Some in Scottsdale are crying “outside influence” and “election shenanigans!”

To which historians might shrug and mutter, “what’s new?”

Making his entry into politics some 2,000 years ago, a debt-riddled Julius Caesar, according to biographer Philip Freeman, “borrowed even more money to lavish bribes on the electors who would choose the chief priest.”

Eighteen hundred years later, during a 1758 run for the Virginia House of Burgesses, according to history.com, “Candidate George Washington plied potential voters with 47 gallons of beer, 35 gallons of wine, 2 gallons of cider, 3 1/2 pints of brandy and a whopping 70 gallons of rum punch.”

He won the boozy election, nearly two decades before whipping the Brits in the Revolutionary War – setting the table for current celebrations of America’s 250th birthday party.

Scottsdale, which recently celebrated its 75th birthday as a city, is now the stage for charges and countercharges of election roguery.

“The Axon Question” is not on the ballot, yet looms over the July 21 Primary Election. In just over two weeks, a field of eight candidates gunning for three Scottsdale City Council seats will be trimmed.

One, two or even three of the candidates could win outright, topping the minimum 50% of the total Scottsdale votes divided by six.

Those in favor of and against a planned Axon development are crying “dark money” – insisting the other side refuses to reveal financial backers.

One of the big debates of this election goes back to 2020, when Axon purchased 74 acres of state land on Hayden Road south of the Loop 101. Axon then signed a development agreement with Scottsdale to facilitate its plans for a spaceship-themed office – and office only.

Three years later, the Taser-maker “shocked” neighbors by unveiling a plan for the office … plus a hotel and upwards of 2,500 apartments.

A year of controversy followed, with Axon’s ambitious plan batted around by side-eyed commissions. Ultimately, in November 2024, Scottsdale City Council approved Axon’s rezoning request to allow for 1,900 units.

Councilwoman Solange Whitehead joined the majority in approving the plan; representatives Barry Graham and Kathy Littlefield – the only other two still on council – voted against it.

While Kathy Littlefield is reaching the end of her maximum three terms, Whitehead and Graham are running for reelection.

Even as the 5-2 votes were being tabulated Nov. 19, 2024, an insider in the back of City Hall’s forum muttered, “You watch – there’s going to be a referendum.”

Indeed, Bob Littlefield was already hatching a challenge plan. The husband of Kathy Littlefield is a former three-term councilman himself and currently running to return to council.

Days after the Axon vote in 2024, Littlefield launched Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions, with the snarky acronym “TAAAZE.”

Within six weeks, TAAAZE collected 25,000-plus signatures – more than enough to demand a referendum on the rezoning Axon required for its plan.

For more than a year, Axon founder Rick Smith and company president Josh Isner alleged TAAAZE was backed by “a California union.”

As a Jan. 12, 2025, Progress story noted, “Though he continues to refuse to name the group’s financial backers, Littlefield said a Jan. 15 filing with the city will show ‘there’s no union behind it.’

“He said union members “collected I think 700 signatures – out of 27,000. Hardly makes a difference.’”

Eighteen months later, Axon representatives and acolytes continue to challenge the source of TAAAZE’s “dark money.” Bob Littlefield is sticking by his story.

Meanwhile, Bob Littlefield, Graham and fellow City Council candidate Michelle Ugenti-Rita are howling Axon is secretly funding attacks on them.

The trio points to the month-old political action committee Better Together, which is paying for ads on the Progress website, social media and elsewhere. The Better Together messages: “Bye Bye Barry,” “Backwards Bob Littlefield” and “Michelle Ugenti-Rita is Trouble.’

Better Together, TAAAAZE and other Arizona political action committees are required to file second-quarter financial reports in mid-July.

In a Facebook post on the Graham-Axon battle, Better Together commented with another dig: “Barry Graham is an unethical mess.”

The Progress asked if the PAC would reveal its funding source.

David Leibowitz, treasurer of the PAC, provided a copy of the Better Together finance report, showing $335,000 in contributions from National Horizon, a Virginia-based PAC.

“Better Together is not funded by dark money at all,” Leibowitz said. “National Horizon is a federal super PAC. It is required to disclose its donors. They have until July 15 to file that campaign finance report. We simply chose to file our report early.”

According to opensecrets.org, “National Horizon is a conservative, Republican-aligned super PAC … It frequently operates as an independent expenditure committee to influence key federal and state races.”

From May 3 through June 30, Better Together reported spending $264,000 — with $200,000 going to Red Eagle Media, also based in Virginia.

As its financial disclosure shows, the new political action committee Better Together has spent tens of thousands in ‘attack ads’ targeting Scottsdale City Council candidates Michelle Ugenti-Rita, Bob Littlefield and Barry Graham.

“The money in this report was spent because Barry Graham, Michelle Ugenti-Rita and Bob Littlefield have records that have repeatedly raised concerns about their judgment, ethics, honesty and leadership,” Leibowitz said. “Scottsdale voters deserve to know that before Election Day.”

The Scottsdale PAC states $52,000 went to Solange Whitehead’s “Solange for Scottsdale” reelection campaign.

Though the identity of donors who contributed to National Horizon specifically for the Scottsdale activity may not be revealed, Leibowitz insisted Better Together does not meet the legal definition of “dark money.”

“Dark money is funding from a 501(c)(4) non-profit,” Leibowitz added, “which can keep its donors a secret. That’s what TAAZE did when they used the so-called Arizona Public Integrity Alliance to hide the source of its donations.”

TAAAZE

As of this edition’s deadline, TAAAZE had not yet filed its second quarter report, due later this week.

In May, TAAAZE reported income of $50,374, with 95% coming from the Mesa-based “dark money” conduit Public Integrity Alliance. TAAAZE expenses were $49,640 – most in operating expenses.

The only individual listed as contributing more than $500: Paul Ganther, a Scottsdale resident who wrote a $2,500 check to TAAAZE.

Bob Littlefield has been listed as the TAAAZE chairman since its founding, but according to a June 23 press release, Littlefield was stepping down as chairman of TAAAZE, for strategic reasons:

“This will provide our group with the flexibility to support or oppose candidates,” according to the TAAAZE release.

The Progress responded to the email by again asking Littlefield to reveal TAAAZE’s financial backer.

“The major source of funding for TAAAZE has always been the Public Integrity Alliance, run by Tyler Montague,” Bob Littlefield replied.

The Morrison Institute and others refer to Public Integrity Alliance as a “dark money” nonprofit – meaning it is not legally required to publicly disclose its individual or corporate donors.

Asked to name individual donors funneling money to TAAAZE through the PAC, Littlefield replied:

“Don’t know.”

The Progress asked Montague if Littlefield – chairman of TAAAZE for some 18 months – would have access to the identities of the Public Integrity Alliance donors funneling money to TAAAZE.

“I don’t know that he knows – I know he doesn’t fully know,” Montague answered. “He’s not pulling your leg.”

Montague said Axon’s actions justify keeping donors anonymous: “Look at how they’ve been behaving. Look at what they’re apparently doing to people who opposed them,” the Public Integrity Alliance leader said.

Montague called the $3 billion Taser maker “a large entity with a lot of money and some level of vindictiveness.”

How did Bob Littlefield and Montague/Public Integrity Alliance become allied in the first place?

“I volunteered,” Bob Littlefield said, somewhat cryptically.

Montague said he was fuzzy on the genesis of the relationship.

“I was approached and made aware of it,” he said. “And I said, ‘Yeah, this is something that fits our integrity mission.’”

As a very-different Scottsdale City Council was passing the Axon rezoning in November 2024, “I remember having a conversation with Michelle Ugenti-Rita at the time and Bob Littlefield at the time,” Montague said.

“We had a couple conference calls at the time – then we got going raising money.”

Montague also confirmed Public Integrity Alliance’s funding of TAAAZE hardly stopped at the signature drive.

With a referendum scheduled for November 2026, Axon countered by successfully lobbying state legislators – who largely ignored the protest testimonies of Graham and Ugenti-Rita.

Senate Bill 1543, signed last year by Gov. Katie Hobbs, nullified the referendum and took away Scottsdale’s power to monitor the Axon development via inspections and review boards.

TAAAZE countered that by filing a lawsuit against the state (with the city also named) challenging the constitutionality of “the Axon bill.”

With the TAAAZE lawsuit pending at Maricopa Superior Court, Axon reached an agreement with a very different Scottsdale City Council early this year.

In a last-minute, behind-the-scenes negotiation, Mayor Lisa Borowsky secured Isner’s agreement – after Isner publicly displayed a text that he said showed TAAAZE agreed to a deal – to reduce the Taser maker’s plan from more than 1,800 apartments to 600 apartments and 600 condos.

With Graham, Kathy Littlefield and Jan Dubauskas opposing and Borowsky, Whitehead, Adam Kwasman and Maryann McAllen in favor, City Council approved the Axon-Scottsdale “memorandum of understanding.”

TAAAZE then filed another lawsuit, claiming the MOU is illegal.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Herrod ruled on the older lawsuit, rejecting the claim of unconstitutionality – but not quite slamming the door on the first TAAAZE lawsuit.

Herrod also heard arguments on the MOU lawsuit, but has yet to issue a ruling.

Though TAAAZE is looking like the Brits in the Siege of Yorktown, Montague said the legal war is not over.

“We’re in it till the end,” he said.

Is a truce possible?

Montague said negotiations could lead to “improvements to the project that could happen that would make people feel OK.”

If that doesn’t happen, he reiterated, “We’re in it for the long haul.”

Montague was asked how much Public Integrity Alliance has spent on the double-barreled TAAAZE lawsuits.

“I don’t know off the top of my head,” he answered. “But lawyers aren’t cheap,” he added with a chuckle. “I’ll say that.”

Montague again countered Axon’s statements that a California union is funding TAAAZE.

“We – Public Integrity Alliance – have not taken any money from unions,” he said.

Littlefield previously told the Progress union members “collected I think 700 signatures – out of 27,000. Hardly makes a difference.”

Better Together

As the Progress reported last year, Axon Enterprises and Smith each contributed $500,000 to Arizonans for a Better Future. Isner, the Axon president who has publicly battled and even belittled  Graham, chipped in $100,000 to the political action committee.

The Axon/Smith-funded PAC put some of that money to use in TV ads attacking Graham in 2025.

Arizonans for a Better Future spent $582,000 – with $170,000 to Signal Research, $165,000 to Trailhead Strategic Communications and $16,000 to David Leibowitz – through the first quarter of this year, according to Transparency USA.

As former Progress managing editor Wayne Schutsky reported in an April KJZZ story, the Axon-backed PAC gave contributions of between $500 and $5,000 to 52 Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the Arizona House and Senate who voted for SB 1543.

Topping the bill was a $5,000 contribution to Rep. Tony Rivero (R-Peoria), who sponsored the bill.

Now, according to its website that mirrors Arizonans for a Better Future, “Better Together is a political action committee committed to keeping our communities moving forward with practical, politically wise solutions that rise above partisanship.”

Better Together’s Facebook site claims it is “Cutting through the clutter of politics to enhance the economy, public safety, and individual freedom. A voice for common sense in a world of screaming.”

Better Together filed with the state June 5.

Chris Baker is its chairman; he is also listed as an Axon lobbyist.

Leibowitz, who as recently as May 14 responded to a Progress question as its spokesman, is listed as Better Together’s treasurer.

Baker and Leibowitz were also listed as chairman and treasurer of Arizonans for a Better Future.

As the Progress reported, Graham, Bob Littlefield and Ugenti-Rita wrote a letter to Axon’s board of directors, complaining company executives were working with Better Together “to influence the 2026 City Council election” by attacking them.

Leibowitz told the Progress, “Axon is not ‘officially’ or directly involved in the Scottsdale Council races.”

Isner’s public statements closely align with the messaging from Better Together PAC – including hammering Graham over an independent panel finding last summer that the councilman violated Scottsdale’s code of ethics.

On June 27, Graham posted the link to a story on the election, commenting the story was about “Axon’s interference in Scottsdale’s City Council election.”

Isner reposted Graham’s tweet, with his own commentary: “Someone pls tell  @BarrySGraham to keep retweeting articles that outline his ethics conviction and his sidekick’s history of alleged sexual harassment.”

The last part of the post was apparently a dig at Ugenti-Rita. According to one of the Better Together ads in the Progress, “Ugenti-Rita was investigated for sexual harassment and was accused of intimidation and making threats.”

Three days before that post, Isner accused Graham of cringy self-promotion using fake accounts:

“The idea of Barry logging into all his burners to like and retweet his own posts,” Isner posted on X June 24, “will never not be amusing.”

The Progress asked Isner a series of questions, including if he is involved in the Better Together strategy/messaging – and if he and/or Smith have donated to Better Together.

“We won’t be participating in Mr. Littlefield and Mr. Graham’s latest attempt to use our brand as a political prop and vilify our team,” Isner responded.

“They are not serious people and cannot be trusted, as evidenced by Mr. Graham’s ethics conviction. We are focused on supporting public safety and positively contributing to a community that Axon has been a part of for over 30 years.”

Echoing others who oppose the Taser and police body camera maker’s expansion plan, Montague insists he is not anti-Axon.

“I think Axon’s a good Arizona company. And I’m not necessarily opposed to what they want to do – I have some process problems,” Montague said. “To me they were doing a bait and switch, sneaking apartment complexes into the back door.

“And then the voter referendum was put out and they sidestepped that.”

Chuckling at the understatement, Montague summarized the Axon-TAAAZE siege:

“It’s been a scrappy battle.”