2009 FLASHBACK: Supreme Court Appears Divided Over Hillary Clinton Movie in Campaign Finance Case

Law.com ^ | 3/25/09 | Tony Mauro

[Libloather]

Supreme Court Appears Divided Over Hillary Clinton Movie in Campaign Finance Case
Tony Mauro
Legal Times
March 25, 2009

The Supreme Court's weakened support for the McCain-Feingold campaign law seemed to slip further Tuesday as the justices debated whether an anti-Hillary Clinton movie released during the 2008 presidential campaign should be regulated as a campaign advertisement or protected under the First Amendment.

Justices seemed divided about the complex issue during oral argument in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (pdf), brought by a conservative group that produced "Hillary: The Movie" while she was a candidate for president.

The movie was shown in theaters and on DVD, but when the group sought to advertise the movie on TV and distribute it through video-on-demand, a three-judge district court panel in Washington, D.C., nixed the plans, ruling that the film was an "electioneering communication" subject to the financing and disclosure regulations of McCain-Feingold. Funding for such broadcast communications cannot come directly from a corporation or union treasury, under the 2002 statute.

**SNIP**

Justice Samuel Alito Jr, whose vote, along with that of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., could decide the outcome, asked Stewart whether the restrictions of McCain-Feingold could constitutionally apply to a book version of the movie, as well as other forms of distribution.

When Stewart said yes, Alito said, "That's pretty incredible. You think that if ... a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?"

Not banned, Stewart said, but Congress could prohibit its publication using corporate treasury fund. "Well, most publishers are corporations," Alito replied.

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked if an advocacy organization could publish such a book and distribute it through Amazon's Kindle device. Stewart said that too could be subject to regulation.

[Libloather]

This led to the recent SCOTUS decision allowing free speech. (Imagine that.)

Leftists insist on banning books? What's next - getting rid of certain neighbors? Let's hope not.

[GeronL]

Not only of banning books but now they want to deny groups and organizations free speech rights. People have the right to assembly and association and the far left want those associations to be denied a voice. Effectively saying their members will have no voice.

Here is a CATO video explaining the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM

[rlmorel]

Excellent. Thanks for posting that link.

[GeronL]

I thought it was a well made video

[rlmorel]

On the Mark Levin show, they had one of the plaintiffs in the case describing parts of the case examination by the Supreme Court. In one sequence, they had some FEC bureaucrat on the stand being grilled, and the question came up (and I paraphrase here, because I cannot remember it word for word...):

JUSTICE GINSBERG: (being a "friendly" justice to the SEC hack): "Can you reiterate your stand again for us on whether the content by the plaintiff (in this case, an anti-Hillary DVD whose release was prohibited during the campaign time frame) would have been equally banned if it were a book instead of a DVD? We have a problem with book banning..." (this was said by Ginsberg to allow the FEC official to explain the FEC standing in a good light)

FEC BUREAUCRAT: (honestly) "Yes. If it were a book, yes, the promotion and release would have been prohibited. But really, even though the criminal law is there, trust me, nobody would have ever been prosecuted in that way."

JUSTICE ROBERTS: (Leaning forward, forehead furrowed): "Madam, we do not put our First Amendment rights at the mercy of FEC bureaucrats!"

WOOHOO! I almost went off the road cheering at that one!

There is a reason liberals are so bent out of shape over this ruling: They understand completely that this weakens the position of the media, which had unlimited resources to support liberal candidates, where conservatives had no such advantage, no recourse.

They know what they lost!

[Deagle]

This was an expected and right decision. What is so discouraging is that 4 justices voted against Free Speech. Looks like the Constitution is getting harder to read and interpret these days. That is very discouraging - possibly in need of another revolution to correct the obvious...

[rlmorel]

Agreed. I don’t agree with the Cato Institute on everything, but with respect to Freedom of Speech, they usually hit the right buttons for me.

[Libloather]

JUSTICE ROBERTS: (Leaning forward, forehead furrowed): "Madam, we do not put our First Amendment rights at the mercy of FEC bureaucrats!"

That's what I heard.

[Lancey Howard]

Good post, and your conclusion is dead on.

The socialist/communist axis in this country enjoyed a monopoly on the selection, spin, and dissemination of the daily news for decades. Up until the early '90s the "big three" networks and the New York Times were the primary sources for everything Americans new about politics and current events. Not anymore!

The leftists have been frothing at the mouth during the past 15 years or so as they have watched their monopoly disappear with the rise of talk radio, fair-and-balanced cable news, and the internet. In their despair they have floated such things as "the fairness doctrine", "campaign finance reform", and have now sunk so low that they even cry like babies over a Supreme Court ruling that prevents book banning!

Things are looking better for decent, taxpaying, traditional American families.

[Lancey Howard]

duh
new = knew

[feedback doctor]

Bttt