http://www.hillarythemovie.com/trailer.htmlPosted on 01/11/2008 5:29:05 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The early reviews are in, and three federal judges appeared in agreement Thursday that a movie lambasting Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed an awful lot like a 90-minute campaign advertisement.
Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, is challenging the nation's campaign finance laws, which require disclaimers on political advertisements and restrict when they can be broadcast. The group argues ''Hillary: The Movie'' and related television advertisements are not political advertising even though the New York senator is in the presidential race.
Attorney James Bopp argued that they should be considered ''issue-oriented'' speech because viewers aren't urged to vote for or against the Democrat.
''What's the issue?'' asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a federal appeals judge sitting on a mixed panel to review the case.
''That Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,'' Bopp replied. ''That is an issue.''
''Which has nothing to do with her campaign?'' U.S District Judge Royce C. Lamberth interjected.
''Not specifically, no,'' Bopp replied.
''Once you say, 'Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,' aren't you saying vote against her?''
Bopp disagreed because the movie did not use the word ''vote.''
''Oh, that's ridic. ...'' Lamberth said, trailing off and ending the line of questioning.
Under campaign finance laws, Citizens United would be required to disclose its funding for the ads. It would also have to disclose donors and pay the costs of airing it on cable television from a political fund.
The movie is scheduled for six screenings in theaters, once each in California, Nevada, South Carolina, Arizona, New York and Washington. It is also being sold on DVD. Neither of those methods is regulated under campaign laws. The advertisements, however, are scheduled to run during the peak presidential primary season and would be regulated.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
This is great!
hmmm. This affect you maybe?
On talk radio in Florida, I made the following offer: if someone can prove to me a venue to show the film to at least 20 people (like a library or community center), I will give them a DVD for free.
Hope you are correct. This is very bad for free speech, IMHO.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The early reviews are in, and three federal judges appeared in agreement Thursday that a movie lambasting Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed an awful lot like a 90-minute campaign advertisement.
Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, is challenging the nation’s campaign finance laws, which require disclaimers on political advertisements and restrict when they can be broadcast. The group argues ‘’Hillary: The Movie’’ and related television advertisements are not political advertising even though the New York senator is in the presidential race.
Attorney James Bopp argued that they should be considered ‘’issue-oriented’’ speech because viewers aren’t urged to vote for or against the Democrat.
‘’What’s the issue?’’ asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a federal appeals judge sitting on a mixed panel to review the case.
‘’That Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,’’ Bopp replied. ‘’That is an issue.’’
‘’Which has nothing to do with her campaign?’’ U.S District Judge Royce C. Lamberth interjected.
‘’Not specifically, no,’’ Bopp replied.
‘’Once you say, ‘Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,’ aren’t you saying vote against her?’’
Bopp disagreed because the movie did not use the word ‘’vote.’’
‘’Oh, that’s ridic. ...’’ Lamberth said, trailing off and ending the line of questioning.
Under campaign finance laws, Citizens United would be required to disclose its funding for the ads. It would also have to disclose donors and pay the costs of airing it on cable television from a political fund.
The movie is scheduled for six screenings in theaters, once each in California, Nevada, South Carolina, Arizona, New York and Washington. It is also being sold on DVD. Neither of those methods is regulated under campaign laws. The advertisements, however, are scheduled to run during the peak presidential primary season and would be regulated.
Bopp, who successfully led a challenge to one aspect of the campaign finance system last year, compared the film to television news programs ‘’Frontline,’’ ‘’Nova,’’ and ‘’60 Minutes.’’ That prompted Lamberth to laugh out loud from the bench.
‘’You can’t compare this to ‘60 Minutes,’’’ the judge said. ‘’Did you read this transcript?’’
The movie features commentary from conservative pundits, some of whom specifically say Clinton is not fit to be the nation’s commander in chief.
One ad begins with a narrator saying, ‘’First, a kind word about Hillary Clinton.’’ Conservative commentator Ann Coulter says, ‘’Looks good in a pant suit,’’ to which the narrator adds, ‘’Now, a movie about everything else.’’
Bopp received the greatest skepticism from Randolph and Lamberth, the panel’s two conservative judges. U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts, a nominee of president Clinton, was more focused on the legal test Bopp was asking the judges to conduct.
The judges did not rule from the bench but said they would try to rule on the matter quickly.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yeah, but HOLD OFF UNTIL THE GENERAL ELECTION.
I want Hillary to get the Dem nod; she would be easier to beat than Barack Hussein Osama Obama.
Someone should send the judges a copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 and let them know that it was out just before the 2004 election. Boy, have the Dems stacked the deck in ALL areas of our culture!
We would have no trouble disclosing our funding. We are still waiting for it. Our film has truly been a grass roots effort.
If anyone here still does not know about it, here is the unedited trailer of HILLARY! UNCENSORED - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl
Yeah. That bottom line is why I excerpted.
A reasonable argument could be made that a significant portion of the (D) party would vote for her precisely BECAUSE someone says she's a European Socialist.
Insert picture of three leftist monkeys going “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” here...
“She would be easier to beat than Barack Hussein Osama Obama.”
However, once in office he would be the easier socialist to roll.
Hasn’t a case like this already gone to the US supreme court?
FEC vs. Wisconsin Right to Life?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.