| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
McComish v. Bennett
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.〔Beard Rau, Alia.(“Clean Elections arguments to be heard in court” ), The Arizona Republic, April 11, 2010.〕 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.
==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 “Millionaire’s 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.”〔(“McComish v. Bennett (Clean Elections)” ), The Goldwater Institute.〕 According to the Plaintiffs, the Clean Elections system produced a chilling effect on speech because it “seeks to equalize funding.”〔Fischer, Howard.(“Suit seeks to derail Ariz.’s Clean Elections Law” ), The East Valley Tribune, August 23, 2008.〕 But advocates of the Clean Elections law argue that the system deters corruption because candidates do not have to cater to special interest groups.〔
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."〔Beard Rau, Alia and Mary Jo Pitzl.(“Federal judge strikes down Ariz. Matching funds” ), The Arizona Republic, January 21, 2010.〕 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.〔("Election Subsidy Challenged" ). Scotus Blog, May 25, 2010.〕
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of McComish. (This case was consolidated with ''Arizona Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett'' prior to consideration by the Supreme Court.) 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.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「McComish v. Bennett」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|