PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court and "Hillary: The Movie"


YoungRemy
08-31-2009, 11:04 PM
the Supreme Court is returning early to convene on what will be Sonia Sotomayor's first case: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission

this could have a huge impact on finance reform and a bunch of other Constitutional ramifications. the ACLU is with the conservative non-profit that made the film...

The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides, with the civil rights group fighting shoulder to shoulder with the National Rifle Association to support the corporation that made the film.

To the dismay of many of his liberal friends and clients, Floyd Abrams, the celebrated First Amendment lawyer, is representing Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, a longtime foe of campaign finance laws.

“Criminalizing a movie about Hillary Clinton is a constitutional desecration,” Mr. Abrams said.
Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse.

“This is rough business,” said Fred Wertheimer, a veteran advocate of tighter campaign regulations. “We’re not dealing with campaign finance laws. We’re dealing with the essence of power in America.”

The case involves “Hillary: The Movie,” a mix of advocacy journalism and political commentary that is a relentlessly negative look at Mrs. Clinton’s character and career. The documentary was made by a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United, which lost a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission seeking permission to distribute it on a video-on-demand service. The film is available on the Internet and on DVD. The issue was that the McCain-Feingold law bans corporate money being used for electioneering.

A lower court agreed with the F.E.C.’s position, saying that the sole purpose of the documentary was “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.”

At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.

That position seemed to astound several of the more conservative justices, and there were gasps in the courtroom.
“That’s pretty incredible,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.





NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30scotus.html?hp)
Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary

LA Times
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-campaign-finance23-2009aug23,0,7916109.story)
In 'Hillary: The Movie' case, Supreme Court considers major shift in election law

Supreme Court precedent on corporate spending limits may be overturned. The conservative majority has opposed campaign spending laws in narrower cases, citing free speech.


here's a nice little blog called cato.org that doesn't like being called conservative or liberal
http://Revisit www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/31/hillary-the-movie/

Documad
09-01-2009, 12:28 AM
I'm okay with more regulation of corporations' speech. They are a legal creation and they get many legal protections--like how they can go bankrupt and we can't sue their "owners." I'm fine with them not being allowed to run political ads on TV, but given the precedent I wouldn't be surprised if it's found to violate the First Amendment. This current supreme court is eager to go to bat for the rights of corporations. They're less interested in the rights of individuals.

I am sure that a bunch of people are going to misunderstand this story and think that this has something to do with Hillary Clinton. Some people are going to think that ACLU has teamed up with the NRA against her when the ACLU is actually going to bat for the rights of corporations in general. The ACLU has done some great stuff this year with regard to torture and getting reports made public. I'd rather they focus on that. The corporations can defend themselves. :rolleyes:

DroppinScience
09-11-2009, 05:32 PM
Bill Moyers segments on this Supreme Court case from last week:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/watch.html

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/watch2.html

yeahwho
09-15-2009, 12:50 AM
Nice comment in the NYTimes ,

Can someone remind me, please, why it is that corporations should have the same rights to free speech that I, an actual human American citizen do?

Ban them from donating money to political campaigns, and put warning labels on all of their election-related communications.

Given that many of these corporations are controlled by foreign money, it is a cruel joke that they wield more access to my so-called leaders than I do.

Wake up, people.

Accompanying vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM&feature=player_embedded) that is short and sweet.