Hey all,
I have a friend who is running for state Senate in AZ , Rebecca Schneider. I do her photographs. I saw this on her site. Please anyone in AZ call and bitch to the powers that be about this. This decision was handed down in June but I think it needs wider play. I know it is a court decision so not in the hand of the people but if it gets more play pressure could be applied.
Thanks!
It's AZ Central but still look legit
An emergency Supreme Court ruling halting public matching funds for Arizona political candidates will cut millions of dollars from the campaigns of some of the Republican candidates for governor and attorney general.
The decision, which comes less than two months before early voting begins, is likely to leave the program frozen until the court decides whether it will hear the case. That may not happen until fall.
(snip)
In 2002, Democrat Janet Napolitano ran as a Clean Elections candidate in the general election against traditional candidate and Republican Matt Salmon. Salmon spent $2.1 million in that race, triggering matching funds for Napolitano, who won. In 2006, Napolitano and Republican candidates Len Munsil and Don Goldwater all ran as Clean Elections candidates. Opponent spending did not reach the level to trigger matching funds.
In 2008, a group of Republican candidates filed a suit arguing that to avoid triggering matching funds for their opponents, they had to limit their spending - and, in essence, their freedom of speech.
In January, a U.S. District Court judge agreed. But a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying that matching funds impose a "minimal burden" on First Amendment rights.
The plaintiffs first asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency halt to the matching funds. That request on its own was rejected, but the plaintiffs filed the request again, saying they intended to appeal their entire case to the high court.
So I WONDER who the judges are paid by.
This is absolutely tragic if it stands. Of course it is probably designed just to screw with Dem and Rep challengers just long enough to screw with their chances of winning.
Some more input
The court acted after opponents argued that subsidizing "clean" candidates restricts the free-speech rights of their privately funded opponents. The full hearing on the case may come in the court's next term.
We don't agree with the free-speech argument, by the way: It seems to us that by financing more ads, more brochures, more travel by publicly funded candidates, the equalizing provision increases free speech in campaigns.
WTF??!!!
Just wanted to let folks know about this.
Thank,
Chaos