KJZZ's Friday NewsCap: Epstein files could shake up the Arizona governor race

KJZZ’s Friday NewsCap revisits some of the biggest stories of the week from Arizona and beyond.

To break down the latest campaign finance reports, some new entrants into next year’s elections and more, The Show sat down with former state lawmaker Regina Cobb and attorney Tom Ryan.

Conversation highlights

MARK BRODIE: So guys, let’s start with the second quarter campaign finance numbers, a bunch of races that we could get to. I want to start with the gubernatorial campaign.

Karrin Taylor Robson brought in about $575,000 plus a couple-million-dollar loan. Congressman Andy Biggs about $429,000. Regina, when you look at these numbers, how significant are they, especially considering that the conventional wisdom is that money isn’t really going to be much of an issue in this race for either candidate?

REGINA COBB: I agree with you. When you look at Turning Point funding, Andy Biggs — I mean, that’s not even included in that $429,000 that you were talking about. That’s just in addition to that. I think what’s going to be significant is how they utilize it. You see that Karrin Taylor Robson’s already got $2.2 million, I think, in media ads already set aside. … She hasn’t put out an ad, but she’s got it set aside.

BRODIE: Well, she had a bunch earlier, but then stopped for a little while.

COBB: Early on, yeah. But that’s not what’s out there. I think I think that’s what’s going to impact it is how they utilize those funds.

BRODIE: Would you anticipate that this is — if not the most — one of the most expensive gubernatorial primaries in state history?

COBB: I do. It is very expensive. I had said years ago that we should be putting limits on campaigns. I think if you put a limit, and it’s kind of like sports. You’ve got a limit on how much you can spend on your players.

BRODIE: Like a salary cap.

COBB: The salary cap, yeah. And if we did that, I think that would make a fairness model. Right now, it’s not that way. So I disagree with the way that we just allow it to explode like it has.

TOM RYAN: I agree with the idea of limits. The problem is we have Citizens United that said money equals free speech. I disagree with the concept that money equals free speech. Money is inert. It’s an object. It’s not an action like free speech is. Money buys you access to speech but in and of itself is not free speech.

But going back to the essential question here is how is this all going to play out? Number one, you’ve got both Robson and Biggs having Trump’s endorsement. Right now that’s a wash for them.

Secondly, it’s not clear how valuable that will be by 2026, given all the current problems with the Epstein disclosures that seem to be slow rolling out right now. It doesn’t seem to be any end to that.

And one thing to keep in mind: The primary is one thing last year or the last time around, Robson spent $22 million on her primary and did not beat — not a great candidate — Kari Lake. Both Robson and Biggs have not won statewide elections like Hobbs has.

And Hobbs has been — I know they’re going to make a big deal about her veto record, but she has been a lot more bipartisan in her approach than the other side wants her to be. I think that’s going to be very effective for her.

BRODIE: Tom, If you are the Katie Hobbs campaign, are you watching these two Republican candidates raising and otherwise getting a lot of money? Presumably some amount of it will be used on negative ads or attacking the other.

In some ways for Hobbs, might that be a good thing that these two Republican candidates are trying to tear each other down a little bit before they get to her in the general?

RYAN: I do. And here’s the thing: They will not tear each other down over their relationship to Trump, but that’s something that Hobbs will have as her opposition research when it comes time for the general. And, you know, this whole Epstein thing is not playing out well, right now, for Mr. Trump.

BRODIE: Regina, is there a way, do you think, in the primary for the two of them — obviously there will be some number of attack ads and other not-nice things said from one to the other. Is there a way to keep it so that it’s not too damaging when they get to the general election?

COBB: I don’t think you ever can do that. I think if you got opposition in your primary, you’re going to have some negative campaigning. And it might not even come from the candidate itself. It’s probably coming from whoever’s going to be doing the IEs, the independent expenditures. Those are usually where they’re negative ad comes from. That way it doesn’t come from the candidate themselves.

BRODIE. Right. You let someone else do sort of the dirty work there.

RYAN: Oh yeah, IEs? They are brutal. Brutal. And not necessarily honest either. They they tend to overstate things, misstate things and —

COBB: And they can. And there’s no consequences. You could throw it out there. It’s hard to pull it back.

BRODIE: Tom, are you guys suggesting that in politics things are not always 100% honest and truthful?

RYAN: Look, we can go back to Thomas Nast. This is going on for a long time. I think what’s changed, though — and I think Regina has hit the nail on the head — it’s the money that is allowed in here. And the problem is it’s also disassociated the parties from their ability to control who the candidates are so that they’re more mainstream. Allowing money to control things as opposed to letting the parties control things has not been good for either party.

COBB: Yeah, I agree with that. One thing that we haven’t talked about as far as the gubernatorial campaign is that we have a lieutenant governor now. And I’m thinking whoever — I mean they don’t have to come out with a lieutenant governor until their general election. But if they come out with a lieutenant governor, and that person is a little bit more mainstream, somebody that that is likable, whoever Biggs or Karrin Taylor Robson pick will have a lot of influence on that.

BRODIE: Could we have a lieutenant governor Cobb?

RYAN: That’s what I was just — you beat me to the punch. If you’re listening —

COBB: I am not in the running right now. Thank you.

BRODIE: Didn’t mean to put you on the spot.

Let’s talk about another election that is coming up, and this is going to have some dominoes around the Valley and around the statehouse.

State Rep. Jeff Weninger (R-Chandler) is going to be running for Chandler mayor. We learned last week that the current mayor, Kevin Hartke, is going to be running for the House, that one of the other current House members from that district is running for the Senate because the current senator, J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler) is termed out.

This is one of the more competitive legislative districts in the state. It has had a Democrat representing it not that long ago, just a couple of years ago. So Tom, when you see these musical chairs, is this potentially an opening if Democrats get the right candidate to pick up a seat in the state Legislature?

RYAN: If the Democrats can get their act together, the answer is yes. And I’m not too hopeful about that right now. Democrats are in disarray in the state of Arizona. There’s no mistaking that. But LD13 is a competitive district. Jennifer Pawlik was the representative.

BRODIE: That’s your neck of the woods in the Valley, right?

RYAN: It’s my district. Yeah. So I know a lot about that. So I raised my hand like Horshack here, “Ooh, ohh, Mr. Kotter!”

First off, Kevin Hartke is a very popular mayor. I believe he’s a registered Republican, but he’s run very much, right of center and center. So I think he’s going to do well there. The big issue, though, is going to be the mayor of Chandler, because Jeff Weninger is a well known businessman, restaurateur in Chandler. But he’ll be up against Matt Orlando.

BRODIE: Current city council member.

RYAN: Current city council member. Yeah, he’s been there before, and he’s come back. The controversy, which yesterday came out, there was a ruling on this yesterday in the Ruth Jones v. City of Chandler matter is what is the meaning of the term limits? Is it just two terms as council member and then you have to take off four years before you can run for two terms as Chandler mayor?

That didn’t get resolved in the ruling yesterday. The ruling yesterday was simply, Dear Ms. Jones, you had a chance to say he was not qualified when he got elected. You didn’t do it. You lose.

So there is going to be a special election in November where the issue will be resolved. And it looks like the choice will be two terms as city council member, two terms as mayor. And that will be the term limits as opposed to separating them out by four years.

COBB: I think you got a win-win situation in Chandler right there with Jeff Weninger. He is an amazing legislator and a businessman, pro-business. What he’s done with the Diamondbacks this year, his Diamondbacks bill, the Chase Field renovation. You go back on his record, there’s no way you can lose in Chandler.

BRODIE: Regina … in theory, Sen. Menard could run for the House again. He served there. He was the speaker of the House. I would imagine if he and Mayor Hartke run, they probably have a pretty good chance of both getting elected.

But if Sen. Menard chooses not to run, is it hard to find another Republican candidate there? Is that a chance for the right Democratic candidate to maybe win?

COBB: There’s a chance, but I agree with Tom. I don’t think the Democrats have got their stuff together. If they if they were focused on this, I think they could do it. It has been done before, and they’ve had a good candidate with Jennifer Pawlik when she was in there.

And both sides worked well together. Weninger, J.D. Mesnard, Pawlik — all of them worked really great together. There’s a chance, but I feel like it’s going to be taken by the Republicans.

RYAN: I see Mesnard running for higher office, not again for the House. He’s been there, done that. And I think you’re going to see him run for something else. But yeah, when Jennifer Pawlik got elected, there were people knocking at the door. There were door hangers, the precinct committeemen had multiple offices taken out. There was a real effort. And they did a single shot.

BRODIE: Right. One candidate of a party in a district.

RYAN: Correct. That’s how you win it right now. But I just don’t see it happening. And this whole executive director election —

BRODIE: The chair of the Democratic Party.

Politics

Arizona Democrats oust Robert Branscomb, 6 months after electing him party chair in a landslide

Camryn Sanchez

Following months of infighting and controversy, Arizona Democrats voted Wednesday evening to oust the state party’s chair. By a margin of 89%, Democratic Party members from across the state elected to remove Robert Branscomb a mere six months after he won a landslide victory to lead the party.

RYAN: Has been just been a difficult, painful thing.

COBB: A debacle that I don’t think they can come out of.

RYAN: Debacle. That’s a good dentistry word.