BANNING BOOKS? HIGH-STAKES CAMPAIGN-LAW CASE

NY Post ^ | September 2, 2009 | BRADLEY A. SMITH

[Scanian]

THE Supreme Court seems poised to reshape cam paign-finance law, affirm ing fundamental First Amendment rights by overturning restrictions on corporate political speech when it rehears Citizens United v. FEC next Tuesday.

At issue is whether the government can ban distribution of a political documentary, "Hillary: The Movie," produced by Citizens United, a conservative group that received some corporate funding to make the film.

The government argues that it can -- relying on a 1990 case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, that upheld a state law banning corporate political spending, and McConnell v. FEC, the 2003 case that upheld the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

In fact, at a remarkable oral argument in March, the government claimed that Austin and McConnell give it the authority to ban books con- taining even one line of ad- vocacy for or against a poli- tical candidate, if (like most books) they produced or distributed by a corporation.

[Jacquerie]

Scotus dug itself into quite a hole with McConnell in 2003.

It would great but unusual to overturn itself so quickly.