Comments on: Arizona Legislature Prepares to Defend Photo Radar

By: enigmaforever

enigmaforever — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:40:07 +0000

OH, don’t forget the maybe in extra millions that insurance companies, and employers will have to pay to get a copy of the information on you. Your legislators care crap about you, that is now a proven fact.

By: enigmaforever

enigmaforever — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:35:36 +0000

We must unite in this and vote out any money grubbing legislator who votes for this. How much is your legislator getting. (Just from a few of my files) From camerafraud.com This is Arizona=”Money from each photo enforcement ticket breaks down as follows: $16.50 to statewide public campaign financing, $13.48 to the Department of Public Safety, $25.17 to the Supreme Court of Arizona’s Administrative Office of the Courts, $29.70 to Redflex (the private photo enforcement company) and $96.65 to the State of Arizona’s general fund”. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2712.asp , Arizona “a ten percent surcharge was imposed on all traffic tickets to create the “Citizens Clean Election Fund.” The fund allows politicians to avoid tedious fundraising efforts.
After raising just $5 each from 220 people in a district, candidates for public office qualify for public financing money to match private expenditures. In effect, these lawmakers collect $16.50 for their campaigns each time a photo radar ticket is issued on an Arizona freeway.
This adds up to big money. In 2008, traffic tickets generated $10,095,771 in revenue for the clean elections fund. Out of this amount, $7,710,739 million was disbursed to lawmakers and candidates during the primary and general elections — an average of $72,063 each. In just the past four months, the new freeway speed camera program has already added another $3.3 million to the total amount collected for lawmakers. Over the past four election cycles, Arizona politicians collected a total of $36,265,795 in campaign cash from the tax on speeding tickets.

By: vento97

vento97 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:19:22 +0000

Kurt:
It’s not as easy as “don’t vote incumbants” or “rep/dem”. It is your responsibility to know who you are voting for and what they stand for.

It is easier to say “If you vote this way, I will not vote for you” and then even if your vote has to go to a competing party, then so be it.

Being pigeon holed into Blue and Red has blinded us to our ultimate responsibility.

“Vote your Conscience!”

To that I say – remember this:

“Democrats and Republicans – First-world prosperity for themselves, third-world prosperity for the rest of us…”

By: vento97

vento97 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:08:33 +0000

ravenchris:
You want justice? Do not reelect incumbents.

In NJ, there’s a grass-roots movement called GRIP (Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians). This movement needs to spread like wildfire nationwide….

By: Kurt.

Kurt. — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:44:17 +0000

It’s not as easy as “don’t vote incumbants” or “rep/dem”. It is your responsibility to know who you are voting for and what they stand for.

It is easier to say “If you vote this way, I will not vote for you” and then even if your vote has to go to a competing party, then so be it.

Being pigeon holed into Blue and Red has blinded us to our ultimate responsibility.

“Vote your Conscience!”

By: zoneofdanger

zoneofdanger — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:06:09 +0000

I find it appalling that our elected representatives see fit to declare war on their constituents by passing oppressive speed camera laws, supported by an Australian company and insurance companies.

By: ttacgreg

ttacgreg — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:12:53 +0000

I am seriously developing a strong distaste for insurance companies.

By: fiasco

fiasco — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:52:15 +0000

Do you want justice? Don’t elect a Republican or Democrat.

I see a representative of my auto insurance provider is one of those lobbying to add points to photo tickets. I’d write a letter to complain, but would probably get canceled.

By: Corky Boyd

Corky Boyd — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:40:43 +0000

I have a problem with points being assigned as a result of photo radar. The owner of the car is often not the operator, and it is up to the state to determine who was guilty of the moving violation to assign points. It is not the responsiblity of owner to prove he or she was not the operator. Unless the photo can prove who the operator was, the state has no case.

About two years ago in a class action suit, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that to be true under their laws. Points can no longer be assigned by photo radar, unless the state can prove who was operating the vehicle.

By: ravenchris

ravenchris — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:27:12 +0000

You want justice? Do not reelect incumbents.