Posted on 01/17/2008 7:23:07 AM PST by xzins
A conservative group must abide by campaign finance laws if it wants to run ads promoting its anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton movie, a federal court ruled Tuesday.
Citizens United had hoped to run the television advertisements in key election states during peak primary season. The court ruling means the group must either keep its ads off the air or attach a disclaimer and disclose its donors.
Lawyers for the group had argued its 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" was no different from documentaries seen on television news shows "60 Minutes" and "Nova." That prompted skepticism and, at one point, outright laughter from the judges during a hearing last week.
Campaign regulations prohibit corporations and unions from paying for ads that run close to elections and identify candidates. Citizens United argued that the advertisements promoted the movie and should be treated as commercial speech as opposed to advocacy against the Democratic New York senator.
A three-judge panel unanimously disagreed. The film does not address legislative issues and was produced solely "to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her," U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote.
A similar issue surfaced in 2004, when Citizens United sought to keep filmmaker Michael Moore from advertising "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the run-up to the presidential election. The Federal Election Commission dismissed the complaint after Moore said he had no plans to run the ads during election season.
Citizens United plans to runs its ads in key primary states during election season. The ads include clips from the movie, including one in which Dick Morris _ a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a critic of the Clintons _ saying the New York senator is "the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist."
By law, challenges to the campaign finance regulations are considered by a three-judge panel of district and appellate judges in Washington. During last week's hearing, Citizens United drew the most criticism from the panel's two Republican nominees _ Lamberth and Judge A. Raymond Randolph, an appellate judge. U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts was a nominee of President Clinton.
This is why Sen. McCain will be toast, the GOP will not support him.
Exactly, John McCain's law against free speech in this country needs to be struck down by the new SCOTUS.
Which is a particularly bitter pill to swallow since all three were in Republican hands.
Don’t forget Thompson
Lamberth’s been in the news at least a couple of times:
The internal debate at the Justice Department and F.B.I. over wiretap surveillance of terrorist groups ignited in March, prompted by questions raised by Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a little- known panel that decides whether to approve Justice Department applications to permit wiretaps and clandestine searches in espionage and international terror cases.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/690732/posts
He was also involved with missing White House emails and Al Gore:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20738
Also, Mother Jones characterized him as a Clinton basher here:
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/01/hillarys-hero-judge-royce-lamberth.html
...I’m guessing the three judges were all clinton appointees...
And bush was wrong to sign it into law assuming The Supremes would overturn it.
No man's Life, Liberty, or Property are safe as long as Court is in session...
John McCain, he’ll protect your rights. He always has. Thanks John McCain!
My name is John McCain and I approved of this totally unbiased add.
Judge Lamberth was a Freerepublic hero for a long time during the clintoon administration. He made several rulings in favor of Judicial Watch and other conservative (at least they were considered so at the time)groups and against the clintoons. He also came down hard on the dept of Indian affairs for losing millions of dollars. I think he is an overall good judge that interprets the law as it is written.
Please, this man is a conservative. He's our champion. Can't you see the white horse? What's wrong with you.
Okay, it's time to vote in another person who will help chip away our God given rights.
"I don't need to take a stand on this. The high court will do the right thing." Spoken like a true champion of freedom...
Didn’t read the article, huh?
Well, at least the judge got one thing right. Maybe the distributors can include the bolded part as a review quote. :)
I've stopped referring to it as 'our government' I see precious little to make me think it has any use for us except as a funding source.
Come to think of it, it is quite like my ex.
I want a divorce.
“Thank you to John McCain and Russ Feingold”
I think it is really sad that John McCain could have done that and still have a chance to win the nomination. Hillary must be very pleased. Why do these things have to happen? Is someone trying to punish the United States?
Nope. That was why I said I was going out on a limb.
It's not always a clinton appointee, but that's the way to bet.
“President Bush signed the thing, probably because he knew the Senate would probably override a veto”
He should have vetoed it anyway. That was very poor leadership. Sometimes you have to take a stand even if you know you are going to lose, it’s the principal. I hate to say it, but in some ways, President Bush has been a disappointment.
No more freedom of speech in America.
The other two judges were put on the bench by Bush43 and Clinton42. But they are still obstructing FREE speech in a manner that is totally inconsistent. He LAUGHED at their claims that it was like 60 minutes.
SeeBS is in the pocket of the DNC.
If this holds, Rush and talk radio will be the next to be prosecuted. Meanwhile NPR will continue to spin in violation of the 501c3 tax status.
Judical Watch appears to have been an obstructionist scam. Did they ever win a case?
RMS met with Bill Clinton recently and the two shared a good laugh. It got covered in the British press.
Hey now... You can’t say that! That’s Un-Amurrican...
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.