Jesse J. Holland reports for the Associated Press :
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether government regulation of a movie critical of former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton might also be used to ban books critical of political hopefuls during election season.
One justice warned that the future of the nation's campaign finance law could ride on their decision on whether the anti-Clinton movie was journalism or a political attack ad.
Government lawyers argued that conservative group Citizens United's 90-minute documentary "Hillary: The Movie" is a political ad just like traditional one-minute or 30-second spots and therefore regulated by the McCain-Feingold law, the popular name for 2002 revisions to the nation's campaign finance laws.
The test "does not depend on the length or the way it's communicated," Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said.
Arguing that a movie and a campaign ad are the same could have adverse consequences for the McCain-Feingold law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said. "If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional, then the whole statute should fall," Kennedy said.
Citizens United wanted to pay for its documentary "Hillary: The Movie" to be shown on home video-on-demand, and for ads promoting the movie to be shown in key states while the former New York senator was competing with President Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Federal judges, however, said the movie should be regulated by the McCain-Feingold law.
But if the federal government can treat a movie like a political advertisement, then why not books, the justices asked.
It can, answered Stewart, "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy," the test used in regulating broadcast, cable or satellite communication released 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a presidential primary or convention.
That answer seemed to concern the justices. What about electronic books, like those used on Amazon's Kindle reader, justices asked. Yes, Stewart said.
What if Wal-Mart wanted to run ads touting an action figure of a political candidate, Chief Justice John Roberts asked, could that be regulated? "If it aired at the right time, it would," Stewart said.
Stewart pointed out that by ban, he meant prohibit "use of corporate treasury funds." Campaign regulations require the backers of political ads to be identified and prohibit corporations and unions from paying for ads that run close to elections and single out candidates.
~ more... ~
The case is Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205.
On the Net:
"Hillary: The Movie": http://www.hillarythemovie.com
Federal Election Commission: http://www.fec.gov
Background on the case: http://tinyurl.com/cfltxp
[ via How Appealing ]
No comments:
Post a Comment