document_title: A Star Is Born (2018 film)

question_text: who is noodles in a star is born

question_tokens: who is noodles in a star is born

text: A Star Is Born (2018 film)

text: Plot

text: Jackson Maine, a famous country music singer privately battling an alcohol and drug addiction, plays a concert in California. His main support is Bobby, his manager and significantly older half-brother. After the show, Jackson happens upon a drag bar where he witnesses a performance by Ally, a waitress and singer-songwriter. Jackson is amazed by her talent; they spend the night speaking to each other, where Ally discloses to him the troubles she has faced in pursuing a professional music career.

text: Jackson invites Ally to his next show. Despite her initial refusal she attends and, with Jackson's encouragement, sings on stage with him. Jackson invites Ally to go on tour with him, and they form a romantic relationship. In Arizona, Ally and Jackson visit the ranch where Jackson grew up and where his father is buried, only to discover that Bobby sold the land. Angered at his betrayal, Jackson punches Bobby, who subsequently quits as his manager. Before doing so, Bobby reveals that he did inform Jackson about the sale, but the latter was too inebriated to notice.

text: While on tour Ally meets Rez, a record producer who offers her a contract. Although visibly bothered, Jackson still supports her decision. Rez refocuses Ally away from country music and towards pop. Jackson misses one of Ally's performances after he passes out drunk in public; he recovers at the home of his friend Noodles, and later makes up with Ally. There he proposes to Ally with a ring made from a loop of guitar string, and they are married that same day.

text: During Ally's performance on Saturday Night Live, Bobby reconciles with Jackson. Later, Jackson and Ally fight after he drunkenly voices his disapproval of Ally's new image and music, which is nominated for Grammy Awards. At the Grammys, a visibly intoxicated Jackson performs in a tribute to Roy Orbison, and Ally wins the Best New Artist award. When she goes up on stage to receive her award, Jackson follows her, where he wets himself and passes out. Ally's father Lorenzo berates Jackson and Ally helps him sober up. Jackson joins a drug rehabilitation program shortly thereafter.

text: Jackson recovers in rehab, where he discloses to his counselor that he attempted suicide as a teenager. He tearfully apologizes to Ally for his behavior, and returns home. Ally wishes to bring Jackson to perform with her on the European leg of her tour; Rez refuses, prompting Ally to cancel the remainder of the tour so she can care for Jackson.

text: Rez later confronts Jackson, informing him of Ally's decision to cancel her tour and accusing him of holding Ally back. That evening, Ally lies to Jackson, and tells him that her record label has cancelled her tour so she can focus on her second album. Jackson promises that he will come to her concert that night, but after Ally leaves, he hangs himself in their garage.

text: Ally becomes inconsolable after Jackson's death. She is visited by Bobby, who explains Jackson's death was his own fault and not hers. Ally takes a song that Jackson had written but never performed and sings it at a tribute concert, introducing herself as Ally Maine.

text: Cast

text:
Bradley Cooper as Jackson Maine, an established singer-songwriter and alcoholic. He is Ally's mentor and love interest.
Lady Gaga as Ally Campana-Maine, a nightclub singer-songwriter who is discovered by Jackson.
Sam Elliott as Bobby Maine, Jackson's older brother and manager.
Dave Chappelle as George "Noodles" Stone, Jackson's close friend, himself a retired musician.
Andrew Dice Clay as Lorenzo Campana, Ally's father.
Anthony Ramos as Ramon, Ally's friend.
Michael Harney as Wolfie, a limo driver and friend of Lorenzo.
Rafi Gavron as Rez Gavron, a music producer and Ally's manager.

text: Additionally, Rebecca Field appears as Gail, Shangela Laquifa Wadley as the drag bar emcee, Willam Belli as drag queen Emerald, Greg Grunberg as Jackson's driver Phil, and Ron Rifkin as Carl. Lukas Nelson & Promise of the Real appear as Jackson's band,  Eddie Griffin appears as a local preacher and Luenell appears as a cashier. Marlon Williams, Brandi Carlile, Halsey, Alec Baldwin, and Don Roy King cameo as themselves.

text: Production

text: Development

text: In January 2011, it was announced that Clint Eastwood was in talks to direct Beyoncé in a third American remake of the 1937 film A Star Is Born; however, the project was delayed due to Beyoncé's pregnancy.[10] In April 2012, writer Will Fetters told Collider that the script was inspired by Kurt Cobain.[11] Talks with Christian Bale, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, and Will Smith to play the male lead failed to come to fruition. On October 9, 2012, Beyoncé left the project, and it was reported that Bradley Cooper was in talks to star. Eastwood was interested in Esperanza Spalding to play the female lead.[12]

text: On March 24, 2015, Warner Bros. announced that Cooper was in final talks to make his directorial debut with the film, and potentially to star with Beyoncé, who was again in talks to join;[13] Cooper did become the male lead.[14][15][16] On August 16, 2016, it was reported that Lady Gaga had officially become attached and the studio had green-lit the project to begin production early 2017.[17] It marks the fourth remake of the original 1937 film, after the 1954 musical, the 1976 rock musical and the 2013 Bollywood romance film.[18] On November 9, 2016, it was reported that Ray Liotta was in talks to join the film in the role of the manager to Cooper's character, though he ultimately was not involved.[19] On March 17, 2017, Sam Elliott joined the film,[20] with Andrew Dice Clay entering negotiations to play Lorenzo, the father of Lady Gaga's character.[21] Clay was selected over Robert De Niro, John Turturro and John Travolta.[22] In April 2017, Rafi Gavron, Michael Harney, and Rebecca Field also joined the cast.[23]

text: Filming began on April 17, 2017.[2] In May, Dave Chappelle was cast in the film.[24] In April 2018, it was announced that Halsey would have a small role.[25]

text: Music

text: After seeing him perform at Desert Trip festival, Cooper approached Lukas Nelson (son of country music singer Willie Nelson) and asked him to help work on the film. Nelson agreed and wrote several songs, which he sent to the producers.[26] Nelson subsequently met Lady Gaga and began writing songs with her and she, in turn, provided backing vocals on two tracks on his self-titled 2017 album.[27] The soundtrack, performed by Gaga and Cooper, was released on October 5, 2018, by Interscope Records. The studio announced that the album "features 19 songs in a wide range of musical styles + 15 dialogue tracks that will take you on a journey that mirrors the experience of seeing the film."[28]

text: Release

text: A Star Is Born had its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival on August 31, 2018.[29][30] It also screened at the Toronto International Film Festival,[31] the San Sebastián International Film Festival, and the Zurich Film Festival in September 2018.[32][33] The film was theatrically released in the United States on October 5, 2018,[34] distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, after initially having been set for September 28, 2018, and May 18, 2018, releases.[35][36]

text: Reception

text: Box office

text: As of  October 29, 2018[update], A Star Is Born has grossed $149.9 million in the United States and Canada, and $106 million in other territories, for a total worldwide gross of $255.9 million, against a production budget of $36–40 million.[9]

text: In the United States and Canada, A Star Is Born grossed $1.35 million from select Tuesday and Wednesday night screenings, and $15.8 million on its first day, including $3.2 million from Thursday night previews. It went on to debut to $42.9 million for the weekend and finished second at the box office, behind fellow newcomer Venom.[8] The film remained in second place in its second, third and fourth weekends, grossing a respective $28 million, $19.3 million and $14.1 million.[37][38][39]

text: Outside North America, the film was released day-and-date with the U.S. in 31 other countries, and made $14.2 million in its opening weekend; its largest markets were the United Kingdom ($5.3 million), France ($2.1 million) and Germany ($1.9 million).[40]

text: Critical response

text: On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, A Star Is Born holds an approval rating of 90% based on 394 reviews, with an average rating of 8.1/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "With appealing leads, deft direction, and an affecting love story, A Star Is Born is a remake done right—and a reminder that some stories can be just as effective in the retelling."[43] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 88 out of 100, based on 60 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[44] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale,[45] while PostTrak reported film-goers gave it a 90% positive score.[8]

text: Alonso Duralde of TheWrap gave the film a positive review, saying, "Cooper and Lady Gaga are dynamite together; this is a story that lives and dies by the central relationship and the instant chemistry that must blossom between them, and these two have it in spades," and praised the musical numbers, describing them as "electrifying".[46] Owen Gleiberman of Variety lauded Cooper's directing, co-writing, and acting, and called the film "a transcendent Hollywood movie".[47] Leah Greenblatt of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a B+, singling out Gaga's performance, saying, "she deserves praise for her restrained, human-scale performance as a singer whose real-girl vulnerability feels miles away from the glittery meat-dress delirium of her own stage persona."[41] Stephanie Zacharek of Time magazine found the film superior to its previous iterations and similarly praised Cooper's direction, the writing, as well the performances and chemistry of Cooper and Gaga. She stated: "You come away feeling something for these people, flawed individuals who are trying to hold their cracked pieces of self together–or to mend the cracks of those they love," also describing Gaga's performance as a "knockout."[48]

text: In his review for Los Angeles Times, Justin Chang called the film "remarkable," and praised Cooper for his fresh take on the well-worn formula of 1937 film, as well his direction, the performances, writing, and the cinematography.[42] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film 4.5 out of five stars, and deemed it as a "modern classic," hailing the performances of Cooper and Gaga, and Cooper's direction. He found the film's screenplay and the original songs "seamless" and "terrific," and also called the film a major Oscar contender of the year and one of the year's best films.[49] The Washington Post's Ann Hornaday described the film as "lavishly delightful" and "earthly convincing," and added that it "offers a suitably jaundiced glimpse of starmaking machinery at its most cynical, but also its most thrilling and gratifying." She similarly praised Cooper's direction, the performances and chemistry of Cooper and Gaga, and the supporting performances, particularly Andrew Dice Clay and Sam Elliott.[50]

text: While praising the direction, acting, and writing, Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune argues that a A Star is Born's formula has always been very seductive to audiences, even when it has been written poorly, and Cooper's few missteps include being a bit of a scene hog.[51]  Admitting audiences love it, and he just liked it, Phillips drew attention to a skeptical review by Lindsey Romaine of Medium.com who criticized the story's marginalization of the Gaga character in dealing with Cooper's manipulative addict.  She at least wanted a scene where Gaga's character processed her behavior of letting the addict boyfriend get away with it.  Phillips argued that it is in part the skillful musicianship which gets audiences to blow past such flaws.[52]

text: Accolades

text:
Award

Date of ceremony

Category

Recipient(s) and nominee(s)

Result

Ref(s)

Hollywood Music in Media Awards

November 14, 2018

Best Original Song – Feature Film

"Shallow" by Lady Gaga, Mark Ronson, Anthony Rossomando, and Andrew Wyatt

Pending

[53]

Outstanding Music Supervision – Film

Julianne Jordan and Julia Michels

Pending

Best Soundtrack Album

A Star Is Born

Pending

Venice Film Festival

September 8, 2018

Smithers Foundation Award

A Star Is Born

Won

[54]


document_title: Strictly Come Dancing (series 1)

question_text: who came third in first series of strictly come dancing

root

text: Strictly Come Dancing (series 1)

text: Couples[edit]

text: In the first series, there were eight celebrity contestants and in order of elimination, they were:

tag: p

text:
Celebrity

Known for

Professional partner

Status

Jason Wood

Comedian

Kylie Jones

Eliminated 1ston 22 May 2004

David Dickinson

Television presenter

Camilla Dallerup

Eliminated 2ndon 29 May 2004

Verona Joseph

Holby City actress

Paul Killick

Eliminated 3rdon 5 June 2004

Claire Sweeney

Actress, singer, & television presenter

John Byrnes

Eliminated 4thon 12 June 2004

Martin Offiah

Former England rugby player

Erin Boag

Eliminated 5thon 19 June 2004

Lesley Garrett

Classical crossover singer

Anton du Beke

Third Placeon 26 June 2004

Christopher Parker

EastEnders actor

Hanna Karttunen

Second Placeon 3 July 2004

Natasha Kaplinsky

Television presenter

Brendan Cole

Winnerson 3 July 2004

tag: table

text: Scoring chart[edit]

text:
Couple

Place

1

2

1+2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Natasha & Brendan

1

27

31

58

26

35

37

31+36=67

36+35=71

36+31+35=102

Christopher & Hanna

2

19

23

42

19

28

15

22+15=37

21+16=37

24+17+22=63

Lesley & Anton

3

29

27

56

29

30

27

34+26=60

33+29=62

Martin & Erin

4

25

21

46

21

24

22

24+24=48

Claire & John

5

27

26

53

34

31

32

Verona & Paul

6

27

24

51

24

24

David & Camilla

7

16

21

37

20

Jason & Kylie

8

21

19

40

text: Average chart[edit]

text: This table only counts for dances scored on a traditional 40-points scale.

text:
Rank by average

Place

Couple

Total

Number of dances

Average

1
1
Natasha & Brendan
396
12
33.0

2
5
Claire & John
150
5
30.0

3
3
Lesley & Anton
264
9
29.3

4
6
Verona & Paul
99
4
24.8

5
4
Martin & Erin
161
7
23.0

6
2
Christopher & Hanna
241
12
20.1

7
8
Jason & Kylie
40
2
20.0

8
7
David & Camilla
57
3
19.0

text: Highest and lowest scoring performances of the series[edit]

text: The best and worst performances in each dance according to the judges' scores are as follows:

text:
Dance
Best dancer(s)
Best score
Worst dancer(s)
Worst score

Cha-Cha-Cha

Natasha KaplinskyVerona Joseph
27
David Dickinson
16

Foxtrot

Natasha Kaplinsky
35
Martin Offiah
24

Jive

Lesley Garrett
29
Christopher Parker
17

Paso Doble

Natasha Kaplinsky
35
Christopher Parker
15

Quickstep

Natasha Kaplinsky
36
David Dickinson
21

Rumba

Natasha Kaplinsky
36
Christopher Parker
16

Samba

Natasha Kaplinsky
37
Christopher Parker
15

Showdance

Natasha Kaplinsky
35
Christopher Parker
22

Tango

Claire Sweeney
34
David Dickinson
20

Waltz

Natasha Kaplinsky
36
Jason Wood
21

text: Couples' highest and lowest scoring dances[edit]

text:
Couple

Highest scoring dance

Lowest scoring dance

Natasha & Brendan
Samba (37)
Jive (26)

Chris & Hanna
Foxtrot (28)
SambaPaso Doble (15)

Lesley & Anton
Foxtrot (34)
Cha-Cha-Cha (26)

Martin & Erin
Waltz (25)
RumbaJive (21)

Claire & John
Tango (34)
Rumba (26)

Verona & Paul
Cha Cha Cha (27)
QuickstepJivePaso Doble (24)

David & Camilla
Quickstep (21)
Cha-Cha-Cha (16)

Jason & Kylie
Waltz (21)
Rumba (19)

text: Weekly scores and songs[edit]

text: Unless indicated otherwise, individual judges scores are given (in parenthesis) in this order from left to right: Craig Revel Horwood, Arlene Phillips, Len Goodman, Bruno Tonioli.

text: Week 1[edit]

text: Individual judges' scores in the chart below (given in parentheses) are listed in this order from left to right: Bruno Tonioli, Arlene Phillips, Len Goodman, Craig Revel Horwood

text: Running order

text:
Couple

Score

Dance

Music

Natasha & Brendan

27 (7,7,8,5)

Cha-Cha-Cha

"Chain of Fools"—Aretha Franklin

Lesley & Anton

29 (7,8,8,6)

Waltz

"He Was Beautiful"—Cleo Laine

Christopher & Hanna

19 (4,4,7,4)

Cha-Cha-Cha

"Lady Marmalade"—Labelle

Jason & Kylie

21 (5,5,6,5)

Waltz

"Three Times A Lady"—Commodores

Verona & Paul

27 (7,6,7,7)

Cha-Cha-Cha

"Respect"—Aretha Franklin

Claire & John

27 (5,7,8,7)

Waltz

"Unchained Melody"—The Righteous Brothers from Ghost

David & Camilla

16 (4,4,6,2)

Cha-Cha-Cha

"Sex Bomb"—Tom Jones

Martin & Erin

25 (7,6,7,5)

Waltz

"Come Away With Me"—Norah Jones

text: Week 2[edit]

text: Running order

text:
Couple

Score

Dance

Music

Result

Natasha & Brendan

31 (7,8,8,8)

Quickstep

"The Lady is a Tramp"—Frank Sinatra

Safe

Martin & Erin

21 (3,5,7,6)

Rumba

"Hero"—Mariah Carey

Safe

Christopher & Hanna

23 (5,6,6,6)

Quickstep

"You're the One That I Want" from Grease

Safe

Claire & John

26 (6,6,7,7)

Rumba

"Angels"—Robbie Williams

Safe

Verona & Paul

24 (6,6,6,6)

Quickstep

"If My Friends Could See Me Now" from Sweet Charity

Safe

Jason & Kylie

19 (2,5,7,5)

Rumba

"Leave Right Now"—Will Young

Eliminated

David & Camilla

21 (3,6,6,6)

Quickstep

"Let's Face The Music and Dance" from Follow the Fleet

Bottom two

Lesley & Anton

27 (6,7,7,7)

Rumba

"You'll Never Find Another Love Like Mine"—Lou Rawls

Safe

text: Week 3[edit]

text: This week's show is filmed in the Blackpool Tower Ballroom.

text: Running order

text:
Couple

Score

Dance

Music

Result

Verona & Paul

24 (6,6,6,6)

Jive

"Proud Mary"—Tina Turner

Safe

Lesley & Anton

29 (7,8,7,7)

Tango

"Sensation"—Chong Lim

Safe

Martin & Erin

21 (5,5,5,6)

Jive

"Great Balls of Fire"—Jerry Lee Lewis

Safe

David & Camilla

20 (4,6,5,5)

Tango

"La Cumparsita"—Gerardo Matos Rodríguez

Eliminated

Christopher & Hanna

19 (5,4,5,5)

Jive

"Do You Love Me"—The Contours

Safe

Claire & John

34 (8,9,9,8)

Tango

"Roxanne"—The Police

Safe

Natasha & Brendan

26 (7,7,5,7)

Jive

"Jump, Jive and Wail”—Louis Prima

Bottom two

text: Week 4[edit]

text: Running order

text:
Couple

Score

Dance

Music

Result

Claire & John

31 (8,8,7,8)

Paso Doble

"España cañí"—Pascual Marquina Narro

Safe

Christopher & Hanna

28 (6,7,8,7)

Foxtrot

"Flying Without Wings"—Westlife

Safe

Verona & Paul

24 (5,6,6,7)

Paso Doble

"Boléro"—Maurice Ravel

Eliminated

Natasha & Brendan

35 (8,9,9,9)

Foxtrot

"The Girl from Ipanema"—Antônio Carlos Jobim

Safe

Lesley & Anton

30 (7,7,8,8)

Paso Doble

"La Cumparsita"—Gerardo Matos Rodríguez

Bottom two

Martin & Erin

24 (6,5,7,6)

Foxtrot

"Let There Be Love"—Nat King Cole

Safe

text: Week 5[edit]

text: Running order

text:
Couple

Score

Dance

Music

Result

Lesley & Anton

27 (7,6,7,7)

Samba

"Mas que Nada"—Jorge Ben

Bottom two

Martin & Erin

22 (5,5,6,6)

Samba

"Crickets Sing for Anamaria"—Marcos Valle

Safe

Christopher & Hanna

15 (3,4,4,4)

Samba

"Soul Bossa Nova"—Quincy Jones

Safe

Claire & John

32 (8,8,8,8)

Samba

"Shake Your Bon-Bon"—Ricky Martin

Eliminated

Natasha & Brendan

37 (9,10,9,9)

Samba

"Love Is in the Air"—John Paul Young

Safe

text: Week 6: Quarter-final[edit]

text: Running order

text:
Couple

Score

Dance

Music

Result

Martin & Erin

24 (5,6,6,7)

Quickstep

"It Don't Mean a Thing (If It Ain't Got That Swing)"—Duke Ellington

Eliminated

24 (6,6,6,6)

Cha Cha Cha

"Smooth"—Santana

Natasha & Brendan

31 (8,7,8,8)

Tango

"Libertango"—Ástor Piazzolla

Safe

36 (9,9,9,9)

Rumba

"Endless Love"—Lionel Richie

Christopher & Hanna

22 (5,6,5,6)

Waltz

"I Have Nothing"—Whitney Houston

Safe

15 (3,4,5,3)

Paso Doble

"Bamboleo"—Gipsy Kings

Lesley & Anton

34 (8,8,9,9)

Foxtrot

"I've Got You Under My Skin"—Frank Sinatra

Bottom two

26 (6,6,7,7)

Cha Cha Cha

"Spinning Around"—Kylie Minogue

text: Week 7: Semi-final[edit]

text:
Couple

Score

Dance

Music

Result

Lesley & Anton

33 (8,8,8,9)

Quickstep

"That Old Black Magic"—Sammy Davis Jr

Third place

29 (7,7,8,7)

Jive

"My Baby Just Cares for Me"—Nina Simone

Natasha & Brendan

36 (9,9,9,9)

Waltz

"With You I'm Born Again"—Billy Preston and Syreeta Wright

Safe

35 (8,9,9,9)

Paso Doble

"O Fortuna"—Carl Orff

Christopher & Hanna

21 (2,6,7,6)

Tango

"Toxic"—Britney Spears

Bottom two

16 (2,4,5,5)

Rumba

"Careless Whisper"—George Michael

text: Week 8: Final[edit]

text:
Couple

Score

Dance

Music

Result

Natasha & Brendan

36 (9,9,9,9)

Quickstep

"The Lady is a Tramp"—Frank Sinatra

Winner

31 (7,7,9,8)

Samba

"Love Is in the Air"—John Paul Young

35 (8,9,9,9)

Showdance

"(I've Had) The Time of My Life"—Bill Medley and Jennifer Warnes

Christopher & Hanna

24 (6,5,6,7)

Waltz

"I Have Nothing"—Whitney Houston

Runner-up

17 (3,3,7,4)

Jive

"Do You Love Me"—The Contours

22 (4,6,7,5)

Showdance

"Fame"—Irene Cara

text: Dance chart[edit]

text:
Couple

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Natasha & Brendan

Cha-Cha-Cha

Quickstep

Jive

Foxtrot

Samba

Tango

Rumba

Waltz

Paso Doble

Quickstep

Samba

Showdance

Christopher & Hanna

Cha-Cha-Cha

Quickstep

Jive

Foxtrot

Samba

Waltz

Paso Doble

Tango

Rumba

Waltz

Jive

Showdance

Lesley & Anton

Waltz

Rumba

Tango

Paso Doble

Samba

Foxtrot

Cha-Cha-Cha

Quickstep

Jive

Martin & Erin

Waltz

Rumba

Jive

Foxtrot

Samba

Quickstep

Cha-Cha-Cha

Claire & John

Waltz

Rumba

Tango

Paso Doble

Samba

Verona & Paul

Cha-Cha-Cha

Quickstep

Jive

Paso Doble

David & Camilla

Cha-Cha-Cha

Quickstep

Tango

Jason & Kylie

Waltz

Rumba

text: The dances performed during Series 1 were as follows:

text:
Week 1: Cha Cha Cha or Waltz
Week 2: Quickstep or Rumba
Week 3: Tango or Jive
Week 4: Foxtrot or Paso Doble
Week 5: Samba
Week 6 & 7: Two unlearned dances
Week 8: Favourite ballroom, favourite Latin & Showdance

tag: ul


document_title: Ownership of Arsenal F.C.

question_text: what is the value of arsenal football club

text: Ownership of Arsenal F.C.

text: Overview[edit]

text: Arsenal's parent company, Arsenal Holdings plc, operates as a non-quoted public limited company, whose ownership is considerably different from that of other football clubs. Only 62,217 shares in Arsenal have been issued,[3] and they are not traded on a public exchange such as the FTSE or AIM; instead, they are traded relatively infrequently on NEX Exchange (AFC), a specialist market. The 2011 takeover bid by Stan Kroenke puts the club's market capitalisation value at £731m.[4] As at 31 March 2012, a single share in Arsenal had a mid price of £16,250, which set the club's market capitalisation value at approximately £1 Billion

text: Arsenal Holdings plc wholly owns twelve subsidiary companies, covering the group's activities. These include Arsenal Football Club plc (the football club itself), Arsenal (Emirates Stadium) Limited (which develops and owns Arsenal's Emirates Stadium), Arsenal Stadium Management Company (which manages the stadium on matchdays), and Arsenal Overseas Ltd (which manages retail operations). Other subsidiaries deal with property development on the site of Arsenal's former stadium at Highbury and the associated property holding and financing.[3]

text: Financial performance[edit]

text: The club made an operating profit (excluding player transfers) of £72m in the year ending 31 May 2010, from a turnover of £379.9m.[5] In April 2009, business magazine Forbes ranked Arsenal as third most valuable football team in the world, after Manchester United and Real Madrid, valuing the club at $1.2bn (£605m), excluding debt.[6] Accountants Deloitte rate Arsenal fifth in the 2011 Deloitte Football Money League, a ranking of the world's football clubs in terms of revenue, with the club earning £274.1m in the 2009–10 season.[7]

text: History[edit]

text: As an amateur club, Royal Arsenal FC, Arsenal started out as a mutually owned club but after turning professional, converted to a limited liability company in 1893. The company struggled in the club's early years, with its location in industrial Woolwich resulting in low attendances. The club was liquidated and reformed in 1910, and taken over by the owner of Fulham FC, Henry Norris. Norris owned the club for the next nineteen years, moving it to Arsenal Stadium in Highbury in 1913. Norris however was forced to resign as chairman and leave Arsenal in 1929 following an expenses scandal.[8]

text: By the time of World War II the majority of Arsenal shares were held by Samuel Hill-Wood and Sir Bracewell Smith, the MP for Holborn and a future Lord Mayor of London. In those days the shares were not considered to be valuable and had never paid a dividend, and were seen largely as a charitable exercise to provide recreational entertainment for the working people of North London.[9]

text: After his death, the shareholding of Sir Bracewell Smith was divided between his son and daughter and ended up in the hands of his grandchildren, Sir Charles Bracewell-Smith, Clive Carr (Life-President), Richard Carr (still a director) and Sarah Carr, now Lady Phipps-Bagge.[10] Samuel Hill-Wood's shares passed first to his son Denis and then his grandson and former Arsenal chairman Peter Hill-Wood; he sold much of his family's shareholdings in the 1980s to David Dein, who sold some of them on to Danny Fiszman (a London diamond dealer).[11] In the early 2000s the club sold a 9.9% stake to Granada Holdings Ltd, a subsidiary of ITV plc,[12] and a significant stake was also bought by hedge fund Lansdowne Partners.[13]

text: Current shareholders[edit]

text: As of 19 May 2017, the largest shareholder in the club is Stan Kroenke, owner of Kroenke Sports Enterprises (KSE), who owns 41,721 shares (67.05%). Kroenke's holdings in the club began with an initial 9.9% bought from ITV plc in April 2007;[14] initially treated with hostility, he is now regarded as an ally of the Arsenal board and was appointed a non-executive director of the club in September 2008.[15] Kroenke brought his stake in the club up to 20.5% following a purchase of shares from fellow director Danny Fiszman.[16] On 1 May 2009, Arsenal announced that Kroenke had bought a further 4,839 shares from the Carr family, including Richard Carr, also a director, which made him the largest shareholder of the company with 28.3%.[17] On November the same year, this increased to the maximum 29.9% limit.[18]

text: A rival bid for the club came from Red & White Holdings, which is co-owned by Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov and London-based financier Farhad Moshiri.[19] Red & White bought the stake held by former Arsenal vice-chairman David Dein, as well as stakes owned by Lansdowne and many other minor shareholders, and as of September 2011 own 18,204 shares (29.25%) of the club. This is the largest single stake owned by a non-board member. This led to press speculation of a bidding war between Kroenke and Usmanov.[19] However, Kroenke agreed not to purchase more than 29.9% of the club until at least September 2009,[15] while the rest of the board agreed not to consider a sale of their shares to "non-permitted persons" until at least April 2009, and had first option on each other's shares until October 2012.[20]

text: In April 2011, Kroenke extended his ownership of the club by purchasing the shareholdings of Nina Bracewell-Smith (15.9%), Danny Fiszman (16.11%) and other directors of the Arsenal board, taking his shareholding to 66.64%. Under the Takeover Code, Kroenke, as majority shareholder, is obliged to make an offer for the remaining shares in the club, which would include those owned by Red & White Holdings as well as any stakes held by the remaining minority shareholders of the club;[2] these include those owned by former players as well as three shares owned by the Arsenal Supporters' Trust.[21]


document_title: Campaign finance reform in the United States

question_text: what was in the federal election campaign act that was passed after watergate

text: History[edit]

text: First attempts[edit]

text: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: To gain votes from recently enfranchised, unpropertied voters, Andrew Jackson launched his campaign for the 1828 election through a network of partisan newspapers across the nation. After his election, Jackson began a political patronage system that rewarded political party operatives, which had a profound effect on future elections. Eventually, appointees were expected to contribute portions of their pay back to the political party. During the Jacksonian era, some of the first attempts were made by corporations to influence politicians. Jackson claimed that his charter battle against the Second Bank of the United States was one of the great struggles between democracy and the money power. While it was rumored that The Bank of the United States spent over $40,000 from 1830 to 1832 in an effort to stop Jackson's re-election, Chairman Biddle of the BUS only spent "tens of thousands to distribute information favorable to the bank." This expenditure can be conceived as being spent "against" Jackson, because of the competing ideals of the Bank and Jackson's anti-bank platform.[1]

text: In the 1850s, Pennsylvania Republican Simon Cameron began to develop what became known as the "Pennsylvania idea" of applying the wealth of corporations to help maintain Republican control of the legislature.[citation needed] Political machines across the country used the threat of hostile legislation to force corporate interests into paying for the defeat of the measures.[citation needed] U.S. Senators of the time were elected not by popular vote, but by state legislatures, whose votes could sometimes be bought. Exposed bribery occurred in Colorado, Kansas, Montana and West Virginia.[citation needed]

text: Abraham Lincoln's attempt to finance his own 1858 Senate run bankrupted him, even though he had arranged a number of $500 expense accounts from wealthy donors. However, he was able to regain enough money in his law practice to purchase an Illinois newspaper to support him in the presidential election of 1860, for which he gained the financial support of businessmen in Philadelphia and New York City.

text: After the Civil War, parties increasingly relied on wealthy individuals for support, including Jay Cooke, the Vanderbilts, and the Astors. In the absence of a civil service system, parties also continued to rely heavily on financial support from government employees, including assessments of a portion of their federal pay. The first federal campaign finance law, passed in 1867, was a Naval Appropriations Bill which prohibited officers and government employees from soliciting contributions from Navy yard workers. Later, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 established the civil service and extended the protections of the Naval Appropriations Bill to all federal civil service workers.[2] However, this loss of a major funding source increased pressure on parties to solicit funding from corporate and individual wealth.

text: In the campaign of 1872, a group of wealthy New York Democrats pledged $10,000 each to pay for the costs of promoting the election. On the Republican side, one Ulysses S. Grant supporter alone contributed one fourth of the total finances. One historian said that never before was a candidate under such a great obligation to men of wealth. Vote buying and voter coercion were common in this era. After more standardized ballots were introduced, these practices continued, applying methods such as requiring voters to use carbon paper to record their vote publicly in order to be paid.

text: Boies Penrose mastered post-Pendleton Act corporate funding through extortionist tactics, such as squeeze bills (legislation threatening to tax or regulate business unless funds were contributed.) During his successful 1896 U.S. Senate campaign, he raised a quarter million dollars within 48 hours. He allegedly told supporters that they should send him to Congress to enable them to make even more money.

text: In 1896, a wealthy Ohio industrialist, shipping magnate and political operative, Mark Hanna became Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Hanna directly contributed $100,000 to the nomination campaign of fellow Ohioan William McKinley, but recognized that more would be needed to fund the general election campaign. Hanna systematized fund-raising from the business community. He assessed banks 0.25% of their capital, and corporations were assessed in relation to their profitability and perceived stake in the prosperity of the country. McKinley's run became the prototype of the modern commercial advertising campaign, putting the President-to-be's image on buttons, billboards, posters, and so on. Business supporters, determined to defeat the Democratic-populist William Jennings Bryan, were more than happy to give, and Hanna actually refunded or turned down what he considered to be "excessive" contributions that exceeded a business's assessment.[citation needed]

text: Twentieth-century Progressive advocates, together with journalists and political satirists, argued to the general public that the policies of vote buying and excessive corporate and moneyed influence were abandoning the interests of millions of taxpayers. They advocated strong antitrust laws, restricting corporate lobbying and campaign contributions, and greater citizen participation and control, including standardized secret ballots, strict voter registration and women's suffrage.

text: In his first term, President Theodore Roosevelt, following President McKinley's assassination of 1901, began trust-busting and anti-corporate-influence activities, but fearing defeat, turned to bankers and industrialists for support in what turned out to be his 1904 landslide campaign. Roosevelt was embarrassed by his corporate financing and was unable to clear a suspicion of a quid pro quo exchange with E.H. Harriman for what was an eventually unfulfilled ambassador nomination. There was a resulting national call for reform, but Roosevelt claimed that it was legitimate to accept large contributions if there were no implied obligation. However, in his 1905 message to Congress following the election, he proposed that "contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." The proposal, however, included no restrictions on campaign contributions from the private individuals who owned and ran corporations. Roosevelt also called for public financing of federal candidates via their political parties. The movement for a national law to require disclosure of campaign expenditures, begun by the National Publicity Law Association, was supported by Roosevelt but delayed by Congress for a decade.

text: This first effort at wide-ranging reform resulted in the Tillman Act of 1907. Named for its sponsor, South Carolina Senator Ben Tillman, the Tillman Act prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates. However, weak enforcement mechanisms made the Act ineffective. Disclosure requirements and spending limits for House and Senate candidates followed in 1910 and 1911. General contribution limits were enacted in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1925). An amendment to the Hatch Act of 1939 set an annual ceiling of $3 million for political parties' campaign expenditures and $5,000 for individual campaign contributions. The Smith-Connally Act (1943) and Taft-Hartley Act (1947) extended the corporate ban to labor unions.

text: FECA and the Watergate amendments[edit]

text: All of these efforts were largely ineffective, easily circumvented and rarely enforced. In 1971, however, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, requiring broad disclosure of campaign finance. In 1974, fueled by public reaction to the Watergate Scandal, Congress passed amendments to the Act establishing a comprehensive system of regulation and enforcement, including public financing of presidential campaigns and creation of a central enforcement agency, the Federal Election Commission. Other provisions included limits on contributions to campaigns and expenditures by campaigns, individuals, corporations and other political groups.

text: The 1976 decision of the US Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo struck down various FECA limits on spending as unconstitutional violations of free speech. Among other changes, this removed limits on candidate expenditures unless the candidate accepts public financing.[2]

text: Reforms of the 1980s and 1990s[edit]

text: In 1986, several bills were killed in the U.S. Senate by bipartisan maneuvers which did not allow the bills to come up for a vote. The bill would impose strict controls for campaign fund raising. Later in 1988, legislative and legal setbacks on proposals designed to limit overall campaign spending by candidates were shelved after a Republican filibuster. In addition, a constitutional amendment to override a Supreme Court decision failed to get off the ground. In 1994, Senate Democrats had more bills blocked by Republicans including a bill setting spending limits and authorizing partial public financing of congressional elections. In 1996, bipartisan legislation for voluntary spending limits which rewards those who bare soft money was killed by a Republican filibuster.[3]

text: In 1997, Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Feingold (D-WI) sought to eliminate soft money and TV advertising expenditures, but the legislation was defeated by a Republican filibuster. Several different proposals were made in 1999 by both parties. The Campaign Integrity Act (H.R. 1867), proposed by Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), would have banned soft money and raised limits on hard money. The Citizen Legislature & Political Act sponsored by Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) would have repealed all federal freedom act contribution limits and expedited and expanded disclosure (H.R. 1922 in 1999, the 106th Congress,[4] and reintroduced with different numbers through 2007, the 110th Congress). The Shays-Meehan Campaign Reform Act (H.R. 417) evolved into the McCain–Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.[3]

text: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002[edit]

text: The Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also called the McCain-Feingold bill after its chief sponsors, John McCain and Russ Feingold. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on February 14, 2002, with 240 yeas and 189 nays, including 6 members who did not vote. Final passage in the Senate came after supporters mustered the bare minimum of 60 votes needed to shut off debate. The bill passed the Senate, 60-40 on March 20, 2002, and was signed into law by President Bush on March 27, 2002. In signing the law, Bush expressed concerns about the constitutionality of parts of the legislation but concluded, "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns." The bill was the first significant overhaul of federal campaign finance laws since the post-Watergate scandal era. Academic research has used game theory to explain Congress's incentives to pass the Act.[5]

text: The BCRA was a mixed bag for those who wanted to remove big money from politics. It eliminated all soft money donations to the national party committees, but it also doubled the contribution limit of hard money, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election cycle, with a built-in increase for inflation. In addition, the bill aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations by banning the use of corporate or union money to pay for "electioneering communications," defined as broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election. This provision of McCain-Feingold, sponsored by Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Vermont Independent James Jeffords, as introduced applied only to for-profit corporations, but was extended to incorporate non-profit issue organizations, such as the Environmental Defense Fund or the National Rifle Association, as part of the "Wellstone Amendment," sponsored by Senator Paul Wellstone.

text: The law was challenged as unconstitutional by groups and individuals including the California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), the Senate Majority Whip. After moving through lower courts, in September 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, McConnell v. FEC. On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling that upheld its key provisions.

text: Since then, campaign finance limitations continued to be challenged in the Courts. In 2005 in Washington state, Thurston County Judge Christopher Wickham ruled that media articles and segments were considered in-kind contributions under state law. The heart of the matter focused on the I-912 campaign to repeal a fuel tax, and specifically two broadcasters for Seattle conservative talker KVI. Judge Wickham's ruling was eventually overturned on appeal in April 2007, with the Washington Supreme Court holding that on-air commentary was not covered by the State's campaign finance laws (No New Gas Tax v. San Juan County).[6]

text: In 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions on campaign finance. In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., it held that certain advertisements might be constitutionally entitled to an exception from the 'electioneering communications' provisions of McCain-Feingold limiting broadcast ads that merely mention a federal candidate within 60 days of an election. On remand, a lower court then held that certain ads aired by Wisconsin Right to Life in fact merited such an exception. The Federal Election Commission appealed that decision, and in June 2007, the Supreme Court held in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court declined to overturn the electioneering communications limits in their entirety, but established a broad exemption for any ad that could have a reasonable interpretation as an ad about legislative issues.

text: Also in 2006, the Supreme Court held that a Vermont law imposing mandatory limits on spending was unconstitutional, under the precedent of Buckley v. Valeo. In that case, Randall v. Sorrell, the Court also struck down Vermont's contribution limits as unconstitutionally low, the first time that the Court had ever struck down a contribution limit.

text: In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether or not the law could restrict advertising of a documentary about Hillary Clinton.[7] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was decided in January 2010, the Supreme Court finding that §441b’s restrictions on expenditures were invalid and could not be applied to Hillary: The Movie.

text: DISCLOSE Act of 2010[edit]

text: The DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) was proposed in July 2010. The bill would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and establish additional disclosure requirements for election spending. The bill would have imposed new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties. The legislation would have required the sponsor of the ad to appear in the ad itself. President Obama argued that the bill would reduce foreign influence over American elections. Democrats needed at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes to overcome GOP procedural delays, but were unsuccessful.[8][9]

text: Current proposals for reform[edit]

text: The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (November 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Voting with dollars[edit]

text: The voting with dollars plan would establish a system of modified public financing coupled with an anonymous campaign contribution process. It has two parts: patriot dollars and the secret donation booth. It was originally described in detail by Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres in their 2002 book Voting with Dollars: A new paradigm for campaign finance.[10] All voters would be given a $50 publicly funded voucher (Patriot dollars) to donate to federal political campaigns. All donations including both the $50 voucher and additional private contributions, must be made anonymously through the FEC. Ackerman and Ayres include model legislation in their book in addition to detailed discussion as to how such a system could be achieved and its legal basis.

text: Of the Patriot dollars (e.g. $50 per voter) given to voters to allocate, they propose $25 going to presidential campaigns, $15 to Senate campaigns, and $10 to House campaigns. Within those restrictions the voucher can be split among any number of candidates for any federal race and between the primary and general elections. At the end of the current election cycle any unspent portions of this voucher would expire and could not be rolled over to subsequent elections for that voter. In the context of the 2004 election cycle $50 multiplied by the approximately 120 million people who voted would have yielded about $6 billion in “public financing” compared to the approximate $4 billion spent in 2004 for all federal elections (House, Senate and Presidential races) combined.[11] Ackerman and Ayres argue that this system would pool voter money and force candidates to address issues of importance to a broad spectrum of voters. Additionally they argue this public finance scheme would address taxpayers' concerns that they have "no say" in where public financing monies are spent, whereas in the Voting with dollars system each taxpayer who votes has discretion over their contribution.

text: Lessig (2011, p. 269) notes that the cost of this is tiny relative to the cost of corporate welfare, estimated at $100 billion in the 2012 US federal budget. However, this considers only direct subsidies identified by the Cato Institute. It ignores tax loopholes and regulatory and trade decisions, encouraging business mergers and other activities that can stifle competition, creativity and economic growth; the direct subsidies can be a tiny fraction of these indirect costs.

text: The second aspect of the system increases some private donation limits, but all contributions must be made anonymously through the FEC. In this system, when a contributor makes a donation to a campaign, they send their money to the FEC, indicating to which campaign they want it to go. The FEC masks the money and distributes it directly to the campaigns in randomized chunks over a number of days. Ackerman and Ayres compare this system to the reforms adopted in the late 19th century aimed to prevent vote buying, which led to our current secret ballot process. Prior to that time voting was conducted openly, allowing campaigns to confirm that voters cast ballots for the candidates they had been paid to support. Ackerman and Ayres contend that if candidates do not know for sure who is contributing to their campaigns they are unlikely to take unpopular stances to court large donors which could jeopardize donations flowing from voter vouchers. Conversely, large potential donors will not be able to gain political access or favorable legislation in return for their contributions since they cannot prove to candidates the supposed extent of their financial support.

text: Matching funds[edit]

text: Another method allows the candidates to raise funds from private donors, but provides matching funds for the first chunk of donations. For instance, the government might "match" the first $250 of every donation. This would effectively make small donations more valuable to a campaign, potentially leading them to put more effort into pursuing such donations, which are believed to have less of a corrupting effect than larger gifts and enhance the power of less-wealthy individuals. Such a system is currently in place in the U.S. presidential primaries. As of February 2008, there were fears that this system provided a safety net for losers in these races, as shown by loan taken out by John McCain's campaign that used the promise of matching funds as collateral.[12] However, in February 2009 the Federal Election Commission found no violation of the law because McCain permissibly withdrew from the Matching Payment Program and thus was released from his obligations. It also found no reason to believe that a violation occurred as a result of the Committee’s reporting of McCain’s loan. The Commission closed the files.[13]

text: Clean elections[edit]

text: Another method, which supporters call clean money, clean elections, gives each candidate who chooses to participate a certain, set amount of money. In order to qualify for this money, the candidates must collect a specified number of signatures and small (usually $5) contributions. The candidates are not allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding. Candidates receive matching funds, up to a limit, when they are outspent by privately funded candidates, attacked by independent expenditures, or their opponent benefits from independent expenditures. This is the primary difference between clean money public financing systems and the presidential campaign system, which many have called "broken" because it provides no extra funds when candidates are attacked by 527s or other independent expenditure groups. Supporters claim that Clean Elections matching funds are so effective at leveling the playing field in Arizona that during the first full year of its implementation, disproportionate funding between candidates was a factor in only 2% of the races.[14] The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission, however, cast considerable doubt on the constitutionality of these provisions, and in 2011 the Supreme Court held that key provisions of the Arizona law – most notably its matching fund provisions – were unconstitutional in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.

text: This procedure has been in place in races for all statewide and legislative offices in Arizona and Maine since 2000. Connecticut passed a Clean Elections law in 2005, along with the cities of Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico, although Portland's was repealed by voter initiative in 2010.[15] 69% of the voters in Albuquerque voted Yes to Clean Elections. A 2006 poll showed that 85% of Arizonans familiar with their Clean Elections system thought it was important to Arizona voters. However, a clean elections initiative in California was defeated by a wide margin at the November 2006 election, with just 25.7% in favor, 74.3% opposed, and in 2008 Alaska voters rejected a clean elections proposal by a two to one margin.[16] Many other states (such as New Jersey) have some form of limited financial assistance for candidates, but New Jersey's experiment with Clean Elections was ended in 2008, in part due to a sense that the program failed to accomplish its goals.[17] Wisconsin and Minnesota have had partial public funding since the 1970s, but the systems have largely fallen into desuetude.

text: A clause in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain-Feingold") required the nonpartisan General Accounting Office to conduct a study of clean elections programs in Arizona and Maine. The report, issued in May 2003, found none of the objectives of the systems had yet been attained, but cautioned that because of the relatively short time the programs had been in place, "it is too soon to determine the extent to which the goals of Maine’s and Arizona’s public financing programs are being met... [and] We are not making any recommendations in this report."[18] A 2006 study by the Center for Governmental Studies (an advocate for campaign finance reform) found that Clean Elections programs resulted in more candidates, more competition, more voter participation, and less influence-peddling.[19] In 2008, however, a series of studies conducted by the Center for Competitive Politics, (which generally opposes regulation and taxpayer funded political campaigns)[20]" found that the programs in Maine, Arizona, and New Jersey had failed to accomplish their stated goals, including electing more women, reducing government spending, reducing special interest influence on elections, bringing more diverse backgrounds into the legislature, or meeting most other stated objectives, including increasing competition or voter participation.[21][22][23][24][25] These reports confirmed the results of an earlier study by the conservative/libertarian Goldwater Institute on Arizona's program.[26]

text: Occupy movement-inspired constitutional amendments[edit]

text: In response to the Occupy Wall Street protests and the worldwide occupy movement calling for U.S. campaign finance reform eliminating corporate influence in politics, among other reforms, Representative Ted Deutch introduced the "Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy" (OCCUPIED) constitutional amendment on November 18, 2011.[27][28] The OCCUPIED amendment would outlaw the use of for-profit corporation money in U.S. election campaigns and give Congress and states the authority to create a public campaign finance system.[29] Unions and non-profit organizations will still be able to contribute to campaigns.[30] On November 1, 2011, Senator Tom Udall also introduced a constitutional amendment in Congress to reform campaign finance which would allow Congress and state legislatures to establish public campaign finance.[31] Two other constitutional campaign finance reform amendments were introduced in Congress in November, 2011.[32] Similar amendments have been advanced by Dylan Ratigan,[33] Karl Auerbach,[34] Cenk Uygur through Wolf PAC,[35] and other political organizations, such as Move to Amend[36] and American Promise.[37][38][39]

text: Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig had called for a constitutional convention[40] in a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator,[41] in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It,[42] and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.[43] Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book offers a manifesto for the Occupy Wall Street protestors, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections,[44] and Lessig provides credibility to the movement.[45] Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.[46] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.[47] On October 15, the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group, published the 99 Percent Declaration[48] of demands, goals, and solutions, including a call to amend the U.S. Constitution to reform campaign finance.[49][50][51] Occupy movement protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment.[52][53][54][55]

text: CFR28 Logic Puzzle[edit]

text: In its three-minute video,[56] CFR28 makes the point that reforms preventing use of super PAC money to broadcast opinions about candidates means only media companies would be left with that power. It goes on to explain how CFR28 would prevent such a media monopoly but still eliminate the influence of super PAC money over candidates.

text: Using its website “Reasoning” page,[57] CFR28[58] considers campaign finance reform as a “logic puzzle” with a step-by-step series of premises and conclusions to justify its version of a constitutional amendment. The proposal targets independent campaign financing, which CFR28 describes as the “central problem aggravated by the Citizens United decision”, by directly confronting the dilemma of how to restrict private Political Action Committee spending while preserving free speech. The site also claims that this is the only way to achieve reform by explaining why other proposals, like public financing and transparency efforts, will fail.[59]

text: This dilemma was highlighted during the first oral arguments in the Citizen United case when the Assistant Solicitor General defending the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was compelled to argue that the publishing of some books could be prohibited in the months leading up to an election.[60] Senator Ted Cruz leveled a similar criticism at the September 2014 constitutional amendment proposed in the Senate when he claimed that it would allow jailing the producers of “Saturday Night Live” for its political parody.

text: The premises on the CFR28 website concede that objectively distinguishing “electioneering” from traditional commentary, news and entertainment is untenable and that discriminating between them would require choosing who can shape public opinions about candidates. It also commits to the premise that “no citizen should be prevented from hearing any message they want to hear about candidates”. Using Citizens United as an example, that organization’s right to make the movie about Hillary Clinton under this proposal is considered no less legitimate than traditional opinion and news sources.

text: So instead of considering the source, intent or content of speech, the CFR28 proposal suggests restricting all independent advertising about candidates. And advertising is defined by the amendment in terms of audience expectations rather than the purpose of the media. As long as an audience knows beforehand that a particular media message is about candidates and chooses to listen, it would not be considered advertising. But where access to ready-made audiences is purchased, or the message about a candidate is delivered to audiences assembled for some other purpose, independent spending would be restricted. However, candidates themselves would be allowed to advertise using only the limited funds available to them.

text: Using Citizens United’s “Hillary the Movie” again as an example, advertisements telling people about the movie could not say anything about the candidate or show excerpts from the movie about her, but they would have to warn viewers that the movie is about a candidate(s) and identify the sponsors. The sponsors could say anything about the candidate in the movie itself since it is presented to an anticipating and willing audience.

text: This restriction on independent advertising is combined with a limit on direct campaign contributions to candidates in CFR28’s proposal. By pegging it at 1% of “the average annual income of all Americans”, the limit would adjust with the economy and is claimed to be low enough to be “within reach of the average voter”. Today, if that limit was in place, no one could contribute more than about $445. This limit also applies to candidates contributing to their own campaign thus reversing the unrestricted spending of wealthy candidates established by the Buckley vs. Valeo decision.

text: The final major plank of the proposal allows, but does not require public financing. It is included to provide relief to candidates if policy makers decide that the direct contributions are “not enough”. CFR28 contains a number of other technical provisions that are said to “prevent loopholes and sabotage” which, when combined with its core provisions, make it lengthier than other proposed amendments. Thus its website touts it as “a necessarily more detailed alternative to simpler proposals that have failed”.

text: Redefining Quid Pro Quo[edit]

text: A different approach would allow private contributions as they currently are; however it would severely penalize those who gain substantive, material favors in exchange for their contributions and those who grant such favors in exchange for receiving contributions. Thus new limitations would not be imposed on what one can give—but rather on what one can get in return. (Needless to say, if such additional limitations could be introduced, many of the special interests would contribute much less than they currently do, and the effects of the remaining contributions would be much less corrupting). Currently quid pro quo is considered a bribery only if the person who provided material incentives to a public official explicitly tied those on receiving a specific favor in return.[61]

text: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission[edit]

text: In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in January 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can not constitutionally be prohibited from promoting the election of one candidate over another candidate.[62]

text: Ruling[edit]

text: Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[63] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

text: Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that since the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.[64] The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

text: The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals as well as individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment.

text: Dissent[edit]

text: Justice Stevens, J. wrote, in partial dissent:

text: Justice Stevens also wrote: "The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell, it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question."[65]

text: Public response[edit]

text: Senator McCain, one of the two original sponsors of campaign finance reform, noted after the decisions that "campaign finance reform is dead" – but predicted a voter backlash once it became obvious how much money corporations and unions now could and would pour into campaigns.[66]

text: In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in early February 2010 it was found that roughly 80% of Americans were opposed to the January 2010 Supreme court's ruling. The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).[67] In response to the ruling, a grassroots, bipartisan group called Move to Amend was created to garner support for a constitutional amendment overturning corporate personhood and declaring that money is not speech.[68]

text: McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission[edit]

text: On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling that the 1971 FECA's aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute in total to all candidates or committees violated the First Amendment. The controlling opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, and joined by Justices Scalia, Alito and Kennedy; Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but wrote separately to argue that all limits on contributions were unconstitutional. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor. [3]


document_title: Danish East India Company

question_text: where did the first trade center of danish company was established

text: Danish East India Company

text: First company[edit]

text: The first Danish East India Company was chartered in 1616 under King Christian IV and focused on trade with India. The first expedition, under Admiral Gjedde, took two years to reach Ceylon, in the process losing more than half its personnel. The island had been claimed by Portugal by the time they arrived, but on 10 May 1620 a treaty was concluded with the Kingdom of Kandy and the foundation laid of a settlement at Trincomalee on the island's east coast.[3] They occupied the colossal Koneswaram temple in May 1620 to begin fortification of the peninsula before being expelled by the Portuguese.[4] After landing on the Indian mainland, a treaty was concluded with the ruler of the Tanjore Kingdom, Raghunatha Nayak, who gave the Danes possession of the town of Tranquebar, and permission to trade in the kingdom by treaty of 19 November 1620.[3] In Tranquebar they established Dansborg and installed Captain Crappe as the first governor (opperhoved) of Danish India.[5] The treaty was renewed on 30 July 1621, and afterwards renewed and confirmed on the 10 May 1676, by Shivaji the founder of the Maratha Empire.[3]

text: During their heyday, the Danish East India Company and Swedish East India Company imported more tea than the British East India Company, smuggling 90% of it into England, where it could be sold at a huge profit. Between 1624-36, Danish trade extended to Surat, Bengal, Java, and Borneo, with factories in Masulipatam, Surat, Balasore, and Java. However, subsequent European wars in which Denmark participated ruined the Company, and trade in India ceased entirely between 1643–69, during which time all previous acquisitions were lost except Tranquebar, which held out until aid from Denmark arrived in 1669.[3]

text: Second company, and the Asiatic Company[edit]

text: In 1670, a second Danish East India Company was established, before it too was dissolved in 1729. In 1730, it was refounded as the Asiatic Company and opened trade with Qing China at Canton. The first expedition went badly, with Den gyldne Løve lost with its cargo of silver off Ballyheigue, Ireland, on the outbound journey. The local landowners held the silver at their estate and pursued a salvage claim, but a gang of locals overpowered the Danish guard and made off with the hoard, causing a diplomatic row between Denmark-Norway and Britain.[6] With the royal licence conferred in 1732, the new company was granted a 40-year monopoly on all Danish trade east of the Cape of Good Hope. Up to 1750, 27 ships were sent, with 22 surviving the journey to return to Copenhagen.[6] In 1772, the company lost its monopoly and, in 1779, Danish India became a crown colony.

text: During the Napoleonic Wars, in 1801 and again in 1807, the British Navy attacked Copenhagen. As a consequence of the last attack, Denmark (one of few West European countries not occupied by Bonaparte) lost its entire fleet and the island of Helgoland (part of the duchy of Holstein-Gottorp) to Britain. Denmark finally sold its remaining settlements in mainland India in 1845 and the Danish Gold Coast in 1850, both to the British.

text: Ships[edit]

text:
Kiøbenhavn and Christian (1618–1621, part of the Gjedde expedition that founded Dansborg at Tranquebar)[7]
Christianshavn (8 November 1639, Willem Leyel left Denmark for Tranquebar as commander of this ship)[7]
Flyvende Ulv (Departure from Copenhagen 1682 with Axel Juhl, who was appointed governor of Tranquebar later the same year. Departure from Copenhagen 1685 with Wollf Heinrich v. Calnein, governor of Tranquebar 1687)[8]
Cron Printz Christian, Cron Printzen, and Den gyldne Løve (1730–31, the Tønder expedition that opened trade with China)
Grev Moltke (1760, first Moravian missionaries)
Nicobar Sunk 1783 with load of Swedish Plate Money.
Hussar, purchased 1783.[9]


document_title: Wet Hot American Summer

question_text: who plays cooper in wet hot american summer

text: Wet Hot American Summer

text: Plot[edit]

text: In 1981, Camp Firewood, a summer camp located near Waterville, Maine, is preparing for its last day of camp. Counselors have one last chance to have a romantic encounter with another person at Camp Firewood. The summer culminates in a talent show.

text: Beth (Janeane Garofalo), the camp director, struggles to keep her counselors in order—and her campers alive—while falling in love with Henry (David Hyde Pierce), an astrophysics associate professor at Colby College. Henry has to devise a plan to save the camp from a piece of NASA's Skylab, which is falling to Earth.

text: Coop (Michael Showalter) has a crush on Katie (Marguerite Moreau), his fellow counselor, but has to pry her away from her rebellious, obnoxious, and obviously unfaithful boyfriend, Andy (Paul Rudd). Only Gene (Christopher Meloni), the shell-shocked Vietnam war veteran and camp chef, can help Coop win Katie—with some help from a talking can of mixed vegetables (voiced by H. Jon Benjamin).

text: All the while, Gary (A.D. Miles), Gene's unfortunately chosen apprentice, and J.J. (Zak Orth) attempt to figure out why McKinley (Michael Ian Black) hasn't been with a woman, the reason being that McKinley is in love with Ben (Bradley Cooper), whom he marries in a ceremony in the lake; Victor (Ken Marino) attempts to lose his virginity with the resident loose-girl Abby (Marisa Ryan); and Susie (Amy Poehler) and Ben attempt to produce and choreograph the greatest talent show Camp Firewood has ever seen.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Janeane Garofalo as Beth
David Hyde Pierce as Professor Henry Newman
Molly Shannon as Gail von Kleinenstein
Paul Rudd as Andy
Christopher Meloni as Gene
Michael Showalter as Gerald "Coop" Cooperberg/Alan Shemper
Marguerite Moreau as Katie Finnerty
Ken Marino as Victor Pulak
Michael Ian Black as McKinley
Zak Orth as J.J.
A.D. Miles as Gary
Amy Poehler as Susie
Bradley Cooper as Ben
Marisa Ryan as Abby Bernstein
Kevin Sussman as Steve
Elizabeth Banks as Lindsay
Joe Lo Truglio as Neil
Gideon Jacobs as Aaron
Judah Friedlander as Ron Von Kleinenstein
H. Jon Benjamin as a Can of Mixed Vegetables

text: Production[edit]

text: Background[edit]

text: The film is based on the experiences Wain had while attending Camp Modin, a Jewish camp, located in Belgrade, Maine, and Showalter had at Camp Mohawk in the Berkshires in Cheshire, Massachusetts.[4] During one scene, the counselors take a trip into Waterville, Maine, which is not far from the camp. It is also a parody of, and homage to, other films about summer camp such as Meatballs (1979), Sleepaway Camp (1983),[5] and Indian Summer (1993). According to Wain, they wanted to make a film structured like films such as Nashville, Dazed and Confused and Do the Right Thing—"films that take place in one contained time period that have lots of different characters."[1]

text: Development[edit]

text: The film's financing took three years to assemble; in a June 2011 interview, Wain revealed the film's budget was $1.8 million; he noted that during the 2001 Sundance Film Festival,[6] the film had been promoted as costing $5 million, in an attempt to attract a better offer from a distributor.[1] Because of the film's relatively small budget, the cast was paid very little; Paul Rudd has stated that he is uncertain that he received any compensation at all for the film.[7]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Principal photography lasted 28 days, and, according to director David Wain, it rained on every day of shooting.[1] Exterior shots were filmed when possible, sometimes under covers or umbrellas, but some scenes were moved indoors instead. In many interior scenes, rain seen outside turns into sun as soon as characters step outside. Due to the cold, the actors' breath can be seen in some outdoor scenes.[1] The film was shot at Camp Towanda in Honesdale, Pennsylvania.[8]

text: Music[edit]

text: As the film is set in the early 1980s, the film's soundtrack features songs from many popular bands of the era, most notably Jefferson Starship, Rick Springfield, Loverboy, and KISS.

text: Songs in the film[edit]

text:
"Jane" by Jefferson Starship
"Juke Box Hero" by Foreigner
"Backwards from Three" by Craig Wedren and Theodore Shapiro
"Wet Hot American Summer" by Craig Wedren
"Love is Alright Tonight" by Rick Springfield
"Danny's Song" by Loggins & Messina
"Turn Me Loose" by Loverboy
"Beth" by Kiss
"Day By Day" from Godspell
"Harden My Heart" by Quarterflash
"Higher and Higher" by Craig Wedren and Theodore Shapiro
"When It's Over" by Loverboy
"Wet Hot American Dream" by Peter Salett
"Summer in America" by Mr. Blue & Chubb Rock

tag: ol

text: Release[edit]

text: Wet Hot American Summer premiered at the 2001 Sundance Film Festival, where it was screened four times to sold-out crowds,[9] though it failed to attract a distributor.[1] Months later, USA Films offered the filmmakers $100,000 for the film, with virtually no participation for the filmmakers, an offer the film's investors accepted. It premiered in New York City on July 27, 2001, then received a theatrical release limited to fewer than 30 cities.[9]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Wet Hot American Summer received mostly negative reviews from critics. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a rating of 32%, based on 66 reviews, with the site's critical consensus reading, "As comedy, Wet Hot American Summer is a slapdash, fragmented affair that misses more often than hits. As parody, it fails because it attempts to satirize something ridiculous and self-parodying in itself."[10] Metacritic gives the film a score of 42 out of 100, based on 24 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[11]

text: Roger Ebert rated the film with one star out of four. His review took the form of a tongue-in-cheek parody of Allan Sherman's "Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh".[12]

text: In contrast, Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman awarded the film an "A" and named it as one of the ten best films of the year. Newsweek's David Ansen also lauded it, calling it a "gloriously silly romp" that "made me laugh harder than any other movie this summer. Make that this year."[13] Numerous other critics have praised the film as a witty pop satire and it has gone on to achieve a cult following.[citation needed]

text: Actress Kristen Bell stated on NPR on September 2, 2012, that this was her favorite film of all time, having watched it "hundreds of times". NPR host Jesse Thorn said on the April 29, 2014, episode of Bullseye, "When someone has an open enough heart to accept this silliness - and that's what it's about for me, an open heart - if someone's heart is open to Wet Hot American Summer, they love it. And that's when I know that me and them, we've got an unbreakable bond. Together forever. Like camp counselors."[14]

text: Home media[edit]

text: The film was released in both VHS and DVD formats on January 15, 2002.[9] In 2011, Wain tried to convince Universal Studios to do either a 10th anniversary home video re-release with extra features, or perhaps a Blu-ray release, but Universal rejected the idea. The film was released on Blu-ray on May 12, 2015.[15]

text: Follow-ups[edit]

text: The film is followed by two Netflix series with one serving as a prequel and one as a sequel. The prequel, First Day of Camp, was released on July 31, 2015,[16] while the sequel, Ten Years Later, was released on August 4, 2017.[17]

text: Legacy[edit]

text: Anniversary celebrations[edit]

text: Events were held around the country to celebrate the film's 10-year anniversary in 2011 and 2012, including a screening of the film in Boston,[18] an art show in Santa Monica of works inspired by the film with a reception hosted by Wain,[19] a screening at the Los Angeles Film School with a Q&A with Wain,[20] a midnight screening in Cleveland, Ohio,[21] a 10th anniversary celebration event with the members of Stella in Brooklyn,[22] and a reading of the script at the San Francisco Comedy Festival with much of the original cast.[23]

text: Undeveloped TV series[edit]

text: During an interview with Variety, Wain and Showalter confirmed that they wrote a pilot to Fox for a possible TV series based on the film. Wain described the series as a "22-minute Fox sitcom with commercials and nothing Rated R, so it was a little bit odd."[24] The pilot was not picked up for a series.

text: Documentary[edit]

text: Alongside the prequel series, a making-of documentary, Hurricane of Fun: The Making of Wet Hot, was released on Netflix on July 24, 2015, consisting of behind-the-scenes interviews and footage shot during the filming of the movie.


document_title: The Curse of Oak Island

question_text: when does the curse of oak island start on the history channel

text: The Curse of Oak Island

text: Overview[edit]

text: The Curse of Oak Island follows brothers Marty and Rick Lagina, originally from Kingsford, Michigan, through their efforts to find the speculated treasure or historical artifacts believed to be on Oak Island. The series discusses the history of the island, recent discoveries, theories, and prior attempts to investigate the site.[4] Areas of interest include the "Money Pit", Borehole 10-x, Smith's Cove, "Nolan's Cross", the "Hatch" and the "Swamp".

text: Background[edit]

text: The Lagina brothers became fascinated with the island after reading the January 1965 issue of Reader's Digest magazine that features an article on the Restall family's work to investigate the so-called "Money Pit".[5] Marty and his brother Rick obtained a controlling interest in Oak Island Tours, which reportedly owns most of the island. The brothers were later approached by Prometheus Entertainment to do a reality show. Rick and Marty have engaged the assistance of father-and-son Dan and Dave Blankenship, permanent residents of the island who have likewise been searching for treasure since the 1960s.[6]

text: Theories[edit]

text: The series explores various Oak Island theories through conversations with independent researchers. Persons featured have included Zena Halpern discussing her theory about North African gold and sharing copies of a French map of the island which she claims is dated 1347; J. Hutton Pulitzer discussing his theory of ancient mariner visitations; Petter Amundsen discussing his theory about codes hidden in Shakespearen literature and a secret project involving Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians; Daniel Ronnstam discussing his theory about the 90 foot stone being a dual cypher containing instructions as how to defeat the money pit flood tunnels with corn; authors Kathleen McGowen and Alen Butler discussing their theory involving the fabled Knights Templar treasure and an alleged relocation of historical religious artifacts to the island; and John O'Brien discussing his theory that the island contains treasures of the Aztec Empire.

text: Series overview[edit]

text:
Season
Episodes
Originally aired

First aired
Last aired

1
5
January 5, 2014 (2014-01-05)
February 9, 2014 (2014-02-09)

2
10
November 4, 2014 (2014-11-04)
January 13, 2015 (2015-01-13)

3
13
November 10, 2015 (2015-11-10)
February 2, 2016 (2016-02-02)

4
16
November 15, 2016 (2016-11-15)[7]
February 21, 2017

5
TBA
November 7, 2017 (2017-11-07)[8]
TBA

text: Production[edit]

text: Having started in 2014, The Curse of Oak Island has run for four seasons. On August 2, 2016, it was announced that Nova Scotia Business Inc. approved $1,271,546 in film funding for the production of the most recent 4th season.[9] When asked about a 5th season, creator Kevin Burns said that it all depends on the Lagina brothers. Burns said that the brothers are "not reality show people", and have always been "reluctant" to do more seasons as filming keeps the brothers away from their families for up to five months. Burns also released a statement saying: "We are not set to come back for another year, take of that what you will", leaving the future of the show uncertain.[10]

text: In October 2017, a fifth season was announced, which aired on November 7, 2017.[11]

text: Episodes[edit]

text: Season 1 (2014)[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Original air date
Viewers
(millions)

1
1
"What Lies Below"
January 5, 2014 (2014-01-05)
2.53[12]

Brothers Rick and Marty Lagina now own most of Oak Island. Determined to resurrect the 200-year-old search for treasure, they explore an abandoned shaft called Borehole 10-X and use water pressure to pump material to the surface. They find a tiny piece of metal.

2
2
"The Mystery of Smith's Cove"
January 12, 2014 (2014-01-12)
2.35[13]

A scuba team that includes Marty's son Alex Lagina dives Smith's Cove and finds what are claimed to be non-indigenous coconut fibres and anomalous stones. Meanwhile, more metal fragments and cat bones are found in the slurry from 10-X.

3
3
"Voices from the Grave"
January 19, 2014 (2014-01-19)
2.33[14]

As Rick and Marty Lagina begin working to drain a swamp, they are visited by a woman who lost her father and brother to a tragic accident on Oak Island.

4
4
"The Secret of Solomon's Temple"
January 26, 2014 (2014-01-26)
2.72[15]

A visitor to the island presents Rick and Marty Lagina with his theory about where the treasure on Oak Island is located and the idea that the Menorah might be among the treasures for which they are searching.

5
5
"The Find"
February 9, 2014 (2014-02-09)
2.97[16]

The team digs in a shallow muddy swamp and finds what appears to be an antique Spanish copper coin. A diver is later sent into the swamp and finds no additional objects.

text: Season 2 (2014–2015)[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Original air date
Viewers
(millions)

6
1
"Once In, Forever In"
November 4, 2014 (2014-11-04)
2.60[17]

After dating the Spanish coin they found last summer to 1652, brothers Rick and Marty Lagina return to Oak Island and begin searching the swamp again.

7
2
"Return To The Money Pit"
November 11, 2014 (2014-11-11)
2.15[18]

The team drills in the area of the money pit but is unable to drill through the underground material. A visitor shows them alleged evidence that the treasures from King Solomon's Temple could be buried on Oak Island.

8
3
"The Eight-Pointed Star"
November 18, 2014 (2014-11-18)
2.23[19]

After hearing that a treasure of biblical proportions was buried on Oak Island 2500 years ago, Rick and Marty Lagina unsuccessfully look for evidence to prove it while also trying to locate the original Money Pit.

9
4
"The Breakthrough"
November 25, 2014 (2014-11-25)
2.15[20]

A tree stump in the swamp is examined. Core samples extracted by drilling are discovered to contain rocks and wood.

10
5
"The 90-Foot Stone"
December 2, 2014 (2014-12-02)
2.46[21]

A visitor comes to the island suggesting that he has discovered a secret method of getting to the treasure. He claims that Francis Bacon has left behind instructions to the effect that the "flood tunnels" can be disabled by pouring corn into the money pit. The team declines to test the theory and instead visits a masonic lodge. The team searches the swamp again and finds nothing.

11
6
"Seven Must Dye"
December 9, 2014 (2014-12-09)
2.90[22]

Rick searches for man-made flood tunnels without success; Marty and John visit Europe to track down a lead.

12
7
"The Trail of the Templars"
December 16, 2014 (2014-12-16)
2.47[23]

While work begins in the swamp, Rick and Marty travel to Scotland to investigate more corn-related theories about the money pit. They are also presented with a theory that Oak Island is a copy of King Solomon's Temple and that the entrance to the Money Pit is in the swamp.

13
8
"X Marks the Spot"
December 23, 2014 (2014-12-23)
2.72[24]

Rick and Marty search the swamp for an alternate entrance into the Money Pit, without success.

14
9
"A Dangerous Dive"
January 6, 2015 (2015-01-06)
2.59[25]

Rick and Marty take a team of divers to Oak Island.

15
10
"The Big Reveal"
January 13, 2015 (2015-01-13)
3.06[26]

Rick and Marty use sonar to map out the bottom chamber of the 10-X borehole.

text: Season 3 (2015–2016)[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Original air date
Viewers
(millions)

16
1
"The Hole Truth"
November 10, 2015 (2015-11-10)
2.26[28]

Rick and Marty search for underground tunnels on Oak Island and prep borehole 10-X for a dive.[27]

17
2
"Pipe Down"
November 17, 2015 (2015-11-17)
2.56[30]

Prep work for a dive in borehole 10X continues while the team simultaneously searches the area near the Money Pit for shallow treasure.[29]

18
3
"Time to Dig"
November 24, 2015 (2015-11-24)
2.60[32]

Rick, Marty and the team go shopping for excavation equipment, investigate the location of a possible Knight's Templar treasure and search for the original location of the Money Pit.[31]

19
4
"The Overton Stone"
December 1, 2015 (2015-12-01)
3.05[34]

Work continues to locate the Money Pit while the team investigates a stone with purported Portuguese carvings.[33]

20
5
"Disappearing Act"
December 8, 2015 (2015-12-08)
3.22[36]

The team completes preparations for a dive expedition down borehole 10X by investigating the shaft with a camera.[35]

21
6
"Carved in Stone"
December 15, 2015 (2015-12-15)[38]
2.47[39]

Rick, Marty and the team investigate rocks on Oak Island and receive information that the Aztecs may have visited the island in the past.[37]

22
7
"The Missing Peace"
December 22, 2015 (2015-12-22)[38]
3.40[41]

Rick and Marty welcome long-time rival Fred Nolan into the team.[40]

23
8
"Phantoms of the Deep"
December 29, 2015 (2015-12-29)[38]
3.30[43]

The team conducts a sonar sweep of the waters surrounding Oak Island and begin digging on Fred Nolan's property.[42]

24
9
"Columbus Day"
January 5, 2016 (2016-01-05)[38]
2.79[45]

The team preps for a dive of borehole 10X. They also hear of a theory about Christopher Columbus visiting the Island.[44]

25
10
"Silence in the Dark"
January 12, 2016 (2016-01-12)[38]
3.11[47]

Difficulties are encountered during the dive to the bottom of borehole 10X, the team further investigates Fred Nolan's property and an alleged Roman sword found in the waters off Oak Island is presented to the team.[46]

26
11
"Sword Play"
January 19, 2016 (2016-01-19)[38]
2.82[49]

The team has the Roman sword investigated and find that it is a modern reproduction. There is an unproductive search for treasure north of the Money Pit.[48]

27
12
"Voices from Below"
January 26, 2016 (2016-01-26)[38]
3.17[51]

The team dives to the bottom of borehole 10X. In a separate investigation, a cavity is found far underground near the Money Pit.[50]

28
13
"Secrets and Revelations"
February 2, 2016 (2016-02-02)[38]
3.41[52]

The diving investigation of borehole 10X concludes with nothing found. Relatives of the original Oak Island treasure hunters present a gold cross which is said to have come from the treasure.

text: Season 4 (2016–2017)[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Original air date
Viewers
(millions)

29
1
"Going for Broke"
November 15, 2016 (2016-11-15)
2.62[54]

The team agrees to turn focus over to the Money Pit and review what they have collected. A researcher presents a copy of what she claims is a French map from 1347 of Oak Island. The map shows locations for a "hatch", a "valve" and an "anchor" on the Island which raises discussion about an object from Africa.[53]

30
2
"Always Forward"
November 22, 2016 (2016-11-22)
2.66[55]

While preparing to excavate the Money Pit, the team investigates an 18th century well on mainland Nova Scotia. The team brings in an archaeologist to inspect a hole on Dave Blankenship's property which they think is a potential "hatch".

31
3
"Swamp Things"
November 29, 2016 (2016-11-29)
2.97[56]

A piece of rock with scratches is found, before the team revisits the swamp for another look and finds very little.

32
4
"No Stone Unturned"
December 6, 2016 (2016-12-06)
2.95[57]

Part of the team unsuccessfully attempts to track down the '90-foot stone' in nearby Halifax; while the first excavation in over 50 years begins in the Money Pit.

33
5
"Bullseye"
December 11, 2016 (2016-12-11)
2.82[58]

A new theory that Inca gold is buried on Oak Island is offered, albeit without evidence to support it. Meanwhile the team supposedly inches their way to the alleged target in the Money Pit.

34
6
"Circles in Wood"
December 20, 2016 (2016-12-20)
3.44[59]

A few coins are found on the island, a long way from the money pit. The money pit search for the 'Chappel Vault' ends in failure so a new target is set for 170ft C-1 shaft in the Money Pit area.

35
7
"All That Glitters"
December 27, 2016 (2016-12-27)
3.68[60]

The swamp is drained and searched with a metal detector revealing an old spike. Object not dated. C-1 Dig Site is drilled to target depth of 170 ft. where previously inserted camera may have seen something shiny and gold colored.

36
8
"The Mystery of Samuel Ball"
January 3, 2017 (2017-01-03)
3.43[61]

A tiny amount of evidence is offered supposedly linking an 18th-century slave to the mystery.

37
9
"Echoes from the Deep"
January 10, 2017 (2017-01-10)
3.35[62]

A camera sent down 10X confirms the divers impression that there is nothing there of note, undermining the camera's operators previous assertion that they were 90% certain there was a chest there. Some of the team are in denial about this and insist there is still some point in exploring 10-X further on the basis that Dan Blankenship has spent so much time on it, it must be the key to the alleged puzzle.

38
10
"About Face"
January 17, 2017 (2017-01-17)
3.04[63]

Divers are sent to the bottom of borehole C-1. Nothing is found. A rock fifty miles from Oak Island is examined. The team decides to do a new examination of borehole 10X.

39
11
"Presidential Secrets"
January 24, 2017 (2017-01-24)
3.20[64]

The new examination of borehole 10X concludes. Equipment failure delays excavation of a new hole. Rick heads to the Franklin D. Roosevelt library to learn why the late President was interested in Oak Island.

40
12
"Hyde Park & Seek"
January 31, 2017 (2017-01-31)
3.15[65]

A cofferdam is built at Smith's Cove and the beach is excavated. The team debates where the "money pit" might have been.

41
13
"One Of Seven"
February 7, 2017 (2017-02-07)
3.24[66]

The team attempts to decode a cipher and concludes that they only possess 1/7th of the cipher. Rocks are found at Smith's Cove. The investigation of the cove is halted for the year. A man from Arizona claims, without any evidence, that several hundred tons of gold are hidden in tunnels near Oak Island.

42
14
"Sticks and Stones"
February 14, 2017 (2017-02-14)
3.20[67]

Rocks are examined on Oak Island. Pieces of wood are carbon dated. The third excavation on the island this season reaches bedrock with nothing found. The team decides to dig another hole.

43
15
"Blood is Thicker"
February 21, 2017 (2017-02-21)
3.79[68]

The final excavation of the season leads to the discovery of scrap metal pieces, a washer, several hex nuts and a button. Season finale featured McGinnis gold cross, iron spike, and other artifacts evaluated by Dr. Lori Verderame

Note: This episode aired as a 2-hour special.

44
16
"Drilling Down"
February 28, 2017 (2017-02-28)
1.72[69]

The team is interviewed at the end of season. The wood from borehole 10-X is carbon dated as being from 1670-1780. A new cipher is decoded leading the team to once again believe that there is a "hatch" somewhere on the island. The team wants to continue searching the swamp. The team proposes pumping borehole 10-X dry to enable yet another round of searches. The team wants to search more of the Island with metal detectors in the future.

Note: This episode is a special.

text: Season 5 (2017–2018)[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Original air date
Viewers
(millions)

45
1
"Forever Family"
November 7, 2017 (2017-11-07)
2.95[70]

A diver is sent to the bottom of borehole C-1. Mud is recovered. A nail is found in an old spoils pile from GAL-1. A copper coin is found in the woods near Issac's Point.

46
2
"Dead Man's Chest"
November 14, 2017 (2017-11-14)
2.98[71]

The sea chest of a captain who lived in Nova Scotia in the 1780s is examined. Salt water starts coming out the top of borehole C-1. Another copper coin is found on the island.

47
3
"Obstruction"
November 21, 2017 (2017-11-21)
2.85[72]

Two old British copper coins are found in the woods. The Province of Nova Scotia requests that an archaeologist be on site on Oak Island as an adviser to the treasure hunters. Part of a metal spoon and round rocks are discovered under tree stumps. Based on the rocks and the spoon pieces, Marty Lagina concludes that "something must have happened here". A small piece of scrap metal is found in the mud brought up from one of the new boreholes being drilled in the "money pit" area.

48
4
"Close Call"
November 28, 2017 (2017-11-28)
TBD

49
5
"Bone Dry"
December 5, 2017 (2017-12-05)
TBD