Other articles by Daniel Scarpinato:

State cuts in budget slap cities, counties Political Notebook by Daniel Scarpinato: It's gotta hurt: Kolbe no longer helping Bee Bush to visit Tucson for Bee fundraiser in 2 weeks, invite says Move afoot to revive spring training bill Phx. session finale rocky for Sen. Bee Senate puts gay-marriage ban on ballot No Pima County vote on a tax for baseball Contention rules floor on last day of session Political Notebook by Daniel Scarpinato : Dems keep cameras on Bee, hoping for a gaffe Baseball tax plan adds local diversions to the list

Trades/Construction
arizona portland cement
maintenance electrician Trades/Construction
Pioneer Landscaping
Yard Person/Loader Operator Trades/Construction
Baker Brothers Plumbing
Dry Wallers Sales and Marketing
Xentel
Expanding call center. New Hiring Bonus! General
The Graham Group
Assistant to the Building Manager Engineering
Knight Piesold & Co
Engineer Mechanical
Pioneer Landscaping
Diesel Fleet Mechanic

PHOENIX — A bipartisan effort to demand Arizona pension funds sell off any investments linked to Sudan is being criticized for putting the state's financial interests ahead of humanitarian concerns.

If the bill were to pass, Arizona's retirement system could no longer invest in companies connected to Sudan. And those companies could not receive state contracts for goods or services — as long as it doesn't end up costing the state money.

Under the proposal, the state would not be required to divest its assets in a company if doing so resulted in the state not getting nearly the full value of the investment.

The divestiture measure, which has been roundly praised, seeks to shift stock the state holds away from foreign companies that are linked to Sudan — specifically in oil, mineral, power and weapon sales.

Advocates say they are looking to put pressure on the Sudanese government, which is accused of arming a militia in the region of Darfur, where conflict has led to the deaths of 400,000 people, according to some estimates.

State Rep. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, says the exemption makes the bill meaningless and he's seeking to eliminate it — a move the prime sponsor feels could unravel bipartisan support and render it unconstitutional.

Crump plans to introduce an amendment when the bill goes to the House floor Thursday, striking the exemption.

"It creates this huge loop whole that you could drive a Mack truck through," Crump said. "This whole thing doesn't mean anything. It's all just kind of feel-good."

In what is an extremely rare occurrence, all 90 members of the Legislature — including Crump — signed onto the original bill as sponsors or co-sponsors, meaning it's likely to pass in its current form. Arizona would then join 22 other states and the federal government in passing similar divestiture legislation.

The bill's prime sponsor, state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, fears that if Crump's amendment passes, the effort will lose steam. She says what Crump is suggesting would risk making the divestiture bill unconstitutional because the state is mandated to get the highest return possible on its investments.

"All the bills across the country say that," Sinema said. "The good news is that … what's happened in other states is that when they've done divestiture, they've actually increased the value of their holdings."

And in that regard, Sinema said, she doesn't believe the exemption will even be an issue. "I don't feel there's any risk that we'll lose a single penny," she said.

Sinema says the threshold was a compromise worked out between her and the Arizona State Retirement System, which was initially skeptical of such a move.

"We started from a basis that was somewhat expansive and were able to narrow it down and make it much more tailored," said Lesli Sorensen, lobbyist for the retirement system. "Rep. Sinema's goal is to help the people of Sudan but not necessarily to the detriment of the employees of the state of Arizona."

Sorensen said she doesn't believe that's led to the bill being watered down.

"I don't think the bill is meaningless," Sorensen said. "There is nothing out there to show that divestment has a financial impact."

Sinema says the legislation will potentially target 22 foreign companies classified as the "highest offenders" by the Sudan Divestment Task Force.

Crump remains skeptical and is asking other legislators to take a second look.

"If we're going to do it, let's not make it hollow. Let's do it for real," he said. "I don't want to be part of something that's just a facade."

Under the bill, the state would need to identify all holdings of companies with Sudanese operations. The list would need to be updated annually. After 18 months, 100 percent of the company's assets would need to be removed from the fund.