Comments on: Supreme Court blocks matching funds, throwing races into turmoil

By: Arizona Capitol Times » Blog Archive » Ripple effect

Arizona Capitol Times » Blog Archive » Ripple effect — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:15:14 +0000

[...] halt matching funds, Goldwater Institute appeals againMunger: No regret on ending gov campaign Supreme Court blocks matching funds, throwing races into turmoilPearce seeks to deny citizenship to children of illegalsKagan needs to explain stance on military [...]

By: Bart Turner

Bart Turner — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:37:27 +0000

@ Jon: And how is it “they” are stealing your money? The funding mechanisms for Clean Elections are voter approved and have been upheld by the courts.

And who says your money is going to candidates you don’t want? Did you get a receipt from the Secretary of State or the Clean Elections Commission telling you which candidate received “your” money? Perhaps a thank you note from a candidate? Didn’t think so. Perhaps “your” money went to a candidate you do like — or to fund the voter information pamphlet or the public debates…

Public money gets spent in lots of ways we individually may not agree on — but always only on ways we collectively agree on, either directly (like this voter approved law) or indirectly though our elected representatives.

By: MCRC Briefs 6/8/10 « Maricopa County Republican Committee

MCRC Briefs 6/8/10 « Maricopa County Republican Committee — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:46:10 +0000

[...] Supreme Court blocks matching funds, throwing races into turmoil http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/06/08/supreme-court-blocks-matching-funds-throwing-races-into-tu... [...]

By: Jacque

Jacque — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 05:41:49 +0000

You want to be a candidate? Raise your own money. But first try to “educate” the voting public by making TV time free to candidates who gather sufficient signatures. The voter is stupid, by and large, and the two major parties love ‘em that way! Do something about that.

And add to every ballot “none of the above” which would toss out any election results where the candidates don’t receive more votes than “None” box. McCain and Obama would have gone down in flames and we might have then had some seasoned (not senile) or juvenile (untested, inexperienced) candidates from which to choose.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:59:11 +0000

It’s about time they stopped stealing my money. I shouldn’t have to fund any candidate that I don’t want in office. I hope this day leads to freedom in this area of our lives.

By: RICHARD WARD

RICHARD WARD — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 22:07:20 +0000

If the blocking of a corporation from spending money on a campaign is in violation of the 1st amendment and a restriction on free speech, then why are the voters of Arizona deprived of the same rights under the Constitution as a corporation enjoys. Corporations’ do not vote, “Yet.”
The governing issues for the court, in even accepting this case for review are: the Goldwater Institute very conservative organization, four very conservative justices and one swing justice. So much for an independent judiciary, envisioned by the founding father, this appears to be political decision by a conservative activist court which has little problem fostering their reactionary political agenda. The court which prides itself on protecting States rights should leave our state alone and allow the voters to change or modify the Clean Election Law as they see fit.

By: thebob.bob

thebob.bob — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:39:08 +0000

So far, the SCOTUS is batting 1000 for Big Money and Corporations. No surprise since they were selected by the Corporate-backed Bush Crime Family.

NO Government-regulation. NO limits on “endowed by their creator” free-speech right to fund political Campaigns. No limit to police arrest and interrogation.

The true Party of NO!!

By: Andy Thomas

Andy Thomas — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:59:57 +0000

Why don’t we just do away with elections entirely and auction off the offices to the highest bidder? We should encourage everyone to defraud their business partners like Buz Mills did so they can buy themselves a seat at the political table. The US Supreme Court has, since the 2000 election decision and the “money has a first amendment right” decision, become nothing more than an arm of the Republican party…Bush and Company got what they paid for — a stacked deck that we inaccurately describe as a “court.” Roberts and Scalia are the definition of “activist judges.

By: Gavel Grab » Supreme Court Blocks AZ Matching Funds For Now

Gavel Grab » Supreme Court Blocks AZ Matching Funds For Now — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:44:33 +0000

[...] into disarray just weeks before candidates were to start receiving money,” according to an Arizona Capitol Times blog post. The Supreme Court blocked matching fund payments under Arizona’s public financing system [...]

By: Bart Turner

Bart Turner — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:40:32 +0000

In other words, if participaing candidates received the maximum funding allowable in one grant at the beginning of their campaigns their would be no grounds for complaint. However, because the drafters of the Clean Elections Act sought to protect the public purse by granting matching funds only in those races where the spending by traditional candidates or outside interest groups exceeded the norm, the Supreme Court has decided to strip the voters of the opportunity to hear both sides of the story in precisely those campaigns. Nonsense, pure judicial nonsense.