Second thoughts on political advertising ban?
We read:
"Hillary Clinton had her silver screen moment in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, when the Justices heard a case that could determine the reach of campaign finance laws to control political advertising. The tone of the oral argument also hinted that five Justices on the Court may be increasingly leery of campaign-finance limits.
During the 2008 Presidential primaries, a nonprofit group called Citizens United produced a 90-minute documentary chronicling the exploits of then-Senator Clinton. Let's just say that "Hillary: the Movie" was not an endorsement. Because the film, and trailers for it, were scheduled to run in the heat of the race on cable TV, it ran afoul of campaign finance "reform" law.
Under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, also known as McCain-Feingold, electioneering communications paid by corporations or unions that "expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate" cannot run within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election. Citizens United filed suit against the Federal Election Commission to assert its right to distribute the film.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a federal district court agreed with the FEC that the ban on electioneering communications should just as reasonably apply to a 90-minute movie as to a two-minute advertisement. Writ large, that's scary news. According to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who argued the case, the government could theoretically regulate other forms of pre-election corporate speech as well, including books and the Internet.
"That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel Alito. "You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it. It would be possible to "prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds."
With Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito has previously taken a cautious, piecemeal approach to campaign finance law. But as the current case shows, McCain-Feingold is a blunt instrument that gives federal bureaucrats the power to decide what kind of campaign advertising is allowed during an election. If "Hillary: the Movie" isn't allowed, then Michael Moore's documentaries should be banned, and newspaper endorsements would also be suspect despite a specific carve-out in the law. If newspapers didn't have that carve-out, then maybe so many editors wouldn't cheerlead for this kind of law.
McCain-Feingold is a frontal assault on political speech, and President Bush's decision to sign it while claiming to dislike it was one of the worst moments of his eight years in office. Citizens United gives the Justices a new opportunity to chip away at this attack on the First Amendment, and even better if they use it to declare the whole thing unconstitutional.
Source
8 comments:
"... and newspaper endorsements would also be suspect despite a specific carve-out in the law."
As a professional journalist, I have to say I am not a big fan of newspapers endorsing any politician, whether it's a Republican or Democrat.
I just feel that their objectivity and credibility are ruin. Plus, how can anyone believe that they are the watchdogs while they are endorsing a candidate. It makes one believe that they won't investigate that candidate hard enough in case there is some dirt and it makes the newspaper look bad if it comes out.
Newspapers don’t have to say that they endorse someone to endorse them. All they have to do is slant the coverage of the news, which is what many of them already do. So they show that the democrat is playing basketball with children and then show a picture of the republican voting for a bill. Then they say that the bill cuts aid for Children’s Health. And that would be a true statement, from democratic logic. If they wanted to increase funding 20% and they only got a 19% increase, then funding was CUT! So no political endorsement was made, but it was in the way that they slanted the news.
And everything else would be Banned. Since what book or movie, isn’t produced by a Corporation? So if a publisher is a Corporation, would that book be banned? And if the Publisher’s workers were unionized, would that be another reason to banned the book.
Perhaps the only way that a short movie could be made is through something like “Movietone News”. The old news shows that were shown in movie theaters before a movie. It was a News show, therefore it should be legal!!!
Mobius
So long as the First Amendment has been interpreted to mean pretty much what the media wants it to mean, we can never expect to see, read, or hear, honest or factual reporting of the "news". To simply hope or wish for such reporting, is futile.
The media recently proved their "objectivity" in their not so subtle chearleading for Obama. Sadly, too many people fell for it and we now have a prez that's gonna turn us into a European Socialist state. He's proving to be worse than all the lies that were made up about GWB.
One, among many, reasons that McCain lost in 2008 was his name on that vile bill. I explicitly discouraged family and friends from voting for him because of it, and will do so until that horrible man utterly renounces it as evil and actively seeks to overturn it.
And for those who see the Republicans as the lesser of two evils I quote Penn&Teller: "The lesser of two evils is still evil, and the enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy."
Juan McLoser, a true liberal RINO, has far more faults than just that bill. He lost because he is a weakling of the first order. And far fewer people bought his phony "war hero" crap than he expected. Getting shot down 40 years ago doesn't make you a hero, just a lousy pilot. And, just because he "claims" not to have given info to the enemy doesn't qualify him to be president.
On the other hand, look what we ended up with!
It appears the thing we have to fear the most is the voters.
"It appears the thing we have to fear the most is the voters."
---Exactly.
Don't trust anyone under 30.
Post a Comment