01/11/2008 (4:32 pm)
Political Advertising For Whom?
“Hillary: The Movie” is getting a shakedown from federal judges, who seem likely to ban the film’s advertising within 60 days of an election.
Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, is challenging the nation’s campaign finance laws, which require disclaimers on political advertisements and restrict when they can be broadcast. The group argues “Hillary: The Movie” and related television advertisements are not political advertising even though the New York senator is in the presidential race.
The movie is being sold on DVD and will be screened in theaters, neither of which are regulated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — McCain-Feingold. However, the advertising for the film is likely to be restricted. (View the trailers for the film here.)
The suit was brought by Citizens United, the makers of the film, objecting to the Federal Election Commission’s requirement that they include political disclaimers in the ads for the film if displayed during the 60-day blackout period before the national election. They would also be required to name their contributors, if the movie were found to be political advertising under McCain-Feingold. Citizens United is claiming that the ads are commercial ads, which are exempt from restrictions.
Citizens United is the brainchild of David Bossie, one-time Whitewater prosecutor and investigator for Rep. Dan Burton (R, In).
Independent blogger-filmmaker Evan Maloney at Brain-Terminal.com observes that Michael Moore was not restricted in the same manner when he ran Fahrenheit 9/11 in the months preceding the 2004 presidential election. Moore had to remove all mention of President Bush from his advertising, but was not required to issue a disclaimer or disclose his contributors.
Excellent legal analysis here by one Jonathan Turley, Prof. at George Washington University Law School.
My question is, if it’s a political ad, for whom is it advertising?
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 has already been tested before the Supreme Court, and incorrectly found to be Constitutionally valid. It constitutes an assault on the First Amendment, and should be repealed by an act of Congress.
« « Sawing the Limb Where They’re Sitting | Main | Crying Works. Feh. » »
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
