O'Connor from before he filed.  I heard Clair is the person who talked JO into running.  fair enough

I have friends in the organization in question and I was told about all of this as it was happening.  What is reported by AFA is about as accurate as what I was told.  I don't know about any charges or not but the rest of it supports my info and I reconfirmed with my friend before coming here to post my response.  O'Connor failed that organization and left it for others to pick up the pieces.



My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson



New Books added for you.

The best in books to make every conservative start thinking in new ways about America and the world being controlled by the Obama Administrations AND Republicans and Democrats.  Some surprises are in store for those who look!




Suppose the earth and its inhabitants exist in order to identify just what causes mankind continually to suffer so many troublesome problems and afflictions.








© 2019   Created by Arizona Freedom Alliance.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service