Did ‘Advocates’ Who Filmed Sen. Sinema In A Bathroom Violate The Law?

There is no justification for the extreme harassment of U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-AZ, on the grounds of “advocacy” by the immigration group, Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA).

Several LUCHA “advocates” (including at least one male) recently followed Sinema into a restroom at Arizona State University, where she teaches.

The group filmed Sinema entering a bathroom stall, the closed door of Sinema’s bathroom stall, her exit and washing up. Then LUCHA published the video on social media for all to see.

LUCHA’s actions far exceed the acceptable bounds of advocacy and cross the line into thuggery and even criminality. Additionally, there is a question about whether LUCHA, a tax exempt 501(c)(4) organization, put its tax exempt status into jeopardy.

Democratic President Joe Biden sloughed off the incident, claiming “it happens to everybody.”

The LUCHA advocates beseeched Sinema to pass a law guaranteeing illegal immigrants have a pathway to citizenship and criticized her for her opposition to Pres. Joe Biden’s $7 trillion COVID relief and infrastructure bill.

in Arizona, it is illegal to surreptitiously film a person in a bathroom for non-security reasons because the law presumes everyone has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in a bathroom. It is also illegal to publish the videotape or film of someone using a bathroom.

It is not clear whether Sinema knew she was being filmed but, even if she did, Sinema wasn’t alone in the bathroom. The LUCHA filming captured other women who happened to be in the bathroom at the time.

LUCHA also may have violated the Arizona statute prohibiting invasion of privacy, which makes it a felony to invade the privacy of a person who has a “reasonable expectation that the person will not be photographed, videotaped, filmed, digitally recorded or otherwise viewed or recorded.” This includes filming a person “while the person is urinating or defecating.”

There is also the question of LUCHA’s tax exempt status.

The IRS says its okay for a “social welfare organization” like LUCHA to engage in political activities relevant to the community it serves. However, the IRS says “social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.”

Was LUCHA carrying water for the Democratic Party, which is attempting to strongarm Sinema to go along with Biden’s $7 trillion COVID-relief and infrastructure proposal?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *