'Court Fails to Decide on Anti-Hillary Clinton Movie' (Washington Post)

[Jackeens]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has failed to decide on whether a scathing documentary about Hillary Rodham Clinton that was shown during the presidential race should be regulated as if it were a campaign ad.

The court said Monday it will hear arguments in the case again in a special session on Sept. 9. The justices said they want lawyers to address whether the court should overturn its earlier rulings on limiting corporate and union contributions in federal elections.

Citizens United, a conservative not-for-profit group, wanted to air ads for the movie in Democratic primary states and also make the film available to cable subscribers on demand without complying with federal campaign finance law.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901773.html?hpid=topnews

[joeybee12]

1. In other words, Kennedy couldn't decide...

...pretty obvious the evil quartet would have ruled simply that if it bashes Hillary it's ok.

[Beacool]

2. You said it...........

:eyes:

[karynnj]

3. Not sure - if they think about it this is a generic question

Although over the last 50 years, it has been the Republicans that under Nixon and both Bushes used smear tactics, this is something that could hurt either side. The Republicans could also consider that F911 was similar (note - I am NOT equating their accuracy). There were Republicans who equated that film to Stolen Honor which smeared Kerry - and was provably dishonest.

In fact, step back from the specifics. Let's say the film was not dishonest and everything was footnoted to indisputable sources. (example - something on McCain and his first wife or the Keating 5) Let's say that the ad excerpts the key worst charges. If this is allowed - an interest group can spend almost nothing on a documentary (people seeing it, getting an Oscar, or it making money is not the point) and blanketing a market in a swing state with ads. This gets around changes that were made to make SBVT like ads easier to reject.

Also, consider what seems much more innocent - a positive documentary. If it is accompanied by a disproportionately large ad budget, we have the return of soft money. (527 could attack candidates, but not advocate for them). This is something that could really help the less well known candidate in the battle to define himself or herself.

This really is the intersection of campaign finance reform and free speech.

[AtomicKitten]

4. This was always intended to be Swift Boat Redux had the primary gone the other way. n/t

[joeybee12]

5. You're giving those 4 evil phuckers too much credit...

...they never argue on what the law says, it's all about pushing their agenda and ideology.

[emilyg]

6. Bingo.