The Yavapai Record
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report · Part 2
Nonprofits, the Gift Clause, and the Sleight of Hand
Looking beyond the rhetoric to the Arizona constitutional question the court actually decided.
Previously in Part 1…
The first installment examined what the lawsuit was—and what it was not. The court did not rule that the Prescott Rodeo was an improper public purpose. Nor did it question the value of Arizona’s oldest rodeo. The legal issue before the court was much more narrow: Did the specific method used to transfer $15.3 million comply with Arizona’s Gift Clause?
That brings us to one of the central arguments raised during the Ride With Us podcast.
Can any nonprofit receive an appropriation?
One of Representative Quang Nguyen’s principal arguments during the interview boils down to: Can any nonprofit receive a state appropriation?
Each appropriation is to be considered individually including its Arizona constitutionality. The Arizona constitutional questions to be applied are:
- How is the public money being transferred?
- What enforceable public benefit is received in returned?
- Does the transaction comply with the Arizona Constitution?
Those questions are to be asked and answered separately for each appropriation.
The Arizona court did not rule that nonprofit organizations cannot receive taxpayer money.
A grant supporting the World’s Oldest Rodeo is not automatically unconstitutional simply because it benefits a nonprofit organization.
That is not what happened. Instead, the court examined this one specific appropriation under Arizona’s Gift Clause after a citizen questioned the legality of the original rodeo appropriation.
Why was the original rodeo appropriation ruled unconstitutional?
The court concluded that the original appropriation failed the Arizona constitutional test because there were no enforceable safeguards to protect our taxpayer monies with lawful accountability.
The original rodeo appropriation proposed transferring $15.3 million directly to a private nonprofit organization that leased publicly owned property but didn’t specify enforceable agreements or measurable public benefits.
The court concluded that the original structure failed Arizona’s Gift Clause analysis because our taxpayer monies were left vulnerable.
After the ruling, lawmakers changed the original structure to comply with the Arizona constitution employing enforceable safeguards to protect our taxpayer monies with lawful accountability.
To ensure the grant was constitutional, the Legislature changed the original structure to route the funding through the City of Prescott, (the public owner of the rodeo grounds) so improvements could be made to the property with accountability.
That change wasn’t cosmetic.
It changed who received the taxpayer’s money.
It changed who was accountable for spending our money.
It changed the legal framework under which the improvements would be made.
Those changes were intended to address the constitutional deficiencies the court rightfully identified satisfying Arizona’s Gift Clause.
The Sleight of Hand
One of the most persuasive rhetorical techniques in politics is changing the question without the audience noticing.
During the interview, Representative Nguyen shifts the discussion from:
“Was this $15.3 million appropriation constitutional?”
to a more comfortable question:
“Should nonprofit organizations receive taxpayer funding?”
Those are different questions.
Arizona’s Gift Clause does not prohibit funding nonprofit organizations.
It requires that each individual appropriation satisfies Arizona’s constitution.
Every expenditure of public funds must stand on its own legal footing, with sufficient public purpose, enforceable consideration, and accountability for our taxpayer dollars.
Apples and Oranges – Compare and Contrast
Imagine two people each receive a building permit.
One house passes inspection.
The other fails.
The failed inspection doesn’t prove that every house in town violates the building code.
Nor does the approved house prove every future house automatically complies with the building code.
Each permit is judged individually.
Gift Clause appropriations work much the same way.
Each appropriation stands on its own Arizona constitutional footing.
By broadening the discussion to all nonprofits, the interview invites viewers to compare unlike situations.
The Arizona constitutional issue before the court, however, remained much more narrow:
Did this particular $15.3 million appropriation satisfy Arizona’s Gift Clause?
That is the question the court answered.
It is also the question that remains at the center of this story.
The Arizona court did not hold that nonprofit organizations can never receive taxpayer funding. Nor did it say the rodeo itself was an improper public purpose. Instead, the court evaluated this particular appropriation under Arizona’s Gift Clause.
The issue was not all nonprofits.
The issue was this particular appropriation.
Other nonprofit appropriations may survive Arizona constitutional review because they involve enforceable agreements, measurable public benefits, or different legal structures.
Representative Nguyen’s pointing to other nonprofits receiving state money does not acknowledge the Arizona constitutional questions caused by lack of protections in the original appropriations which the Arizona Gift Clause provides.
Distinctions matter.
Eventually, the Legislature adopted a different legal structure.
Rather than appropriating money to the private nonprofit without protections for our taxpayer monies, funding was routed through the City of Prescott for improvements to be made to the publicly owned facilities with built-in protections for taxpayer funds.
That distinction mattered.
It was not simply moving money from one account to another.
It changed:
- who received the funds,
- who owned the improvements,
- and who was legally accountable for the expenditure.
Those distinctions are precisely the types of safeguards Arizona’s Gift Clause is designed to require.
During the interview, Representative Nguyen remarked:
“It has nothing to do with somebody coming along with the rope and save the rodeo.”
Whether someone “saved the rodeo” depends on how one defines the phrase.
The documented sequence is straightforward:
- Bliss and Nguyen helped secure the original appropriation.
- Taxpayers challenged the appropriation in court.
- The court ruled that appropriation unconstitutional.
- Funding was frozen.
- The Legislature later restructured the appropriation to address the constitutional deficits.
Those facts are not mutually exclusive.
The complete historical record includes both the original appropriation and the later constitutional restructuring.
Coming in Part 3
In the final installment, we will examine the remainder of the podcast discussion, including Representative Nguyen’s description of the court’s ruling as a “technicality,” compare those statements with the language of the court’s opinion, and explore why constitutional safeguards often receive the least recognition precisely because they prevent larger problems from occurring.
We will also look at the complete timeline, the court’s reasoning, and why the distinction between a political victory and a constitutionally sound appropriation matters to every Arizona taxpayer.
Next: Facts or Fudging? Special Report – Part 3: The “Technicality,” the Timeline, and the Verdict.
Full “Ride With Us” podcast link here: https://tinyurl.com/Ride-with-us-podcast
The Yavapai Record
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report
Facts or Fudging? · Special Report · Part 2
Nonprofits, the Gift Clause, and the Sleight of Hand
Looking beyond the rhetoric to the Arizona constitutional question the court actually decided.
Previously in Part 1…
The first installment examined what the lawsuit was—and what it was not. The court did not rule that the Prescott Rodeo was an improper public purpose. Nor did it question the value of Arizona’s oldest rodeo. The legal issue before the court was much more narrow: Did the specific method used to transfer $15.3 million comply with Arizona’s Gift Clause?
That brings us to one of the central arguments raised during the Ride With Us podcast.
Can any nonprofit receive an appropriation?
One of Representative Quang Nguyen’s principal arguments during the interview boils down to: Can any nonprofit receive a state appropriation?
Each appropriation is to be considered individually including its Arizona constitutionality. The Arizona constitutional questions to be applied are:
- How is the public money being transferred?
- What enforceable public benefit is received in returned?
- Does the transaction comply with the Arizona Constitution?
Those questions are to be asked and answered separately for each appropriation.
The Arizona court did not rule that nonprofit organizations cannot receive taxpayer money.
A grant supporting the World’s Oldest Rodeo is not automatically unconstitutional simply because it benefits a nonprofit organization.
That is not what happened. Instead, the court examined this one specific appropriation under Arizona’s Gift Clause after a citizen questioned the legality of the original rodeo appropriation.
Why was the original rodeo appropriation ruled unconstitutional?
The court concluded that the original appropriation failed the Arizona constitutional test because there were no enforceable safeguards to protect our taxpayer monies with lawful accountability.
The original rodeo appropriation proposed transferring $15.3 million directly to a private nonprofit organization that leased publicly owned property but didn’t specify enforceable agreements or measurable public benefits.
The court concluded that the original structure failed Arizona’s Gift Clause analysis because our taxpayer monies were left vulnerable.
After the ruling, lawmakers changed the original structure to comply with the Arizona constitution employing enforceable safeguards to protect our taxpayer monies with lawful accountability.
To ensure the grant was constitutional, the Legislature changed the original structure to route the funding through the City of Prescott, (the public owner of the rodeo grounds) so improvements could be made to the property with accountability.
That change wasn’t cosmetic.
It changed who received the taxpayer’s money.
It changed who was accountable for spending our money.
It changed the legal framework under which the improvements would be made.
Those changes were intended to address the constitutional deficiencies the court rightfully identified satisfying Arizona’s Gift Clause.
The Sleight of Hand
One of the most persuasive rhetorical techniques in politics is changing the question without the audience noticing.
During the interview, Representative Nguyen shifts the discussion from:
“Was this $15.3 million appropriation constitutional?”
to a more comfortable question:
“Should nonprofit organizations receive taxpayer funding?”
Those are different questions.
Arizona’s Gift Clause does not prohibit funding nonprofit organizations.
It requires that each individual appropriation satisfies Arizona’s constitution.
Every expenditure of public funds must stand on its own legal footing, with sufficient public purpose, enforceable consideration, and accountability for our taxpayer dollars.
Apples and Oranges – Compare and Contrast
Imagine two people each receive a building permit.
One house passes inspection.
The other fails.
The failed inspection doesn’t prove that every house in town violates the building code.
Nor does the approved house prove every future house automatically complies with the building code.
Each permit is judged individually.
Gift Clause appropriations work much the same way.
Each appropriation stands on its own Arizona constitutional footing.
By broadening the discussion to all nonprofits, the interview invites viewers to compare unlike situations.
The Arizona constitutional issue before the court, however, remained much more narrow:
Did this particular $15.3 million appropriation satisfy Arizona’s Gift Clause?
That is the question the court answered.
It is also the question that remains at the center of this story.
The Arizona court did not hold that nonprofit organizations can never receive taxpayer funding. Nor did it say the rodeo itself was an improper public purpose. Instead, the court evaluated this particular appropriation under Arizona’s Gift Clause.
The issue was not all nonprofits.
The issue was this particular appropriation.
Other nonprofit appropriations may survive Arizona constitutional review because they involve enforceable agreements, measurable public benefits, or different legal structures.
Representative Nguyen’s pointing to other nonprofits receiving state money does not acknowledge the Arizona constitutional questions caused by lack of protections in the original appropriations which the Arizona Gift Clause provides.
Distinctions matter.
Eventually, the Legislature adopted a different legal structure.
Rather than appropriating money to the private nonprofit without protections for our taxpayer monies, funding was routed through the City of Prescott for improvements to be made to the publicly owned facilities with built-in protections for taxpayer funds.
That distinction mattered.
It was not simply moving money from one account to another.
It changed:
- who received the funds,
- who owned the improvements,
- and who was legally accountable for the expenditure.
Those distinctions are precisely the types of safeguards Arizona’s Gift Clause is designed to require.
During the interview, Representative Nguyen remarked:
“It has nothing to do with somebody coming along with the rope and save the rodeo.”
Whether someone “saved the rodeo” depends on how one defines the phrase.
The documented sequence is straightforward:
- Bliss and Nguyen helped secure the original appropriation.
- Taxpayers challenged the appropriation in court.
- The court ruled that appropriation unconstitutional.
- Funding was frozen.
- The Legislature later restructured the appropriation to address the constitutional deficits.
Those facts are not mutually exclusive.
The complete historical record includes both the original appropriation and the later constitutional restructuring.
Coming in Part 3
In the final installment, we will examine the remainder of the podcast discussion, including Representative Nguyen’s description of the court’s ruling as a “technicality,” compare those statements with the language of the court’s opinion, and explore why constitutional safeguards often receive the least recognition precisely because they prevent larger problems from occurring.
We will also look at the complete timeline, the court’s reasoning, and why the distinction between a political victory and a constitutionally sound appropriation matters to every Arizona taxpayer.
Next: Facts or Fudging? Special Report – Part 3: The “Technicality,” the Timeline, and the Verdict.
Full “Ride With Us” podcast link here: https://tinyurl.com/Ride-with-us-podcast
Defend Life. Defend Freedom. Yavapai County First.
