CLAIM FACT V/O: Before politics, Kyrsten SINEMA PUTS ARIZONANS’ SAFETY FIRST Sinema was a lawyer. SINEMA VOTED TO ENACT TOUGHER PENALTIES ON VIOLENT ON SCREEN: Kyrsten Sinema Politician. Lawyer. CRIMINALS

V/O: Sinema made her living Sinema Voted To Create Tougher Penalties For Convicted And Deported defending murderers. Criminals Who Re-enter The United States Illegally. In June 2017, Sinema voted for HR 3004, Kate’s Law: “This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to ON SCREEN: "Criminal revise provisions relating to the reentry of removed aliens. The bill provides that an Defense Attorney Who alien who has been excluded, deported, removed, or denied admission, or who has Represents Murders" - departed the United States while under an outstanding order of exclusion, deportation, Kyrsten Sinema, 2006. or removal, and who subsequently crosses or attempts to cross the border into the United States, shall be fined, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (‘Crosses V/O: Her firm even the border’ refers to the physical act of crossing the border, regardless of whether the represented a meth dealer alien is free from official restraint.)” [HR 3004, Vote#344, 6/29/17; HR 3004, Passed who killed a young mom and House 6/29/17] dropped her body in a dumpster. Sinema Voted To Prioritize Enforcement Actions Against Illegal Immigrants Convicted Of Violent Or Sexually-Oriented Crimes. In January 2015, Sinema voted ON SCREEN: Even A Meth to prioritize immigration enforcement actions against illegal immigrants convicted of Dealer Who Killed A Young violent or sexually-oriented offenses. The amendment was adopted 278-149. [HR Mom. 240, Amendment No. 3, Vote #31, 1/14/15; CQ Floor Votes, 1/14/15] SINEMA VOTED TO SUPPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY

Sinema Helped Pass Law To Expand Public Safety And Policing Grants. The bill modernizes federal funding for behavioral health support and research programs. It expands public safety and community policing grant programs to support training and programs for law enforcement and corrections officers regarding individuals with mental illness. It improves mental health care for children with serious emotional disturbance, or adults with serious mental illness, through targeted authorizations and reauthorizations, including expansion of Assisted Outpatient Treatment. The bill also strengthens the nation’s mental health workforce. [HR 2646, Originally Co-sponsored 6/4/15; Became Law as part of HR 34, 12/13/16]

Sinema Helped Pass Law To Improve Mental Health Treatment For Law Enforcement. “This bill directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to report on Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs mental health practices and services that could be adopted by law enforcement agencies. Additionally, DOJ's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services must report on programs to address the psychological health and well-being of law enforcement officers. The bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expand the allowable use of grant funds under the Community Oriented Policing Services program to include establishing peer mentoring mental health and wellness pilot programs within state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. (Sec. 3) DOJ must coordinate with the Department of Health and Human Services to develop educational resources for mental health providers regarding the culture of law enforcement agencies and therapies for mental health issues common to law enforcement officers. (Sec. 4) DOJ must also: (1) review existing crisis hotlines, recommend improvements, and research annual mental health checks; (2) examine the mental health and wellness needs of federal officers; (3) ensure that recommendations, resources, or programs under this bill protect the privacy of participating officers; and (4) report to Congress on findings and final recommendations.” [HR 2228, Co-sponsored 5/18/17, Became Law 1/10/18]

Sinema Voted To Increase Funding For FBI Salaries And Expenses By $25 Million. In June 2015, Sinema voted for an amendment increasing funding intended for FBI salaries and expenses by $25 million in the FY 2016. “House Vote 275 Fiscal 2016 Commerce- Justice-Science Appropriations — FBI. Pittenger, R-N.C., amendment that would increase by $25 million the amount that would be provided for FBI salaries and expenses, and would be offset by an equal reduction to the Legal Services Corporation.” The amendment failed 163 to 263. [HR 275, Pittenger Amendment, Vote #275, 6/03/15; CQ Bill Tracker, 6/03/15]

SINEMA VOTED FOR INCREASED PENALTIES ON GANGS

Sinema Voted To Increase Penalties For Street Gangs. In 2007, Sinema voted in favor of legislation to create sentencing enhancements and increased penalties for persons who committed specific offenses to further, promote or assist a criminal street gang. The bill allowed the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to enter into contracts for monitoring of sex offenders and gang members and appropriated monies to DPS for enforcement purposes. The bill passed 21-7. [SB 1222, 3/08/07, Third Reading]

SINEMA VOTED TO IMPRISON DANGEROUSLY MENTALLY ILL CRIMINALS

Sinema Voted To Allow Previously Mentally Ill Criminals To Be Sent To Prison. In 2007, Sinema voted in favor of legislation to allow the Psychiatric Security Review Board to order a person to the Arizona Department of Corrections for the remainder of the person’s sentence if the person was found to be guilty except insane and no longer needed ongoing treatment for mental illness and was dangerous. The bill passed unanimously in the House. [SB 1482, 4/17/07, Third Reading; Governor signed, 4/24/07]

V/O: And when she wasn't REPUBLICANS LAUNCH DESPERATE ATTACK TO COVER UP defending murderers, Sinema MCSALLY’S RECORD OF VOTING AGAINST ARIZONANS HEALTH was a left-wing fringe protestor. CARE

ON SCREEN: Kyrsten Sinema MCSALLY VOTED FOR THE AHCA Left-Wing Fringe Protestor McSally Voted For The American Health Care Act (AHCA). In May 2017, McSally voted for: “Passage of the bill that would make extensive changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, by effectively repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as most of the taxes that finance the current system. It would, in 2020, convert Medicaid into a capped entitlement that would provide fixed federal payments to states and end additional federal funding for the 2010 law's joint federal-state Medicaid expansion. It would prohibit federal funding to any entity, such as Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions and receives more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. As amended, it would give states the option of receiving federal Medicaid funding as a block grant with greater state flexibility in how the funds are used, and would require states to establish their own essential health benefits standards. It would allow states to receive waivers to exempt insurers from having to provide certain minimum benefits, would provide $8 billion over five years for individuals with pre-existing conditions whose insurance premiums increased because the state was granted a waiver to raise premiums based on an individual's health status, and would create a $15 billion federal risk sharing program to cover some of the costs of high medical claims.” The bill passed, 217-213. [CQ, 5/4/17; H.R. 1628, Vote 256, 5/4/17]

AHCA WOULD RAISE HEALTH CARE COSTS FOR ARIZONANS

The American Healthcare Act Would Raise Out-Of-Pocket Costs By $4,927 For Arizonans Buying Marketplace Coverage. “Arizonans, especially older residents, would pay far more under the House bill. The bill would raise total out-of-pocket health costs – premiums, deductibles, copays, and coinsurance – by an average of $4,927 per year for people with coverage in Arizona’s health insurance marketplace.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/13/17]  The American Healthcare Act Raised Premium Costs By $4,006. “Under the House bill, the average “sticker price” for premiums in Arizona would rise by $346 a year, in contrast to Republican claims that their plan would bring down costs, and the tax credits to help offset those premiums would fall by an average of $3,660. That means the average Arizonan with marketplace coverage would pay $4,006 more just to cover premium costs.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/13/17]

 The American Healthcare Act Repealed The Cost-Sharing Subsides, Which Would Increase Out Of Pocket Costs By $921. “The House bill would make it more likely that insurers would offer only higher deductible plans. And it would repeal ACA cost-sharing subsidies that keep out-of-pocket costs lower for many low- and moderate-income Americans. The result? Arizonans would pay higher premiums for plans with higher deductibles, copays, and coinsurance. Arizonans with marketplace coverage would face $921 in higher out-of-pocket costs per year, on average — on top of their extra $4,006 in premiums.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/13/17]

McSALLY VOTED TO WEAKEN PROTECTIONS FOR 2.8 MILLION ARIZONANS WHO HAVE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

McSally Voted For The American Health Care Act (AHCA), Which Would Have Repealed The Affordable Care Act. In May 2017, McSally voted for: “Passage of the bill that would make extensive changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, by effectively repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as most of the taxes that finance the current system. It would, in 2020, convert Medicaid into a capped entitlement that would provide fixed federal payments to states and end additional federal funding for the 2010 law's joint federal-state Medicaid expansion. It would prohibit federal funding to any entity, such as Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions and receives more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. As amended, it would give states the option of receiving federal Medicaid funding as a block grant with greater state flexibility in how the funds are used, and would require states to establish their own essential health benefits standards. It would allow states to receive waivers to exempt insurers from having to provide certain minimum benefits, would provide $8 billion over five years for individuals with pre-existing conditions whose insurance premiums increased because the state was granted a waiver to raise premiums based on an individual's health status, and would create a $15 billion federal risk sharing program to cover some of the costs of high medical claims.” The bill passed, 217-213. [CQ, 5/4/17; H.R. 1628, Vote 256, 5/4/17]

 Politifact Said The AHCA Would Weaken Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions. “Pittenger said that the Republican AHCA health care plan ‘does not eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions.’ While insurers technically would still be required to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, the AHCA would weaken protections for those people. Insurers would be able to charge people significantly more if they had a pre-existing condition like heart disease, cancer, diabetes or arthritis – possibly requiring people to pay thousands of dollars extra every year to remain insured. We rate this claim Mostly False.” [PolitiFact, 5/4/17]

The Affordable Care Act Protected Pre-Existing Conditions For 2.8 Million Individuals In Arizona. “The up to 2,794,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, cancer, or diabetes – including up to 411,000 children – will no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher prices because of their health status or history.” [White House, State By State Cost Of Repeal, Accessed 8/2/18]

 McSally Voted For A Full Repeal Of The ACA. In February 2015, McSally voted for repealing the ACA. “The House voted … to abolish the 2010 health care law in Congress’ first repeal vote of the year … The House has voted more than 50 times to roll back all or portions of the law.” The bill passed 239 to 186. [HR 596, Vote #58, 2/03/15; CQ News, 2/03/15]

 McSally Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act, Including Medicaid Expansion. “As its opening move in the newly convened Congress, the House voted Wednesday to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the 62nd such vote but the first time that a bill will make it to President Obama’s desk, forcing a rare veto to protect his signature domestic achievement. The measure passed easily, 240 to 181.” [New York Times, 1/6/16; Vote 6, 1/6/16]

UNDER AHCA, PREMIUMS WOULD INCREASE BY ALMOST $1,500 A YEAR

CAP: In 2018, Arizonans’ Premiums Would Have Increased On Average By $1,466. [Center For American Progress, 6/15/17]

MCSALLY VOTED FOR WHAT AARP CALLS AN “AGE TAX” ON OLDER AMERICANS OVER THE AGE OF 50

AARP: AHCA Would Institute Age Tax That Would Allow Insurance Companies To Charge People 50 And Over Five Times More Than They Charge Younger People. “The age tax would hit in two ways: First, the American Health Care Act (AHCA) would allow health insurance companies to charge older Americans five times what they charge others for the same coverage. Current law prevents insurance companies from charging more than three times more. Allowing insurance companies to charge people 50 and over five times more than they charge other people would raise premiums for consumers over 60 by more than $3,000.” [AARP, 3/20/17]

MCSALLY SUPPORTS RAISING THE SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT AGE

McSally Wanted To Look At Social Security “Options To Gradually Increase The Retirement Age” For Younger Generations. McSally: “Yeah, actually, oil doesn't have much to do with protecting Social Security for the future. We need to take a look at protecting promises to our seniors, those that are at or near retirement, because those are promises made and they need to be promises kept. But for the younger generation, we need to be smart about looking at options to gradually increase the retirement age, and keep the money in their pocket so they have choices and they can protect their own future. We've got to make some decisions in order to protect and defend it for those future generations, so that it doesn't end up being insolvable and taking over our entire federal government. So, we need, again, people who understand this so they can make those decisions.” [Greater Catalina Council Forum, 4/2/12] (VIDEO)

McSally Said That “We Need To Look At Gradually Increasing The Retirement Age For Younger Workers.” “The matchup: Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., in a rematch with retired Air Force pilot Martha McSally, who narrowly lost in 2012. The southern Arizona district includes Tucson and the U.S.-Mexico border. Democratic plan: Attack McSally for refusing to take positions on some controversial issues, while blistering her for other positions, such as on Social Security. They've seized on remarks she made about the entitlement program to the Arizona Daily Star in 2012: ‘We need to look at gradually increasing the retirement age for younger workers and giving individuals more options to invest part of their benefits for higher returns.’” [Arizona Republic, 8/30/14]

McSally Voted Against Protecting Social Security From An Increase In The Retirement Age “Voting 167 for and 241 against, the House on July 28 defeated a motion by Democrats to prevent regulatory actions under HR 427 (above) that would restructure Medicare or Social Security. The motion stated opposition to changes such as converting Medicare to a voucher program or raising the Social Security retirement age. A yes vote was to protect Medicare and Social Security as now structured. Yes: Kirkpatrick, Grijalva, Gallego, Sinema No: McSally, Gosar, Salmon, Schweikert, Franks.” [Arizona Daily Star, 8/2/15]

MCSALLY SAID SHE COULD SUPPORT SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION

McSally Separately Suggested Allowing Individuals To Personally Invest Their Social Security Benefits. In a 2012 survey, McSally suggested allowing individuals to personally invest their Social Security benefits. On Social Security: What do you suggest we do to ensure future generations get their Social Security benefits? “We must keep the promises we’ve made to seniors and veterans. But a decade of irresponsible spending has left us some tough choices. We need to look at gradually increasing the retirement age for younger workers and giving individuals more options to invest part of their benefits for higher returns.” [Arizona Daily Star, 3/25/12]

In 2012, McSally Supported Considering Proposals To Allow People To Invest Their Social Security Payments In Private Accounts. McSally wrote, “For younger workers, we need to consider approaches such as gradually increasing the retirement age and allowing them to invest a portion of their Social Security payments in ways that will allow them to maximize their returns.” [Green Valley News, 4/04/12]

McSally Wanted To Look At Social Security “Options” Like Allowing Individuals To Invest Their Benefits. McSally: “Yeah, actually, oil doesn't have much to do with protecting Social Security for the future. We need to take a look at protecting promises to our seniors, those that are at or near retirement, because those are promises made and they need to be promises kept. But for the younger generation, we need to be smart about looking at options to gradually increase the retirement age, and keep the money in their pocket so they have choices and they can protect their own future.” [Greater Catalina Council Forum, 4/2/12] (VIDEO)

SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION WOULD REQUIRE HUGE BENEFIT CUTS WHILE WALL STREET COULD REAP BILLIONS IN FEES

NCPSSM: “Even Partial Privatization Of Social Security Would Require Huge Benefit Cuts.” “Even partial privatization of Social Security would require huge benefit cuts for today's workers, especially younger workers. Such plans are touted as being voluntary, but a recent study found that a worker who retires in 2032 and does not opt for a private account would still see a 17 percent cut below current retirement benefits. Some workers who do opt for private individual accounts could face a reduction in benefits of almost 50 percent.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Accessed 11/4/15]

 Headline: “Personal Retirement Accounts = Social Security Privatization” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Accessed 11/4/15]

Wall Street Firms Could Reap Billions In Management Fees If Social Security Taxes Were Funneled Into Private Accounts. “The nation's brokerages and mutual fund companies could be big winners if the government were to allow Americans to funnel some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts each year. Firms such as Fidelity Investments, Vanguard Group, Merrill Lynch & Co. and Schwab collectively could reap billions of dollars in management fees and commissions over the long term.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/18/05]

Privatizing Social Security Could Be A Windfall For Wall Street, Generating Billions In Fees. “President Bush’s plan to partly privatize Social Security could be a windfall for Wall Street, generating billions of dollars in management fees for brokerages and mutual fund companies. But the proposal to allow individual accounts is getting a surprisingly tepid response so far from Wall Street. […] Still, because of the massive size of Social Security, with its 154 million covered employees, Mills estimated that even a simple program of individual accounts comparable to the TSP might generate $39 billion in fees, in present-value terms, over 75 years.” [NBC News, 12/28/04]

MCSALLY VOTED FOR A PLAN TO CHANGE MEDICARE INTO A VOUCHER PROGRAM, SHIFTING COSTS ONTO SENIORS

Arizona Daily Star: In 2017, McSally Voted For A Plan To “Change Medicare To A Voucher Program.” “The House on Oct. 5 adopted, 219-206, a Republican budget plan for fiscal 2018-2027 that would set the stage for later legislative action to reduce corporate and individual taxes by $5.4 trillion and non-military outlays by $5.8 trillion. A yes vote backed a budget (H Con Res 71) that would gradually change Medicare to a voucher program and devolve many K-12 education programs to state and local governments. Yes: McSally, Gosar, Biggs, Schweikert, Franks No: O'Halleran, Grijalva, Gallego, Sinema.” [Arizona Daily Star, 10/8/17]

AARP: FY 2018 House Budget Would Turn Medicare Into A Program That “Shifts Costs” Onto Seniors. “In addition to the Medicare spending cut, the proposal recommends raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 and suggests instituting defined contributions for the program for new beneficiaries. Under such a plan, each beneficiary would get a set amount of money to pay for health costs. ‘These proposals do little to actually lower the cost of health care, but simply shift costs from Medicare onto individuals — many of whom cannot afford to pay more for their care,’ AARP Chief Executive Officer Jo Ann Jenkins said Tuesday in a letter to members of Congress. According to AARP, the typical senior has an annual income of less than $25,000 and already spends 1 out of every 6 dollars of that income on health care.” [AARP, 10/6/17]

NCPSSM: FY 2018 Republican Budget Shifts Costs Onto Medicare Beneficiaries By Privatizing Medicare, Turning It Into A Voucher Program. “Chairwoman Black's plan privatizes Medicare and achieves savings for the federal government by shifting costs to Medicare beneficiaries. Beginning in 2024, when people become eligible for Medicare they would not enroll in the current traditional Medicare program which provides guaranteed benefits. Rather they would receive a voucher, also referred to as a premium support payment, to be used to purchase private health insurance or traditional Medicare through a Medicare Exchange.” [National Committee To Preserve Social Security & Medicare, 8/2/17]

WALL STREET JOURNAL SAID MEDICARE VOUCHER WOULD “ESSENTIALLY END MEDICARE”

Wall Street Journal: “The Plan Would Essentially End Medicare.” The Wall Street Journal wrote, “The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/04/11]

MCSALLY VOTED TO ALLOW INTERNET PROVIDERS TO USE OR SHARE OUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, FINANCIAL AND HEALTH INFORMATION, INCLUDING FOR CHILDREN, AND WEB BROWSING HISTORIES WITHOUT CONSENT

McSally Voted To Block FCC Internet Privacy Protections. In March 2017, McSally voted for: “Passage of the joint resolution that would disapprove and nullify a Federal Communications Commission rule that requires broadband internet service providers to obtain affirmative permission from customers to use or share their sensitive information, such as web browsing history, geolocation information, content of communications and Social Security numbers; to take reasonable measures to secure customer information; and to notify customers, the commission and law enforcement when a data breach occurs that could result in harm.” The bill passed, 215-205. [CQ, 3/28/17; S.J.Res. 34, Vote 202, 3/28/17] Internet Privacy Bill Allows Anyone To Purchase Financial and Health Information, Children’s Information, And Web Browsing History. “The privacy order had several major components. The requirement to get the opt-in consent of consumers before sharing information covered geo-location data, financial and health information, children’s information, Social Security numbers, Web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications. This requirement is supposed to take effect on December 4, 2017.” [Ars Technica, 3/8/17]

Internet Privacy Bill Allows Companies To Purchase Your Location Tracking And Social Security Number. “If the privacy rules were to go into effect, consumers would have to give their consent for service providers to use and share “sensitive information” such as location tracking, social security numbers, browsing data and app usage.” [The Hill, 3/23/17]

MCSALLY SAID FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OUT OF BUSINESS OF EDUCATION

April 2012: McSally Said The Federal Government Should “Stay Out Of The Business Of Education.” “I am very passionate about education, but as a conservative, I think the federal government needs to stay out of the business of education and it needs to be driven at the local level with parent involvement, where there’s innovation, where there’s competition, where there’s excellence that’s rewarded for teachers and for schools,” she said. [KGUN 9 Interview, Time 09:09, uploaded 4/13/12]

McSally Believed That Education Was “Not A Federal Government Responsibility.” “So I think we need to be focusing on bringing the cost of education down. This is not a federal government responsibility. I think the federal government needs to stay, to the max extent possible, out of the business of education, because it is a state and local issue that is best done when there's competition, when there's reward for excellence, and when parents are involved.” [Greater Catalina Council Forum, 4/2/12] (VIDEO)

2017: THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROVIDED OVER $3 BILLION IN STUDENT LOANS TO ARIZONA

2017: Federal Department of Education Provided Over $3 Billion In Student Loans To Arizona. During FY 2017, the federal Department of Education provided $3,076,800,247 in federal direct student loans. [U.S. Department of Education, Appropriation State Tables, FY 2017-2019]

ELIMINATING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WOULD ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The U.S. Department Of Education Administers The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Which Funds Special Education Programs. “Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education. Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by state and local governments. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), also a component of the U.S. Department of Education, administers the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a statute which funds special education programs. Each state educational agency is responsible for administering IDEA within the state and distributing the funds for special education programs. IDEA is a grant statute and attaches many specific conditions to the receipt of Federal IDEA funds. Section 504 and the ADA are antidiscrimination laws and do not provide any type of funding.” [U.S. Department of Education, viewed 2/20/18] MCSALLY SAID SHE WOULD “PROPOSE NO LEGISLATION” TO ADDRESS THE RISING COST OF COLLEGE

2012: McSally Said She Would “Stop Having” Federal Student Loans. In 2012, McSally recommended ending the federal student loan program. McSally said: “As a conservative, the federal government needs to be doing less legislation, not more legislation, when it comes to these local issues. So I would propose no legislation in order to address these rising costs. But we would stop having federal loans that are piling up that then raise the cost of tuition, surprisingly. So what we need to do is make sure we have the best education in the world, we’ve got good competition among those colleges…and get the federal government out of the way.” [Vail High School Debate, Part 3, Question asked 1:00, McSally responded 2:44, uploaded 4/5/12]

V/O: The Arizona Democrat NRSC TOOK QUOTES OUT OF CONTEXT party called her radical… Same Article Says Sinema Worked Across The Aisle To Pass Laws With ON SCREEN: “Sinema Republicans. “But when Sinema toned things down and started reaching across the Entered Politics As A Radical” aisle, things started to change. She began working with Republicans on bipartisan [Arizona Capitol Times legislation, such as a 2006 bill sponsored by then-Rep. Jonathan Paton that permitted 11/12/12] mothers to breastfeed in public. In later years, she even worked with former Sen. Russell Pearce, the illegal immigration hawk who became a lightning rod to the left, on V/O: …and too extreme bills to crack down on drop houses.” [Arizona Capitol Times, 11/12/12]

ON SCREEN: Arizona In The Same Article, A Former Republican Lawmaker Said Sinema Was “A Democrat Party Dubbed Center-Left Pragmatist Who’s Willing To Work With Republicans To Pass Sinema “Too Extreme” Legislation That’s Important To Her.” “Lobbyist Stan Barnes, who runs the firm [Arizona Capitol Times Copper State Consulting Group, said that, in his experiences at the Legislature, 11/12/12] Sinema has usually been a center-left pragmatist who’s willing to work with Republicans to pass legislation that’s important to her.” [Arizona Capitol Times, 11/12/12]

V/O: Kyrsten Sinema, now you SINEMA IS ONE OF MOST INDEPENDENT AND BIPARTISAN get the picture. Radical, MEMBERS IN HOUSE extreme, wrong for Arizona. NRSC is responsible for the 2018: Sinema Was Named The 3rd Most Independent Member Of Congress. [CQ content of this advertising. Magazine, 2/12/18]

ON SCREEN: Kyrsten Sinema Arizona Republic Editorial: “Sinema Has A Track Record Of Working With Radical. Extreme. Wrong For Others, Of Compromising And Moving Legislation Forward.” “She may not be out Arizona there protesting, but Sinema has a track record of working with others, of compromising and moving legislation forward. And in a do-nothing Congress, that’s the kind of congresswoman we need.” [Arizona Republic, Editorial, 8/21/18]

Arizona Republic Editorial: Sinema "Is An Energetic Politician Who Has Compiled A Moderate Voting Record In Tune With The Independent Streak Of The 9th District.” [Arizona Republic, Editorial, 10/2/14]

Arizona Republic Editorial: Sinema “Has Displayed An Eagerness To Work Across The Aisle To Promote Arizona Issues.” [Arizona Republic, Editorial, 10/2/14]

Roll Call On Sinema: “She Doesn’t Act Like The Typical Democrat, Either.” [Roll Call, 2/5/15]

Roll Call On Sinema: “Her Political Brand Is Built Largely On Bucking Leadership And Pursuing A More Moderate Agenda.” [Roll Call, 2/5/15] USA Today: “But She Is Running Less As A Democrat Than A Problem Solver Willing To Work With Anyone, Regardless Of Party.” “Sinema — who represents Tempe and parts of Phoenix, Chandler and Mesa in the House — is the Democratic front-runner for Arizona’s open Senate seat. But she is running less as a Democrat than a problem solver willing to work with anyone, regardless of party.” [USA Today, 11/28/17]

Yahoo On Sinema: “She Is Also One Of The Most Moderate, Bipartisan, Aisle- Crossing Democrats In All Of D.C.” [Yahoo, 12/8/17]

Yahoo: “It’s Hard To Overstate How Resolutely Centrist Sinema Has Remained During Her Nearly Five Years In Congress.” [Yahoo, 12/8/17]

Sinema Criticized “National Democrats For Moving Too Far To The Left.” “This explains why Sinema recently told the New York Times that — in the Times’ paraphrasing — ‘a Democrat would have to campaign in a virtually nonpartisan way to win a Senate race’ in Arizona, criticizing ‘national Democrats for moving too far to the left.’” [Yahoo, 12/8/17]

Washington Post: “Sinema Is By Some Measures The Most Conservative Democrat In The House.” [Washington Post, Paul Waldman, 9/29/17]