Rep. Martha McSally’s constituents have been calling her office repeatedly, imploring her to speak out and condemn the horrific acts of domestic violence visited on Charlottesville, VA this weekend by Neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
Her response: total silence.
Where is the woman who promised, over and over, she’d be “an independent voice” for Southern Arizonans?
Where is the woman who insisted she could provide leadership in Washington, D.C.?
Of the 30 members of the House Homeland Security Committee, only 4 have refused to condemn the despicable acts of terrorism visited on Charlottesville by Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Three of the holdouts, unsurprisingly, come from safe red districts in the former Confederate South. Mike Rogers (AL), Clay Higgins (LA), John Rutherford (FL).
The last is Martha McSally.
Her timidity is inexplicable at a time when Americans across the nation are reacting with alarm to the surge of white supremacist attacks in recent months. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security issued a report in May warning of the increasing threat. Brutal hate crimes have claimed the lives of victims in Oregon, Maryland, New York, Kansas, California, and now Virginia. Through it all, McSally has stayed silent.
More than a third of her constituents are ethnic minorities, and the SPLC has identified two hate groups inside her district. And of course, Charlottesville showed us that hate groups are more than willing to travel far from home to demonize and terrorize innocent people.
Who’s going to stand up and fight for us? How can McSally claim to be an effective leader in combating a threat she won’t even acknowledge?
It’s long past time for her to step up – or step down.
McSally Dodges On Internet Privacy
It’s a challenge to get Rep. Martha McSally to answer questions about where she stands on important issues. But when we do get an answer, and it turns out to be no answer at all, then its easy to understand Southern Arizona voters’ growing frustration with her.
Take for example her vote to overturn Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations on internet privacy. This spring, McSally joined other Republicans in Congress to approve a bill that lets internet service providers such as Comcast, Cox, and Verizon gather highly personal information from you without your permission. That info includes what web pages you visit, what apps you use, and information about your finances. The companies can then use that data to bombard you with targeted ads, or they can sell the information to marketers, financial firms, and data brokers. The Center for Digital Democracy says the law means, “Americans will never be safe online from having their most personal details stealthily scrutinized and sold to the highest bidder.”When our fellow constituents wrote McSally for an explanation, it took over three months to get a reply. In the letter, McSally explained that her vote to gut internet privacy was actually an effort to protect the privacy of consumers. How did she explain that contradiction? McSally wrote that regulating online privacy belonged to a different agency, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and she didn’t want to interfere with that.
Join us for the first organizational meeting of your Grassroots Political Action Committee.
Come find out about our next steps and discover the different ways you can get involved.
We will be planning our next Candidate Forum, strategizing for social media, newsletters, rapid response and more.
Tuesday, August 15 at 6:30 PM
3809 E 3rd St, Tucson, Arizona 85716
Parking is in the lot on 3rd Street. The meeting is in the Knox room which is on the West side of the campus, facing the basketball court.
We will have light snacks.
Rep. Martha McSally (AZ-02) has a request to make.
Please forget she ever voted for the Republican health care bill.
That’s going to be very important for her reelection bid in 2018; polling shows people who’ve heard about that vote view her less favorably.
Did you happen to see the two-page letter she sent out defending her vote? If so, she’d like you to forget that, too. Especially the part where she claimed she only had two options – keeping the Affordable Care Act as is, or voting for the AHCA. Now that she’s openly admitting she had a 3rd option all along – working in bipartisan fashion with Democrats – it would be most inconvenient for you to remember she used to pretend otherwise.
If you really want to help her out, just erase it from your mind that she promised to protect people with pre-existing conditions, and then turned around and voted to eliminate those protections. Anyone who remembers that will surely have a tough time trusting her promises now.
Of course, she could make it easier on all of us and send out a new letter, with an honest assessment of the challenges we face in health care, and the steps she could be taking to address them. But at Represent Me AZ, we’re realists. We know if we want to see a letter like that, we’d have to write it ourselves.
So we did.
This, then, is the letter McSally would have written about health care, if she were being straight with us: Continue reading “McSally Defends Her Healthcare Vote – Fact Check”
Thanks for attending our successful kick off.
Did you miss it? Here are some pictures and a video of the candidate portion of the event on June 7th, 2017 Continue reading “Event Recap – Represent Me AZ kickoff and candidate forum”
McSally to Bankers about A-10s and Trump meeting
- McSally makes Trump the butt of a joke
- McSally boasts about manipulating him to save A-10 program
- What does this mean for the future? How many of us will she throw under the bus to play the hero?
Let’s talk about McSally’s speech to the bankers last week. Continue reading “Tuesday’s Topic McSally and Trump meeting”
While campaigning in 2014, Martha McSally promised to vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act:
“As someone who has fought for women my entire life, I know first-hand that women are still not treated equally in the workplace, and if I was in Congress, I would vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act because it’s the right thing to do… Sometimes the ‘best man for the job’ to fight for women is a woman. When I replace Congressman Barber, I’ll wake up fighting for women in this community everyday.”
She ran ads with the line: “Martha is standing up to her own party – supporting equal pay for equal work.”
But in April of 2015, McSally voted to block consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill was reintroduced in late 2015 and in 2017; it currently has 197 cosponsors; McSally is not one of them. Continue reading “McSally on Equal Pay for Women”
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
Martha McSally not only opposes universal background checks, she considers them unconstitutional.
When asked about the “gun show loophole” that allows buyers to purchase guns without a background check at gun shows or on the Internet, McSally had this to say:
“That’s not a loophole. It’s freedom. And absolutely, it needs to stay that way, because any restrictions on that, at gun shows or other places, is just absolutely unconstitutional.”
The Supreme Court disagrees with her on that. In the DC vs. Heller ruling, Justice Scalia specified that laws intended to prohibit felons and the mentally ill from purchasing guns are “presumptively lawful.”
A majority of her district disagrees with McSally, too. A 2014 survey of likely voters in AZ 02 showed that 86% think background checks for all gun purchases is “an excellent or good idea.”
McSally does have the backing of the NRA; her 2016 NRA rating is 93%, and they have endorsed her in her last two campaigns. But the NRA itself does not enjoy as strong support as you might expect in the district that includes Tombstone, AZ. According to its own polling, in 2014 the NRA’s favorable/unfavorable ratio was 47/40.
CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS FOR DOMESTIC ABUSERS/STALKERS
87% of likely voters in AZ 02 say that preventing the sale of guns to domestic abusers is “an excellent or good idea.”
Rep. McSally has said that she has been stalked in the past. “I know what it feels like to worry constantly about when and where your stalker will appear next and what he’ll do. I wasn’t even safe in my own home or my car where my stalker broke in and held me in a hostage-like situation.”
Despite this personal history, McSally signed on as a cosponsor of HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which would “force each state to recognize concealed carry permits from every other state,” thereby “making the state with the weakest permitting standards the law of the land.”
Currently, at least 30 states and DC deny permits to boyfriends convicted of domestic abuse, and/or subject to restraining orders. 27 states and DC deny permits to convicted stalkers. HR 38 would override those states’ laws.
Rep. McSally has a score of 48 from the Human Rights Campaign. To put that in context, all the Democratic representatives from Arizona have a score of 100, and all the other Republican representatives have a score of zero. 
A representative from the HRC explained the mixed results to us this way: generally McSally will vote in favor of workplace protections for LGBTQ people, but then will vote for broad religious exemptions that undercut those same protections.
For example, in May of 2016, McSally was one of only 29 Republican members who voted for the Maloney amendment to prohibit LGBTQ discrimination by federal contractors in military construction.
But she also voted for an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow anti-LGBTQ discrimination in all federal agencies.
That led to accusations of intolerance, and her spokesman defended her vote: “This claim is ridiculous. Martha has been battling discrimination and shattering stereotypes her whole life. The bill in question is a $610 billion defense bill that ensures our troops have the resources and training they need to meet the growing threats to our country. You have to be pretty desperate to politicize our national security and keeping Americans safe.”
His statement was misleading. McSally didn’t just vote for the overall bill. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, she voted for the specific amendment to the bill which would permit anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
In 2012, on a survey she filled out for the Center for Arizona Policy, McSally indicated her support for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. She has also said many times that she believes marriage is between one man and one woman, and that same-sex marriage is a states’ rights issue.
Those are contradictory positions. One can’t simultaneously argue that a ban on same-sex marriage should be the law of the land, AND that states should be able to decide the issue for themselves.
In December of 2013, Jim Nintzel of “The Tucson Weekly” asked McSally whether she still supported the idea of the constitutional amendment. She would not answer directly, saying only that it was a hypothetical question, and that in any case she was “not planning on spending my political capital on that type of issue.”
In the fall of 2014, a federal judge ruled that Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Arizona’s attorney general decided not to appeal the ruling, and McSally agreed that that was a “pragmatic and reasonable decision.”
In June of 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was protected by the Constitution, McSally reiterated that she felt it should be left up to the states to decide, but said she would respect the decision.
Currently, callers to McSally’s office who ask where she stands on this issue are told, “I don’t know.” McSally Take a Stand has asked McSally to keep her staff informed of her positions on this and other issues so that they can provide correct responses to constituent questions. MTS has also asked McSally (through her District Director) to update her responses to the 2012 Center for Arizona Policy survey, so that her constituents will have an accurate understanding of her views. McSally has not responded to that request.
On the subject of protection for transgender children in schools, McSally has given different answers to different audiences.
At her February 2017 town hall in Sahuarita, the mother of a transgender child asked McSally what she would do to protect transgender children in light of President Trump’s rescission of Title IX protections for them. McSally said she approved of President Trump’s decision, because the extension of protections to transgender children represented “federal overreach” and the issue is “best managed at the state level.”
She went on to imply that other children needed protection from transgender children. The audience reacted angrily to that suggestion.
The issue came up again several weeks later, while McSally was talking to La Cienega High School students. She again said that she thought the issue should be resolved locally; she didn’t tell these young people, however, that she thought they might need protection from the transgender youth in their midst. Instead, she shifted topics to gay rights in general, saying, “Regardless of who you are and who you love, you should be given every opportunity in this country.” She then claimed that she had “fought for” gay rights in Congress. It’s unclear what she meant by that.