Copper View Elementary School, hybrid instruction

Opponents of Proposition 208 say it could put some dollars into the pockets of administrators, but Arizona schools, on average, spend less on administrative expenses than the rest of the country.

 Josh Galemore / Arizona Daily Star

PHOENIX β€” A business group has spent more than $8.6 million in a last-ditch effort to defeat a state initiative that would hike taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents to help fund K-12 education.

The disclosure, filed electronically on Saturday by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, was filed at least four days after the deadline. Plus it was not made until a complaint was filed with the Secretary of State’s Office.

The report indicates a third, separate pot of money designed to convince voters to vote against Proposition 208. It’s also the largest since source of cash.

Ever wonder why Americans vote on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November? Like many traditions, the practice goes back a long time and hasn't changed in modern times. What do you think? Should we hold Election Day on another day or should we keep it on Tuesdays?

Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy has listed $3.7 million in expenses in its last report that was filed on time. That includes $350,000 directly from the Arizona Chamber.

And a separate No on 208 committee, financed by different business interests, posted a report detailing $1.8 million in spending.

But even with the new infusion of dollars directly by the Chamber β€” far more than the $350,000 it listed as directly contributed to the Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy β€” the opposition is still being outspent by proponents.

The most recent reports of the Invest in Ed committee show $21.6 million in contributions, fueled largely by $7.75 million from the National Education Association and $5.1 million from Stand for Children.

That latter group does not disclose its donors in its state campaign finance reports. And Rebecca Gau, executive director of the Arizona chapter, said she does not know as the dollars come through the national organization.

But the most recent financial report of Stand for Children Inc. list the major donors as The Michael R. Bloomberg Revocable Trust, The Ballmer Philanthropy Group and Stacy Schusterman, the last being a U.S. businesswoman, heirless and philanthropost.

The $16.9 million listed as spending by proponents, however, is not just on advertising and promotion.

It also includes what initiative organizer David Lujan said is about $4 million to hire paid circulators.

On top of that, he said, are the fees for attorneys β€” he had no figures β€” for the legal fight all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court to keep the measure on the ballot in the face of a challenge by the Arizona Chamber.

Disclosure is late

The Saturday disclosure by the Arizona Chamber says the money it has spent dates back as far as Sept. 15. And any expenditures through the end of September should have been disclosed in a report due on Oct. 15, a report the organization never filed at all.

The Oct. 26 deadline was supposed to cover all the other expenses between Oct. 1 and 17, the period leading up to the general election, including funding already set for yet-to-run last-minute commercials.

Chamber spokesman Garrick Taylor said that waiting until Saturday before disclosing any of his organization’s spending was not intentional.

β€œWe inadvertently did not file on time, and once the issue was resolved, the chamber took immediate action last week to resolve the filing,” he said. And Taylor said the group’s name was listed on advertising.

Saturday’s filing came a day after David Lujan, director of the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, filed a complaint with state Elections Director Bo Dul pointing out that the Arizona Chamber apparently was spending money and had yet to file any sort of campaign finance disclosure report. Lujan helped write the proposition.

Support may be waning

The expenditures come as the most recent poll on Proposition 208, done by Monmouth University in New Jersey, show 60% of Arizonans questioned favor the measure that would impose a 3.5% surcharge on income above $250,000 a year for individuals and $500,000 for couples filing separately.

But there are indications that backing for the proposal may be softening.

An identical survey of registered voters done by Monmouth found 66% support in September. And opposition has grown from 25% in September to 34% in October.

And the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which opposes the measure, said early last month that its own survey found just 47% in support. Supporters say the levy, which would affect only about 4% of filers, would generate about $940 million a year.

As described by backers, half of that would be for schools to hire teachers and classroom support personnel, a category that also includes librarians, nurses, counselors and coaches. Those dollars also could be used for raises.

Another quarter would be for support services personnel. That category covers classroom aides, security personnel, food service and transportation.

Become a #ThisIsTucson member! Your contribution helps our team bring you stories that keep you connected to the community. Become a member today.