In that case, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether an independent expenditure trigger violated the First Amendment. The Day Court held that “[t]he knowledge that a candidate who one does not want to be elected will have her spending limits increased and will receive a public subsidy equal to half the amount of the independent expenditure, as a direct result of that independent expenditure, chills the free exercise of that protected speech.” Id. at 1360. In short, the Eighth Circuit equated responsive speech with an impairment to the initial speaker. All other courts to consider the issue have either questioned Day’s logic outright, or have distinguished Day on its facts. See Daggett v. Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 205 F.3d at 465, 465 n. 25 (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. Leake, 476 F.Supp.2d at 529
holding that it could not adopt the logic of day which equates responsive speech with an impairment to the initial speaker  the continuing vitality of day is open to question holding that in computing time to determine whether an act was performed within a specified period of time under the statute of limitations the first day is excluded and the last day of the period is included recognizing the open question holding that there was no coercion by the trial court where the jury deliberated all day friday and all day saturday holding that trial court may modify sentence on the same day as the assessment of the initial sentence and before the court adjourns for the day