text:
Nissan August 2017 Deals, Rebates and Incentives
Nissan's three prominent sedans (Altima, Maxima and Sentra) can be snatched up through some highly tempting offers. 0 percent financing for 72 months is attached to 2016 Nissan Altima's and Maxima's with the inclusion of bonus cash ($1,500 for the Altima and $500 for the Maxima). The 2016 Nissan Sentra is offered with 0 percent financing for 60 months. All three sedans also boast bonus cash ranging from $1,500 to $3,750 if opting to purchase one of the Nissan models. Aggressive financing is also found for the 2016 model year Murano, Pathfinder and Rogue with 0 percent APR or 72 months as well as bonus cash offered with each crossover vehicle. Offered with up to $3,250 in total savings with purchase, 2016 Nissan Pathfinder S 4x4 models being leased also come with bonus cash. A $1,000 bonus cash offer is attached to a $259 per month lease for 36 months on the Pathfinder S 4x4 (following 2,199 due at signing payment). The all-electric 2016 Nissan Leaf receives some of the automaker's most ambitious savings. A total of $6,000 bonus cash is combined with a $7,500 United States federal tax savings after the Leaf purchase. Alternatively, 0 percent financing for 72 months is also offered with 2016 Leaf models paired with savings of up to $6,000.
Latest 2017 Nissan dealer incentives and deals
2017 Nissan 370Z
The sporty and stylish 370Z coupe from Nissan lets you enjoy a technologically enhanced joyride, no matter where your destination may be.
2017 Nissan Altima
The midsized Altima sedan by Nissan delivers a copious mixture of elegance and technology without breaking the bank.
2017 Nissan Armada
Redesigned for 2017, the Armada is a flagship vehicle for Nissan, and a viable contender to all other competing full-size SUVs.
2017 Nissan Frontier
Nissan's flagship Frontier pickup truck comes with limited base trim level equipment, but delivers a long list of addable options.
2017 Nissan GT-R
The breathtaking GT-R is Nissan's most coveted prize, a true roadster that delivers 600 horsepower of adrenaline at the push of a pedal.
2017 Nissan JUKE
The popular Nissan Juke delivers on features and amenities while not taxing your wallet with too high a price tag.
2017 Nissan LEAF
Nissan's Leaf delivers a modern take on the all-electric vehicle, one that comes with an impressive per-charge range, offered at a price that may surprise you.
2017 Nissan Maxima
Nissan's flagship Maxima provides an elegant, luxurious and comfortable ride, priced well within competition, available with plenty of addable options.
2017 Nissan Murano
Nissan's midsized Murano crossover SUV offers a luxurious and quiet ride with all the features and technology that you'd ever need.
2017 Nissan NV Cargo
For businesses that need a reliable and affordable van, Nissan's NV Cargo van is a simple and cost effective answer.
2017 Nissan NV Passenger
Getting your crew to and from points is made more efficient and economical with the NV Passenger van by Nissan.
2017 Nissan NV200 Compact Cargo
Nissan's compact NV200 delivers on storage space and convenience, and is suited for businesses of all sizes.
2017 Nissan Pathfinder
Nissan's best-selling Pathfinder SUV has room enough for seven passengers and comes with a healthy list of standard features.
2017 Nissan Quest
Nissan's Quest minivan delivers a quiet and comfortable ride that has a strong focus on interior amenities and addable options.
2017 Nissan Rogue
Nissan does not disappoint with the well-equipped Rogue crossover. A nicely outfitted SUV that has plenty of addable options for buyers of all backgrounds.
2017 Nissan Rogue Sport
Nissan's popular Rogue Sport gives drivers an amenity packed crossover SUV.
2017 Nissan Sentra
The long-running Sentra compact sedan has been a winner for Nissan and its customers time and time again. It carries on the tradition in 2017.
2017 Nissan Titan
Nissan's flagship Titan offers an extensive set of standard features that truly make it stand out.
2017 Nissan Titan XD
The large-sized Titan XD has a sleek and modern design, and plenty of power under the hood, enabling it to easily compete with all other trucks in its class.
2017 Nissan Versa Note
The Versa Note is a spacious entry-level hatchback that offers plenty of upgrades, found in the upper trim levels and available options.
2017 Nissan Versa Sedan
The Nissan Versa sedan offers compact convenience at an entry-level price tag that's hard to ignore.
2017 Nissan NV200 Taxi


text:
Reynoldsburg Training Focuses On School Attack On Campus
Reynoldsburg Police, and other area emergency responders, prepared students at the Reynoldsburg High School Summit Campus for a potential shooting incident at their school.
The Multi-Agency Response Training was designed to show both students and staff what it would look like if law enforcement had to respond to an incident at the school.
The scenario for the drill was a man, near the cafeteria, with a gun.
A "controlled explosion" was used to represent a shot fired inside the school.
Emergency personnel raced to the scene as students were evacuated.
As officers made their way inside the school, they crossed paths with students who were hurt, and in pain, as they searched for an active shooter.
MedFlight landed outside to take wounded students to area hospitals.
Reynoldsburg police say if there was an incident at the school, the drill on Friday resembled what a coordinated response would look like.
The department says it hopes students understand what it takes to keep them safe.
"We're hoping they see how the safety drill is supposed to work," said Lt. Ron Wright with the Reynoldsburg Police Department."We are hoping that they know their evacuation routes and how to evacuate quickly and safely. We are letting them see confidence in their first responders that they are there for them and they are there for the community to keep them safe"
It's a lesson that students say they get.
"I've learned that composure is a very significant part of the evacuation process," said student Ayanna Burton.
"They take these things like super serious and we should follow whatever we are supposed to do and know how we are supposed to respond to stuff like this," said Samantha Buck.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Nov 19 (Reuters) - Nav Canada, the private company that manages air traffic over Canada, said it would spend $150 million for a controlling stake in a joint venture with Iridium Communications Inc that will track planes over oceans in real time.
Nav Canada, which gets its money from airline fees, will make the investment in five installments through 2017, giving it a 51 percent stake in the joint venture, Aireon LLC.
The joint venture, first announced in June, will allow aircraft to fly longer in better weather -- saving fuel, decreasing carbon emissions and increasing passenger safety.
Air traffic authorities currently need to keep aircraft widely spaced due to lack of radar visibility over oceanic airspace and mountainous terrain.
"We're confident the North Atlantic (air traffic) will substantially cover most of the costs of Aireon but it won't cover all of them, so we need other parts of the world as well," Nav Canada Chief Executive John Crichton told Reuters.
"We're interested in other air navigation service providers becoming investors."
Iridium, which will own the rest of Aireon, said while costs of setting up the new venture were covered for now, it would be open to taking on other investors.
The companies said they have yet to decide how much they will charge for Aireon's services, which Nav Canada estimated would save airlines over $100 million in annual fuel costs on their North Atlantic routes alone.
Aireon has agreed that the price needs to be considerably less than the expected fuel savings for the airlines, Nav Canada's Crichton said.
Aireon's service will use receivers built into 66 satellites in Iridium's second-generation constellation, due to be launched starting 2015.
Although the joint venture will be fully up and running only after the launch is complete in 2017, Iridium said Aireon will start generating revenue right from when the first satellite is turned on in just over two years.
Data from aircraft reporting their positions through the system will start flowing in early 2015, Iridium CEO Matt Desch said in an interview with Reuters.
"I know that a lot of the air navigation service providers are going to be interested in that data even upfront and would be glad to pay for it."
Aireon, whose services will also enable aircraft black boxes to send information real time, could be taken public in the future, the JV partners said.
"It's premature to (talk about going public) right now, but that certainly is not ruled out in the future," Crichton said.
Nav Canada, a not-for-profit financed by publicly traded bonds, said it would not raise additional debt to finance the first tranche of its investment in the joint venture.


text:
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal ("ProtectMarriage.com"), National Organization for Marriage,—Yes on 8, Sponsored by National Organization for Marriage ("NOM-California"), and John Doe # 1, an individual, and as representative of the Class of Major Donors ("Major Donors") (collectively "Plaintiffs"), each committees under California election law, filed the current action challenging California's statutory requirement that they disclose the names and other personal information of those contributors of $100 or more. Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Protective Order. Plaintiffs ask that this Court: 1) enjoin Defendants from enforcing the semiannual reporting requirements under California Government Code § 84200; 2) enjoin Defendants from commencing criminal or civil actions for failing to comply with those reporting requirements; and 3) enjoin Defendants from both publishing reports or making available prior reports or campaign statements filed by Plaintiffs pursuant to California's Political Reform Act of 1974, Cal. Gov.Code § 81000 et seq. ("PRA"). Hearing on the matter was held on January 29, 2009, with representatives for all parties present. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied and the Protective Order already in place is extended.
On November 4, 2008, the citizens of California adopted a ballot measure, Proposition 8, that changed the California Constitution such that marriage would only thereafter exist "between a man and a woman." Plaintiffs are primarily formed ballot committees under the PRA and were established specifically to support the passage of Proposition 8.
The PRA requires committees such as Plaintiffs to report detailed information regarding their contributors. Specifically, Plaintiffs are required to file semiannual reports including the name, street address, occupation, name of employer, or if self-employed, the name of the business, the date and amount received during the period covered by the statement and the cumulative amount of contributions. Cal. Gov.Code §§ 84200, 84211(f). This information is then available, inter alia, on the website of the Secretary of State. Additionally, opponents of Proposition 8 have reproduced such information on a variety of their own websites and have also included
Plaintiffs allege that, as a consequence of their support of Proposition 8, their contributors have been subject to threats, reprisals, and harassment. Plaintiffs submitted numerous articles elaborating various death threats, physical violence, and threats of violence directed against Proposition 8 supporters, as well as acts of vandalism, protests, and boycotts. See Declaration of Sarah E. Troupis ("First Troupis Decl.").
Specifically, Plaintiffs provided evidence that Fresno Mayor Alan Autry and Pastor Jim Franklin, of Fresno's Cornerstone Church, both supporters of Proposition 8, received a death threat. Id., Exh. C. That threat stated in part:
Id., Exh. E. Pastor Franklin's home, church and church office were also "egged." Id.
Additionally, Plaintiffs provided several articles stating that, in November, a small group of evangelical Christians, known to frequent San Francisco's Castro District on a weekly basis to pray, sing hymns, and attempt to convert homosexuals to a "straight lifestyle," were the subject of backlash from opponents of Proposition 8. Id., Exh. F, G. One of the articles further reported that opponents of the measure interrupted church services in Michigan and that two Mormon temples and one Knights of Columbus headquarters received envelopes containing white powder. Id., Exhs. F, I.
In early November, fifteen people were arrested while attending a protest against Proposition 8 in Long Beach. Id., Exh. K. Despite police statements that the event was a "great success considering the number of people who attended," at the end of the event approximately 100 individuals blocked traffic, refused to leave and then allegedly attempted to incite a riot. Id. Plaintiffs documented additional protests and boycotts as well. Id., Exhs., L-N.
Furthermore, several individuals have allegedly been forced to resign from their jobs amidst criticism over their monetary support of the ballot measure. See id.,
There have also been scattered reports of the theft of "Yes on 8" signs, vandalism of both residential and commercial buildings, and vandalism of church property, including one instance in which opponents of Proposition 8 apparently arranged "Yes on 8" signs in the form of a swastika on church grounds. Id., Exhs. H, Q, S-Z.
Finally, Plaintiffs filed anonymous declarations from several individuals who allege to have suffered personal repercussions because of their support of Proposition 8:
Plaintiffs initiated this action because they are statutorily required to again file semiannual reports on January 31, 2009.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief arguing first that they are "entitled to an as-applied blanket exemption from California's compelled disclosure provisions because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable probability that compelled disclosure will result in threats, harassment, and reprisals because of their support for Proposition 8." Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("Motion"), 5:21-24. Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that "California's threshold for compelled disclosure of contributors is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." Id., 6:1-3. Namely, Plaintiffs challenge the $100 threshold after which individual contributors must be disclosed. Finally, according to Plaintiffs, "any ballot measure regulation that requires compelled disclosure regarding ballot measure activity after the election has occurred in unconstitutional because it cannot logically be related to a compelling state interest." Id., 6:12-14.
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and Plaintiffs have the burden of proving the propriety of such a remedy by clear and convincing evidence. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 442, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). In order to warrant issuance of such relief, Plaintiffs must demonstrate either: 1) a combination of probable success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable injury; or 2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of granting the requested injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839-40 (9th Cir.2001); Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). (likelihood rather than possibility of success on the merits required for issuance of preliminary injunctive relief).
These two alternatives represent two points on a sliding scale, pursuant to which the required degree of irreparable harm increases or decreases in inverse correlation to the probability of success on the merits. Roe v. Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.1992). Under either formulation of the test for granting injunctive relief, however, Plaintiffs must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ. Co., 762 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The debate over the merits of Proposition 8 has proved divisive, both locally and
However, this case is not about gay marriage. This case is not about whether that right to marry exists and from where that right might derive, nor is it about the content of a California referendum already appropriately before the California Supreme Court.
This case is about the First Amendment.
Before this Court is the narrow issue of whether California's compelled disclosure law violates the guarantees afforded the citizens of the United States under the First Amendment. Thus, the Court must consider the State's power to regulate its own electoral process, and the tension between that governmental power and the free, uninhibited, and robust discourse necessary to the American way of life. It must evaluate a challenge to the PRA, itself a law enacted directly by the people and in place for over thirty years, a law that has never before been attacked on the specific grounds currently before this Court.
Specifically, at issue is whether compelled disclosure of the names of Plaintiffs' contributors will result in a threat of harm so substantial as to warrant an exemption from California's disclosure requirements, an exemption historically reserved for small groups promoting ideas almost unanimously rejected. At issue are the harms alleged to await Plaintiffs because those who disagree with Plaintiffs' beliefs have engaged in repugnant and despicable acts that, rather than justify in their own right the protections afforded by the shield of First Amendment, are being wielded as a sword to improperly attack Plaintiffs' contributors.
Consequently, the issues before this Court are decidedly narrow: 1) Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to an as-applied blanket exemption from California's compelled disclosure requirements because there is a reasonable probability that disclosure will result in threats, harassment, and reprisals to their contributors; 2) whether California's $100 compelled disclosure threshold is unconstitutionally low because such a low figure is not appropriately related to a proper government interest; and 3) whether California's post-election reporting requirement is unconstitutional for the same reason. Accordingly, the only question this Court can and will answer is whether a preliminary injunction is necessary to rectify the alleged infringement of Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. Any other discussion, despite its potential relevance to the marketplace of ideas, is simply not before the Court.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It cannot be denied that "[e]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is ... enhanced by group association." National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958)
Thus, the Supreme Court has stated that "significant encroachments on First Amendment rights of the sort that compelled disclosure imposes cannot be justified by a mere showing of some legitimate government interest ... [T]he subordinating interests of the State must survive exacting scrutiny ... [T]here must be a `relevant correlation' or `substantial relation' between the governmental interest and the information required to be disclosed. This type of scrutiny is necessary even if any deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights arises, not through direct government action, but indirectly as an unintended but inevitable result of the government's conduct in requiring disclosure." Buckley at 64-65, 96 S.Ct. 612 (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiffs therefore contend that Buckley and its progeny require the Court to apply strict scrutiny in evaluating California's current compelled disclosure regime. However, such a conclusion is not as easily reached as Plaintiffs imply.
Supreme Court precedent regarding the appropriate standard of review is not a model of clarity. The Court has repeatedly relied on Buckley's ambiguous "exacting scrutiny" test to evaluate campaign finance regulations. See Davis v. Federal Election Commission, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 2765, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008)
The Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, has expressly applied strict scrutiny in a case similar to the one before this Court, stating, "Although the First Amendment tolerates some regulation of express ballot-measure advocacy, it does not necessarily follow that the PRA regulations are constitutional. For California to regulate individuals or organizations... who engage in activities other than political advocacy, California must have a compelling interest, and the regulation imposed must be narrowly tailored to advance the relevant interest." Getman I, 328 F.3d at 1101.
Nevertheless, in a related footnote, the Getman I court also recognized:
Getman at 1101 n. 16 (final citations omitted).
The Ninth Circuit has not since clarified matters. See Alaska Right to Life Comm. v. Miles, 441 F.3d 773, 787-788 (9th Cir. 2006); American Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Heller, 378 F.3d 979, 992-993 (9th Cir.2004).
Thus, the appropriate standard of review is an open question, and it will remain so until another day. Today, because Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits is minimal even under the most stringent review, the Court will assume without deciding that strict scrutiny applies. Accordingly, the Government "bears the burden of proving that the [statutory] provisions are (1) narrowly tailored, to serve (2) a compelling state interest." CPLC v. Randolph, 507 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiffs' concede, as they must, that California has a compelling justification for requiring disclosure of Plaintiffs' contributors. Plaintiffs' concession, however, gives short shrift to both the nature and magnitude of the State's actual interest.
According to Buckley, California's interests in its current compelled disclosure regime potentially fall into three categories. 424 U.S. at 66, 96 S.Ct. 612. "First, disclosure provides the electorate with information as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate in order to aid the voters in evaluating those who seek federal office... Second, disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity... Third, ... recordkeeping, reporting, and disclosure requirements are an essential means of gathering the data necessary to detect violations of the contribution limitations." Id. at 66-68, 96 S.Ct. 612.
However, unlike the election before the Buckley Court, which concerned candidates, the instant case bears on a recent ballot-initiative measure. Since Buckley, the Ninth Circuit has determined that "[o]nly the informational interest applies in the ballot-measure context." See Getman I, 328 F.3d at 1105 n. 23. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of disclosure as it relates to the passage of initiatives. See CPLC v. Getman, No. 00-1698, slip op. at
Such import derives, in no small part, from the fact that "[e]very other year, California voters decide the fate of complex policy proposals of supreme public significance ... California voters have passed propositions increasing the sentences for `third strike' criminal offenders, rendering illegal aliens ineligible for public services, banning affirmative action, mandating that public education be conducted in English, and imposing contribution limits for political campaigns." Getman I, 328 F.3d at 1105. In 1974, California voters even passed the initiative necessary to establish the PRA and its disclosure requirements. See Cal. Gov't code § 81000.
"California's high stakes form of direct democracy is not cheap. Interest groups pour millions of dollars into campaigns to pass or defeat ballot measures. Nearly $200 million was spent to influence voter decisions on the 12 propositions on the 1998 ballot. Of that total, $92 million was spent on one gaming initiative. The total amount spent by proponents and opponents of ballot measures has even outpaced spending by California's legislative candidates." Getman I, 328 F.3d at 1105.
Despite the fact that powerful issues are presented to the California voters and that the economic support for state initiatives is staggering, Plaintiffs argue that the public's "general want of knowledge" is insufficient to sustain the burden disclosure imposes on contributors' First Amendment liberties. Motion, 28:11-13. However, the Government's interest before the Court cannot be diminished by characterization as a general want of knowledge. The influx of money referenced above "produces a cacaphony of political communications through which California voters must pick out meaningful and accurate messages. Given the complexity of the issues and the unwillingness of much of the electorate to independently study the propriety of individual ballot measures, ... being able to evaluate who is doing the talking is of great importance." Getman I, 328 F.3d at 1105.
"Voters rely on information regarding the identity of the speaker to sort through this `cacophony,' particularly where the effect of the ballot measure is not readily apparent. While the ballot pamphlet sent to voters by the state contains the text and a summary of ballot measure initiatives, many voters do not have the time or ability to study the full text and make an informed decision. Since voters might not understand in detail the policy content of a particular measure, they often base their decisions to vote for or against it on cognitive cues such as the names of individuals supporting or opposing a measure, as listed in the ballot pamphlet, or the identity of those who make contributions or expenditures for or against the measure, which is often disclosed by the media or in campaign advertising. Such cues play a larger role in the ballot measure context, where traditional cues, such as party affiliation and voting record, are absent." Getman II, No. 00-1698 at 17:12-28.
Moreover, this Court cannot ignore the fact that, "[v]oters act as legislators in the ballot-measure context, and interest groups and individuals advocating a measure's defeat or passage act as lobbyists; both groups aim at pressuring the public to pass or defeat legislation.... Californians, as lawmakers, have an interest in knowing who is lobbying for their vote, just as members of Congress may require lobbyists to disclose who is paying for the lobbyists' services and how much." Getman I, 328 F.3d at 1106. It follows that "[i]f our Congress `cannot be expected to explore the myriad pressures to which they are regularly subjected,' then certainly
That shorthand is arguably even more necessary to the evaluation of ballot initiatives than it is in the scrutiny of candidates for political office. "`Even more than candidate elections, initiative campaigns have become a money game, where average citizens are subjected to advertising blitzes of distortion and half-truths and are left to figure out for themselves which interest groups pose the greatest threats to their self-interest.' Knowing which interested parties back or oppose a ballot measure is critical, especially when one considers that ballot-measure language is typically confusing, and the long-term policy ramifications of the ballot measure are often unknown. At least by knowing who supports or opposes a given initiative, voters will have a pretty good idea of who stands to benefit from the legislation." Getman I, 328 F.3d at 1105-1106.
More to the point, "[d]isclosure ... prevents the wolf from masquerading in sheep's clothing. Proposition 199, which was on the March 1996 Primary Election ballot, provides such an example. That initiative was entitled the `Mobile Home Fairness and Rental Assistance Act,' but the proposed law was hardly the result of a grassroots effort by mobile home park residents wanting `fairness' or `rental assistance.' Two mobile home park owners principally backed the measure. After the real interests behind the measure were exposed, various newspaper editorials decried the initiative's `subtly misleading name' and explained that the initiative's real purpose was to eliminate local rent control for mobile home parks. The measure was soundly defeated, though proponents outspent opponents $3.2 million to $884,000." Getman I, 328 F.3d at 1106 n. 24 (emphasis in original).
The Ninth Circuit made similar statements in CPLC v. Randolph, 507 F.3d 1172. In that case the appellate court stated, "[I]n the context of disclosure requirements, the government's interest in providing the electorate with information related to election and ballot issues is well-established." Id. 1179 n. 8. As here, that plaintiff conceded the state's interest was compelling, but the court nevertheless engaged in an extensive discussion of why that the government's informational interest is not only compelling, but of the highest order.
"Interest groups also seek to conceal their political involvement by availing themselves of complicated arrangements
Moreover, "[w]hen asked, voters have indicated that information regarding the source and amount of campaign contributions to ballot measures plays an important role in their decision-making. Voters rate such information as more valuable than newspaper endorsements, campaign mailings, TV and radio advertisements, and endorsements by interest groups, politicians or celebrities." Id. at 18:21-19:2.
"In light of the number and complexity of ballot measures confronted by California voters, the staggering sums expending to influence their passage or defeat, the very real potential for deception through the information of advocacy groups with appealing but misleading names, and voters' heavy reliance on funding source information when deciding to support or oppose ballot measures, ... California has a compelling informational interest in providing the electorate with information regarding contributors and expenditures made to pass or defeat ballot measure initiatives." Id. at 19:3-12.
The disclosure requirements provide some of the only truly objective information on which the electorate can rely to make an informed decision, and the state surely has the utmost justification for requiring the disclosure of information likely to ensure that its electorate is informed and able to effectively evaluate ballot measures. If ever disclosure was important, indeed vital, to fuel the public discourse, it is in the case of ballot measures.
Thus, even if, as Plaintiffs argue, individual voters will not be "clamoring" to know the name and other pertinent information of every contributor of over $100 to every initiative, the cumulative effect of disclosure ensures that the electorate will have access to information regarding the driving forces backing and opposing each bill. Accordingly, the Government's interest is not only compelling, but critical to the proper functioning of the State's system of direct democracy.
Finally, "[i]n determining whether legislation is narrowly tailored, [the Court] consider[s] whether the restriction `(1) promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation, and (2) [does] not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests.'" Randolph, 507 F.3d at 1183, quoting Kuba v. 1-A Agric. Ass'n, 387 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir.2004). To be narrowly tailored, a statute need not be the least restrictive means of furthering the government's interest, but the restriction may not burden substantially more speech than necessary." Id. at 1186, quoting Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1130-1131 (9th Cir.2005).
According to Plaintiffs, neither the $100 contribution threshold that triggers California's statutory disclosure requirements nor the post-election reporting requirements are narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. Each of those arguments will be addressed in turn, but the Court first turns to Plaintiffs' as-applied challenge.
B. Plaintiffs' As-Applied Challenge to the Disclosure Statute: Whether There is a Reasonable Probability that Compelled Disclosure Will Result in Threats, Harassment, and Reprisals to Contributors to a Minor Party
Plaintiffs' first argument, which raises an as-applied challenge to the application of California's disclosure laws, does not involve the above strict scrutiny analysis, but instead turns on a test first articulated in Buckley and later applied in Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio), 459 U.S. 87, 103 S.Ct. 416, 74 L.Ed.2d 250 (1982), and its progeny. Nevertheless, the above departure into the nature of the State's interest is relevant to the Court's resolution of Plaintiffs' instant claim.
The test applicable to Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action was initially formulated in Buckley when the Supreme Court rejected an overbreadth challenge to all reporting requirements imposed on minor parties. 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612. Despite its rejection of a blanket disclosure exemption for all such groups, the Court left open the possibility that similar minor parties in the future might be able to seek such immunity if they could show that there was a reasonable probability their contributors would suffer from harassment, threats, or reprisals as a result of such revelation.
The Buckley Court began its discussion by noting that the "governmental interest in disclosure is diminished when the contribution in question is made to a minor party with little chance of winning an election. As minor parties usually represent definite and publicized viewpoints, there may be less need to inform the voters of the interests that specific candidates represent. Major parties encompass candidates of greater diversity. In many situations the label `Republican' or `Democrat' tells a voter little. The candidate who bears it may be supported by funds from the far right, the far left, or any place in between on the political spectrum. It is less likely that a candidate of, say, the Socialist Labor Party will represent interests that cannot be discerned from the party's ideological position." Id. at 70, 96 S.Ct. 612.
Additionally, that Court was cognizant that "the damage done by disclosure to the associational interests of the minor parties and their members and to supporters of independents could be significant. These movements are less likely to have a sound financial base and thus are more vulnerable to falloffs in contributions. In some instances fears of reprisal may deter contributions to the point where the movement cannot survive. The public interest also suffers if that result comes to pass, for there is a consequent reduction in the free circulation of ideas both within and without the political arena." Id. at 71, 96 S.Ct. 612.
Accordingly, the Buckley Court determined that, though such facts were not before it, "[t]here could well be a case ... where the threat to the exercise of First Amendment rights is so serious and the state interest furthered by disclosure so insubstantial that the Act's requirements [could not] be constitutionally applied." Id. That Court further observed "that unduly strict requirements of proof could impose a heavy burden, but it does not follow that a blanket exemption for minor parties is necessary. Minor parties must be allowed sufficient flexibility in the proof of injury to assure a fair consideration of their claim. The evidence offered need show only a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of a party's contributors' names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisal from either Government officials or private parties. The
The Supreme Court later had occasion to apply the Buckley test in Brown. The Brown Court addressed the issue of "[w]hether certain disclosure requirements of the Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law ... [could] be constitutionally applied to the Socialist Workers Party ["SWP"], a minor political party which historically ha[d] been the object of harassment by government officials and private parties." Brown, 459 U.S. at 88, 103 S.Ct. 416. That Court emphasized several points raised in Buckley reiterating that "[t]he government's interests in compelling disclosures are `diminished' in the case of minor parties ... [and at] the same time, the potential for impairing First Amendment interests is substantially greater." Id. at 92, 96 S.Ct. 612, quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 70, 96 S.Ct. 612.
In Brown, the Court had before it "`substantial evidence of both governmental and private hostility toward and harassment of SWP members and supporters.' Appellees introduced proof of specific incidents of private and government hostility toward the SWP and its members within the four years preceding the trial. These incidents, many of which occurred in Ohio and neighboring states, included threatening phone calls and hate mail, the burning of SWP literature, the destruction of SWP members' property, police harassment of a party candidate, and the firing of shots at an SWP office. There was also evidence that in the 12-month period before trial, 22 SWP members, including four in Ohio, were fired because of their party membership. The evidence amply support[ed] the District Court's conclusion that `private hostility and harassment toward SWP members make it difficult for them to maintain employment.'" Brown at 98-99, 103 S.Ct. 416.
Moreover, "[t]he District Court also found a past history of government harassment of the SWP. FBI surveillance of the SWP was `massive' and continued until at least 1976. The FBI also conducted a counterintelligence program against the SWP and the Young Socialist Alliance, the SWP's youth organization. One of the aims of the `SWP Disruption Program' was the dissemination of information designed to impair the ability of the SWP and the YSA to function. This program included `disclosing to the press the criminal records of SWP candidates, and sending anonymous letters to SWP members, supporters, spouses, and employers.' Until at
Finally, "the Government possesse[d] about 8,000,000 documents relating to the SWP, YSA ... and their members ... Since 1960, the FBI ha[d] had about 300 informants who were members of the SWP and/or YSA and 1,000 non-member informants. Both the Cleveland and Cincinnati FBI field offices had one or more SWP or YSA member informants. Approximately 2 of the SWP member informants held local branch offices. Three informants even ran for elective office as SWP candidates. The 18 informants whose files were disclosed to [the Special Master] received total payments of $358,648.38 for their services and expenses." Id. at 100 n. 18, 103 S.Ct. 416.
The Brown court determined that "the evidence of private and government hostility toward the SWP and its members establishe[d] a reasonable probability that disclosing the names of contributors and recipients [would] subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals." Id. at 100, 103 S.Ct. 416. Accordingly, this Court must now evaluate whether Brown can properly be applied to groups that were successful at the polls, that have evidenced a very minimal effect on their ability to sustain their movement, and that are unable to produce evidence of pervasive animosity even remotely reaching the level of that present in Brown.
C. Balancing the Government's Interest with the Burden Imposed on Minor Parties
Both Buckley and Brown addressed the need to balance the government's diminished interest in the disclosure of contributors to minor parties against the burden imposed on those small groups by requiring such disclosure. In light of clearly established precedent, this Court is unable to say that the State's interest here is similarly diminished or that the Plaintiffs' potential burden is even remotely comparable.
Unlike the facts in Brown, the proponents of Proposition 8 succeeded in persuading over seven million voters to support their cause. They were successful in their endeavor to pass the ballot initiative and raised millions of dollars in the process. This set of circumstances is a far cry from the sixty-member SWP party, repeatedly unsuccessful at the polls, and incapable of raising sufficient funds. Indeed, it became abundantly clear during oral argument that Plaintiffs could not in good conscience analogize their current circumstances to those of either the SWP or the Alabama NAACP circa 1950.
Additionally, the Court has already extensively evaluated the nature of the State's interest and, in light of the marked differences between this and every other case in which an exemption has been allowed, simply cannot by any stretch of the imagination say that the Government's interest "is so insubstantial that the Act's requirements cannot be constitutionally applied" to Plaintiffs. To the contrary, as applied to the massive movement waged
Similarly, the greater burden alleged to be imposed on Plaintiffs also necessarily derives from their minority status. The Second Circuit stated in Federal Election Commission v. Hall-Tyner Election Campaign Committee that "[a]cknowledging the importance of fostering the existence of minority political parties, we must also recognize that such groups rarely have a firm financial foundation. If apprehension is bred in the minds of contributors to fringe organizations by fear that their support of an unpopular ideology will be revealed, they may cease to provide financial assistance. The resulting decrease in contributions may threaten the minority party's very existence. Society suffers from such a consequence because the free flow of ideas, the lifeblood of the body politic, is necessarily reduced. Accordingly, a nation dedicated to free thought and free expression cannot ignore the grave results of facially innocuous election requirements." 678 F.2d 416, 420 (2d Cir.1982).
Moreover, "[t]he power of a government to repress dissent is substantial and can be exercised in a myriad of subtle ways. Privacy is an essential element of the right of association and the ability to express dissent effectively ... [F]orced revelations would likely lead to `vexatious inquiries' which consequently could instill in the public an unremitting fear of becoming linked with the unpopular or unorthodox." Id.
Notably absent from this case is any evidence that those burdens hypothesized by the Supreme Court would befall the current Plaintiffs. There is no evidence that their financial backing is so tenuous as to render them susceptible to a relatively minor and entirely speculative fall-off in contributions. There is surely no evidence that the seven million individuals who voted in favor of Proposition 8 can be considered a "fringe organization" or that their beliefs would be considered unpopular or unorthodox. Finally, there is no evidence that any of Plaintiffs' contributors intend to retreat from the marketplace of ideas such that available discourse will be materially diminished.
Finally, it would appear that, while minor status is a necessary element of a successful as-applied claim, even minor status alone could not independently sustain Plaintiffs' current cause of action. Brown and its progeny each involved groups seeking to further ideas historically and pervasively rejected and vilified by both this country's government and its citizens. In dicta, the Ninth Circuit addressed this pattern when it rejected a plea for exemption waged by a contributor to a minor party that "was not promoting a reviled cause or candidate." Goland v. U.S., 903 F.2d 1247, 1260 (9th Cir.1990).
The facts in the current case could not be more distinguishable from those in which successful challenges have been brought. Here, Plaintiffs orchestrated a massive movement to amend the California Constitution. Proponents of the initiative were successful in their endeavor, raising nearly $30 million, securing 52.3% of the vote and convincing over seven million voters to support Proposition 8. Declaration of Lynda Cassady in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ¶ 7, Exh. A. Plaintiffs did not seek to promote a "reviled cause," and instead sought to legislate a concept steeped in tradition and history. Accordingly, in light of Plaintiffs' success at the polls and the State's above-discussed informational interest, the Court cannot say that the Government's interest in this case is so insubstantial or the burden on Plaintiffs so great as to warrant an exemption from disclosure.
Since Buckley, as-applied challenges have been successfully raised only by minor parties, specifically those parties, as discussed, having small constituencies and promoting historically unpopular and almost universally-rejected ideas. As stated, in Brown, the SWP consisted of only sixty members in Ohio. Id. at 88, 103 S.Ct. 416. The parties' "aim was the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a workers' government to achieve socialism." The party was historically unsuccessful at the polls though its members regularly ran for public office. Id. Additionally, "campaign contributions and expenditures ... averaged approximately $15,000 annually." Id. at 89, 103 S.Ct. 416.
Similarly, in Hall-Tyner, a committee supporting the Communist Party successfully sought exemption from state disclosure laws. 678 F.2d 416. Later, in McArthur v. Smith, members of the SWP, described as a "small and unpopular political party," again successfully challenged state disclosure requirements. 716 F.Supp. 592, 593 (S.D.Fla.1989). There is simply no plausible analogy to be had in this case.
Finally, this Court is confident that the Supreme Court's decisions in Buckley and Brown, both of which narrowly articulated the instant exception to disclosure laws, were not made without great consideration. Prior courts surely were aware that members of major parties might potentially, on some future occasion, become the target of threats or harassment at the hands of extremist members of an opposing group. Despite that possibility, the Supreme Court created an exception not for the majority, but for those groups in which the government has a diminished interest.
This Court finds that the "minor party" requirement articulated in Buckley is very much relevant and intact. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' as-applied challenge to California's disclosure laws has only a very minimal chance of success in light of Plaintiffs' non-minor status and lack of evidence that they have suffered animosity rising to the level hypothesized in Buckley and existing in Brown.
D. Reasonable Probability of Threats, Harassment, and Reprisals
Even if Plaintiffs were able to successfully navigate the precedents discussed above, Plaintiffs' claim would have little chance of success in light of the relatively minimal occurrences of threats, harassment, and reprisals. Plaintiffs allege that their supporters have been the victim of vandalism, protests that at times turned violent, and the threat of injury, up to and including one death threat. This Court is
Unlike prior cases, in which plaintiffs alleged to have suffered mistreatment over extended periods of time, the alleged harassment directed at Proposition 8 supporters occurred over the course of a few months during the heat of an election battle surrounding a hotly contested ballot initiative. Only random acts of violence directed at a very small segment of the supporters of the initiative are alleged.
Moreover, while Plaintiffs are quite correct that under Buckley evidence of harassment "from either Government officials or private parties" could suffice to establish the requisite proof of reprisals, the facts of subsequent cases evidence not only the existence of some governmental hostility, but quite pervasive governmental hostility at that. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 74, 96 S.Ct. 612 (emphasis added); see also McArthur, 716 F.Supp. at 594 ("[H]arassment, reprisals or threats from private persons are sufficient to allow [the] court to enforce the plaintiff's first amendment rights by cloaking the contributors and recipients' names in secrecy.").
Indeed, the Brown Court was confronted with countless acts of government harassment and retribution against members of the SWP, which are detailed above. Furthermore, in Hall-Tyner, the Second Circuit stated, "[t]he evidence relied on by the district judge included the extensive body of state and federal legislation subjecting Communist Party members to civil disability and criminal liability, reports and affidavits documenting the history of governmental surveillance and harassment of Communist Party members, as well as affidavits indicating the desire of contributors to the Committee to remain anonymous." 678 F.2d at 419.
Plaintiffs do not, indeed cannot, allege that the movement to recognize marriage in California as existing only between a man and a woman is vulnerable to the same threats as were socialist and communist groups, or, for that matter, the NAACP. Proposition 8 supporters promoted a concept entirely devoid of governmental hostility. Plaintiffs' belief in the traditional concept of marriage, to disagreement, have not historically invited animosity. The Court is at a loss to find any principled analogy between two such greatly diverging sets of circumstances.
Finally, Plaintiffs' exemption argument appears to be premised, in large part, on the concept that individuals should be free from even legal consequences of their speech. That is simply not the nature of their right. Just as contributors to Proposition 8 are free to speak in favor of the initiative, so are opponents free to express their disagreement through proper legal means.
While the Court is cognizant of the deplorable nature of many of acts alleged by Plaintiffs, the Court also must reiterate that the legality or morality of any specific acts is not before it. Thus, as much as the Court strongly condemns the behavior of those who resort to violence, and/or other illegal behavior, the Court need not, indeed cannot, evaluate the proper legal consequences of those actions today.
By the same token, nothing in the Court's decision immunizes or excuses those who have engaged in illegal acts from the consequences of their conduct. Those responsible for threatening the lives of supporters of Proposition 8 are subject to criminal liability. See Troupis Decl., Exh. C (noting that the Fresno chief of police stated the department was "close to
As much as those channels are available today, it is unlikely that groups previously successful in seeking exemptions were privy to the same opportunities. Again, Plaintiffs have shown no societal or governmental hostility to their cause. Contrary to groups such as the SWP, Plaintiffs can seek adequate relief from law enforcement and the legal system. Such was not the case for those thought to be supporting the SWP or communist groups, those subject to actual criminal liability based on their beliefs and their associations.
Moreover, the Court simply cannot ignore the fact that numerous of the acts about which Plaintiffs' complain are mechanisms relied upon, both historically and lawfully, to voice dissent. The decision and ability to patronize a particular establishment or business is an inherent right of the American people, and the public has historically remained free to choose where to, or not to, allocate its economic resources. As such, individuals have repeatedly resorted to boycotts as a form of civil protest intended to convey a powerful message without resort to non-violent means. The Supreme Court has acknowledged these rights on many an occasion:
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 909, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Notably, "[s]peech does not lose its protected character ... simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action." Id. at 910, 102 S.Ct. 3409.
Accordingly, this Court concurs in the assessment that "expression on public issues has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values. Speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government. There is a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Id. at 913, 102 S.Ct. 3409 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Accordingly, this Court cannot condemn those who have legally exercised their own constitutional rights in order to display their dissatisfaction with Plaintiffs' cause.
To the contrary, "[k]eeping the electorate fully informed of the sources of campaign-directed speech and the possible connections between the speaker and individual candidates, [itself] derives directly from the primary concern of the First Amendment. The vision of a free and open market place of ideas is based on the assumption that the people should be exposed to speech on all sides, so that they may freely evaluate and choose from among competing points of view. One goal of the First Amendment, then, is to ensure that the individual citizen has available all the information necessary to allow him to properly evaluate speech.... The allowance of free expression loses considerable value if expression is only partial. Therefore, disclosure requirements, which may at times inhibit the free speech that is so dearly protected by the First Amendment, are indispensable to the proper and effective exercise of First Amendment rights." Fed. Election Com'n v. Furgatch, 807 F.2d 857, 862 (1987). Indeed, Defendants pointed out during oral argument that the Government's disclosure requirements actually serve to facilitate discourse.
The Court observes that Plaintiffs, the backers of a historically non-controversial belief, seem genuinely surprised to be on the receiving end of such powerful discord. However, such surprise does not warrant an injunction against the enforcement of the State of California's laws or this Court's censorship of information pertaining to one side of one initiative, information that, years ago, the voters of California determined should be available to the public. Indeed, the Court's acceptance of Plaintiffs' argument would effectively render California's legislative mandate obsolete. Such a decision would establish precedent for any group backing any controversial ballot initiative to come before this Court with evidence of the actions of fringe opposition groups to support their arguments for exemption from California's disclosure requirements. Such a holding would thwart the will of California's government and the will of the electorate to garner objective information necessary to evaluation their own legislation.
Thus, though the Court regards with contempt numerous of the acts about which Plaintiffs complain, it cannot say that Plaintiffs allegations rise to the level of those existing in Brown and its progeny. Because Plaintiffs' ability to garner support for their cause is hardly comparable to the SWP claims or to those raised by other historically ostracized groups, groups whose very viability was threatened by forced compliance with disclosure laws, the Court cannot say the threat to Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights is so serious as to warrant an exception here. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to convince the Court that Buckley and Brown
E. Plaintiffs' Remaining Challenges: Whether the $100 Disclosure Threshold and Post-Election Reporting are Constitutional
To reiterate, the Court will apply strict scrutiny in evaluating Plaintiffs' causes of action.
1. $100 Disclosure Threshold
Plaintiffs argue that the Government's interest in the compelled disclosure of those who contributed amounts as low as $100 to support Proposition 8 is negligible. Specifically, Plaintiffs' express disbelief that "the public is clamoring for the knowledge of the name, address, occupation, and employer of every person who contributed one hundred dollars or more to a ballot measure." Id., 21-23. According to Plaintiffs, the State's threshold is therefore set too low and must fail for lack of adjustment for inflation. This Court disagrees and holds that the legislative line drawn is narrowly tailored to the State's compelling informational interest, that the threshold need not be indexed for inflation, and that a contrary holding would call into question scores of statutes in which the legislature or the people have sought to draw similar lines.
In Buckley, as here, the appellants argued "that the monetary thresholds in the record-keeping and reporting provisions lack[ed] a substantial nexus with the claimed governmental interests, for the amounts involved [were] too low even to attract the attention of the candidate, much less have a corrupting influence." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 82, 96 S.Ct. 612. There, the Act "required political committees to keep detailed records of both contributions and expenditures." Id. at 63, 96 S.Ct. 612. As in the instant case, "[e]ach committee ... [was] required to file quarterly reports. The reports [were] to contain detailed financial information, including the full name, mailing address, occupation, and principal place of business of each person who had contributed over $100 in a calendar year, as well as the amount and date of those contributions." Id. (internal citations omitted). On facts remarkably similar to those before this court, the Supreme Court held that "the $100 threshold was ... within the `reasonable latitude' given the legislature `as to where to draw the line.'" Id. at 83, 96 S.Ct. 612.
The Court elaborated on its decision stating, "The $10 and $100 thresholds are indeed low. Contributors of relatively small amounts are likely to be especially sensitive to recording or disclosure of their political preferences. These strict requirements may well discourage participation by some citizens in the political process, a result that Congress hardly could have intended. Indeed, there is little in the legislative history to indicate that Congress focused carefully on the appropriate level at which to require recording and disclosure. Rather it seems merely to have adopted the thresholds existing in similar disclosure laws since 1910. But we cannot require Congress to establish that it has chosen the highest reasonable threshold. The line is necessarily a judgmental decision, best left in the context of this complex legislation to congressional discretion. We cannot say on this bare
The Eastern District later stated that "as a general matter, the court will not second guess a legislative determination as to where the line for contribution limits should be drawn." California Prolife Council Political Action Comm. v. Scully, 989 F.Supp. 1282, 1293 (E.D.Cal.1998). The same holds true on the facts before this Court.
First, this Court finds the disclosure thresholds set in other states to be instructive. California's current $100 threshold falls well within spectrum of those mandated by its sister states, which range from no threshold requirement to $300. In fact, only six states in the United States have higher threshold requirements.
However, the Randall Court also determined that the lower contributions limits constituted only a danger sign that the "contribution limits may fall outside tolerable First Amendment limits." Id. at 253, 126 S.Ct. 2479. Since the actual dollar amount of the statutory threshold was not dispositive, the Court also looked at the Act's substantial restrictions on the ability of candidates to raise the funds necessary to run a competitive election, the ability of political parties to help their candidates get elected, and the ability of individual citizens to volunteer their time to campaigns. Id.
Accordingly, even if this Court were inclined to make the determination, which it is not, that California's $100 disclosure threshold was too low, such a determination alone would be insufficient to warrant award of a preliminary injunction.
Nevertheless, in keeping with the Randall Court's foray into the hypothecated effects of inflation, Plaintiffs assert that California's disclosure regime is constitutionally suspect based, in part, on its failure to account for such economic conditions. According to Plaintiffs, the $100 disclosure threshold approved of in Buckley would equate to approximately $38.79 today. Motion, 24:6-8. Therefore, Plaintiffs contend that Buckley establishes the benchmark below which disclosure thresholds should not be permitted to fall.
Such a conclusion runs contrary to both logic and the law. "In Buckley, [the Court] specifically rejected the contention that $1,000, or any other amount, was a constitutional minimum below which legislatures
The Court also finds it relevant that numerous existing statutes contain reference to dollar values beyond which certain rights or benefits may be taken away or become unavailable. For example, California Penal Code § 487 states that when "money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding four hundred dollars ($400)" such a taking constitutes grand theft. Cal. Pen.Code § 487(a). Additionally, grand theft is also found "[w]hen domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or other farm crops are taken of a value exceeding one hundred dollars ($100)." Id., § 487(1)(A). These dollar values were set by the legislature in 1982. See 1982 Cal. Stat. 1693. Were the Court to accept Plaintiffs' current argument, it would call into question this and every other statutory provision in which the legislature thought to classify by dollar amount without tying that amount to some articulated rate of inflation. The Court is unwilling to render a decision that would create such a striking precedent.
Finally, in Buckley, the Supreme Court stated that "disclosure requirements, as a general matter, directly serve substantial governmental interests. In determining whether these interests are sufficient to justify the requirements we must look to the extent of the burden that they place on individual rights." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 68, 96 S.Ct. 612. To reiterate, "[i]t is undoubtedly true that public disclosure of contributions to candidates and political parties will deter some individuals who otherwise might contribute. In some instances, disclosure may even expose contributors to harassment or retaliation. These are not insignificant burdens on individual rights, and they must be weighed carefully against the interests which Congress has sought to promote by this legislation. In this process we note and agree... that disclosure requirements certainly in most applications appear to be the least restrictive means of curbing the evils of campaign ignorance and corruption." Id.
Thus, disclosure requirements, by their very nature, are the least restrictive means through which to educate the electorate. The requirements do not limit the amount of contributions or expenditures by the entity or the contributor. They do not limit the entity's ability to raise funds, nor do they impose burdensome structural requirements on Plaintiffs. See Alaska Right to Life Committee v. Miles, 441 F.3d 773, 791 (9th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the Court finds that California's disclosure threshold is properly drawn. California's decision to compel disclosure of those who contribute in excess of $100 to groups such as Plaintiffs is narrowly tailored to the State's compelling informational interest and Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits is minimal.
2. Post-Election Disclosure
Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action seeks a holding that the PRA disclosure requirements are unconstitutional to the extent they require post-election reporting of contributors to ballot-initiatives. Despite the fact that the Court has found no case law supporting the proposition, Plaintiffs contend that such reporting cannot be related to the State's informational interest because the votes have already been cast, nullifying the electorate's need for disclosure. While Plaintiffs acknowledge that the State maintains an interest in the election of candidates after an election has come and gone, they contend that the State's interest in contributors to ballot initiatives "disappears" essentially when the deciding vote is cast at the polls.
This Court disagrees. No legislation is carved in stone, incapable of repeal, nor do ballot initiatives, once passed, become a legacy that future generations must endure in silence. Indeed, it is the initiative process itself that directly allows individuals to affirm or correct prior decisions. To assume that the passage of an election draws a line in the sand past which no issues remain open to public debate is simply not congruent with the form of democracy the people of California have determined to employ. Thus, it is possible that the post-election light shed on those contributors who donated during the final weeks of the campaign, and who continue to donate today, might reveal information the electorate requires in order to evaluate the appropriateness of its decision.
Indeed, it is unclear how "`uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' speech can occur when organizations hide themselves from the scrutiny of the voting public ... Plaintiffs' argument for striking down [the] disclosure provisions does not reinforce the precious First Amendment values that Plaintiffs argue are trampled., but ignores the competing First Amendment interests in individual citizens seeking to make informed choices in the political marketplace." McConnell, 540 U.S. at 198, 124 S.Ct. 619, affirming in part and reversing in part McConnell v. Federal Election Com'n, 251 F.Supp.2d 176, 237 (D.D.C. 2003).
Thus, the Court simply cannot say that the occurrence of an election moots the electorate's need for relevant information. Here, the battle over Proposition 8 continues to be waged, both in the state courts and state legislature. The Government's informational interest cannot be met without requiring the disclosure of all pertinent contribution information such that "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" speech can continue to be had.
The Court finds analogy to the payment of federal taxes instructive. Income is earned and due to the IRS as of the end of each calendar year. Nevertheless, the IRS requires filing and payment in April, one would assume to allow, at least in part, for wrapping up the prior year's business and for compiling the necessary documentation to render filing proper. It is the unlikely individual that would be prepared to file on the final day of the calendar year.
Finally, as discussed in the prior section, relying on the Buckley Court's directive to examine the burden on Plaintiffs, this Court finds that the burden imposed by requiring postelection reporting is minimal.
Thus, as in the case of its established disclosure threshold, the Government drew a line. This time the line chosen was a particular date rather than a dollar value. Nevertheless, that line does not burden any more speech than would any other chosen date. Accordingly, even under a strict scrutiny analysis, this Court finds that the post-reporting requirement is directly related to the State's informational interest and that it burdens no more speech than necessary to further that interest.
According to the United States Supreme Court, "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976). "[E]ven if the merits of the constitutional claim were not `clearly established' at this early stage in the litigation, the fact that a case raises serious First Amendment questions compels a finding that there exists `the potential for irreparable injury, or that at the very least the balance of hardships tips sharply in [Plaintiffs'] favor. `Under the law of this circuit, a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief in a First Amendment context can establish irreparable injury sufficient to merit the grant of relief by demonstrating the existence of a colorable First Amendment claim.'" Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., in and for County of Carson City, 303 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir.2002), quoting Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. FCC, 828 F.Supp. 741, 744 (N.D.Cal.1993). "Because the test for granting a preliminary injunction is `a continuum in which the required showing of harm varies inversely with the required showing of meritoriousness,' when the harm claimed is a serious infringement on core expressive freedoms, a plaintiff is entitled to an injunction even on a lesser showing of meritoriousness.'" Id., citing San Diego Committee Against Registration and the Draft (Card) v. Governing Bd. Of the Grossmont Union High School Dist., 790 F.2d 1471, 1473 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986), abrogated on other grounds by Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S.Ct. 562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (1988).
In this case, the Court finds no serious First Amendment questions are raised. As discussed above, the merits of each constitutional claim are not only not "clearly established," but almost certainly must fail. Thus, there is no risk of irreparable injury to Plaintiffs' contributors. Furthermore, the impact on non-parties, specifically the California electorate, should the Court grant Plaintiffs the relief they seek is great. As discussed in great detail above, if disclosure is prevented, the people of California will be denied the ability to fully inform themselves of the circumstances surrounding the passage of Proposition 8. For the reasons already articulated, the balance of hardships favors the Plaintiffs and consideration of the public interest weighs against injunctive relief.
Because the Court finds very little chance of success on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, because there is likewise minimal probability of the occurrence of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs or their contributors, and because the balance of interests, including the public's interest, weighs against it, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Indeed, any contrary holding would require the Court to legislate from the bench and to act contrary to the law. That it cannot do.
Despite this Court's denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs request that the existing protective order remain in effect. Defendants posed no current objection, but reserved the right to object to each individual's file being sealed in the future. Accordingly, the current protective order is extended and will remain in effect until the Court orders otherwise.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED and the Motion to Extend the Existing Protective Order is GRANTED.
According to Stephen K. Hopcraft, the President and co-owner of "a full-service public relations firm specializing in grass roots and public education campaigns[,]" "the information gleaned from ... disclosure reports is absolutely critical to assist news media and voters in sorting through the claims and counter-claims in a ballot measure campaign.... With all the hyperbole in campaigning, the financial backing of each side gives voters a yardstick to measure the truth of the assertions." Indeed, CPLC admitted that "[b]ecause political operators in many states are able to avoid campaign finance disclosure requirements, citizens are likely to be uninformed and unaware of the tens of millions of dollars that are spent on ballot measure campaigns by veiled political actors..."
Randolph, 507 F.3d at 1179 n. 8 (emphasis in original).


text:
DayHalf Day Tour
Nomad tours
Sport tours
Economy Tours
Eco tours
Short Trips
Tours to Dubai
Business Travel
Cave Tours
Elderly Tours
Trekking Tours
Desert Tours
Anthropology Tours
Combined Tour
Zoology Tours
Geology Tours
Asta Member
Google Plus
Romance of Persia Iranlife Tour (16 Days)
On the Romance of Persia Tour, you will visit the West of Iran, the birth place of some of the most beautiful Persian love stories, such as Shirin and Farhad. Great historical works of art including national traditional music and group dancing, as well as delicious foods, are among the pleasures you will enjoy on the Romance of Persia Iran Life Tour. You are sure to enjoy visiting the beautiful and unique cities of Tehran, Shiraz, Zeinoddin, Yazd, Isfahan, Hamedan, Kermanshah, Sanandaj, Oranamat, Takab, and Ghazvin. The unforgettable experiences and memories you will amass from this tour will most likely be recorded in your heart as a valuable and unforgettable chapter in the novel of your life.
And as with all Iran Life Tours, your guide will lead you into circumstances where you will have the opportunity to interact in everyday situations with the kind, hospitable people of the areas you visit, making your trip to Iran more unforgettable than you could have expected.
Day 1: Arrive Tehran, Visit Tehran
Upon your pre-dawn arrival in Tehran airport, you will be cordially received by our representative carrying our logo show card (transfer information) who will direct and transfer you to your hotel. You will have time to rest and relax before our morning tour of Tehran commences.
Tehran, a modern megalopolis, prides itself in its unique museums which hold immense and unrivaled collections of artifacts dating from the earliest onset of history to the present era. Your tour in Tehran begins with a trip to the Archeological Museum, one of the rare places in the world where you will have the special opportunity to visit and experience the "evolution of mankind" through a marvelous display of historical relics.
Next on the agenda is your very much-awaited chance to savor the distinctive flavor of Iranian cuisine. Lunch will be set in an exquisite traditional Iranian restaurant where you will have the opportunity to sample a wide range of delightful Persian dishes and desserts.
Afterwards, you will visit a world of priceless jewels at the Crown Jewels Museum, including one of the greatest diamonds in the world, Darya-e-Noor (Sea of Light).
At the end of the day, you will get a chance to see a variety of Persian hand-woven carpets and rugs in the Carpet Museum which houses more than 100 spectacular pieces from all over Iran. This includes an explanation of the history of these carpets.
Stay overnight in Tehran.
Attention: The priority in sightseeing may be changed due to the time of your arrival, preference of your guide and also official and unofficial holidays of some museums.
Day 2: Visit Tehran, Fly to Shiraz
Your morning begins with a visit to the Sa'ad Abad Complex, an immense area of 1,100,000 square meters housing 18 magnificent historical palaces, two of which you will visit. This complex was built by the Pahlavi dynasty and it will undoubtedly leave a lasting impression on you.
Your Tehran excursion will end at the Ceramic Museum, a construction exhibiting glorious ancient archaeology.
After packing up at the hotel, you will head for a tasty Iranian lunch in a traditional restaurant. Then you will transfer to the airport for a flight to Shiraz.
On the way to your hotel in Shiraz, you will pay a visit to Shah-e-Cheragh. This is one of the most beautiful shrines in Iran, the beautiful dome, wonderful lighting and impressive mirror-work of which will capture your attention.
Stay overnight in Shiraz.
Day 3: Visiting Shiraz
Shiraz, a city that has been at the center of Persian culture for more than 2,000 years, has the reputation as being a progressive city. This city of sophistication that was once the country's capital is crowned as the heartland of Persian culture. Shiraz will never fail to conjure up images of roses and nightingales, gardens and poetry.
Early in the morning, you will relish in the highlights of Shiraz by visiting sites that were full of life when this city was the capital of Iran during the Zand Dynasty. You will be inspired by the glorious Karim Khan palace, the splendid Vakil mosque, Vakil Bazaar and Saray-e-Moshir with its splendid architecture and interesting ethnic souvenir shops, and the Nasir Almolk mosque. Next, you will stop for a mouth-watering Iranian lunch at one of the traditional restaurants of Shiraz.
This city in the province of Fars is home to famous poets such as Hafez and Sa'adi as well as historical sites from different eras stretching back 6,000 years ago. Hafez was one of Persia's greatest poets who has impressed the world with his poetic mastery. A trip to the site where he is buried and honored is likely to stir the hearts and minds of the visitors.
Sa'adi was a poet, philosopher and mystic. About seven centuries ago Sa'adi recorded all his experiences from his travels to different countries and cities in verse and rhyme prose in two books, Boustan and Golestan. These two books inform and inspire the reader. You will have the chance to pay homage to this great poet when you visit his burial site which is set amidst beautiful gardens and pools.
In the evening, you will visit Ali-Ebn-e-Hamzeh marvel at its beauties. You will take a stroll among the tall and proud cedars of the Jahan Nama Garden. The evening tour ends with visits to the Delgosha Garden and Khajoy-e-Kermani Tomb.
At night have dinner in a restaurant in the north of Shiraz.
Day 4: An excursion to Persepolis and Necropolis
Your excursion for this day takes you to Persepolis. Founded by Darius I in 518 B.C., Persepolis was the capital of the Achaemenid Empire. It was built on an immense half-artificial, half-natural terrace, where this king of kings at that time created an impressive palace complex inspired by Mesopotamian models. The historical importance and quality of the monumental ruins make it a unique archaeological site. It seems that Darius planned this impressive complex of palaces not only as the seat of government but also, and primarily, as a show place and a spectacular center for the receptions and festivals of the Achaemenid kings and their empire, such as for the celebration of Nawruz.
Your next stop will be Necropolis. Opposite the mountain of Rahmat, a ten-minute drive to the north, proudly stands the Necropolis, the magnificent burial place of Achaemenid kings. This is also the site of seven bas-reliefs dating back to Elamite and Sassanid Period.
Day 5: Drive to Yazd via visiting Zeinoddin
Today on the way to Yazd you will visit Zeinoddin, a Safavid caravanserai in the heart of desert which has been restored to match its original form. This site received awards from UNESCO, one in 2005 and another in 2006.
Day 6: Drive to Yazd, Visit Sar Yazd & Yazd
Yazd, the oldest adobe city in the world. This city is surrounded by the 4000m summit of Shirkooh and two majestic deserts of Iran, Dasht-e-Kavir and Kavir-e-Loot. This ancient location is furnished with mosques of stunning beauty. The co-existence of the splendid fire temples and the holy sites of different religions astonish every visitor.
You will also pay a visit to Mehriz, located 30 kilometers south of the city of Yazd. Mehriz consists of one central district and five village centers. According to historians, its name comes from "Mehrnegar," the beloved daughter of Anoushirvan, the Sassanid king. Mehriz was known during the late Sassanid Era (4th century AD) as a place of natural beauty.
In Mehriz you will visit Sar Yazd, a castle belonging to Sassanid era which is used as a haven in time of war. It is interesting to know that Sar Yazd grows some of the best pomegranates of Iran.
Another historical site you will see is a caravanserai which dates back to the Seljuk and Safavid Eras.
After that you will transfer to Yazd.
Today's tour will end in Yazd at Dakhmeh, the "Tower of Silence."
Day 7: In morning visit Yazd, at evening driv to Isfahan
Today in Yazd you will visit a Zoroastrian fire temple and get a breath-taking perspective of the oldest adobe city.
In the evening you will travel by bus for 300 km from Yazd to Isfahan which is in the vicinity of Dasht-e-Kavir.
Once in Isfahan, if possible, you will have the chance to see some of the thirty-three bridges this city is known for.
Stay overnight in Isfahan.
Day 8: Visit Isfahan
Isfahan, the legendary city which never fails to enchant its visitors, is the pearl of traditional Islamic archeology. This city has been revived by the works of contemporary artists.
Isfahan prides itself in its fascinating historical garden palaces. Legend has it that the city was founded at the time of Tahmourass or Keykavous, and because of its glories, has been entitled "Half the World."
Your full day tour in Isfahan continues with a visit to the famed Imam Square (Naqsh-e-Jahan), a huge square second in the world to Beijing's Tiananmen Square. You will tour the architectural marvels of the Sheikh Lotfollah and Imam Mosques, Aliqapu Palace, Chehel Sutoon and Hasht Behesht Palaces. This tour also includes a stopover at one of the many well-known Isfahani bazaars, where you can purchase the arts & crafts for which Isfahan is so well renowned.
Stay overnight in Isfahan.
Day 9: Visit Isfahan
Today you will visit Isfahan's Jame' mosque, a famous mosque which holds in itself the passage of several centuries of historical Islamic evolution. This mosque is a gallery of Islamic architecture in which the progress of architecture from the outset of Islam until recent times is evident.
Afterwards, you will visit Vank Church, one of the most beautiful Armenian churches in the world, which will undoubtedly capture the attention of every Christian.
Your day will conclude with a visit to Monar Jomban, the tomb of a Sufi with its shaking minarets, and some historical bridges. Evening is free for your leisure.
Spend the night in Isfahan.
Day 10: Move to Hamedan by Bus
On your 464 km trip to Hamedan by bus, you will be able to view from the bus beautiful villages, cities and gardens on the hillsides of the Zagros Mountains.
Around noon you will arrive in Hamedan and transfer to your hotel.
In Hamadan you will visit the Tomb of Avicenna. Avicenna was a Muslim Persian physician and philosopher who wrote almost 450 treatises on a wide range of subjects, such as philosophy and medicine, of which about 240 still remain today.
Your next site to visit is the tomb of Baba Taher, which is located in a park surrounded by flowers and winding paths. Baba Taher is one of the most revered and respected early poets in Iranian literature. He was known by the name of Baba Taher-e-Oryan (The Naked), which suggests that he may have been a wandering dervish. His poetry has touched many souls.
After that, you will head to Asadabad, a city which is known as the birth place of Seyyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi. You will also see the famous 'Abbas Abad Waterfall' and the beautiful valleys surrounding that area, and also the recreational complex of Abbas Abad, situated on a hill overlooking Hamadan.
Next you will stop to see the Ganj Nameh Inscriptions. These inscriptions are relics from the time of Darius and Xerxes of the Achaemenian Era. They are engraved on a mountain located 5 km west of Hamadan at the end of the Abbas Abad Valley.
Stay the night in Hamadan.
Day 11: Visit Hamedan & Ali Sadr
The province of Hamedan is situated in mid-western Iran. This province has long and severe winters from September to May with a great deal of snow; however, in summer its pleasant climate offers visitors a welcome break from the soaring temperatures elsewhere in Iran. The province is famous for its raisins (1500 hectares of vineyards), and in the Persian rug trade, it ranks second only to Kerman.
In Hamedan you will visit the Esteroo Mord Khay (Ester and Mord Khay) Tomb. This structure of brick and stone located in the city center is the tomb of Ester the Queen of Shoosh (the wife of the ancient Persian king of Iran, King Xerxes) and Mordecai (Mord Khay), her uncle. The structure was originally constructed about 11 centuries ago, in order to pay homage to these two personalities. This memorial is a place of pilgrimage for Jewish people and is also held in respect by Muslems.
The Hegmatane Archeological Palace, located in the city of Hamadan, will be your next stop. This palace dates back to the times of the Medes. Kiyakesar Madi and Nabopolasar Baboli were responsible for building this structure in the year 614 BC.
If possible, after that you will visit the Gonbad-e-Alavian (or Masjid-e-Alavian), which is an interesting four-sided 12th century mausoleum belonging to the late Seljuk period. On the exterior, it resembles the Gonbad-e Sorkh of Maragheh.
Last on today's agenda is a visit to Ali Sadr Cave, the world's largest water cave which attracts millions of visitors every year. It is located about 100 kilometers north of Hamedan in western Iran. Tours of the cave are available by pedal boats.
Spend the night in Hamadan.
Day 12: Visit Kermanshah
Today you will drive westward to Kermanshah, a mountainous city with a moderate climate. On the way in an old town called Kangavar you will visit the Anahita Temple, the temple of the mother goddess of abundance and the guardian of water in ancient Persia.
Next you will travel to Bistoon on an old caravan route dating back to the Middle Paleolithic Age. There you will see the famous Tablets of Darius, Achaemenian inscriptions of 1,200 lines that offer details regarding the battles of ages past of Darius the Great, who fought against governors who were trying to dismantle the Empire originally founded by Cyrus.
Nearby in the village of Sahneh we will visit the burial site of Ostad Khalil Alinejad, the best player of the tanboor in the world.
In Kermanshah you will also enjoy a visit to the Sassanian rock carvings of Tagh-e-Bostan. These bas-reliefs, cut from stone cliff, depict royal scenes of battles and hunts reflecting the glorious history of the Sassanid Kings.
Stay overnight in Kermanshah.
Day 13: Drive164 km to Sanandaj, at evening visit Oramanat
Sanandaj is the capital of Kurdistan province. The economy of Sanandaj is based upon the production of carpets, processing hides and skins, milling rice, refining sugar, woodworking, cotton weaving, metal ware and cutlery.
Among the places of interest you will see in this city are the Old Bazaars of Sanandaj and the Hajar Khatoon Mosque, an architecturally unique and ancient Muslim mosque (now a tourist destination) in the city. This mosque was built more than hundred years ago by Haj Sheikh Shokrollah.
Afterwards we drive to reach the village of Oramanat Takht. This village is one of the most attractive rural areas of Kurdestan to tourists not only because of its amazing panoramic views, but also because of the annual performance of the ancient and wonderful ceremony of Peer Shahriar that occurs there. Here you can see the Sirvan River, which flows through the deep valleys of this region and onto Iraq. The lands are covered with walnut, pomegranate, fig and mulberry trees.
You will also see the tomb of Peer Shahriar Urami, writer of the book Acquaintance of Peer Shahriar. This is a creditable pilgrimage site of the people of the Zoroastrian religion. Other sacred sites here include the Oihang and Abdollahi mosques and the tomb of "Loskeh Hijij," which is highly respected by the people of this region and of others in Kurdestan.
Stay overnight in the village of Oraman Takht.
Day 14: Drive (about 350 km) to Zanjan via Takht e Soleiman
Today you will embark on a trip to the city of Zanjan. En route, you will visit the archaeological site of Takht-e-Soleiman, situated in a valley set in a volcanic mountain region in northwestern Iran. This site includes the principal Zoroastrian sanctuary partly rebuilt in the Ilkhanid (Mongol) Period of the 13th century. You will also see a temple of the Sasanian Period (6th and 7th centuries) dedicated to Anahita. This site is of important symbolic significance, and the designs of the fire temple, the palace and the general layout have strongly influenced the development of Islamic architecture.
Stay overnight in Zanjan.
Day 15: Drive to Tehran via Soltanieh, Alamoot & Ghazvin
Today you travel toward Tehran, driving 110 km on the highway to Ghazvin and stopping to visit the majestic Soltanieh Dome (Gonbad Soltanieh).
Near Ghazvin is the historical castle of Alamoot, which is the unique memorial of the god of Alamoot (Hasan Sabbah). You will explore this historic site whose fortress was destroyed on December 15, 1256 by Hulagu Khan as part of the Mongol offensive on Islamic southwest Asia.
Afterwards you complete your drive to Tehran and stay overnight in Tehran.
Day 16: Depart Iran
Depart Iran the land of warmth and hospitality with fond memories.
Tour Services:
1. 16-Day Tour with Experienced English-Speaking Guide
2. 17 nights in 2- and 3-Star Hotels
3. Transportation
4. Domestic Flights
5. Breakfasts and Lunches
6. All Entrance Fees
7. Invitation Letter for Iranian Visa
8. Transfers by Guide
9. Special Offers
Our web tour prices are for each person in DBL room. The SNG supplement is 20% of the total tour.
The differences of 3 versions of our tours are as below:
We do not have Iranlife tour anymore.
- Economy tour only includes 2* hotels with breakfast and English speaking driver (basic English) and invitation letter of Iran visa and domestic flight if available in the tour.
Nothing more is included in our economy tours.
- American, British and Canadian cannot choose this economy version because in this version there is no guide and these nationalities need to have guide to book the tour and apply for visa.
- In Standard tours hotels are 3*/4*.
- in Luxury tours hotels are the best options in each city (mostly 4*/5* except in cities that has no 4*/5*).


text:
London: The Center of Your New Universe
To walk across London is to travel through time and space. One minute you're standing next to ancient Roman ruins, and the next, you're on a street where the music you'll hear everywhere tomorrow is being created today. Walking side by side with people from virtually every culture on earth, you'll feel your horizons expanding with every step. As the folks you buy morning coffee from tell you about the lives they led in the Ukraine before coming to live on the Thames River's South Bank, your new "global village".
What's missing? Just you walking under the moonlight and stars, to cross "your" river and bridge home from a play you dreamed of seeing since your childhood. You, taking some reflective time to look at Big Ben's tower on one of the Thames and St. Paul's Cathedral just over there, on the other side. While the rush of the salty river is drowned out by a flood of buses and rickshaws all around you, Stramford Street and your dorm wait only steps away. Do you turn in for the night or pop around to The Thirsty Bear in search of your new friends? That's London calling, that's you answering.