Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary movie

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether government regulation of a movie critical of former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton might also be used to ban books critical of political hopefuls during election season.

One justice warned that the future of the nation's campaign finance law could ride on their decision on whether the anti-Clinton movie was journalism or a political attack ad.

Government lawyers argued that conservative group Citizens United's 90-minute documentary "Hillary: The Movie" is a political ad just like traditional one-minute or 30-second spots and therefore regulated by the McCain-Feingold law, the popular name for 2002 revisions to the nation's campaign finance laws.

The test "does not depend on the length or the way it's communicated," Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said.

Arguing that a movie and a campaign ad are the same could have adverse consequences for the McCain-Feingold law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said. "If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional, then the whole statute should fall," Kennedy said.

Citizens United wanted to pay for its documentary "Hillary: The Movie" to be shown on home video-on-demand, and for ads promoting the movie to be shown in key states while the former New York senator was competing with President Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Federal judges, however, said the movie should be regulated by the McCain-Feingold law.

But if the federal government can treat a movie like a political advertisement, then why not books, the justices asked.

It can, answered Stewart, "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy," the test used in regulating broadcast, cable or satellite communication released 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a presidential primary or convention.

That answer seemed to concern the justices. What about electronic books, like those used on Amazon's Kindle reader, justices asked. Yes, Stewart said.

What if Wal-Mart wanted to run ads touting an action figure of a political candidate, Chief Justice John Roberts asked, could that be regulated? "If it aired at the right time, it would," Stewart said.

Stewart pointed out that by ban, he meant prohibit "use of corporate treasury funds." Campaign regulations require the backers of political ads to be identified and prohibit corporations and unions from paying for ads that run close to elections and single out candidates.

But former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, arguing for Citizens United, said violation of campaign finance laws are a felony that could bring prison time. "What they mean by prohibit is that they will put you in jail," Olson said.

Olson argued that campaign finance laws should not apply to the movie at all, calling it a "long discussion" that "informs and educates" interested people on Clinton's qualifications and record. That argument did not seem to sway several of the court's liberal justices.

Only one justice, Stephen Breyer, acknowledged actually watching the movie and his reaction: It's "not a musical comedy," he said.

Several justices quoted from the script, which is filled with criticism of the former first lady. It includes ####### Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a Clinton critic, saying the one-time candidate is "the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist."

"If that isn't an appeal to voters, I don't know what is," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

But Citizens United's attempts to pay for the movie to be shown on video-on-demand—where people request "Hillary: The Movie" be shown on the televisions in their home—could bring heightened First Amendment scrutiny, Justice Antonin Scalia said.

Not only would the government be preventing the movie's producers from getting their movie out, they would be blocking someone who specifically wants to see that movie from getting it, Scalia said.

"Isn't that a heightened First Amendment" concern, Scalia asked.

Ginsburg, however, pointed out that Citizens United never made that argument before the lower court, making it difficult for the high court to consider it now.

The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

The justices are expected to make a decision before early summer.

___

The case is Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205.

___

On the Net:

"Hillary: The Movie": http://www.hillarythemovie.com

Federal Election Commission: http://www.fec.gov

Background on the case: http://tinyurl.com/cfltxp

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

[Ban Hammer 14,295]

mikey moore is probably chewing off his fingernails.

[SpiritAlight 1]

I watched the two trailers.

Looks interesting.

I always wonder though:

what is the film-maker's agenda?

what is the film-maker's political bend.

It should not be banned.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I doubt it would be banned. Hillary Clinton is a public figure therefore subject to this kind of thing. I suspect she'll take her lumps and life will move on.

[fozzie 41]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether government regulation of a movie critical of former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton might also be used to ban books critical of political hopefuls during election season.

One justice warned that the future of the nation's campaign finance law could ride on their decision on whether the anti-Clinton movie was journalism or a political attack ad.

I have no problem with that as long as the facts are verifiable. Otherwise is it journalism?

[Nagishkaw 510]

mikey moore is probably chewing off his fingernails.

[fozzie 41]

I watched the two trailers.

Looks interesting.

I always wonder though:

what is the film-maker's agenda?

what is the film-maker's political bend.

It should not be banned.

It just says it would be regulated like a political attack ad, which means that its all to do with who pays for it and why. Not so much to do with the content, they won't ban the movie as long as its not financced by certain groups.

"Stewart pointed out that by ban, he meant prohibit "use of corporate treasury funds." Campaign regulations require the backers of political ads to be identified and prohibit corporations and unions from paying for ads that run close to elections and single out candidates"

[Peikko 1,575]

I watched the two trailers.

Looks interesting.

I always wonder though:

what is the film-maker's agenda?

what is the film-maker's political bend.

It should not be banned.

It just says it would be regulated like a political attack ad, which means that its all to do with who pays for it and why. Not so much to do with the content, they won't ban the movie as long as its not financced by certain groups.

"Stewart pointed out that by ban, he meant prohibit "use of corporate treasury funds." Campaign regulations require the backers of political ads to be identified and prohibit corporations and unions from paying for ads that run close to elections and single out candidates"

Ah, well that makes more sense at least.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, arguing for Citizens United, said violation of campaign finance laws are a felony that could bring prison time. "What they mean by prohibit is that they will put you in jail," Olson said.

Olson argued that campaign finance laws should not apply to the movie at all, calling it a "long discussion" that "informs and educates" interested people on Clinton's qualifications and record. That argument did not seem to sway several of the court's liberal justices.

It is hard to tell by the justices' questions. McCain-Feingold limits its jurisdiction to the 90 day period before an election. It appears from what has been shown here, that the prohibition will likely be to the "advertising' of such a product, rather than the product itself, during that 90 day period, or the prohibition may be found unconstitutional, which would gut the legislation. My guess only.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Mister_Bill