Constantin Querard's Taxpayer-Paid Bootlickers David Gowan, Steve Montenegro, Carl Seel, Steve Smith, and Kelly Townsend Do Their Master's Bidding

Constantin Querard, paying a visit to the hired help...

If you're political sleaze maestro Constantin Querard, the Arizona Legislature is practically your own personal Downton Abbey.

Querard's team of taxpayer-funded butlers, bootblacks, and maids is extensive -- at least 20, by his own claim -- in the both the upper and lower chambers.

And on February 21, before the House Reform and Human Services Committee, CQ had five state representatives at his beck and call.

This particular quintet of flunkies included David Gowan, Steve Montenegro, Carl Seel, Steve Smith, and amateur Muppet impersonator Kelly Townsend.

Querard appeared before the committee to pimp a bill near and dear to his heart, one his vassals obediently voted out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation, House Bill 2551.

House Majority Leader Gowan is HB 2551's prime sponsor. Querard ran his campaign last year and made more than $13,000 off the legislator, according to finance reports on the Arizona Secretary of State's website.

(Gowan's not on the RHS committee, but as the bill's sponsor, he spoke on its behalf on February 21.)

RHS committee chair Steve Montenegro ponied up nearly $35,000 for Querard in this last cycle. Well, minus the $848 Querard and his wife, Lisa, donated to Montenegro's campaign.

Vice chair Kelly Townsend paid Querard's consulting firm and printing business more than $24,000 in 2012. Actually, that money came from the Citizens Clean Election Commission, otherwise known as welfare for politicos and their vendors.

Steve Smith was good for $15,643 to Querard's companies, less a $424 contribution from Big Daddy.

Carl Seel bested Smith, forking over more than $20,000 to Querard.

It's good to be lord of the manse. Not only do your minions keep the ducats flowing into your pockets, they'll actually vote for whatever you want, like HB 2551, which reads like a gift to financial pirates, deadbeat dads, scam artists, and assorted other criminals and ne'er-do-wells.

The proposed law would work like this: If a judge or government entity issues a subpoena to examine someone's financial records, the financial institution cannot hand over those documents until 21 days after service.

Meannwhile, a copy of the subpoena has to be sent to the individual, and the individual has 14 days to make a motion to quash the subpoena.

This quashing can be realized for a variety of reasons, all quite subjective: e.g., if the release of the record causes an "unreasonable burden or hardship" or if the government entity is trying to "harass" the individual.

Harassing con men and corporate thieves? Why, that's just plan un-American.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

I support bills that restrict the ability of the government OR private entities from going on fishing expeditions via subpoenas.  I'm pleased with any bill that gives overbearing government agencies "headaches" as well.  It should be difficult to subpoena bank records, ISP records and anything else.  Being given sufficient time to hire counsel to quash an abusive subpoena is a good thing.  Your bank records aren't going anywhere and con artists don't run off the Mexico, they just move to Florida and it isn't like our attorney general goes after con artists in the first place.

That the bill comes from a slime ball like Connie doesn't make it bad.

Just ask the Phoenix New Times what it is like to receive an abusive, fishing expedition subpoena.  Thankfully they had the time and money to oppose it.  That a New Times author would now suggest that people on the receiving end of a subpoena must be con artists or deadbeat dads is ironic.


Isn't this a conflict of interest? You vote for a bill that specifically benefits the person who you paid to get you elected? This stinks to high heaven. Great reporting!

david_saint01 topcommenter

anyone approving this bill is screaming to get recalled. This just sounds like they want to be able to screw the tax payers, and get away with it..typical. Tea party, oh tea party..where are you now??? 



It doesn't specifically benefit anyone.  Connie's issue with subpoenas was in the past.

Do you know what it would take for me to get your bank records, payroll records, list of every website you've visited and numbers of every person you called?  I only need to file a bogus lawsuit making some bogus allegation and follow it up with a subpoena to your bank, your ISP, your employer and your phone provider.  Guess what, they won't oppose the subpoena, they may not even notify you that they received a subpoena and instead just hand all that info over.  If you want to stop those subpoenas you have to file a motion with the court to quash those subpoenas and unless you are smarter than most people you'll have to hire an attorney to do so and before all those people fork over the requested information.

A subpoena is a government enforced demand for information.  People who believe that it should be HARDER, not easier to gain access to other people's private information support bills like this one.  Those who naively believe that only con artists and deadbeat dads receive subpoenas might support it, out of ignorance.



A voter initiative to put some teeth in election laws is needed, not opposition to a law that makes it more difficult for someone to subpoena your bank records.

dennis20 topcommenter

@marcy @Truth_To_Power This bill will change none of what you are talking about.  The civil liberty spin they first tried putting on it was so shallow they even let it go as a talking point. The bill is designed to help sleaze-balls like CQ get around campaign finance laws. 

Now Trending

From the Vault