Today, the Supreme Court will be taking up Hillary: The Movie — and its ultimate reviews could hold great significance for campaign financing. We have been following the case involving “Hillary: The Movie” since it first came out during the last presidential campaign. The legal dispute over the film was always more interesting than the film itself — whether this is a film or a 90-minute campaign ad. Now, the Supreme Court is set to review the film. Citizens United v. FEC (08-205) raises a fascinating question of what constitutes political advocacy and what constitutes a documentary. The Court will hopefully not produce another “I know politics when I see it” standard. I discussed the case on this segement of NPR’s Here and Now.
The lower court decisions radically curtailed the distribution of the film by restricting the conservative group in broadcasting and promoting the movie during the presidential primaries. In July, a three-judge panel granted the FEC’s motion for summary judgment.
The desire of the group to put the movie in TV-on-demand access on cable TV was shelved due to the FEC’s decision.
Citizen United is challenging the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure requirements in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — a prohibition on corporations and nonprofits from airing broadcast ads, which refer to a federal candidate 30 days before a primary election. Citizens United is using the Court’s decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, which exempted issue advocacy from the electioneering communications prohibition.
Watching the trailer below, it is hard to distinguish this movie from a campaign ad. However, the rulings below should trouble free speech advocates. The court found that the 90-minute campaign ad “susceptible of no other interpretation than 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.” That may be so, but such a conclusion could also be reached in a perfectly legitimate documentary or parody. Consider Michael Moore’s anti-Bush documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11.
The actual restrictions and their impact on the film are a bit more technical. The McCain-Feingold legislation requires that “any broadcast, cable or satellite communications” during the period before an election clearly state the name of the group paying for ad is one such provision.
There is no question that Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, has a bit of an obsession and hatred for both Clintons. It is the creation of Citizens United President David N. Bossie, a long Clinton critic.
The case raises both very broad and very technical questions. The threshold question, however, is the role of the government in making this judgment call between films from Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 to Hillary the Movie. Often literary works have a political purpose or message. Shakespeare’s work, particularly Richard III, has been described as a brilliant Tudor propaganda — Richard III was the last Yorkist king and vilifying the House of York was of great benefit to Shakespeare’s Tudor benefactors. Richard III was defeated by the first Tudor, Henry VII and the ancestor of Elizabeth I. In my Supreme Court seminar on the current case, my students and I discussed whether the FCC would require Shakespeare to add “Brought to you with the generous contributions of the Tudor Family.”
The vote in the class on the case was interesting. We split down the middle: Seven favored the ruling of the FCC while Seven would support Citizens United. However, the prediction of the likely outcome was heavily in favor of the Supreme Court affirming the lower three-judge panel against Citizens United.
For a trailer of the movie, click here.
For the full story, click here.
23 thoughts on “Now Playing At The Supremes: Hillary the Movie”
I’ve been thinking about why your definition doesn’t sit well with me. Your definition is accurate; I have no complaints on it’s validity (even if I did, I have no doubt I’d leave with my mind changed).
My problem is that I can’t shake the thought that there is a point where the definition of a word becomes so wide as to render it useless. Here’s my theory: The concept becomes to big for most people to think\speak about comfortably. People start using it to cover only a certain part of politics (or God, Art, Morality etc.). Where the difficulty arises is that nobody ever picks the same meaning, so whenever it gets discussed people just end up talking past each other.
I don’t know that that is a necessary end result of a word’s meaning being broadened, but it’s a danger. So when a word has more than one level of meaning (like Politics), my preference is usually one of the narrower levels. I view all levels as valid, but my usage tends more towards the specific rather than the over-arching.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Mike A., Mespo
I agree that McCain-Feingold is constitutionally flawed and I agree with Douglas, a hero of my youth, that as much as possible speech should be unfettered. I can remember a time when Ulysses, Joyce’s masterpiece was banned in the US for obscenity. The comment on the wealthy using their power to control, is as Mespo stated an old story. Nevertheless, we are fast reaching a point(tipping in the latest jargon)where wealth will fully overwhelm any voice of the citizenry requesting fairness of treatment.
While I of course agree with FFLEO on the Internet perhaps being the equalizer, until that is taken away, but as for the informed citizenry that has been chipped away in the last 3 decades by removing Civics and Social Studies from public education. How can ordinary citizens know their constitutional rights are being removed, if they don’t know what those rights are? Being 64 I was grounded in the Constitution and American History in elementary school. My guess is that so was FFLEO and any codgers here who approach our ages.(FFLEO you seem about my age in your comments, if you aren’t my apologies since you certainly seem to have the wisdom of maturity)
The rest of you are either very smart people or lawyers so that you too are aware what “Constitutional” can mean. The average citizen, though far from stupid, was deliberately under-educated through funding by followers of the philosophy of Edmund Burke. This elite does not believe in democracy, but in a republic run by the elite. W.F. Buckley was quite specific about it in his early days, as was his partner at the National Review William Rusher. Their beliefs have taken root and the greatest threat to democratic ideals is the systematic “dumbing down” of our citizens.
Perhaps the line of battle, beyond maintaining Internet freedom, is a grass roots one to put Civics and Social Studies education back into our schools, to develop an informed citizenry. While I agree that we can’t limit the free speech prerogatives of the wealthy, without incurring other dangers, the only other solution that comes to mind is free TV for candidates but that is hard to implement.
FFLEO, I believe that the court will chip away at the statute until it’s meaningless.
Comments are closed.