Карта сайта

Это автоматически сохраненная страница от 14.02.2013. Оригинал был здесь: http://2ch.hk/b/res/43433646.html
Сайт a2ch.ru не связан с авторами и содержимым страницы
жалоба / abuse: admin@a2ch.ru

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 10:55:25
ТЕКСТ
Уважаемые двощеры, школьник 17лвл на связи. Проябываю школу, в связи с тем, что болит горло. Часам к 3 придет ламповая. Мы будем смотреть кинцо в ТРИ-ДЭ и кушать пиццу. Задавайте свои ответы.


Чтв 14 Фев 2013 10:56:12
>>43433646
Задал.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 10:56:56
>>43433671
Охуеть теперь!

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 10:57:34
глаза красные, как макси, руки в краске,
на отходах валяюсь на матрасе в позе ночи.
мусора серые мрази отобрали у меня хард ту баф.
попробуй ототри мой стафф, накатай заяву, настучи, вышли мне счет.
я все равно пуду поганить еще и еще.
возьму и напишу треки про нариков и алкашню,
как слизистую прожигал со слизки,
как нализался в пятницу в некондицию.
под 43 традицию, пиво и залипоны в бистро,
после пробела винтшахта метро,
включенная сигналка, задел луч -
не нужно было ходить к гадалке.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 10:58:29
Отсылаю приветы в Краснодар и Питер,
Всем друзьям любимым,
Go VegaS правит миром,
Прозвон Никите,
"Есть чо?..
"Может пересечёмся,
Пивка попьём,
Хотя, ведь, уже полночь,
Может в клуб народ соберём?.."

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 10:59:20
>>43433646 Это ты вчера говорил, что к тебе ЕОТ придёт?

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:00:07
>>43433646
Всем похуй, ты ж никто

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:00:27
>>43433646
PS3 почем покупал?

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:00:32
>>43433646
>придет ламповая. Мы будем смотреть кинцо в ТРИ-ДЭ и кушать пиццу
влажные мечты толстяка

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:01:21
>>43433762
Неееет. У меня ни разу в жизни ЕОТ не было. Чувствею себя неполноценным.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:01:23
>>43433646
Иди на хуй!!! Иди на хуй!!! Иди на хуй!!! Иди на хуй!!! Иди на хуй!!! Иди на хуй!!! Иди на хуй!!! Иди на хуй!!! Иди на хуй!!!

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:02:33
>>43433791
187\60. Все еще считаешь меня толстяком?

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:03:38
>>43433646
Соси хуй, убогая социоблядь.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:04:59
Кстати, в моих тредах НИКОГДА нет даблов.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:06:05
>>43433907
Чому я толстяк?

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:06:15
>>43433924
не пизди

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:06:54
>>43433646
С чем пицца? Фотку ламповой в студию.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:07:09
>>43433950
Еще и тупой.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:07:41
>>43433952
Вот тут только один проскочил. Всё.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:08:53
>>43433997
В рот иди ебись.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:08:55
>>43433972

1.Очень сытная и вкусная пицца для тех, кто всерьёз проголодался. Мясо птицы с пряностями, бекон и шампиньоны восхитительно!
2.Ритм свободы, общение и кураж! Два сорта колбасы и фирменный пицца-соус не оставят Вас равнодушным. Хип-Хоп заряжает энергией молодости!

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:10:10
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Supreasdme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Suprasdeme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appealasds' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:10:21
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Supasdreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Suasdpreme Courasdt reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:10:32
>>43434038
теперь ламповую показывай

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:10:31
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Supasdreme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsasd' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutiasdonal.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:10:43
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Suprasdeme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Supreasdme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutionasdl.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:11:13
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Supreasdme Court is sasdcheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Supreasdme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:11:24
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Suasdpreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Supasdreme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeasdals' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:11:35
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Supreasdme asdCourt is scheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Supreme Casdourt reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:11:45
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Suasdpreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Supreme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruliasdng asdand declares matching funds unconstitutional.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:11:56
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Suasdpreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Supasdeme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' rasduling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:12:06
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Supreme Couasdrt is scheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Supasdreme Courasdt reverses Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:12:16
McComish v. Bennett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1998, Arizona voters approved the ballot measure known as the Clean Elections Act. When it was passed, the Clean Elections law established public financing for elections of statewide office campaigns. Candidates who choose to participate in the system must collect a specific number of $5 donations. This makes them eligible to receive public funds. Under the law as passed, if outspent by a non-participating opponent, the participating candidate receives matching funds to ensure they remain competitive.[1] The most prominent candidates filing under the Clean Elections system were Janet Napolitano, who was elected Governor in 2002, and Jan Brewer, who was elected Governor in 2010.
[edit]Lawsuit

The Plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Arizona Clean Elections Commission on August 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Just months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Davis v. Federal Election Commission. Under federal law, if candidates raised $350,000 of their own money, their opponent would be awarded special public fundraising advantages otherwise known as the Millionaires Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck this provision down holding that the goal of leveling electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.[2] According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it seeks to equalize funding.[3] But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.[1]
On January 20, 2010, Federal Judge Roslyn Silver struck down the matching funds provision of the Arizona Clean Elections law as unconstitutional. Judge Silver agreed with the Plaintiffs that the matching funds provision could not stand under Davis, although she referred to the result as "illogical" and referred to the holding in Davis as "an ipse dixit unsupported by the slightest veneer of reasoning to hide the obvious judicial fiat by which it is reached."[4] In doing so, however, Silver allowed the Arizona Clean Elections Commission time to appeal the decision. As a result, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was distinct from the millionaire's amendment.[5]
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. Oral arguments were heard March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and declared matching funds unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
[edit]Case Timeline

August 21, 2008: Case filed in U.S. District Court.
July 17, 2009: Deadline for opposition brief.
July 31, 2009: Deadline for reply brief.
August 7, 2009: Hearing deadline.
January 5, 2010: Plaintiffs file preliminary injunction asking Judge Roslyn O. Silver to stop the issuance of matching funds for the 2010 election.
January 15, 2010: 1:30PM hearing on motions for summary judgment in U.S. Federal District Court, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Judge Silver's courtroom #624.
January 20, 2010: Judge Silver strikes down Clean Elections as unconstitutional, but puts a stay on her order that allows for the state to appeal.
January 27, 2010: Plaintiffs ask 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the stay and strike down the Matching Funds provision of Clean Elections immediately. It is refused.
February 3, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency appeal to repeal the stay on Judge Silver's order with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The appeal is refused and gives the 9th Circuit until June 1 to rule on the appeal by the state.
May 21, 2010: 9th Circuit rules in favor of the state in appeal, saying that Clean Elections' Matching Funds is constitutional.
May 24, 2010: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to vacate the stay with the Supreme Court of the United States.
June 1, 2010: The Court refuses the stay request on the grounds that Goldwater must state, and had not stated, an intent to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision.[6] Goldwater files a third application to lift stay adding its intent to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision.
June 8, 2010: The Supreme Court blocks the distribution of Clean Elections for 2010, removing the district court's stay.[7]
August 17, 2010: Plaintiffs lawyers make formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
November 29, 2010: Supreme Court agrees to consider formal appeal.[8]
March 28, 2011: Supasdreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments.[9]
June 27, 2011: Sasdupreme Court reverses Ninth Circuit Court of asdAppeals' ruling and declares matching funds unconstitutional.[10]

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:23:29
Ты - уебок! Проебываешь время зря. Мне вот 17, всем классом собирались в кино, но я ебал. Я послушал годный альбом. Только что вот дохуя поиграл на гитаре, пропел дохуя самосочиненных текстов на инглише, поделился с другом концепцией нашей будущей группы и песен. Сейчас поотжимаюсь, потом напишу еот, что люблю ее. А потом сяду за уроки. Ебал я в рот ваше кинцо в 3D.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:25:22
>>43434537
Сашу забыл.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:27:26
Ты - уебок! Проебываешь время зря. Мне вот 17, всем классом собирались с тянами гулять, но я ебал. Я послушал годный альбом индийской музыки. Только что вот вошёл в нирвану, скурил дохуя косяков за гаражами, поделился с другом нашей общиней травой. Сейчас помедетирую, потом напишу еот, что люблю ее. А потом сяду за уроки. Ебал я в рот ваших тян.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:40:33
>Мне вот 17
>скурил дохуя косяков
>нашей общиней травой.
Небось сраный спайс палите, школопидоры.

Чтв 14 Фев 2013 11:42:55
>>43435167
Курил натуралку, собирал дичку, упарывал манягу

ОПчик


← К списку тредов